TROMSO MINUTES FINAL.pdf - English PEN

Minutes of the Meeting
of the Assembly of Delegates of
INTERNATIONAL PEN
held in Tromsø, Norway, September 2004
1

Present:
President and Chairman
International Vice Presidents
International Secretary
International Treasurer’s Assistant
Administrative Director
International Board
Writers for Peace Committee, Chair
Writers in Prison Committee, Chair
Programme Director
Researcher
Translation and Linguistic Rights Committee,
Chair
Vice President
Women Writers Committee, Chair
President of the Norwegian Centre
African Writers Abroad Centre
Algerian Centre
American Centre
Austrian Centre
Bangladeshi Centre
Belarusian Centre
Belgian (Dutch-speaking) Centre
Belgian (French-speaking) Centre
Bishkek Centre
Bulgarian Centre
Canadian Centre
Catalan Centre
Chinese Writers Abroad Centre
Colombian Centre
Cyprus Centre
Croatian Centre
Cuban Writers in Exile Centre
Danish Centre
Jirí Gruša
Lucina Kathmann
Francis King
Joanne Leedom Ackerman
Terry Carlbom
Kathy Barazetti
Jane Spender
Cecilia Balcazar
Takeaki Hori
Eric Lax
Elisabeth Nordgren
Sibila Petlevski
Judith Rodriguez
Alexander Tkachenko
Veno Taufer
Eugene Schoulgin
Sara Whyatt
Dixe Wills
Kata Kulavkova
CarlesTorner
Judith Buckrich
Kjell Olaf Jensen
Maureen Roberts
Mohamed Magani
Esther Allen
Larry Siems
Wolfgang Greisenegger
Beatrix Schiferer
Abdur Rahim
Vladimir Nekliajev
Siarhei Smatrychenka
Willem Roggeman
Huguette de Broqueville
Vincent Malacor
Vera Tokombaeva
Gueorgui Konstantinov
Reza Baraheni
Isobel Harry
Carme Arenas
Dolors Oller
Dorothea Weissman
Cecilia Balcazar
Iris Glyki
Klitos Ioannides
Nadezda Cacinovic
Sibila Petlevski
Luis Larcada
Frank Fernandez
Anders Jerichow
Jens Lohmann
2

Egyptian Centre
English Centre
Esperanto Centre
Finnish Centre
French Centre
Galician Centre
German Centre
German-Speaking Writers Abroad
Ghanaian Centre
Guinean Centre
Hungarian Centre
Independent Chinese Centre
Iranian Writers In Exile Centre
Israeli Centre
Italian Centre
Japanese Centre
Kazakh Centre
Korean Centre
Kurdish Centre
Lebanese Centre
Macedonian Centre
Malawian Centre
Melbourne Centre
Mexican Centre
Nepalese Centre
Netherlands Centre
Norwegian Centre
Palestinian Centre
Panamanian Centre
Polish Centre
Portuguese Centre
Quebecois Centre
Shawki Osman
Youssef Rayya
Alastair Niven
Joan Smith
Perla Martinelli
Giorgio Silfer
Jukka Mallinen
Elisabeth Nordgren
Sylvestre Clancier
Philippe Pujas
Luis Gonzalez Tosar
Helena Villar Janeiro
Wilfred Schoeller
Johano Strasser
Aliana Brodman E. Von Richtofen
Peter Finkelgruen
Frank Mackay Anim-Appiah
Koumanthio Zeinab Diallo
Janos Benyhe
Zoltan Sumonyi Papp
Chen Maiping
Zhang Yu
Manuchehr Sabetian
Shulamit Kuriansky
Chaim Noll
Emanuele Bettini
Takashi Atouda
Yukiko Chino
Mereke Kulkenov
Adbjamil Nurpeisov
Gui-Hee Kim
Ki-jo Song
Berivan Dosky
Hyam Yahred
Ermis Lafazanovski
Kingston Lapukeni
Judith Buckrich
Judith Rodriguez
Jaime Rodriguez
Maria Elena Ruiz Cruz
Prakash A. Raj
Hester Knibbe
Barber Van Der Pol
Kjell Olaf Jensen
Elisabet Middelthon
Hanan Awwad
Adir Khatib
Gloria Guardia
Krzysztof Dorosz
Anna Nasilowska
Casimiro de Brita
Teresa Salema
Georges Anglade
Emile Martel
3

Romanian Centre
Russian Centre
Scottish Centre
Senegal Centre
Serbian Centre
Sierra Leone Centre
Slovak Centre
Slovene Centre
Somalian Centre
Spanish Centre
Swedish Centre
Swiss German Centre
Swiss Italian and Reto-romansh
Suisse Romand Centre
Sydney Centre
Taipei Chinese Centre
Tatar Centre
Trieste Centre
Turkish Centre
Ugandan Centre
USA West Centre
Venezuelan Centre
Vietnamese Writers Abroad Centre
Writers In Exile Centre
Bogdan V. Ghiu
Alexander Tkachenko
Simon Berry
Tessa Ransford
Alioune Badara Beye
Neda Nikolic Bobic
Vida Ognjenovic
Michael Butscher
Talabi Aisie Lucan
Anton Hykisch
Gustav Murin
Edvard Kovac
Tone Persak
Said J. Hussein
Basilio Rodriguez
Anunciada Fernandez de Cordova
Kjell Holm
Maria Modig
Kristin Schnider
Silvio Leoni
Franca Tiberto
Zeki Ergas
Nick Jose
Chip Rolley
In-Shi Wei-Oui
Yen Chu
Grigory Rodionov
Gazinur Muratov
Alberto Princis
Aysu Erden
Ernest Okello Ogwang
Eric Lax
Ana Teresa Torres
Pham Quang Trinh
Vu Quang Tran
Jutka Barabas
Clara Gyorgyey
Centres elected during the Assembly
Basque
Kosovo
Joxemari Iturralde
Laura Mintegi
Basri Capriqi
Agim Gjakova
4

Agenda items
1. Approval of the Convening of the
Meeting of Delegates in Tromsø
2. Approval of the Agenda
3. Statements on the Congress Themes
4. Statement by the International President
5. In Memoriam
6. Minutes of the Last Meeting
7. Proposed Election of new Centres
8. Strategic Planning Process in
International PEN
9. Report of the 69 th Congress, Mexico
City, Mexico
10. International President’s Report
11. Report on behalf of the Board
12. International Treasurer’s Report
13. International Secretary’s Report
14. Report of the PEN Emergency Fund
15. Amending Resolutions to the
Regulations
16. Amending Resolution on the Rules of
Procedure
17. Report of the Writers for Peace
Committee
18. Report of the Writers in Prison
Committee
19. Report of the Search Committee
20. Elections to the Board (1)
21. Election of the International Treasurer
22. Election of the International Secretary
(1)
23. Report of the Writers in Prison
Committee (cont.)
24. Report of the Translation and
Linguistic Rights Committee
25. Report of the Women Writers
Committee
26. Report of the Writers in Exile Network
27. Elections to the Board (2) and Election
of the International Secretary (2)
28. General Resolutions and
Recommendations
29. Report of the International PEN
Foundation and Report of the Special
Committee of Trustees
30. Results of Elections to the Board and
Election of the International Secretary
31. Report of the Iberian-American PEN
Foundation
32. PEN International magazine
33. Reports on Regional Conferences
34. Future Regional Conferences
35. Future Congresses
36. In-session Resolutions
37. Any Other Business
38. Date of Next Meeting
39. Conclusion
First session, Thursday 9 th September, afternoon
The International President cordially welcomed everyone to the meeting, and introduced those
International Vice Presidents who were present at the Assembly: Lucina Kathmann, novelist and
former Chair of the Women Writers Committee; Francis King, novelist and former International
President of International PEN; and Joanne Leedom-Ackerman, novelist, former Chair of the Writers
in Prison Committee.
At the President’s request, the Administrative Director, Jane Spender, reminded delegates of the
procedures to be followed in the Assembly, including those relating to the elections of Board members,
International Treasurer and International Secretary, and gave the customary warning on
confidentiality. Scrutineers were appointed to count the votes, and some changes and additions to the
Agenda were announced.
1. Approval of the Convening of the Meeting of Delegates in Tromsø
Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) moved that the Assembly had been properly convened by
a letter to Centres in July. [Applause]
5

2. Approval of the Agenda
Having accepted requests from the Quebec Centre and the Administrative Director to add short items
to the Agenda under Items 7 Proposed Election of New Centres and 35 Any Other Business, and
agreed that a proposed Guatemalan Centre should also be considered under Item 7, Jirí Gruša
(International President) declared the Agenda approved and closed.
3. Statements on the Congress Themes
Jirí Gruša (International President) informed the Assembly that he had agreed that two short
statements should be made to link the Assembly to the Congress themes. He invited first John Ralston
Saul, of the Canadian Centre, to speak on ‘Writers in Exile’, and then Kjell Olaf Jensen, President of
the Norwegian Centre, to speak on ‘Writers in Minority Languages’. [Applause]
John Ralston Saul (Canadian Centre) said that it was wonderful to be present at an Assembly after a
gap of a some years, and to respond to the request to speak on the subject of Writers in Exile.
Everyone in PEN knew that since PEN’s early days a tremendous amount of work had been carried
out, particularly in the 1930s and 1940s for writers who had left Europe in despair. A quieter period
followed, until a new era began in the early 1990s, when in addition to those writers who were
imprisoned and persecuted, increasing numbers of writers left a growing number of countries for exile
in a wide range of other countries. It was some kind of shapeless, directionless explosion and was very
serious.
In response, PEN had created a Writers in Exile Network, run first by the German Centre for three
years, and then by the Canadian Centre, which would remain responsible for it for a further year. The
Network was an informal group that combined to discuss the situation and how to handle it, and how
to help writers in despair on an international level; and PEN’s famous decentralised approach had
allowed different Centres to adopt different approaches. The leadership for the work had come from
PEN Centres in Austria, Canada, Finland, Germany, Norway, Sweden and the USA, joined by the
Scholars at Risk Programme in the USA and the international Cities of Asylum Programme. Canada
itself was working towards welcoming more and more exiles: in March 2004 the Quebec Centre had
hosted a meeting to discuss welcoming exiles to Canada at the request of the Canadian Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. The meeting had been attended by PEN members from Catalonia, Norway and the
USA and representatives from other countries, as well as the Scholars at Risk Programme and
representatives of 60 institutions of all kinds from around Canada. They had come together to
consider not only how to admit writers into their countries and give them a place to live, but also how
to give them a life as well. In Canada around ten universities had made places available for exiled
writers; and one of the most exciting things to happen at the Congress had been the creation by exiled
writers themselves of a discussion forum, which was to be hosted on the English Centre’s website and
which would enable exiled writers themselves to build their lives, not just to be recipients of help.
The whole process of working on behalf of exiled writers was moving very fast, and not very clearly;
but PEN Centres and other institutions were combining to develop horizontal infrastructures which
would create not only income and legality but also a way of life, with friends and an intellectual life,
for the exiles. The Canadian Centre had just compiled a Writers in Exile Network handbook which
would be posted on their website shortly. Exile was a challenge for PEN and would remain a great
challenge in the future. [Applause]
Kjell Olaf Jensen (Norwegian Centre) said that the theme of ‘Writers in Minority Languages’ was
truly linked to ‘Writers in Exile’. What was a writer in exile if not a writer of a minority language?
Those who had attended the Literary Seminar had heard Amin Maalouf’s speech on writers in minority
languages, and how such a language might be defined: for example, on a global scale English was a
minority language, just as, on a local scale, Sami might be a majority language. The Norwegian
Centre had had the honour, thanks to Jane Spender, to write a piece on Norwegian literature for the
6

Norwegian Congress issue of PEN International magazine. In this they had concluded that one
definition of Norwegian literature was that it was literature written in Norway. They had realized that
literature could be written in any one of the three official languages, Norwegian, New Norwegian and
Sami – and it could also be written in practically any other language, in Urdu, Farsi, Dari, Serbian,
even in English, and, incredibly, also in Swedish [laughter]. So literature written in English in Norway
was by definition literature written in a minority language.
The problems of definition were obvious. But a part of those problems had been addressed by the
Translation and Linguistic Rights Committee’s Diversity Project. This aimed to facilitate access to the
world audience for writers of ‘small’ languages: by publishing their work on the internet the project
made it available to people reading only the majority languages. The project was in its infancy, but he
believed it to be of immense scale and importance, and it showed the path the Translation and
Linguistic Rights Committee and International PEN as a whole should follow for years to come. It
would be noticed throughout the world, and he asked the International PEN leadership and the
Assembly to support it with all their power. [Applause]
4. Statement by the International President
Jirí Gruša (International President) made the following statement:
‘Dear colleagues, friends and companieros, I do not conceal that I am somewhat nervous at this first
chance to speak to you. It is good and delicate at the same time. Good, for I am able to thank you for
electing me by such a large majority – your confidence and courage confer an obligation on me.
Delicate, since I would like to thank all those who expressed their doubts in order to supply me with
part of my topic today.
The question mark was relevant. It highlighted the tectonics of our club, the breaks and fractures I had
perhaps underestimated in saying “yes” to my candidacy a year ago. They are not to be overlooked
further, if PEN is to carry out its work.
It will depend on whether we succeed in forming architecture from the tectonics, namely something
that resists the fractures, combining firmness and mobility. That architecture is always arche in ancient
Greek, ein Ursprung in German, inception in English. Actually, a daring leap – indeed, Ursprung
literally means original leap. It describes not only the locus, but also the direction and target of the
jumper. The firmer the origin, the bolder, the longer, is the jump. Each flows into the other.
How about our arche, our origin, what is the relation between our locus and our aim?
When in 1921, in London, Catharine Amy Dawson Scott and John Galsworthy joined together to
found – what else in London? – a dinner club, their concern was dining too, informally, free from the
usual vanities of our craft. But beyond that and above all, they established the first post-national
literary society, an act whose importance has not lessened, even if we – the later bearers of the idea –
have been sluggish from time to time.
I choose the adjective “post-national” to show that our internationality is to this day unthinkable
without this attitude.
The graves of the First World War were still fresh, the lesson of killing en masse still seemed
disgusting enough and instructive. If someone had suggested that the disaster would be merely the
prologue to a still larger drama, everybody would have laughed aloud. Nevertheless, the founding day
of PEN did not arise from short-sighted euphoria. It was an accurate view of things.
7

Amy Dawson Scott and John Galsworthy were the first writers in Europe who publicly and loudly
placed literature outside the exclusive service of reinforcing national identity, of producing a hierarchy
of European nations. They recognised the part poetry played in the nationalistic misery of our
continent, in breeding its rivalries and Erzfeindschaften, its enmities. They diagnosed the danger of
exporting these truly European goods. Most importantly, they foresaw the essential, namely that, on
the whole, literature itself serves human beings in opposing the incrustation of languages, in defying
their conversion into writings of hate, because literature dares to name the not-yet-named. It practises
and manifests the liberty of nuances.
The biography of our foundress provides an example: she moved from being the mother of the semimilitary
women’s organisation of patriots during the First World War, to becoming the confessor of
internationality, esteeming all native lands, and protecting all languages – and thence to an
internationalism which fights for de-escalation, which makes things gentle by not joining in the
epoch’s dances in which the precious term “nation” mutates into a tribal monster of maniac killers.
To understand the word as a signal of communication – and that, please, by a kind of anti-ideological
self-release – that was new. The freedom of the man of letters was defined as an intellectual advance,
a definition first given by the German poet Matthias Claudius when he wrote: “Do not always say what
you know, but always know what you say.”
Freedom of expression expresses therefore a freedom from closely associated simplifications. This
way of freedom concerns our expressivity. The “What” is always a “How”. It sounds a bit bizarre, I
know, but the freedom of the word and the freedom of the speaker complement each other. The usual
complications of a risk-free speaker are not automatically complications of the freedom of the word.
The freedom of the word and the freedom of literature begin where political control, which would like
to use only the idiotic idioms of ideology, ends. One detects this by behaviour seen whenever
differences of opinion grow into enmities. That is what I mean.
Our one-time slogan – “No politics at any price” – was politics. It meant not engaging in small-minded
polemics and not becoming obsessed with clubbish cliques. And today it still means a return to the
post-national ethos of our beginnings.
The steps for this have a certain order. It is empathy, irony and diversity that lead to success: to want
to know the opinion of your interlocutor first, to express one’s own without arrogance and, finally, not
to feel that unity can only be approached in one way but to build it honestly, as you would a clever
jigsaw puzzle.
Given the variety of the languages and texts we speak and write, this is not wishful thinking, but one –
and perhaps the only – method of work. We talk about working languages as if they were already the
work, yet the paradox applies here too. Words are works and vice versa. Where communication is
looked for, competency must be found first: this begins when you choose the language of the person
you would like to listen to, and if you do not speak it, a linguistical common ground is the best
solution. Not only because the “What” is “How”, but because the inside is also an outside in our world.
The pain of communication should be shared. And we, the eloquent storytellers and recorders, we
shall here be listeners and readers.
That is not always easy because the larger the language, the stronger the conviction of native speakers
that the other side has to become more communicative. But in the post-national age, whose harbingers
we are and whose messengers we will be, there will exist only peoples of different smallness, each of
us will become only another minor star.
I was very amused when I read the four rules of 1921 for the participation at the famous dinner. Amy
Dawson Scott formulated them as follows: “A book published, a play produced, an editorship, a novel
8

…”, and – last but not least – the marvellous sentence, “Each member shall pay his or her dinner-bill.”
[Laughter]
Of course we need Spanish, and we already have the obligation to use it; and the most recent Board
session set us on the way to a good solution. But again, without having clarified the question of the
bill we remain in the groves of hypocrisy.
The Amy-rule originated in the era of the printed word. There were still writers, I suppose, who were
not troubled about dinner-bills. In the time of the talking pictures, in our TV talk-time, where more
“pic-trature” than literature is asked and paid for, the dinner-bill pays for less than before, and the
authors in prison or in punishment get even smaller portions.
In acquainting myself with our financial position, I realized that there is no time ahead of large
investment, rather a time of reforms and renewal. And this even though – as you will hear in Britta’s
report – our situation has already improved. Regardless of this good development, the future requires
us to act transparently and according to need. The supply of means could also come from outside, if
our view of outside and our charm merge. The development of communication among ourselves here
in the Assembly could bring about miracles; and one, even if gradual, improvement in atmosphere
improves our image and motivates sponsors. Financially stable, we will certainly have more working
languages since we get more work.
I can promise you a view of the PEN kitchen in which one cooks following recipes that have been
agreed upon. I am looking forward to it, let us start. The signs are not bad for post-national activities,
and these activities will gain even greater importance as the planet we live on draws us together and
will no longer tolerate the destructive beasts.
PEN could be a place of inclusion – and inclusion is not only a matter of method, it is also a
philosophy by which to live. In all the world’s areas where post-collectivistic and post-national ideas
are needed, we will be required – and it is solely up to us whether we arrive in time.
Let us thus make our work our working language. That is the best way ahead, especially since we will
soon have to think about other languages which we have overlooked in our Eurocentric selfishness,
such as Chinese and Arabic. These languages, too, belong to our non-missionary mission. Let us
consider how the rules of communication could be applied in this situation, let us look for dialogues,
particularly with those who realise that freedom of expression creates more peace and a network in
which women and men are equally involved and have an equal right to formulate their life-goals.
Here we have an arche too. Our alma mater Amy did not call herself “Sappho” for nothing. She knew,
she fore-knew, that the era of masculinity was about to end and the era of sensitivity to begin; that one
could not do without “woman in dignity”. This gender equilibrium of our beginnings is now a great
credit to PEN. And emphasis on it gives us a specific flavour in regions where the feminine is still
defamed.
Inclusion I spoke of, empathy, irony and diversity, these are not only categories of peacefulness, they
were and will be categories of resistance. They complicate the job of the eliminators, therefore it is
appropriate to speak clearly and directly of force and the user of force. It is our role to transform the
authors “abroad” into authors “at home”, the authors “in jail” into free humans. This world practises
freedom of repression, let us change this by dint of expressiveness.
You know that the number of persecuted writers has risen in recent years. It is alarming that we who
are concerned about freedom should be intimidated by the crude rhetoric with which the persecutors
talk of us, to us and about us. Even more must we esteem and protect the core of our club – the
Writers in Prison Committee – which made us the place of refuge for literature. This we must remain,
even more open and even stronger. I thank Eugene Schoulgin, for his actions. I myself have
9

experienced persecution, and really esteem people who help authors to freedom – I know how vital it
is to have somebody outside the prison who cannot be stopped. Eugene has not only realised this and
worked with balance and determination, he has also used temperantia, the old Latin name for the only
virtue that is immune to external pressures.
Balance and moderation is the mix for the next years of PEN. Nothing was ever improved by
answering bad with bad. Where something good happens, it comes about by extending the context.
And context means cortex. Simply, grey matter is involved, and this is not just a play on words.
I must not draw a line under this kind of politics, which I rather enjoy. It will make us present in all
continents. It is about a polis, a civitas homini – the home of mankind – where literature does not
follow what is said, but becomes the dictum of freedom.’ [Applause]
Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) proposed that the President’s Statement be recorded to the
Minutes. This was agreed.
5. In Memoriam
Jirí Gruša (International President) read out the names of those PEN members who had died since
the previous Congress, and called for a minute’s silence in their memory:
- Ihsan Abbas, Palestinian Centre
- Joan Aiken, English Centre
- Mahmudul Amin, Bangladeshi Centre
- Anthony Babington, English Centre
- Matís Caklaís, Latvian Centre
- Nissim Ezekiel, All-India Centre
- Bezzola Clo Duri, Swiss Italian and Reto-romansh Centre
- Janet Frame, New Zealand Centre
- Eeva Joenpelto, Finnish Centre
- Magda Kerényi, Swiss Italian and Reto-romansh Centre
- Mehdi Khoshnaw, Kurdish Centre
- Michael King, New Zealand Centre
- Lojze Kovacic, Slovene Centre
- Algirdas Landsbergis, Lithuanian Centre and Writers in Exile Centre (American Branch)
- Luo Luo, Shanghai Chinese Centre
- Sophia de Mello Breyner Andersen, Portuguese Centre
- Janez Menart, Slovene Centre
- Czeslaw Milosz, Polish Centre
- George Naykene, Ghanaian Centre
- Frances Partridge, English Centre
- Mark Popovsky, Writers in Exile Centre (American Branch)
- Laila Sarahat, Afghan Centre
- Joze Smit, Slovene Centre
- Igor Torkar, Slovene Centre
- Fadwa Turqan, Palestinian Centre
6. Minutes of the Last Meeting
Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) apologized for the fact that, due to pressure of work in the
Secretariat, the Minutes of the Assembly of Delegates in Mexico in November 2003 had been
completed and sent out a few days late in typescript form. Any comments and corrections that were
made in writing could be appended to the Minutes.
10

There being no comments, Terry Carlbom moved that the Minutes be approved and signed by the
International President. [Applause] Jirí Gruša (International President) then signed the Minutes.
Afrikaans
7. Proposed Election of new Centres
Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) informed the Assembly that the group of writers in
Dainfern, in the Orange Free State, had been in touch with the Secretariat for about two years, and
during 2004 contacts had intensified. The documentation required for the formation of a PEN Centre
had been completed and received in the Secretariat. He realized that this application would give rise to
questions, but he informed delegates that Afrikaans was one of eleven official languages of South
Africa, and reminded them that there was already a South African PEN Centre in Cape Town. He
added that the correspondence with the Afrikaans group revealed their concern for their language and
their heritage and the problems facing their society regarding publishers, libraries, the public state of
the book market and so on.
He thought it important to say that while Afrikaans was the language of apartheid, apartheid did not
stem from the language – the use of such tools was outside the control both of writers and of the
common citizen. The South African Centre in Cape Town had been consulted about the proposed new
Centre, and had expressed willingness to establish good contact with the proposed Centre.
When he and Vincent Magombe had visited South Africa, they had not only been to Cape Town, but
had also visited Nadine Gordimer in Johannesburg. She had arranged for them to meet a circle of
writers and other interested parties to discuss the possibility of creating what could most conveniently
be called a black PEN Centre. As delegates were aware, there had once been a Centre in
Johannesburg, but by its own decision it had ceased to exist about twenty years ago; the possibility of a
new black Centre in Johannesburg had been in the pipeline for a number of years, but sadly the black
writers’ association in South Africa had not got off the ground, and the possibility had come to
nothing. However, following the meeting arranged by Nadine Gordimer, he had written to the main
literary organizational figure, who had thanked him for the initiative and had said that he would take
the matter further if possible, but that although black writers were interested in forging an international
connection and outlook, they were not currently organizing themselves in a way that would fit in with
International PEN.
He had communicated the proposed Afrikaans Centre’s application to Nadine Gordimer who,
delegates would remember, had touched on the subject of PEN in Africa in her speech to the Assembly
in Mexico. Her reaction had been negative and fairly critical of the idea of an Afrikaans-speaking
PEN Centre. However, in reading her letter and seeing her arguments, he had felt that she was being
somewhat backward-looking, that most of her points were not really post-national. Her letter was
available to any delegate who wished to see it.
Having read the communications from the Afrikaans group, he felt that they would if elected as a PEN
Centre inspire new moves in Johannesburg, and that they were fully committed as bridge-builders of
the writers’ community around the world. He was making the presentation himself, because the
representative Dan Roodt, who had expected to attend to present the proposed new Centre, had been
prevented from doing so for personal reasons.
Lucina Kathmann (San Miguel de Allende Centre) recommended that no action be taken on the
application until a representative could speak to the Assembly him or herself. She felt that the
information provided to delegates was ambiguous and that it was hard to make a decision on the basis
of second- and third-hand reports. [Applause]
11

Frank Mackay Anim-Appiah (Ghanaian Centre) agreed with this suggestion, but added that instead
of an Afrikaans Centre, the South African Centre should encourage other black writers to form a
Centre. He and his colleagues from PEN’s Pan-African Network strongly objected to the creation of
an Afrikaans Centre in South Africa.
Said Hussein (Somali-Speaking Centre) supported the Ghanaian delegate. His Centre had discussed
the proposed new Centre; they believed that to define any PEN Centre in South Africa by colour –
whether composed of black writers or white writers – would simply strengthen racial prejudice and
lead to a revival of the apartheid system. His Centre fully subscribed to International PEN’s aims and
principles, and felt these would be best fulfilled in South Africa if Centres were named by region or
city, for example a Johannesburg Centre or Pretoria Centre. [Applause]
Jirí Gruša (International President) noted that three negative responses had been made to the
proposed new Centre.
Elisabeth Nordgren (Finnish Centre, Board member) said that her Centre supported the
suggestions already made – it was hard to make a decision since the Assembly did not know who the
writers were who were applying to form the new Centre, and no representative was present to speak to
the delegates. They felt that the Afrikaans name conveyed a sense of neo-colonialism, and that
clarification was needed.
Judith Rodriguez (Melbourne Centre, Board Deputy Chair) said, by way of clarification and not as
an opinion, that she understood that several of the writers of the prospective Centre were black.
Zeki Ergas (Suisse Romand Centre) said that, from his knowledge of South African literature, there
were three literatures in the country – African, Afrikaans and coloured – and he felt it might be
premature to accept an Afrikaans Centre without examining the situation of the great literature of the 3
million or more Coloured people in the country.
Hanan Awwad (Palestinian Centre) asked the International Secretary whether he had had any
contact while in South Africa with the Congress of South African Writers [COSAW], an organisation
containing many distinguished and important writers, and added that Nadine Gordimer’s view was
important because of her knowledge of the country. She said that PEN members were writers and
were equals, and colour should never be used in a PEN context [applause]. She suggested that
International PEN should work with the COSAW to develop its presence in South Africa, and her
Centre was ready to help in this.
Terry Carlbom read a short extract from Nadine Gordimer’s letter, as a matter of information for
delegates: ‘The Black Writers Association is defunct and so is the Congress of South African
Writers.’ He thought that, given the feeling of the meeting, it would be appropriate for a representative
of the proposed new Centre to be present and suggested postponing the decision until the next meeting
of the Assembly while further research was carried out. [Applause]
Eugene Schoulgin (Writers in Prison Committee Chair) said that there was nothing in the
Regulations requiring a representative of a proposed Centre to attend and speak to the Assembly, but
he believed that in future this should be routine, and that without representation no Centre should be
accepted. To be able to listen to someone and meet them in person would facilitate greatly and would
help eliminate suspicion. [Applause]
Jane Spender (Administrative Director), responding to the suggestions that International PEN
should have different PEN Centres in South Africa, reminded delegates that International PEN itself
did not create PEN Centres – it was groups of writers interested in doing so that approached PEN, and
then followed the necessary process. With eleven official languages in South Africa, there would be
12

problems if eleven groups of people wanted to form a Centre for each of them – but unless they made
contact with PEN, such PEN Centres would not be formed.
Sylvestre Clancier (French Centre) said that, first, as a great novelist Nadine Gordimer enhanced
PEN’s prestige. She definitely did not look backwards, but had great youth, great insight and a
strategic vision, and PEN should listen to her enlightened opinions. Second, to embrace the line drawn
by the International President, to try to go beyond the national to a post-national system, meant
questioning the proposed Afrikaans Centre. Finally, he supported both Hanan Awwad’s and Eugene
Schoulgin’s suggestions, that colleagues in South Africa should be consulted and that the presence of a
representative should be required before the creation of any Centre could be considered. For all these
reasons, he believed that it would be premature to agree to the formation of this Centre.
Clara Gyorgyey (Writers in Exile Centre, American Branch) said, on a point of order, that a note
had been sent to all delegates informing them of the procedures to be followed in the Assembly,
including that comments on proposed new Centres should be limited. The Assembly was in danger of
falling into the same trap as in Mexico. The proposed Centre was not going to come into existence at
this Assembly and yet the question was still being debated. [Applause]
Jirí Gruša said that requiring a representative would mean amending the Regulations, which could not
be done at this Assembly, and suggested reaching a decision and so concluding the discussion.
Terry Carlbom noted that the decision would be to postpone the decision on the proposed Centre.
Talabi Aisie Lucan (Sierra Leone Centre) supported the Somali-speaking Centre’s delegate. The
Assembly appeared to be considering this from a racial or linguistic viewpoint – but all groups wanting
to join International PEN must do so without consideration of colour, race or language.
Alexander Tkachenko (Russian Centre) said that, first, he did not believe anyone present was racist
– he had complete trust in his colleagues on this. Second, PEN was a multi-linguistic organisation, and
not only must PEN welcome new Centres, but it must listen to the music of their original languages.
He agreed that the Regulations should be amended to require a representative to introduce a proposed
Centre and his or her own history and literature, and suggested that this be done in the original
language with interpretation into PEN’s working languages. Most important was to talk to and see a
representative, because through that would come greater understanding.
Manuchehr Sabetian (Iranian Centre in Exile) said he could not understand why the debate was
continuing – Terry Carlbom’s suggestion of deferment until the next Congress, to allow time for
research and to reach a clear and amicable conclusion, had been received with applause. Time was
being wasted and the Chair should sometimes intervene to cut the cackle. [Applause]
Jirí Gruša thanked the previous speaker for his suggestion, and said that he would intervene. He
hoped the decision was being deferred.
Willem Roggeman (Belgian Dutch-Speaking Centre) said that he had been in South Africa two
years previously and had talked to many very progressive Afrikaans writers, among them his old friend
Breyton Breytonbach who wrote in Afrikaans and had been imprisoned for seven years for his writing.
Unable to be published in South Africa, his work had been published in the Netherlands. And now
delegates were opposing membership of PEN to such people – it was a shame, because they were
opposing the wrong people. This was not a political question; Afrikaner writers were very
progressive, they supported freedom and had fought apartheid.
Terry Carlbom thanked Willem Roggeman for his intervention, but said that the President had closed
the discussion. The message from the Assembly was that more research was needed and that the
presence of a representative was requested. It had also been suggested elsewhere that proposed or new
13

Centres should for a period of time be present as candidate members, which would also fit in with the
Russian delegate’s suggestion. Perhaps members should consider these suggestions for the next
Congress, by which time both papers and arguments could be in good order. [Applause]
Basque
Dolors Oller (Catalan Centre) said that the Catalan Centre was honoured to give their sincere
support to the proposed Basque Centre in its wish to join International PEN. The fundamental reason
for their support was that they were convinced that minority languages and literatures represented an
experience and a memory that were absolutely necessary to communication and understanding
between peoples. The presence of a Basque PEN Centre in PEN would complete the representation of
the four official languages of the Spanish state. Furthermore, the Basque PEN Centre that had been
created in 1951 had had an agitated and quite painful history, and her Centre therefore believed that its
re-creation was deserved, just and even appropriate given the current circumstances, circumstances
which, despite the legal existence of minority languages, had allowed the case against the newspaper
Egunkaria. A Basque PEN Centre would help PEN to defend those inalienable rights leading to a
future that was truly respectful of minority languages and literatures. [Applause]
Jirí Gruša (International President) then invited the representatives of the proposed Centre to speak
to the Assembly.
Joxemari Iturralde quoted the old saying, ‘Before God was God, and before boulders were boulders,
Basques were already Basques.’ [Laughter] The Basque Country or Euskal Herria, as the 3 million
Basque people called their nation, straddled the French–Spanish border along the western Pyrenees.
Through the centuries, Romans, Visigoths, Arabs and many other different cultures had overrun the
country, but the Basques had remained from neolithic until modern times. Euskal Herria meant ‘land
of the Basque language’, and it was their ancient mother tongue that truly united them: it had been
spoken there forty thousand years ago, before the Indo-Europeans had arrived and spread out across
the continent, and it was spoken now by a population of about 700,000. During the dictatorship which
followed the Spanish Civil War, the Basque language had been banned and had had much trouble
surviving.
Laura Mintegi said that the reality was that the Basque language had survived and better conditions
were in place to start a Basque Centre again. The first Centre had been established in 1951, when the
situation was very difficult because most Basque writers were in jail or in exile – the President had
been living in Paris and the Secretary in Guatemala, and for them it was very hard to hold meetings.
The second time a Centre had been established had been in 1987, and it too had failed. But now they
felt conditions were much better for re-starting a Centre to work with PEN colleagues for literature and
freedom of expression. She wanted to thank the Catalan and English Centres, the Galician and
Spanish Centres, and especially the Iberian American Foundation. And to thank the members of PEN
also for their help from now on. [Applause]
Gloria Guardia (Panamanian Centre) said that she wanted to second the proposal. Delegates had
heard the excellent presentation by the President of the Catalan Centre, and had heard and been able to
meet the representatives of the proposed Basque Centre. She asked the Assembly, on behalf of all the
Iberian American PEN Centres to accept the Basque Centre by acclaim. [Applause]
Jirí Gruša invited the Assembly to do so, and the Basque Centre was elected by acclamation.
Guatemala
Gloria Guardia (Panamanian Centre) said that she was very proud to present the proposed new
Guatemalan Centre, organized by one of Guatemala’s foremost writers, Carlos René García Escobar.
Guatemalan literature was one of the oldest and richest in Latin America; both its indigenous Mayan
14

and Spanish-speaking writers had given it a definite and outstanding profile among the more than 25
literatures of that part of the world; and one of its most prominent novelists, Miguel Angel Asturias,
had won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1967. The proposed Centre had been organized so that it
represented both Spanish-speaking and indigenous-language writers. She herself had the pleasure and
honour of knowing almost all of them, and she sincerely hoped that the Assembly would accept a new
Centre that would certainly enrich the cultural diversity that characterized International PEN and
would fortify the Iberian American network, the only legally established network within PEN. On
behalf of the 23 Guatemalan writers seeking admission to PEN, she thanked the Assembly for
considering the nomination. [Applause]
Jirí Gruša (International President) then invited comments against the proposed Centre. There
being none, he proposed that the Assembly welcome the Guatemalan Centre with applause, and the
Centre was elected by acclamation.
Kosovo
Edvard Kovac (Slovene Centre) said that, as well as the painful history of the Balkans and of the
former Yugoslavia, there was another history which was the story not only of war but of generosity,
forgiveness, encounters and dialogue. Now a few writers, including Basri Çapriqi and Agim Gjakova
who were present at the Congress, proposed a new PEN Centre: they believed that their region, which
previously had had autonomous status, had created, beyond wars and conflict, the possibility of
dialogue. They represented a group that believed in peace, dialogue and cultural exchanges, and that
would, in accordance with the PEN Charter, open the Centre not only to writers in the majority
Albanian language, but to Serbian, Turkish and Bosnian writers – indeed, they already had people
from the latter two groups in the proposed Centre.
His own Centre, also from the former Yugoslav region, supported the proposal because, without
intending any unkindness or disagreement with their friends from Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia and
maybe Bosnia, they supported the declaration of the great humanist, spiritual Serb patriarch Pavle, that
the only future of Kosovo lay in dialogue, peace and symbiosis. In this perspective, the Slovene
Centre proposed that the writers of Kosovo, from all languages and religions, should be allowed to join
International PEN. [Applause]
Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) thanked Edvard Kovac for his excellent presentation. He
wanted to say that, as in the other cases, the formalities and consultation process in connection with the
application had been followed. The Secretariat had received a letter from Predrag Palavestra of the
Serbian Centre saying that the Serbian Centre had no objections to the creation of the Centre; but they
thought that its name should preferably be ‘Kosovo Albanian PEN Centre’. He himself felt that this
was a less happy name: Kosovo PEN Centre had a better ring to it, and would not be thought to be
linked to the Albanian Centre.
Jirí Gruša (International President) then invited a representative of the proposed Centre to speak to
the Assembly.
Basri Çapriqi said he felt privileged to speak to this honourable forum of writers from all over the
world on behalf of the proposed Kosovo Centre. Everyone would have heard of Pristina, the
birthplace of this proposed Centre, unfortunately for painful reasons. Over many years of craziness
they would have heard of writers imprisoned for 24 years, for writers frequently and illegally held in
isolation. They would have heard of writers lining up with the generals and calling for blood, of
writers massacred together with their families, and of writers remaining ice-cold when evil touched the
opposing side but reacting fiercely whenever the violence touched their own side. International PEN
had found its voice and reacted in its own way whenever it had full information on cases of violence
against writers, imprisonment, isolation, murder; it had raised its voice each and every time cultural
values were at risk under the heavy and absurd burden of war. For this his group were deeply grateful.
15

They had signed the Charter and had established the proposed Kosovo PEN Centre in accordance with
PEN’s Regulations, with organisational structures and appropriate elections.
He was speaking on behalf of those Kosovan writers, asking for the Delegates’ support to help them be
a part of this large and honourable organisation. Kosovan writers lived and worked in the part of the
Balkans with the greatest international presence, but felt themselves to be the most isolated writers in
the region. The war had destroyed their old pre-war cultural links with the regional and major centres;
and the post-war period had neither created a cultural climate in which the old bridges could be reestablished
nor helped to create new bridges. His group strongly wished to create these bridges, so
much needed in the post-conflict environment, and had undertaken to join the family of PEN in the
hope of leaving the painful and absurd times for their much-disturbed region behind once and for all.
He believed that the bridges they so wanted to build with all of PEN would stand above peaceful
waters. [Applause]
Hanan Awwad (Palestinian Centre) asked for some clarification: her Centre had no objection to the
proposed new Centre; but there was a Serbian Centre and a Bosnian Centre and now there would be a
Kosovo Centre, and she wondered on what basis the Kosovo Centre would be built.
Jane Spender (Administrative Director) said that perhaps there was a confusion with the Bosnian
Centre. In fact, there were a number of linguistic and ethnic groups in Kosovo, among them Bosnians,
and Turks, Serbs and Albanians; and the Bosnians mentioned as being part of the proposed Centre
were Bosnians living in Kosovo.
Kata Kulavkova (Macedonian Centre, Translation and Linguistic Rights Committee Chair)
wanted to clarify certain things in relation to the proposed new Centre. It should be clearly stated that,
sadly, over the past few years Kosovo had become ethnically an almost pure region – there were
almost no other ethnicities than Albanian there, so this would be a second Albanian Centre in the
region. The Macedonian Centre had nothing against that, but when there had been a multi-lingual and
multi-ethnic community there had been a multi-lingual and multi-ethnic writers’ organisation. This
was no longer the case. The Slovene delegate had mentioned that the status of Kosovo had been
settled; she thought it might be better to wait until the Bled Congress in 2005 when it would be better
settled with greater clarity. She also felt that more information on the writers proposing the new
Centre should be available to PEN Centres, so that they could see their names, languages, cultures and
nationalities. She felt that if things continued in the same way, there would be a third Albanian Centre
in western Macedonia in a few years’ time.
Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) believed the essence of the question was: would the
proposed Centre be an ethnically designated Centre or a multi-cultural Centre? Any Centre, whoever
initiated it, had to be open to all qualified members; and he had the assurance of the group that that
was their intention.
Sibila Petlevski (Croatian Centre, Board Member) said that in conversation her dear friend Edvard
Kovac had mentioned something that Einstein had said: that it was far easier to break the atom than to
break a prejudice. She herself had been involved in the effort to establish the proposed Centre, as a
colleague in the region and as a Board member of International PEN. She was a member of the board
of a trans-national literary magazine published in Sarajevo, Sarajevo Notebooks, together with wellestablished
intellectuals from different countries in the region and in central Europe, among them the
representative from Kosovo who had just been speaking. This proved him to be someone who was not
interested in speaking for one political side only or in serving on behalf of political goals in the region.
She felt strongly that, as had been mentioned, the proposed Centre would be an agent for stability in
the region and not the opposite. PEN members should break the prejudice – they were not experts in
breaking atoms. [Applause]
16

Vida Ognjenovic (Serbian Centre) wanted to greet the colleagues from Kosovo, and, as Predrag
Palavestra had said in his letter, support of their proposed Centre. But her question was: what had
happened to the old Centre in Pristina? Were there now two Centres there? As far as she knew, the
old Centre had been a multi-cultural Centre, with Adem Demaci as its President. And if there were
two Centres, what was the difference between them, and would the new Centre be multi-cultural and
multi-national – as the President had said, post-national?
Jane Spender said that there had never been a previous Kosovo PEN Centre. The PEN members in
Pristina had been members of one of the two branches of the Albanian Centre, the other branch being
in Tirana. It had been much easier to communicate with Pristina than with Tirana, so contact had been
mainly with that branch, although nothing had been heard from them for many years. If the proposed
Centre were accepted, it would be the first Kosovo Centre in International PEN.
Eugene Schoulgin (Writers in Prison Committee Chair) said that Afghanistan was also a country
with many nationalities within its borders. Its writers believed they should act as the glue that would
stick the country together again. He felt that the Assembly should believe the colleagues from Kosovo
that they too would be the glue, and should support the process.
Jirí Gruša then proposed that the Assembly welcome the Kosovo Centre with applause, and the
Centre was elected by acclamation.
Haiti
Jirí Gruša (International President) invited the delegates of the Quebec Centre to speak on the
possibility of a Haitian Centre.
Emile Martel (Quebec Centre) noted Kjell Olaf Jensen’s earlier point, when he had spoken of
literature being Norwegian because it was written in Norway. He believed that that was the only
criterion that mattered, since ultimately each literature found its eternity and its space from where it
had been written. In this context, he wanted to mention that Norway had played an amazing role in
attempting to bring together Haitian political dialogue in Oslo, and that it was an example to see a
country so generously committed to the establishment of stable societies. Quebec was privileged to
have a multi-faceted literature; among the writers were a great many Haitian writers, who were not
Haitian but Quebecois writers, since Quebec was where they did their writing, and one of these was
Georges Anglade who, in the name of the Quebec Centre, had had the kindness to conduct the
dialogue and exchanges with Haitian colleagues.
Georges Anglade (Quebec Centre) thanked Emile Martel for the welcome he had received in Quebec
and from the Quebec Centre, and for the opportunity to speak, and saluted in particular John Ralston
Saul of the Canadian Centre, in whose presence he was pleased to be making the following
announcement. He would take the time allowed him to ask for the Assembly’s help in establishing a
Haitian Centre, and the Assembly would see how such a Centre would mean a move from the 20 th to
the 21 st century. There were currently at least fifty Haitian writers living in Haiti itself, but Haitian
writers were also in Paris, in America, in Canada – both in Quebec and the English-speaking regions –
and these writers wrote in four languages in scattered countries. The Haitian Centre would be
established in Haiti itself, but would have the support of all those others of Haitian origin in PEN
Centres in France, in America, in Canada. It had taken nine months simply to meet and talk to
everyone; and there were many difficult questions relating to the current connections between these
migrant literatures which would characterise the 21 st century.
The Haitian crisis in 2003 had seen the fall of a drifting regime; and in the name of International PEN,
his Centre had several times intervened to some effect in matters of concern to PEN. They had held a
dinner and then meetings in Ottawa to discuss the situation of Haitian writers: they had met writers
from the Haitian diaspora; and subsequently six members of the Quebec Centre had gone to Haiti to
17

meet the writers there and to try to mobilise them. It would have been easy to bring the necessary
signatures to this Congress; but that would have been moving too fast, and it was in tribute to the new
PEN and the new definition of itself that PEN was trying to establish for the 21 st century that they
would take a further nine months, until the next Assembly, to work with the help of the French,
American, Quebec and Canadian Centres to activate the dialogue. And to see how one could write
when one wrote throughout the entire world. The scattered space, the migrant literatures – these were
the problems facing exiled writers, the different problems encountered today. But they would enable
writers to say that soon there would be only writing and freedom, and perhaps a single race of beings
to which we would all aspire. [Applause]
Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) thanked the previous speakers, adding that their
interventions had been for information only. However, he believed that everyone would warmly
welcome any initiative to create a Haitian Centre.
Jirí Gruša said that they would hope for a presentation at the Bled Congress. He was now glad to
inform the new Centres that they could take part in the sessions as full members of the Assembly.
8. Strategic Planning Process in International PEN
Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) said that a copy of the Strategic Aims paper had been
distributed to all delegates. It was the equivalent of a working paper, a handbook about PEN and for
PEN that was primarily intended as an introduction for those who were new to PEN or who wished to
be more active within PEN. It had been in preparation in various versions for approximately five
years, and had been introduced in its first form at the London Replacement Assembly in 2001. It was
not written in stone, but could be altered as to fact and according to PEN members’ views on its text.
It could be used by Centres, either in its entirety or in extracted form, for outreach work, for
fundraising and for information purposes. Its designation as a working paper meant that it could be
revised constantly, according to need.
It began with a page on ‘The Spirit of PEN’, which aimed to set out exactly what PEN stood for; this
was followed by the Mission Statement, which had been boiled down to four one-line points. The
Strategic Aim section substantiated the one-liners, and shared ideas about how PEN activities might
develop in the future. And this was followed by the framework for implementation and programmes.
It was intended that the framework and programmes would be reflected in a budget structure which
could be easily accessed when deciding on future priorities. The programmes of International PEN
had each been given at most two paragraphs, in an effort to condense the activities of the organisation.
The final text described the two legally independent, but related organisations, with which
International PEN worked – the PEN Emergency Fund and the Iberian American Foundation.
Centres had already been invited to comment on the document, and there had been a lively discussion
in the Translation and Linguistic Rights Committee which had resulted in a few editorial changes to be
made to the text.
Jirí Gruša (International President) invited the Assembly to accept the Strategic Planning document
as a working paper for International PEN, and this was agreed by acclamation.
9. Report of the 69 th Congress, Mexico City, Mexico
Jirí Gruša (International President) said that he had the pleasant duty of inviting Maria Elena Ruiz
Cruz, President of the Mexican Centre, to make a brief report on the Mexican Congress, and to thank
her for the marvellous achievement of his election at the Congress in Mexico. [Laughter]
18

Maria Elena Ruiz Cruz (Mexican Centre) expressed her pleasure at being in Tromsø among
colleagues, and thanked the President of the Norwegian Centre for his welcome. She would very
briefly mention the main achievements of the Mexican Congress. First, they had organized a Congress
to work with the main role-players in International PEN – the writers, translators and editors. To these
they had added a fourth group, the writers in Indian languages from northern Canada to southern Chile.
Second had been the tremendous publicity in all the media. They had worked with radio, television
and newspapers, as well a with the national and international press agencies, and this had greatly
helped the Mexican Centre to confirm its place in the country – the first Centre had been formed in
1923, and though it was important it had always been a very small group. But for her the greatest
achievement had been that after the Congress International PEN had left behind in Mexico an image of
itself as a highly important working group that above all defended freedom of expression, which for
Mexicans, particularly at present, was very important. In this troubled world International PEN had
once more shown its strength and its ability to protect. [Applause]
10. International President’s Report
Jirí Gruša (International President) said that he would not deliver his report of activities, since it
had been circulated, and would be included in the Minutes [Annex 1]
Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) proposed that the President’s Report be recorded to the
Minutes. [Applause]
11. Report on behalf of the Board
Judith Rodriguez (Melbourne Centre, Board Deputy Chair) made the following report:
‘The Board’s work during this reporting period started with its last meeting at the Mexican Congress,
chaired by the newly elected President Jirí Gruša, on 27 th November 2003. The year has been witness
to our harmonious relationship with him and to Jirí’s carefully meditated and purposeful leadership.
The Board met thereafter in London in March, and at the Barcelona’s Writers in Prison Conference
where several members of the Board conferred informally, and by teleconference in May and June,
and of course at this Congress. The March meeting saw the end of the strategic planning process –
George Gawlinski devoted one day to work with the Secretariat and one day to the Board, for which
we thank him. The result is the Strategic Planning document, useful both to members, potential
members and potential sponsors of PEN’s work.
As PEN’s policy-shaping body, the Board has refined the Rules of Procedure to accord with the
Regulations and these are to be voted on in this Assembly. During the year, the Board has responded
to the clearly expressed wish of the Assembly, for the decorous conduct of the Assembly, both by
deciding on a definition of In-Session Resolutions and by its part in ordering the Agenda before you.
It has also decided on stricter interpretation of the rules on receiving proxy votes. More recently –
forgive me for this detail but of course I am speaking not just on behalf of the Board, but the Board in
its work on behalf of the Assembly – more recently, the Board has had a request for a better flow of
enabling information from the Chair of the Search Committee, which is charged with encouraging
nominations. The Board’s response is to be finalized; it will be integral with an ongoing examination
of reporting relationships among the Committees of International PEN.
You will be aware of the full scale revision of PEN documentation, which has been one preoccupation
of the Board over the last couple of years. You will be very pleased to know that this is nearly finished
for the present. One unconcluded item is the honours system of PEN. The proposal made at the last
Congress has been submitted to Centres with very nearly no response, and to the Vice Presidents, with
much greater interest and some very helpful comments. A recommendation will go forward to you
during this Assembly.
19

As to finances, the Board is pleased to note that the report to the Mexican Congress about late-paid and
unpaid dues brought good response from Centres. From the Treasurer’s report it is clear that Centres
are willing to enter into partnership with the executive for the welfare of PEN. And this must be
pushed further: timely payment of dues is a necessary first step, and the Treasurer has indicated that
quarterly or half-yearly payment of dues may assist with the month-to-month solvency at the London
end. Revised accounting methods with a budget line will in future increase the transparency of
reporting to you and, we hope, increase the financial awareness of PEN Centres. Another matter
related to finance which continues on the Board’s agenda is a recommendation that PEN’s London
office move to less expensive and more convenient premises. Owing to lease arrangements, this move
probably cannot be made for two years.
The new Chair of PEN Emergency Fund has requested a ruling that International PEN should pay his
travel and expenses in attending Congresses. As Board members are not reimbursed at all, except for
small amounts in individual cases, and Chairs likewise are only partly helped with their expenses, this
is a matter under consideration.
In recent years, the responsibility for interpreting and translating into Spanish for the Assembly, has
been taken by the Spanish-Speaking Centres, through their now renamed Iberian American
Foundation. Spanish was adopted as a working language of PEN at the Helsinki Congress. Two
Amending Resolutions are submitted to this Assembly to move this working language into line with
the others. The movers of one have been asked by the Board to reword their resolution in a way that
cannot oblige PEN to spend money it does not have. This responsible amended wording is supported
by the Board with the exception of the International Secretary, whose dissenting vote I acknowledge
here, as is proper, at Terry Carlbom’s request. There is now one, and there may be two Congresses
which do not offer the large number of Spanish-speaking Centres the linguistic access they have
worked for. But it is our hope that the money situation thereafter will support their full participation.
Meanwhile, these Resolutions give you an opportunity to emphasise the importance of their
participation without landing PEN in irresponsible expenditure.
Expansion: International PEN is one of UNESCO’s consultant umbrella organisations. I think this is
probably something Terry too will say because he is responsible for this. In order to promote outreach
and effectiveness, a policy is being developed of making agreements to co-operate with certain highlevel
bodies, an example is the European Pacific Congress Alliance Agreement, and we hope that cooperation
with the PEN African Writers Association may be formalised in 2005. One function of the
Board in connection with these projects is to vote upon the suitability of possible partners. We show
the same caution about projects to set up bodies or positions using the PEN name, which we must
never compromise in proposals that are poorly integrated with PEN’s mission.
As I wrote this report, I found myself concentrating more and more upon the ideas of partnership and
responsiveness in the Board’s relationship with the members of PEN, and of course communication is
necessary. Much fuller communication with the Centres is one of our aims. The PEN website is
incomplete. It is of course in the nature of a good working website to be a work in progress, but it is
already packed with information, please use it and recommend it to your members. Recently, the
London office put out an International PEN Electronic Newsletter No.1, dated July 2004. It is to be
hoped that this newsletter will become a regularly updated feature of the website.
We have discussed the role of PEN International magazine. In the current issue, the editorial work has
been reduced for the London Office by the work of the Norwegian PEN Centre. And the result is the
splendid issue received by all Centres and all delegates. We congratulate the Norwegian Centre and
hope that this sets a precedent for participation, especially perhaps by Centres hosting Congresses.
Another way in which communication might be facilitated is the increased availability of Board
members to Centres wishing to ask questions or discuss the matters they might put before the Board.
20

One suggestion is that Board members create dedicated email addresses for the purpose. It is an idea
which might be discussed and refined by the new Board.
As a separate matter, a topical matter, we are called upon to respond once again to recent acts of
terrorism, and the Board supports a declaration, listed as Resolution (d) by the Russian delegates,
affirming PEN’s values and calling on civil powers to work at increasing mutual cultural
understanding. Thus cutting at the root of terrorism, intolerance and fear.
The role of the Board is one that we are very conscious of continually forming as we work. I’ll attempt
to describe it: we make and oversee policy, we deal with some troubles internal to PEN and some
external challenges to its values, we prepare the work of the Assembly. We do our best from our
position sitting with Committee Chair persons to encourage new directions in PEN’s work, greater
coverage of the world, increased effectiveness. It might be emphasised I think that resolutions which
are placed on the Agenda of the Board for advice and are then recommended to the Assembly, do not
thereby achieve decisive authority – they are submitted to the Assembly, PEN’s decision-making
body, and the weight of that recommendation must depend on your opinion of the Board’s work and
experience.
Recurring to my headings of partnership and responsiveness, PEN could not work without its sponsors.
I hope my list is not incomplete. Within the year 2003 the Mellon grant, the Sulzberger grant supplied
generous monies to PEN. The Swedish International Development Agency is another of our great
benefactors. The David T. K. Wong Prize is paid for by a restricted access fund, a donation. And of
course you’ll find when you search among the financial papers that the Norwegian PEN Centre itself
in a donation to the Solidarity Fund, the donors to the Emergency Fund, these are all givers who have
placed us and our cause in their debt.
I want to say something about our International Secretary. Terry will be leaving us after this Congress.
It is a momentous change for the Board and for all of us. Terry’s hand has had a major role in shaping
and empowering the Committees and the Board, now in better contact than ever before with one
another. He has at all times directed International PEN, both by way of activation and restraint,
towards the principles of the PEN Charter, and the provisions of the Regulations and Rules, which
together make up its constitution. And he has been tireless in his thoughtful reviewing of and his
fostering of our relations with UNESCO, in instituting the search for high-level partners in our work
and networking, in visiting Centres to help them deal with problems, to encourage their development
or to celebrate their achievement. All these, a constant source of reports to the Board and the
Assembly.
Terry came to the position of International Secretary at a time when there was a tide flowing strongly
towards renewal in PEN; towards a more democratic interpretation of the executive’s relationship with
members. From looking perhaps at times a little like a one-man band, it has developed many voices of
advocacy and discussion, many hands to the pump or even the ropes. No doubt I am being influenced
here by the two coastguard vessels sitting at the quay outside the windows. [Laughter] Terry’s has
been the hand on the helm, and his a most notable contribution at a crucial time for International PEN.
On behalf of the Board, I congratulate Terry on his tenure and most heartily look forward to his
contribution and his company at future Congresses. [Prolonged applause] If it were a less formal place
I would then invite everybody to a universal drink-up in his honour.
Finally, thanks to Norwegian PEN, in recent years we have owed them their example. For instance
they have received writers in exile, to whom the Australian Immigration Minister has denied the
asylum which Australia should offer according to our undertakings under the United Nations Charter.
They have also offered us an exemplary Congress, pushing forward the agenda of PEN while
entertaining and informing us to the highest standards. I do want to thank our friend Chell Olay and
his whole Centre, and with that I end my report.’ [Prolonged applause]
21

Kjell Olaf Jensen (Norwegian Centre) thanked the Assembly for its warm applause, which should be
for the whole staff of the Norwegian Centre, and thanked Judith Rodriguez for her mispronunciation of
his name – Chell Olay was highly appropriate, they were two people, more than two people.
[Laughter] He added that he proposed that the title International Secretary be changed for the future to
‘International Secreterry’ [laughter], in French’ Secreterry International’. [Applause]
Jirí Gruša (International President) thanked Judith Rodriguez for her report and, there being no
further comments, proposed that it be recorded for the Minutes. [Applause]
12. International Treasurer’s Report
Jirí Gruša (International President) said that unfortunately the International Treasurer had had to
return home for family reasons. She had written her report, and he would ask Jane Spender to read it
to the Assembly.
Jane Spender then read the Report on behalf of Britta Junge Pedersen (International Treasurer):
‘Dear Delegates,
As you may know, although I was able to be here for the Board meeting on Sunday, September 5, for
personal reasons I am unable to attend the Assembly of Delegates. I very much regret that I am not
able to be here for the rest of this week, because the work of International PEN is of great importance
to me, and I hope to be able to continue to make an effective contribution.
The first thing I want to report is that International PEN's budget is balanced, and I am confident that it
will remain balanced at the end of the year. One great help to our financial health is that the payment
of dues has improved since we met at the Mexico Congress. As you know, we faced a financial crisis
after Mexico, and we had to send out urgent requests for all centres to pay their dues up to date. Many
Centres responded to this call, for which I thank them.
I propose that the International PEN Office send out invoices every November or December to each
Centre, to help them calculate the amount of dues to be paid in the following year. The fluctuation of
currencies, in particular the fall in the value of the US dollar, which has traditionally been the currency
in which the dues have been fixed, means that in the future, we shall have to set the amount of dues to
be paid annually in 3 currencies: US dollar, Euro and Pound Sterling to avoid the negative effects of a
weak currency. I look forward to your positive response to this.
You have among your Congress papers [Annex 2] an account of the dues paid until August 31, 2004,
and you will see that the total reached, of some $64,000, is less than half the amount which is due for
this year, with many dues unpaid still from 2003. As you will realise, it is impossible for the
Secretariat to function efficiently without adequate funding, so I ask again that Centres make every
effort to keep their international dues payments up to date. If you have any queries concerning
individual Centre's payment of dues, please address them to Kathy Barazetti.
The level of expenditure for 2004, is much the same as in 2003, but there will be no question of any
staff expansion, however badly needed, without the receipt of increased income through fundraising
initiatives.
The awareness in Mexico of our precarious financial situation led to frank and open discussions
between the Board, the Secretariat, and the Writers in Prison Committee over finances. These
discussions fostered better understanding and communication between the various parts of
International PEN, and the confirmation by all parties that we are all working toward the same goals.
22

I am aware that there have been concerns about the use of unrestricted Writers in Prison Funds by
International PEN when money that was owed to PEN had yet to come in from outside funders. This
occurred at the end of 2003, and is in fact quite normal for an organization such as ours. In the past,
when the Writers in Prison Committee's funds have been low pending receipt of expected grants, they
have drawn on unrestricted International PEN funds in order to maintain their activities. As was
always the case in the past, the accounts are again fully reconciled to the satisfaction of our auditors. If
any delegate or centre has concerns regarding the finances of International PEN, they should approach
me, Kathy Barazetti, the Secretariat, or any Officer or member of the Board. These concerns will then
be dealt with, promptly and comprehensively. Also, all financial statements are available for you to
read.
It may help if I explain the distinction between Audited accounts and Budgets.
The Audited Accounts that I have presented to the Assembly are the accounts pertaining to the year
January to December 2003. They have been audited according to UK regulations, as accurately
representing the financial situation during that period. You are invited to comment upon them, and will
then be asked to approve them. The President and International Secretary will then sign the accounts.
These procedures will be recorded in the minutes. The Board has already approved the accounts for
2003, and recommends to the Assembly that they are accepted.
Budgets are financial projections for the future which are meant to give guidelines about where we are
heading. We are now working on new system for reporting the current financial situation, and we hope
by the time of the Bled Congress, to be able to include budgets in the financial report. The Board are in
possession of current budgets and financial reports, which are continuously under development,
according to requirements. Should you be interested, you are welcome to examine them.
I thank Kathy Barazetti, for her efficiency and cooperation during the previous year. Furthermore, I
thank the Board for its constructive support to my role as Treasurer. I also wish to express my
appreciation to the officers and members of Norwegian PEN, who have enabled us to bring delegates
to the Congress from the developing world to this beautiful city of Tromso. For this purpose they made
a contribution of £25,000 to the Solidarity Fund. Furthermore we have also been fortunate enough to
secure further funding from SIDA, for 3 years, to enable us to continue our programme of
development of centres in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America.
In conclusion, and to my delight, I congratulate Norwegian PEN on their ingenuity in managing,
however coincidentally, for the beginning of Congress to coincide with Archbishop Tutu's visit to
Tromsø, giving the Board the wonderful experience of hearing him preach at the Cathedral last
Sunday.
Once again, I thank those Centres that have made great efforts to pay their International dues in good
time, allowing the Secretariat and Officers to carry out their work on behalf of International PEN.
Keep it up.’ [Applause]
Giorgio Silfer (Esperanto Centre) said he had one question regarding the financial documents that
had been presented. On the first page the entry for ‘Dues from Centres 2002’ amounted to about
£90,000, and the entry for 2003 amounted to about £97,000. But in the final resumé of dues, which
was in dollars, the opposite appeared to be the case: there was $126,000 in 2003 and $139,000 in 2002.
Could someone explain this contradiction?
Kathy Barazetti (International Treasurer’s Assistant) said that the totals figure on the first page
included income from both the Writers in Prison Committee and UNESCO as well as from
International PEN – it was a composite figure; whereas the dues totals in the final resumé related to
23

International PEN only. Different elements were involved in the two sets of figures, so they were not
comparable.
Sylvestre Clancier (French Centre) said that on the first page, it appeared that in 2003 International
PEN had received £83,180 from Centres and the Writers in Prison Committee only £13,942, a small
amount. In Ohrid in 2002 the Assembly had voted to end direct payment of membership dues to the
WiPC, and he believed that this might have been harmful to the WiPC: previously $12 per member
had been paid to International PEN and $3 [$2] per member to the WiPC, i.e., the equivalent of a
quarter of the PEN dues. Now it seemed that only £13,000 had gone to the WiPC, which was not
equivalent to a quarter of what had been paid to PEN. He believed it was important that the Writers in
Prison Committee should receive more resources from the Centres.
Kathy Barazetti said that in 2003 contributions to the WiPC were paid on a voluntary basis, and were
additional to the international dues for PEN. Centres were also welcome to make further additional
contributions to the WiPC. The accounts showed that a large proportion of the WiPC income came
from grants for the various projects they undertook. It was expected that during 2004 and thereafter
contributions to the Committee from Centres would increase, but until the new system was fully
operational and the end-of-year figures were available there was no way of knowing exactly how the
level of income would be affected.
There being no further comments, Jirí Gruša proposed that the International Treasurer’s Report be
approved. [Applause] He and the International Secretary then signed the accounts.
13. International Secretary’s Report
Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) made the following report:
‘Dear President, dear Vice-Presidents, very dear members of the Board, dear Delegates, My final
report after these six years of service with International PEN now lies before you [Annex 3]. I will not
be reading it but would like to present a brief summary of conclusions instead.
International PEN has been an organisation developing and modernising with the times these past
years. Structures have been revisited and created, supported by paragraphs that provide stability and
fairness.
We have a Board which represents the Assembly through elections that have given us representation
and individual quality. We have well-defined standing Committees, and we have as a working paper a
strategic plan which tells the world who we are, where we stand and where we want to go. All
together, this strenuous process that will continue this session too, provides us with a structure of
modernity, in order to face the global challenges of today and tomorrow.
International PEN has never been financially strong, although the message is very clear: if the Centre
does not hold, then all will fall apart. And should the Secretariat in London fail, then International PEN
as we know it would actually cease to exist. Even the name and logo would disappear because they are
tied to a corporate identity. But in the face of rising ambitions and rising expectations, I also look back
at six years of consolidation. The Assembly itself has provided the clear-sightedness, courage and
determination necessary for reconstruction and development. The Secretariat, under the firm
management of Jane Spender, has serviced us far beyond the call of duty, I can tell you the
International Secretary, even now as executive member of the Board, plays but a limited role in the
overall picture. But one I will admit which is incredibly interesting and rewarding.
My travels have taken me across the globe, mostly at invitation of individual Centres. All has
continuously been reported to the President and the Board. And each single visit to individual Centres
provides the International Secretary, to the best of feeble ability, invaluable experiences of being
24

invited representative, trouble-shooter, problem-solver, encourager, enabler, but most important of all,
the opportunity of being one who is called on to continuously remind us about our collective aims,
intentions and Charter values.
PEN can only thrive through its Centres. To accomplish our mission and our future we need both
quality and numbers, and please, pay close attention to active recruitment. The guidelines are clear and
simple, individual commitment to promoting literature, defending freedom to write. Recruitment lies
within each Centre. If you claim that PEN is the place for great writers, then it is up to you to make it
worthwhile to join PEN and you must say, no, we are not an academy, our greatness lies elsewhere.
We are the oldest international writers’ association in the world, with greatest prestige, just because we
are different.
PEN was never formed to be or behave like an academy. An academy has an ivory tower of isolated,
self-satisfied esteem. Nor for the cause of linguistic purity, nor for petty nationalism, PEN was formed
to spread the idea of an international writers community, bound together by the respect for the creative
individual. By being writers, by writers, for writers. A space free from nationalism, but where identity
could be discussed at the same time as solidarity. National pride? maybe. But at somebody else’s
expense, never. Let us keep it that way. Let us never forget the accumulated good common sense
embodied in our organisation, nor the strength in the collective memory of who we are and what we
stand for. PEN remains proud of its name, its outreach, and its integrity.
Our greatest strength is ultimately our capacity for empathy, compassion and solidarity. Ours is not the
solidarity of the collective herd, it is the solidarity of the concerned and caring individual, a solidarity
with a fragile world and fragile civilisations. And the solidarity that sometimes can provide comfort in
the rather lonely process of creative writing. I rest convinced that International PEN has a future to
make us all proud of both membership and achievements. I have been proud to serve.’ [Applause]
Jirí Gruša (International President) warmly thanked Terry Carlbom for his report.
14. Report of the PEN Emergency Fund
Rudolf Geel (Chair of the PEN Emergency Fund) introduced himself to those that did not know him
as a novelist from the Netherlands and a member of the Netherlands PEN Centre. He had succeeded
Henk Bernlef as Chairman of the PEN Emergency Fund on 1 st January 2003.
Both he and Henk Bernlef had begun to work with International PEN in 1987, Henk Bernlef as
successor to A. den Doolard, the famous International Vice President and one of the founders of the
Emergency Fund, and he himself as Secretary of the Netherlands Centre. He had been elected
President of the Netherlands Centre a few years later, and he and Henk Bernlef had attended many
PEN Congresses and conferences. After ten years he had left the Board of the Centre, and when Henk
Bernlef had announced that he wanted to retire after fifteen years as Chairman of the Fund, he had
offered to replace him, and had been elected Chair by the Fund’s Board. He worked closely with Jan
Honout, the Fund’s Treasurer who had much experience in the field - many people would remember
him as International Treasurer and as Treasurer of the Netherlands Centre.
He had attended the Writers in Prison Committee conference in Barcelona in May and had introduced
himself and the PEN Emergency Fund to the participants, all of whom knew the various problems
faced by writers in distress. But to his astonishment, most had appeared to have forgotten the
existence of the Fund despite the important role it had played in PEN since its beginnings in the 1970s.
He was therefore glad to introduce the Fund to the newer delegates, and to refresh the memories of
those who were more familiar with its work.
It was important for him to emphasise that the PEN Emergency Fund worked in permanent cooperation
with the WiPC. The Fund helped writers and journalists in distress in material ways,
25

providing them with money to help them overcome problems arising as a result of something they had
written. Many of these writers first approached the WiPC; when the staff in London had a case for
support they contacted the Fund; and together they decided how much could or should be given.
It would be clear from the Emergency Fund’s annual report [Annex 4] that the Fund was not rich. It
therefore could not take on clients – normally it could only help people once, or occasionally twice,
but that was all. Nevertheless, the report showed that the Fund helped many writers, and he dared to
say that it was functioning well. They worked closely with the WiPC staff and the other staff in the
Secretariat and wanted to maintain that co-operation. But despite being satisfied with the Fund’s
activities, they had some worries.
When the PEN Emergency Fund began it was truly a fund belonging to International PEN: Centres
from all over the world provided in great solidarity the money necessary to help writers. Delegates
would see from the 2003 report – which was little different to other reports in recent years – that more
than 90 per cent of the Fund’s income now came from sources in the Netherlands. The largest
donation was provided by Novib Oxfam, a Dutch organisation for development and foreign aid, which
also gave money to the WiPC. Finding Novib was one of the wonderful things done by Henk Bernlef
for the Fund. Each year another two Dutch organisations between them gave more than Euro 10,000.
They felt great gratitude. But the three organisations might stop their contributions. The contract with
Novib ran for another year, and then would have to be renewed. He hoped this would happen, but
could not be sure that it would – and since Novib each year gave euro 25,000 to the Fund and euro
25,000 to the WiPC, they would miss it greatly. This was his concern: the important task of raising
more money, and that was why he was in Tromsø.
In 2003 the Emergency Fund received only Euro 5,000 from PEN Centres, most of it from the
Japanese Centre and the Netherlands Centre. They were very grateful for it. In 2004 it would be a
little better, because when he had begged for money at the Barcelona conference, the German and
Suisse Romand Centres had made donations. But where were the others? Those Centres that had
supported the Fund in the past, and the large Centres? Why had they stopped sending contributions?
Some of them of course had their own projects in support of distressed writers, but the Emergency
Fund was an official PEN fund to give fast help to writers all over the world.
A simple system for raising money for the Fund was employed by the Netherlands Centre, which he
hoped other Centres would use. When the Centre sent out requests to its members for their annual
membership fees, a blank cheque made payable to the Emergency Fund was enclosed; and most
members of the Dutch Centre filled in about Euro 5 or 10 on the cheque. In that easy, quick way the
Dutch Centre collected Euro 2,000 a year for the Fund. All Centres were poor, but in this way it was
individual members that contributed to the Fund and not the Centre, and that was important.
He would conclude by repeating his central points: it was important for PEN Centres to know that the
PEN Emergency Fund was still an important part of PEN, the Board of the Fund was happy with its
co-operation with PEN, particularly with the WiPC, and the Fund functioned well. But the future, like
all futures, was uncertain, and they did not want to have to offer that uncertainty to the writers and
journalists who sought their help. He therefore urged delegates to talk to their Boards about the
financial circumstances of the Emergency Fund – their support would enable the Fund to continue its
work. [Applause]
Jirí Gruša (International President) thanked Rudolf Geel for his contribution, and then closed the
session.
Second session, Friday, 10 th September, morning
26

Jirí Gruša (International President) said that before moving to the Amending Resolutions on the
Regulations, the Administrative Director had some important announcements.
Jane Spender (Administrative Director) said she had been asked by Gueorgui Konstantinov, the
President of the Bulgarian Centre, to mention his Centre’s appeal on behalf of the five Bulgarian
nurses who were under sentence of death in Libya. If anyone who had not yet done so would like to
sign it as an individual person, they should find him.
She had also been asked to inform the Assembly of an error in the list of international dues paid in
2003, which delegates had among their financial papers. The Trieste Centre was listed as ‘Italy
(Trieste)’, and this was in fact a mistake: the Trieste PEN Centre should appear simply as ‘Trieste’,
since it was a separate PEN Centre and did not represent Italy in any way. This would be corrected
back in London.
15. Amending Resolutions to the Regulations
(a)
Amending Resolution on Article 31 of the Regulations of International PEN, submitted by
the Cuban Writers in Exile, Danish, Guadalajaran, Mexican, Nicaraguan, Panamanian,
Paraguayan, Salta, San Miguel, Spanish and Venezuelan Centres
‘The Assembly of Delegates of International PEN, meeting at its 70 th Congress in Tromsø, Norway, 6 th
– 12 th September 2004,
Considering the stipulations of Rule 19 (b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly of
Delegates of International PEN:
“At all meetings of the Assembly of Delegates the Host Centre shall arrange for
simultaneous interpretation in the working languages.”
And calling to mind Article 31 (a) of the Regulations of International PEN, which states under
“Languages”:
“French, English and Spanish shall be the working languages of International PEN.
However, concerning Spanish, its use as a working language shall be contingent upon
appropriate funds being available.”
While understanding the situation which prevailed in 1997 which let to the acceptance of this
compromise;
Remembering that the Latin American PEN Foundation, which is today the Iberian American
PEN Foundation, has since then paid for Spanish interpretation in all the international
congresses and some regional meetings of this organization;
Interpreting the wording of Article 31 (a) in the light of the Universal Declaration of
Linguistic Rights, of which International PEN is one of the principal architects and to which it
is a signatory, which prohibits discrimination against any language for economic reasons;
Considering that it is essential that in all World Congresses, Rule 19 (b) be observed, as
demanded by the Rules of Procedure approved in Helsinki in 1997;
Proposes that the final sentence of Article 31 (a) be deleted, so that the clause reads as follows:
“French, English and Spanish shall be the working languages of International PEN.”’
27

(b) Amending Resolution to Article 31 of the Regulations of International PEN, submitted
by the French and Italian Centres
‘The Assembly of Delegates of International PEN, meeting at its 70 th Congress in Tromsø, Norway, 6 th
– 12 th September 2004,
Considering that it is very important for all Latin Centres to receive correspondence and
reports in Spanish;
Also bearing in mind that Spanish interpretation during meetings is very important for all
Latin American and European Centres to permit the better understanding of the discussions and
to establish a bridge between Europe and Latin America;
Decides to amend Article 31(a) of the Regulations of International PEN as follows:
Delete: “However, concerning Spanish, its use as a working language shall be contingent upon
appropriate funds being made available.”
And replace with: “The appropriate funds for the translations of these languages are a priority
of International PEN.”
Further decides to establish a Committee or Working Group for Romance-language Centres,
whose remit will be:
1. to provide support to Romance-language Centres that otherwise would be unable to
carry out their activities;
2. to assist contact and communication between Latin America, Europe and the
International Secretariat.”
Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) informed the Assembly that both Amending Resolutions
had been properly processed according to the Regulations and Rules. As no formal comments had
been received in the Secretariat, he suggested that the President invite the representing Centre to speak
on Resolution (a).
Gloria Guardia (Panamanian Centre) informed the delegates that the Resolution had been put
before the Board, and that the majority of the Board members had accepted it with two modifications.
First, that paragraph 5, which began with the words “Interpreting the wording of Article 31 (a) in the
light of the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights’ – should be deleted. And, second, that the final
paragraph should be amended to read:
‘Proposes that the final sentence of Article 31 (a) be deleted, so that the clause reads as
follows:
“French, English and Spanish are the working languages of International PEN. The
interpreting and translation of its working languages are a priority of International
PEN.”’
Kjell Olaf Jensen (Norwegian Centre) said that he had been frightened by the original version, and
that the change suggested by the Board had been a sensible compromise. If an Amending Resolution
requiring a host Centre to provide simultaneous interpretation in English, French and Spanish had been
passed in Mexico in 2003, the Norwegian Centre’s reaction would have been to cancel the Congress
because they could not have afforded it. This had something to do with high prices in Norway, but he
thought that to be obliged to provide simultaneous interpretation between three languages would be too
burdensome for any host Centre. His Centre had dropped Norwegian as an official language for that
very reason. He was sympathetic towards all arguments stating that Spanish, and a number of other
28

languages, should be a priority to International PEN – but he would like to have that phrase defined. If
it meant that International PEN would have to pay for simultaneous interpretation, the burden would
be so heavy that it might in an extreme case approach financial suicide, the last thing any PEN member
wanted. Everyone should be very careful in their understanding of these rather vague terms.
Gloria Guardia said that actually the interpretation was not that expensive. As delegates knew, the
Iberian American Foundation had paid for interpretation for several years, and it had generally cost
about $2,500, although once it had been more expensive at about $5,000. There was a myth that the
cost lay between $10,000 and $20,000 a time, but this was not the case. It was not expensive.
Giorgio Silfer (Esperanto Centre) said that his Centre would like to vote in favour of the Resolution
as amended. The amendment provided a restriction: currently, if Spanish interpretation was financed
by a foundation, it was available; but what would happen tomorrow if the Resolution were approved
by the Assembly? There would be no obligation, only a priority. The wording could be interpreted to
say that PEN would use all three languages if possible, but if it were not possible, then PEN would use
them in the order in which they were given: if only two languages could be paid for, then it would be
French and English; and if only one, then French. This enabled his Centre to vote in favour. But he
would add that Article 31 of the Regulations was quite primitive, and the Assembly should discuss the
general subject of language, in order to establish which language had legal status – for instance, it was
not stated in the Regulations which language should the Minutes be written in: it was shameful given
that PEN had initiated the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights and yet now had a Resolution
which restricted language use.
Jane Spender (Administrative Director) wanted to clarify one thing for the discussion. It was
important to note that the discussion was not just about interpretation: the revised final paragraph
spoke of translation as well. At present the Secretariat translated all the formal documents and
communications into French, which was expensive. If Spanish were to be used as a working language,
the cost of translation as well as interpretation should be taken into account: maintaining the linguistic
connection with Spanish-speaking Centres throughout the year would be necessary and would add to
the costs.
Emanuele Bettini (Italian Centre) said that his own Centre and the French Centre had submitted an
Amending Resolution, Resolution (b). He was speaking for both Centres in informing the Assembly
that they totally supported Gloria Guardia’s resolution and would withdraw their own. And in the
name of his own Centre, he wanted to say that he agreed with what Giorgio Silfer had said.
Terry Carlbom reminded the delegates that the administrative rules stated that only two speakers
might speak in favour of a resolution while anyone against might speak. He would therefore open the
discussion to anyone opposed to Resolution (a), and suggest that Gloria Guardia should finalise the
debate.
Gloria Guardia requested that since she had presented the Resolution a Board member should
conclude the debate, and she suggested Cecilia Balcazar, who was from the Spanish-speaking world.
Judith Rodriguez (Melbourne Centre, Board Deputy Chair) said that the Board supported
Resolution (a), with the exception of the International Secretary, whose dissenting vote had been
minuted. The movers of the Resolution had been asked to reword it and had done so. Spanish already
had the status of a working language, voted by the Assembly in 1998. Although there appeared to be a
hiatus in the provision of Spanish interpretation, the German Centre was committed to providing it at
the Berlin Congress. It was clear that the problem was a matter of ways and means, and it should be
noted that the Resolution did not, as some had implied, imperil PEN’s finances. A priority – and PEN
had several strong ones – was not necessarily the first priority, and, while they sought equal treatment,
this had been acknowledged by the proposers of the Resolution.
29

Terry Carlbom said that the word ‘priority’ was a bit troublesome: it was political and subject to
circumstance. The Board had for two years now defined its priorities, the first of which was to
increase the number of staff in the Secretariat, and now PEN was suddenly moving to another topic
and making it a priority – where did it fit in? He also found Giorgio Silfer’s intervention very
relevant: did the priority lie in the order in which the languages were listed? And who would decide
this and when? It might be that at a particular moment the majority of the Board would decide that the
priorities should be Spanish and English, and leave out French. To provide translation and
interpretation for all three languages would be costly. He would suggest that the Assembly pause on
this decision to provide the opportunity of better analysis of the language question, perhaps through the
Translation and Linguistic Rights Committee, in order to reach a solution that would be fair to all. He
would also note that a discussion on the use of Arabic might arise at the next Assembly.
Jirí Gruša (International President) pointed out that PEN was already under an obligation to use
Spanish as a working language, and to postpone it for further discussion was not to him a proper way
to handle the matter. [Applause] He proposed to move to the recorded vote.
At this point the Assembly was reminded that Centres that had not paid their international dues for
2003 would not be able to participate in any of the votes.
The Recorded Vote on Resolution (a), Amending Resolution on Article 31 of the Regulations of
International PEN, was then taken, and the Resolution was passed with 54 in favour, 3 against and 15
abstentions. [Applause]
16. Amending Resolution on the Rules of Procedure
(c)
Amending Resolution on the Rules of Procedure, submitted by the Board
‘The Assembly of Delegates of International PEN, meeting at its 70 th Congress in Tromsø, Norway, 6 th
– 12 th September 2004,
Recalling the decision of the Assembly of Delegates, meeting at the 69 th World Congress of
International PEN in Mexico City, to request the Board to revise the Rules of Procedure in
accordance with the agreed amendments to the Regulations;
Noting Article 14 (b) of the Regulations, which reads:
‘The Rules of Procedure shall be adopted and may be amended by the Assembly of Delegates.
Any such amendment shall be submitted as a regular resolution in accordance with Rule 7 of
the rules of Procedure [pertaining to the requirements for submitting and voting on Regular
Resolutions]’;
Further noting Rule 23 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, which reads:
‘In case of any discrepancy between the Regulations and the Rules of Procedure, the
Regulations shall be followed’:
Decides to adopt the revised Rules of Procedure as presented here.’
Jirí Gruša (International President) invited Eric Lax to present Resolution (c) on behalf of the
Board.
Eric Lax (USA West Centre, Board member) reminded delegates that they had two versions of the
Rules of Procedure in their folders: the current version, and a version containing the changes proposed
30

y the Amending Resolution [Annex 5]. He would take the Assembly through the changes, explaining
the rationale in each case as he did so.
Rule 4, Rights and Duties of the Chairperson. The proposed change was the deletion of clause (a) (v).
The reason for this was twofold: first, this sub-clause contained the phrase ‘as provided in Rule 5 (h)’,
when in fact there was no Rule 5 (h); and second, Article 13 of the Regulations provided for the
Assembly of Delegates itself to declare meetings private, by a two-thirds vote, so this sub-clause was
redundant.
Rule 7, Resolutions and Recommendations. In the current version of the Rules, the heading was
‘Resolutions and Amendments’, where it should have read ‘Resolutions and Recommendations’.
Recommendations were in effect resolutions that were addressed internally to PEN itself, so this was
simply copy-editing. Clause (a) had been expanded with new wording to list the categories of
resolution/recommendation for clarity, but the categories themselves had not changed.
Giorgio Silfer (Esperanto Centre) said that he wanted to thank the colleagues who had done such
hard and scrupulous work on the Rules. His main comment was that the most notable change to the
Rules was to increase the responsibility of the position of Administrative Director for several
important aspects in the life of the Assembly and the democratic administration of PEN. Throughout
the revised version the words ‘Administrative Director’ replaced ‘International Secretary’. If the
International Secretary made a mistake in the administration of PEN, the Assembly could vote him out
of office; but what could the Assembly do if the Administrative Director made a mistake? Would s/he
lose his/her job?
Eric Lax said that the explanation for this change throughout the Rules had to do with the concept of
mail, both mail coming in to and mail going out of the Secretariat, and was a question of office
management. When members wrote to the Secretariat, they addressed their mail as such; but when
mailings were sent out from the Secretariat they were sent out by the Administrative Director, the
person who had always done this work. Any mail specifically for the International Secretary would be
responded to by him/her; the change did not take anything away from the International Secretary. It
was meant to do no more than acknowledge who handled the mailings. Delegates would notice that
throughout the Rules, when mail was being sent to London it should be addressed to the Secretariat,
and when it was sent out from London it was sent by the Administrative Director. He would note
these changes each time they occurred.
Returning to Rule 7, precisely this change was included in clause (a) (ii). In addition, a reference to
Article 10 (b) of the Regulations had been inserted – this had inadvertently been omitted in the 1998
amendments. In clause (a) (iii) the word ‘Recommendations’ had been inserted twice, to correspond to
Rule 7’s heading. Also in clause (a) (iii), the word ‘proposers’ was replacing ‘Administrative
Director’, so that the circulation of in-session resolutions/recommendations was no longer the
responsibility of the Administrative Director.
Rule 9, Voting Procedure. Clause (d) had been amended to include the following sentence: ‘Where a
clear majority vote by a show of hands is established, the Chair may declare a proposal as accepted or
rejected with such a show, unless a count is requested by a delegate.’ This had been included to save
time in voting, but he wanted to stress that it only took one delegate to request a count. There was also
a small copy-editing change in clause (f), where ‘by’ had been replaced by ‘of’. The changes to clause
(j) were two-fold: the word ‘recommendation’ had been inserted; and a new sentence added, ‘votes of
abstention shall not be counted’. This was to make the position of abstentions clear – but with
permission he suggested a further change so that the sentence would read, ‘Votes of abstention shall
not be counted among the total votes cast.’
Kristin Schnider (Swiss-German Centre) said that she had a problem with votes of abstention not
being counted. She believed that an abstention was an expression of opinion which should be taken
31

into account – it implied that voters felt that the point at issue was not clearly the right or wrong way to
go but should be re-examined. Furthermore, if abstentions were not counted there was a real danger
that if a majority of voters abstained, a decision would be taken by a minority of voters.
Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) said that in parliaments throughout the world the common
procedure was to make up one’s mind – an abstention vote was in principle so confusing that it was
not included in the count. So a two-thirds majority was always of votes cast for or against. He felt
that was the simplest rule and made things clear, and it also put the onus on those looking for an easy
way out of making a decision.
Giorgio Silfer said there were four ways to position oneself on a vote. One could vote in favour, one
could vote against, one could abstain and one could leave the room so that one’s vote could not be
included in the count – in so doing one would thereby reduce the number of votes required for a
majority. Non-participation was clearly important in this respect, and enabled a minority to annoy the
majority. The amendment to Rule 9 (j) had created a kind of identification between abstention and
non-participation, and in his view this was an anomaly. Technically, the proposed amendment was
simply an explanation of the current procedure, but he personally believed that to identify abstention
with non-participation was highly debatable. PEN was now faced with two points of view – one
seeing abstention as a vote against and one seeing it as non-participation in the vote. The important
point to note was that if abstention was to be considered as non-participation in the vote, it would have
a real effect on the level of the two-thirds majority.
Johano Strasser (German Centre) agreed with Giorgio Silfer. No resolution should be passed if the
majority of delegates felt that they needed more information, that the resolution was not ready for
discussion – and these delegates would express their view by abstaining. If abstentions were not
included in the count, decisions would be taken on the basis of a minority opinion and not according to
the views of the majority of those taking part in the vote.
Terry Carlbom reminded the Assembly that this discussion had arisen at previous Congresses
precisely because no decision on abstention votes had ever been made. It was an interesting
discussion, but took time; and those working on the Rules had felt that it was necessary to finally come
to a decision once and for all. The only way to be absolutely clear was to establish that abstentions
were not included in the count.
Kata Kulavkova (Macedonian Centre, Chair, Translation and Linguistic Rights Committee) said
that as she had been absent from the Mexico Congress, she had not given much thought to what had
taken place in the Assembly there concerning such matters. But she wanted to make the point that she
thought that recorded votes took up precious time and put delegates in an uncomfortable situation. On
the current discussion, in her view and she thought the view of many delegates, it was unimaginable
that abstentions were not counted. To abstain was to take a position which should be counted among
the non-positive votes. Only those who did not participate at all or were absent from the room would
not included in the count.
Kjell Olaf Jensen (Norwegian Centre) said he did not understand why the discussion was taking
place. What was proposed was not a change but a clarification of an existing Rule and did not require
such a discussion.
Eric Lax said in response to Kata Kulavkova that abstentions were recorded in the minutes, so they
were not ignored.
Manuchehr Sabetian (Iranian Writers in Exile Centre) said that, following the Swiss-German
delegate’s point, if the abstentions amounted to two-thirds of the votes cast how could that be
explained? To take the current situation to its logical conclusion, if only positive and negative votes
32

were counted and abstentions ignored, there should be no abstentions. If an abstention had no effect it
had no logic and should be dispensed with altogether.
Eric Lax said he thought that abstentions had had meaning in every vote he could recall. He hoped
that in the Assembly, or any body that relied largely on consensus, if a majority of voters abstained no
one would want to proceed with the resolutions concerned.
Teresa Salema (Portuguese Centre) felt that flexibility was needed in such a complex matter. She
suggested including a sentence to the effect that if it was felt convenient for the purposes of a specific
resolution to take account of abstentions, this would be possible.
Terry Carlbom pointed out that the procedure regulating the Amending Resolution that had just been
voted on had been according to Rule 9 (j), which stated precisely that a ‘two-thirds majority shall mean
two-thirds of the total votes cast for or against a resolution’. It was already in the Rules that
abstentions should not be counted, and the only change was to clarify this by spelling it out.
Zeki Ergas (Suisse-Romand Centre) felt that he was participating in a kind of theatre of the absurd.
More seriously, he thought that too much time was being spent on the issue – there should be a timelimit,
in order to allow adequate time for discussion on other, serious, matters
Jukka Mallinen (Finnish Centre) believed that formal votes of abstention should not be counted. In
the Finnish parliament abstentions were used tactically and were not counted. To have any influence
people had to come to a decision for or against.
Reza Baraheni (Canadian Centre) thought that the proposed addition to Rule 9 (j) introduced a
contradiction: the Rule read ‘A two-thirds majority shall mean two-thirds of the total votes cast’, but
25 or 40 people might cast an abstention vote. He suggested that the wording should be changed to
read ‘two-thirds of the total votes cast by those present’. If delegates did not wish their votes to be
counted, they could perhaps leave the room. Otherwise the situation could arise of 30 people casting
abstention votes, and only 10 people voting in favour and 2 against so that the resolution was carried –
which would mean a complete rejection of the views of the actual majority. By adding the words ‘of
those present’ to the Rule 9 (j), the situation of giving a small minority the authority of a majority
would be avoided. [Applause]
Eric Lax said he took delegates’ comments very much to heart. He suggested that a further ten
minutes only be given to the discussion, and that then a vote should be taken on this particular matter.
Terry Carlbom said that Rule 9 (j) was quite specific in stating that a ‘two-thirds majority shall mean
two-thirds of the total votes cast for or against’. It could not be seen as meaning simply the total votes
cast: it meant votes cast ‘for or against’. This was clearly stated in the current Rules. Abstentions did
not count.
Chen Maiping (Independent Chinese Centre) said that in his view a rule was a rule even when it
was wrong – in this case he thought the Rule was wrong. But until it was changed it had to be
followed. [Applause]
Sibila Petlevski (Croatian Centre, International Board member) agreed wholly with the German,
Esperanto and Canadian Centres’ delegates. It could not be right that a resolution could be passed if a
majority of people had cast an abstaining vote.
Eric Lax said he would take one more speaker, and then suggested that a separate vote should be
taken on this particular matter, requiring a simple majority, rather than including it in with the rest of
the proposed amendments.
33

Vincent Malacor (Belgian French-speaking Centre) said that legislators all round the world were
confronted by the same problem, and it should be noted that the more specificities that were added to a
law the more equivocal it became and the more problems it caused. International PEN had existed for
years without the addition suggested by Eric Lax and had survived. He proposed that it should not be
added and that common sense should be used. If the abstentions were such that a resolution clearly did
not have majority support it would be noted – decisions would not be taken in really inappropriate
circumstances. And he was bothered by the notion of recommendation – to be made by whom? it was
not specified but needed to be. He proposed refusing the changes to this clause, since things had
worked perfectly well to date. [Applause]
Terry Carlbom proposed dropping the suggested addition concerning abstentions, but asked the
Assembly to vote on adding the words ‘or recommendation’ to the clause.
Eric Lax agreed with this, and reminded the Assembly that the concept of a recommendation had
already been accepted. He then moved to take a vote on it, but was reminded by Giorgio Silfer that if
only the words ‘a recommendation’ were under consideration, and the other suggested wording was
dropped, no separate vote was required. If wished, a Centre could submit an amendment to Rule 9 (j)
for the next Assembly.
This was accepted, and Eric Lax then suggested time limit of five minutes on any one point, and
continued to the next Rule change.
Rule 10, Postal Ballot, clause (a), and Rule 12, Election of the International President, clauses (a), (b)
and (c). The proposed changes to these clauses followed the previous amendments concerning the
mailings, that mail came in to the Secretariat and was sent out by the Administrative Director.
Rule 13, Election of Vice Presidents. The Note to Centres, printed in bold, underlined type, simply
explained the current situation regarding the Honours system. The recommendation to amend the
Honours system would come later on in the Agenda, so for the time being two changes were being
made to Rule 13. The changes in clauses (a) and (b) were in line with the other amendments
concerned with mail. The change to clause (c), to add the words ‘by secret ballot’, had been omitted
by mistake from the revised Rules of Procedure that were adopted in Helsinki in 1998; this was being
rectified in Tromsø – just in time to be of no use. ]Laughter]
Rule 14, Election of the International Treasurer, clauses (a), (b) and (c); Rule 15, Election of Members
at Large of the Board, clauses (a), (b) and (c); Rule 16, Election of the International Secretary, clauses
(a) and (b); Rule 17, Amendments to the PEN Charter and to the Regulations, clauses (a), (b) and (d)
(i) and (iii). In each case, the change was simply in keeping with the nomenclature of the mail – that it
is sent in to the Secretariat and sent out by the Administrative Director.
Rule 18, Documents of the Assembly of Delegates. In clause (a) there was a copy-editing correction
to include the specific part of Rule 2 to which this clause referred. Clause (c) once again followed the
nomenclature of the mail.
Rule 21, Services Provided by the Host Centre. The change in clause (a) (iii) was to correct the error
in the job title of Administrative Director.
Rule 22, Committees. Clause (a) (i) the words ‘or a special committee’ have been inserted. This was
to bring the Rules into line with the committees that were approved by the Assembly last year in
Mexico, the Committee on Searches and the Special Committee of Trustees.
Rule 23, Entry into Force and Amendments. The additional wording in clause (a) – ‘and may be
amended in accordance with’ – was meant to clarify already approved procedure, as was the final
34

sentence added to clause (b), ‘In case of any discrepancy between the working languages, the English
version shall be followed.’
Eric Lax went on to ask for questions on any items, excluding the matter of the two-thirds majority,
following which he would move to a vote by simple majority.
Giorgio Silfer declared that the Esperanto PEN Centre would vote against the Amending Resolution.
Manuchehr Sabetian asked who, given the changes regarding mail that had been introduced, would
carry administrative responsibility – the Board or the Administrative Director, who was hired by the
Board? Would it not be more appropriate that the Board should be named in the Rules of Procedure
since it was generally responsible for everything, and was responsible to the people that had elected it?
Perhaps he had misunderstood, but he would appreciate clarification.
Eric Lax said that there was no abdication of any responsibility by the Board, and the Administrative
Director was not authorised to do anything that was not requested. The simple fact was that
communications from the London office to the Centres were handled by the Administrative Director.
As in all other correspondence, this wording was simply saying who was responsible for sending the
information out. The Board took total responsibility for what it asked the Administrative Director to
do.
Sylvestre Clancier (French Centre) said that regarding Rule 23 (b), his Centre could not conceive
that there might be a discrepancy between the Regulations and the Rules of Procedure, just as there
could be no discrepancy between languages – any such would only be a matter of translation, and they
asked that clause (b) simply be deleted since it brought confusion not clarity. Furthermore, they did
not understand how one language could be more official than another among the working languages of
PEN. [Applause]
Terry Carlbom said that 23 (b) was simply to ensure that there was an accepted term of which
translations could be made, and that this was a functional aspect of how international organisations
must work. Delegates would remember the effort to find the correct translation for the English terms
‘Executive Committee’ and for ‘Board’, which were the terms first used for these bodies.
Kjell Olaf Jensen wholeheartedly supported the French Centre’s proposition. It was inconceivable
that there might be discrepancies between the different languages, that the working languages should
not be entirely equal. For 83 years any such difficulties had been resolved ad hoc, and although this
might create a few problems, any such problems were there to be resolved as they arose. [Applause]
Emanuele Bettini (Italian Centre) also requested the removal of 23 (b).
Jirí Gruša (International President) said that he proposed that the Assembly vote on the whole text,
with the exception of the changes to Rules 9 (j) and 23 (b) – if they were included in the vote the
whole debate would start all over again. Instead, they should be postponed for the Assembly to
discuss in Bled in 2005. [Applause]
Eric Lax then took the vote on the whole document, with the exception of Rules 9 (j) and 23 (b).
The Amending Resolution on the Rules of Procedure was then passed with none against and three
abstentions. [Laughter]
Coffee break
35

17. Report of the Writers for Peace Committee
Jirí Gruša (International President) asked the International Secretary to make a procedural proposal
to the Assembly.
Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) said that, to be orderly and to make progress, it was
suggested that each resolution to be considered should be have a proposing and a seconding Centre
only, rather than many Centres speaking in its support, and that comments would then be invited, with
the priority going to those people speaking against the resolution.
Veno Taufer (Slovene Centre, Writers for Peace Committee Chair) said that the Writers for Peace
Committee, which had 35 member Centres, had held three meetings – one in Bled in May and two
during the course of the Congress. At the meetings they had discussed the current situation of peace
and what the Committee, and writers in general, could do. To quote Eugene Schoulgin’s statement,
the world had become darker – very much darker, and it was terrible that it was so. They had talked
about how the Committee’s resolutions on Chechnya, on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and so on,
repeated year after year, Congress after Congress, had been ignored by the people to whom they were
addressed: the most powerful state concerned ignored both the opinion of writers and public opinion;
and the smaller states took their cue from that and reduced their standards of democratic and human
rights. Although sometimes resolutions did help, at least in some parts of the world and on behalf of
some people in great trouble or danger, they Committee wanted to do something more.
So they had decided to plan a series of regional conferences: a conference on the Middle East that
would enable the barely possible dialogue between the two parties concerned to become a poly-logue;
and a conference on the crisis in the Caucasus. The Committee could not itself organise or finance
such conferences, but it could and would serve as a co-ordinator between the Centres who would
propose and organise the meetings and other Centres who might be able to help. The conferences
would be expensive and would take much planning and time to realise, but a move to poly-logue might
bring forward and support a more successful dialogue.
Meanwhile, the Committee had accepted as its own the Resolution on Chechnya put forward by the
Russian Centre, which was Resolution (d) on the Agenda. In addition, the Committee fully supported
the statement, now being circulated, on the recent horrible terrorist action in Chechnya, which had
been written by Alexander Tkachenko and which was a strong comment on the resolution [Annex 6].
He urged the Assembly, in the name of the Writers for Peace Committee, to adopt the Resolution and
to accept the statement as a document of the Congress by signing it, in the same way that a letter put
forward in support of a Resolution by the Polish Centre in Moscow in 2000 had been adopted as a
document of that Congress.
The Report of the Writers for Peace Committee was adopted by acclamation.
(d)
Resolution on Chechnya, submitted by the Russian Centre
‘The Assembly of Delegates of International PEN, meeting at its 70 th Congress in
Tromsø, Norway, 6 th – 12 th September 2004,
Having discussed the Russian PEN Centre's information of the current situation in Chechnya,
States that despite the repeated statements of the Russian governing bodies on normalisation
and stabilisation of the situation in that region, no actual improvement is achieved, and the
undeclared war continues with the same intensity;
36

Concludes that the use of force with the purpose of coming out of the protracted political crisis
which has taken away the lives of thousands of people is still accompanied by violation of
human rights;
Points out that those guilty of the crimes against the civil population remain unpunished,
which leads to escalation of new crimes;
Further points out that the ample humanitarian aid rendered to Chechnya's population by
various international organisations, in the majority of cases does not reach the target
communities and gets instead into the hands of bureaucracy and corrupted people;
Insists on the strictest observance in Chechnya of the national and international laws by
representatives and bodies of government of any level and their making public any case of their
violation;
Calls on the Russian authorities to admit the international observers into Chechnya and
guarantee their free movement therein and maximum safety;
Urgently requests all the government and non-government organisations of the world to use
all the available means to exert influence on the Russian authorities with the aim of urging
them to observe the human rights and freedoms in Chechnya.’
Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) asked for a seconder to the Resolution, and the Melbourne
Centre said that it wished to second it.
There were no comments on the text of Resolution (d), but a discussion ensued on the wording of the
statement. Since only the Resolution was the concern of the Assembly as a body, Terry Carlbom
suggested that those involved should finalise the text and then re-circulate it for individual signatures.
The vote was then taken, and Resolution (d) was carried unanimously.
18. Report of the Writers in Prison Committee
Eugene Schoulgin (Chair, Writers in Prison Committee) began by inviting the Committee’s guest
of honour, a former prisoner now fortunately able to present at the Assembly, to briefly address the
delegates – he welcomed Grigory Pasko. [Applause]
Alexander Tkachenko (Russian Centre) said that, being a serious interpreter [laughter], he would act
as interpreter to Grigory Pasko.
Grigory Pasko said that although he had not been able to thank all those who had worked on his
behalf while he was in prison, he now would like to thank everyone again and again. In particular, he
wanted to thank the Norwegian Centre and Kjell Olaf Jensen, who had invited him to be a guest at the
Congress. Even if the Congress had been held at the North Pole he would have tried to attend in order
to express his gratitude. [Laughter] He was now working, as he had before, as a journalist; he was
editor-in-chief of the magazine Ecology and Rights, which was published in St Petersburg.
Unfortunately, he could not now say that Russia had become more democratic; but he would continue
the fight to make it so, supported by all his friends in the Assembly hall. Finally, if anyone needed his
support, he was experienced – please would everyone use him. [Laughter and applause]
Eugene Schoulgin thanked Grigory Pasko, and assured him that PEN would certainly use him in the
future – although he hoped it wouldn’t be necessary he knew that it would be. Turning to his report,
he did not intend to go into too much detail, since delegates could read the full text in the printed
report that had been distributed [Annex 7], but would give an overview starting with some sad figures
37

for 1 st January – 31 st June 2004. During that period there had been: 4 people killed; 8 investigation
cases of killings; 11 disappeared; 168 main cases; 72 investigation cases; 12 judicial cases; 173 people
sentenced or facing trial, but not detained; 40 non-custodial sentences; 38 death threats; 32 people
threatened in other ways; 6 kidnapped; 78 briefly detained; 79 attacked; 8 in hiding; and 16 deported
or expelled or fled. Of this total of 742 cases, there had been only 38 releases. However, turning to
another statistic, there had been 40 Rapid Actions (RANs) and 40 updates, concerning 63 people in 24
countries; and of these 54% had been released. [Applause]
The situation in the world had changed, but there were still countries going through their old routines
of long prison sentences – China, Cuba, Vietnam and Iran, for example. Elsewhere these routines had
changed into more threats, killings and short detentions. The reason was clear: writers were being
pressured into exercising self-censorship. Africa was one continent where this kind of treatment of
writers was common. Three countries stood out as the worst offenders: Eritrea, Ethiopia and
Zimbabwe. But many similar threats and attacks had occurred in many other countries – for example,
Gambia, Liberia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Angola, Kenya. And in francophone Africa, Algeria, Niger
and Morocco were of particular concern. He felt that in fact the Committee needed to keep a very
close eye on not all but almost all African countries
The same trend was observable in the Americas, many threats and killings – one was too many, and in
Mexico there had been four killings recently. In Asia there were the notorious countries such as
China; he did not like to include Tibet in China – it was a problem on its own and should be treated by
the Committee as a separate region, although for obvious reasons the problems in Tibet and China
were very alike. In Vietnam the situation had for some time been slightly improving, but he now had
to report that that trend had stopped and the situation had reverted to its old state, especially
concerning young writers: people using the internet were facing threats and prison terms. In Iran it had
appeared that matters were improving, but unfortunately this was not the case and the Committee had
been over-optimistic in thinking that the regime would change its attitude in a short space of time.
There was much work to be done on Iran: the number of threatened, beaten and imprisoned writers had
increased, among them the well-known poet and defence lawyer Nasser Zarafshan, who himself had
defended many writers. The authorities had put people to kill him in the same cell but fortunately his
fellow-prisoners had saved him; for the moment he was still alive, but his life was greatly threatened.
In the Middle East, there was war and civil war, and many killings and harassments, among both the
Palestinian and the Israeli populations; and in Iraq, where what was going on was clear to everyone,
and where there were severe effects on writers and journalists. He very much welcomed the Writers
for Peace Committee’s initiative to have special sessions on the situation in the Middle East. He was
also very happy that Faraj Birqdar, one of the Syrian writers that the Committee had been working to
defend for a long time, had been released. He had been severely tortured during his 18-year prison
sentence; but he was now out of prison, he had attended the Writers in Prison Committee conference in
Barcelona in May, and had also been for a few days present at the Congress. It would be very helpful
to talk to him about developing a PEN Centre in Syria, although care would have to be taken to make
contact with those who had dared to speak up and had maintained their independence, and not to fall
into the trap of working with writers who were in accordance with the government.
Turning to Russia and the former Soviet Republics, everyone was aware of the continuing situation in
Uzbekistan and the dreadful things that had been happening in Chechnya and Ingushetia. It was
essential to be aware of the situation for writers in the region, including in Kazakhstan; and it was
frightening how many journalists had disappeared and been killed in Russia itself.
The Committee had had a wonderful conference in Barcelona, with fantastic help from the Catalan
Centre and funding from Forum 2004. Some darker elements had intruded even on this, with some
delegates denied visas on very suspicious grounds, but the conference had been a huge success, and he
felt that the professionalism of the Committee was improving tremendously. He had always felt that
the key lay in networking, and Committee members were more and more in contact with each other
38

etween Congresses and conferences. The Committee now had 65 members: he wanted to welcome
all those Centres that had recently joined, the Ugandan, German-speaking Writers Abroad Centre,
Paraguayan, Bolivian, Sierra Leonean, Kurdish, Israeli and Slovak Centres; and two newly formed
Centres had also stated their wish to join, the Tibetan Writers Abroad and the Basque Centres.
[Applause]
In Mexico City the Committee had presented the Anti-Terror Report, concerning worrying changes to
the laws of 35 countries. This had been extremely well put together by Siobhan Dowd, with a preface
by Joan Smith, and the Catalan Centre had looked after the wonderful design and printing of a highly
successful publication. It was now a working paper for the Committee, and had been presented not
only in Mexico but in New York, Ottawa and Istanbul; and he had recently taken it to a conference in
Slovakia. It had aroused great interest, and the Committee was happy in the knowledge that there were
some who were not at all happy about it. [Laughter]
He now had great pleasure in welcoming his successor as Committee Chair, Karin Clark. He did not
have to say much about her, since everyone knew her: she was one of the most hard-working people in
PEN, she had achieved remarkable things in the German Centre and had had marvellous contact with
the Headquarters over the years. With her as Chair the Committee would be in the best of hands.
[Applause]
Karin Clark (German Centre) warmly thanked everyone for the support she had received before,
during and after the election. With the help of every Centre, of all who had signed the PEN Charter,
she felt sure she would be able to do some justice to the heavy responsibility and burden which was
now hers. But to follow what Eugene Schoulgin had offered, the time he had committed to the work,
the way in which he had fostered the visibility of the Committee, his ability to be there when help and
advice were needed, that would be hard. She was really happy to be a more integral part of the
London team, and was looking forward to a few good laughs as comic relief from the long hours of
sombre work. [Applause]
Eugene Schoulgin said that he had such confidence in Karin Clark that he had forgotten one very
small detail – that the Assembly had not confirmed her as the new Chair of the Committee.
Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) asked the Assembly to first adopt the Report of the
Writers in Prison Committee, and then to confirm Karin Clark as Chair.
The Report of the Writers in Prison Committee and Karin Clark’s election as the Committee’s new
Chair were accepted by acclamation.
Eugene Schoulgin expressed his huge relief at Karin Clark’s confirmation. [Laughter] He wanted to
conclude by thanking Sara Whyatt, Cathy McCann, Sara Birch and the one and only Dixe Wills:
without them nothing could have been achieved. Their professionalism, their engagement and the way
in which he and they had worked together had made the four years of his Chairmanship the best four
years of his life. What could be better than being close to people you learned to know, respect and
love. [Applause]
Before giving the floor to Sara Whyatt to take the resolutions, he had a few words to say about
Resolution (u), which proposed changing the name of the Writers in Prison Committee. There were
differing views on this, but how or whether it should be done had given rise to much discussion in the
Committee and had led to some confusion. The Resolution was therefore being withdrawn with the
intention of reaching a solution as soon as possible, and he could assure the Assembly that the matter
was being handled very seriously and that a solution would be found.
39

Berivan Dosky (Kurdish Centre) asked why he had not mentioned Turkey; although reforms were
taking place in Turkey, at present they were merely cosmetic and the harassment and imprisonment of
writers, especially Kurdish and pro-Kurdish writers, was continuing.
Eugene Schoulgin apologised for forgetting to mention Turkey, a country that for many years had
been one of his main concerns. It was true that the situation had greatly improved, but there were still
problems and many things to be done. There were many cases to work on, there were writers in prison
there, and just recently another case had reached the Committee, that of the writer and sociologist
Fikret Baskaya. He agreed with the Kurdish delegate, Turkey was a country of concern, as were many
others.
Hanan Awwad (Palestinian Centre) thanked Eugene Schoulgin, Sara Whyatt and the Committee for
their hard work. But there had been no mention of the writers and journalists in Palestine who worked
under a situation of state terrorism and killing. Among the prisoners who had gone on strike were
writers and journalists; and her Centre had reported to the Committee the killing of ten writers by
Israeli soldiers, and this had not been mentioned. Things were as serious in Palestine as in any other
country.
Cecilia Balcazar (Colombian Centre, International Board member) congratulated Eugene for all
he had done, but wanted to remind him that her Centre had also joined the Writers in Prison
Committee.
Eugene Schoulgin thanked Cecilia Balcazar for this reminder. In answer to the Palestinian delegate,
he said that the problem was not that the difficult position of writers and journalists was unrecognised,
but that the situation was chaotic. There were many under threat or who had been killed, but for the
Committee to take up the case of an individual, which was how they worked, they needed more than
just a name: they needed detailed information on why a particular person had been persecuted or
threatened. As he had said, they were concerned about the situation in general in the Middle East: it
was the same in Iraq where many journalists had been killed, some directly in connection with their
work as war reporters, others as the result of attacks and accidents, and these people must always be
borne in mind. But the Committee’s main concern was always those individuals who had been
attacked solely for their writings.
Zeki Ergas (Suisse Romand Centre) sympathised with the Kurdish delegate, but as someone of
Turkish origin who spoke Turkish and followed the situation closely, he felt that the word ‘cosmetic’
did not properly describe what was happening in Turkey. Despite difficulties and reversals, quite
substantial reforms had taken place and Turkey was currently changing in a vital and fundamental
way.
Eugene Schoulgin hoped he was right. The Committee was not judging the political situation, but
was judging what was happening on the ground – were writers being harassed in different ways or not?
There were still too many cases in Turkey: for example, the police had not allowed Ragip Zarakolu to
board the plane to Tromsø to attend the Congress. The authorities also persecuted writers and editors
by putting them endlessly on trial and fining them huge sums of money to try to prevent them
publishing. These matters were of great concern, and the work had to continue.
Shawki Osman (Egyptian Centre) expressed two points of concern. First, he felt that PEN should
strongly condemn the brutal aggression both of Israeli troops against writers and students, which had
led to the closure of universities and schools, and of American troops in Iraq which had had a severe
effect on writers there and their freedom. Second, in an era of globalism the United States was trying
hard to establish the hegemony of the Anglo-Saxon culture, and this violated the principle of diversity
as a basis for creativity and freedom of expression. This should concern every nation, and should also
be strongly noted.
40

Chaim Noll (Israeli Centre) said that his Centre agreed with Eugene Schoulgin’s comments. They
wanted to add that Israel was the only democracy in the Middle East and the only country in the region
where writers and journalists were free to express their opinions. He accepted that there were
Palestinian writers in prison for their writings. But there were many cases of suppression of freedom
of opinion by the Palestinian authorities and he suggested that the Palestinian Centre look into these.
Zeinab Koumanthio Diallo (Guinean Centre) sympathised with colleagues from the Palestinian
Centre. Although Guinea had not been included among the countries mentioned by Eugene Schoulgin,
she knew that it was accepted as being among those in which there were difficulties for writers and
journalists. Her Centre had close contacts with the Committee headquarters and had been asked for
information on persecuted writers in Guinea; but with so many Sierra Leonean, Liberian and even
Ivorian refugees in Guinea the country had very many problems and sometimes discretion was
necessary. Not only did her Centre not have the resources to find out whether a writer was being
persecuted, and sometimes people said they were persecuted writers when they were simply refugees;
but to undertake such research could well put members of her Centre in danger so that instead of
helping persecuted people they would be exposed to persecution themselves.
Eugene Schoulgin (Chair, Writers in Prison Committee) assured the Guinean delegate that the
Committee always took into consideration the danger it might bring writers if it did not handle things
in the right way. This might make the Committee seem slow in reacting, but thorough investigation of
each case was necessary before any action could be taken – it was easy to rush to conclusions which
could then jeopardise the writers’ own security. He reminded delegates that they could read in his
written report all the details that he had forgotten to mention earlier. He would not go further into the
situation of Israel and Palestine because it would be so easy for the discussion to become political,
which was not something in which the Committee could be involved. [Applause]
The discussion then moved to the Writers in Prison Committee Resolutions
Sara Whyatt (Writers in Prison Committee Programme Director) explained that all sixteen of the
Committee’s resolutions had been discussed by the Committee at their meeting earlier in the week;
most had been amended, although most of the amendments were small. Where they were more
substantial, and perhaps difficult to explain verbally, amended resolutions had been prepared and
circulated. In each case she would talk the Assembly through the changes and then invite the
proposing Centre to speak to the resolution if they wished.
(e)
Resolution on Australia, submitted by the Melbourne and Sydney Centres
‘The Assembly of Delegates of International PEN, meeting at its 70 th Congress in
Tromsø, Norway, 6 th – 12 th September 2004,
Recalling the resolution condemning the actions of the Australian government in violating the
freedom of expression of asylum seekers held in detention, passed at the 69 th World Congress
held in Mexico City, Mexico, November 2003;
Learning in recent months of the detention of the Iranian journalist and poet Hassan Hakimi
on the island of Nauru, by agreement with the Australian government, after he was intercepted
on his way to Australia seeking asylum without 'proper documentation';
Deeply concerned at reports that Hassan has fled persecution as a result of the publication of
his writing for the reformist Eman weekly newspaper in Ghom, Iran, and yet has had his initial
application for asylum rejected,
And at the reportedly primitive conditions asylum seekers are held in Nauru and in
particular the limited access to telecommunications at this detention centre and the inability to
41

e contacted by telephone by people outside of Nauru, including lawyers, relatives and refugee
supporters;
Alarmed and profoundly disappointed to learn that following their release from detention at
least three writers have received “tax invoices” from the Australian government for the costs of
their detention and other related expenses, said writers including:
• Ivory Coast journalist and Sydney PEN member Cheikh Kone has been billed $89,000;
• Cambodian journalist Lam Khi Try and his wife have been billed $260,000;
• Iranian poet and Sydney PEN member Mohsen Soltany Zand has been billed $27,000;
And that these invoices contain a warning that the “failure to pay may affect an individual’s
ability to leave and re-enter Australia”;
Hereby condemns the Australian government’s treatment of Hassan Hakimi in violating his
freedom of expression under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, to which Australia is a signatory, and the Australian government’s punitive actions
against asylum seekers by charging them enormous costs for their incarceration under
mandatory detention policies;
And calls on the Australian government to:
Ensure that the complete circumstances of Hassan Hakimi's case are given full and
fair consideration and he is appropriately assessed, including through a fair appeals
process, with regard to his request for refugee status;
End punitive measures that impede the freedom of expression of asylum seekers, as
outlined in International PEN’s November 2003 resolution, by, among other measures,
allowing asylum seekers to contact and be contacted by their legal representatives, family,
refugee support organisations and to freely give interviews to interested journalists;
End mandatory detention, and the so-called “Pacific Solution” by transferring all detainees
on Nauru to Australia, allowing easier access by and communication with friends, supporters,
immigration lawyers and refugee advocates; and until such time, ensure that the conditions in
the Nauruan detention centre are of a high standard and that refugees have access to
appropriate facilities and services.
Cease the practice of invoicing asylum seekers for expenses related to their detention, and
immediately revoke the invoices presented to our colleagues Cheikh Kone, Lam Khi Try and
Mohsen Soltany Zand.’
Sara Whyatt said that the proposing Centres had asked for reference to the cases of the Ivory Coast
journalist Cheikh Kone and the Iranian poet Mohsen Soltany Zand to be removed from paragraph five,
leaving only the case of the Cambodian journalist Lam Khi Try; and that the final paragraph should be
similarly adjusted.
Chip Rolley (Sydney Centre; Search Committee Chair) explained that these references had been
removed at the request of the individuals concerned: they were currently applying for waivers of the
invoices and had some grounds for believing they would be successful; they therefore felt that a
resolution sent to the Australian government might hurt their case. One of the difficulties in the work
of the Writers in Prison Committee was precisely that of not wanting to make matters worse for
individual writers while nevertheless wanting to hold governments to task for their actions.
A vote was then taken and the Resolution was carried unanimously. [Applause]
42

(f)
Resolution on Canada, submitted by the Canadian Centre
‘The Assembly of Delegates of International PEN, meeting at the 70 th Congress Tromsø,
Norway, 6 th -12 th September 2004,
Alarmed by several recent freedom of expression cases in the country, including most notably:
• The January 2004 Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) raid on the home and
office of Ottawa Citizen reporter Juliet O’Neill in Ottawa to find the source for a story
Ms. O’Neill had written about the case of Maher Arar – a Syrian-born Canadian citizen
illegally re-directed by U.S. authorities back to Syria after returning in-transit to Canada
from vacation - and the government’s handling of it;
• The continuing legal harassment of author Stephen Williams, who, in addition to having
his home raided twice and spending a night in jail in 2003, is facing 97 charges of
violating a court order for his having published information on a Website and which is
designed to intimidate Mr. Williams with the aim of finding the sources for his work on
serial killers Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka;
• An attempt by the RCMP to force National Post reporter Andrew McIntosh and his
editors to hand over material that could identify Mr. McIntosh’s sources for a story
involving former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and his alleged financial involvement in
a golf club in Québec;
Urges the government of Canada to:
Recognise the groundbreaking ruling from the Superior Court of Ontario in January 2004,
concerning the McIntosh case, in which Justice Mary Lou Benotto stated, “Society’s interest
here, in protecting the confidentiality he promised, outweighs the benefits of disclosing the
document…. The ability of the public to know what its elected leaders are doing is fundamental
to our democracy. We rely on the news media to provide us with this information. The
expectation that a source will remain confidential is often the very reason people feel free to go
to the press”;
Take steps to confront the ease with which police can obtain search warrants in cases in
which they are trying to track down journalistic sources for stories and books that criticize and
embarrass governments, police and judicial authorities.’
Sara Whyatt said that the changes made to this resolution were such that it had been rewritten [as
above] and circulated to all delegates.
There being no comments, a vote was taken and the Resolution was carried unanimously. [Applause]
(g)
Resolution on China, submitted by the Canadian and Danish Centres
‘The Assembly of Delegates of International PEN, meeting at its 70 th Congress in
Tromsø, Norway, 6 th – 12 th September 2004,
Considering the on-going and widespread crackdown of free expression rights of Chinese
citizens and those in the autonomous regions of Tibet and Xinjiang;
Alarmed by the detention of some 40 journalists in Chinese prisons, making the country the
largest jailer of writers and journalists in the world;
43

Opposing the escalation of state-ordered assaults on independent-minded media in China, in
which editors are arrested, publications closed and news blackouts imposed on politically
sensitive events;
Concerned by evidence of growing threats to press freedom in Hong Kong;
Further concerned by the Chinese government’s continued imposition of repressive measures
in Tibet that limit any display of support for an independent Tibet, human rights or religious
and cultural expression of Tibetan identity;
Fearing a growing trend in which state authorities particularly target on-line writers (‘cyberdissidents’)
who speak freely and critically on the Internet;
Urges the government to:
Release all imprisoned journalists and writers in China, including:
• Yu Dongyue, Guo Qinghai, Jiang Weiping, Gao Qinrong, and
• Release all prisoners in autonomous Tibet who are detained in violation of their right to
freedom of expression, including:
• The Drepung Monastery group of imprisoned monks, which includes Jampel
Changchup, Jampel Chunjor, Ngawang Gyaltsen, and Ven. Ngawang Phulchung;
Release all prisoners in the autonomous region of Xinjiang who are detained in violation of
their right to freedom of expression, including:
• Historian and writer Tohti Tunyaz;
Cease its efforts to censor cyberspace and to release immediately all writers jailed for
peacefully expressing their opinions over the Internet;
Engage in a complete and meaningful reform of the Chinese legal system so that it guarantees
fair trials, the full right of defence and appeal and a prison system that ensures the health and
safety of inmates in accordance with international standards; and,
End crackdowns on those advocating rights in Tibet and Xinjiang.’
Sara Whyatt said she would talk the Assembly through the minor changes made to this Resolution,
which was now also sponsored by the English, Ghanaian and Independent Chinese PEN Centres. To
the first bullet point in the paragraph beginning ‘Release all imprisoned journalists’ should be added
the name Liu Jingshen. And after the word ‘Internet’ in the paragraph beginning ‘Cease its efforts to
censor cyberspace…’ the following words should be added: ‘and cease its use of the charges of
“inciting subversion of state power” to persecute, detain and imprison writers who express their
political opinions’.
Dorothea Weissman (Chinese Writers Abroad Centre) said that while some parts of the Resolution
were sound and necessary, some parts were troublesome. To demand the release of ‘prisoners’, a
group of monks, in Tibet and of ‘prisoners’ in Xinjiang implied support for Tibetan independence.
The prisoners were not named or identified as writers and journalists. Year after year delegates made
resolutions, but for what? PEN members did wish them to have some impact on the regimes
concerned, to make them behave more humanely and improve human rights conditions by applying
pressure. But this issue of sovereignty and territorial integrity was of the utmost sensitivity to China
and its people: although in the 21 st century nationalism should no longer exist, this was the reality,
particularly because in the past 150 years China had twice suffered bloody invasion by the Japanese
44

and, in the foreign concessions, occupation by eight Western powers during which the Chinese were
treated like dogs. So to concentrate on political activists for independence would only backfire; human
rights violations of non-writers should be sent to Amnesty International, and the cases of individuals or
groups should be put to the United Nations or the International Criminal Court. After all China was no
longer the China of the Mao era, of a gulag archipelago, and the recent releases of Du Daobin and Liu
Di attested to the fact that outside pressure did sometimes have a positive effect.
Therefore, even though her Centre worked for human rights in China, and she herself was a member of
the board of the organisation Human Rights in China, they could not support it in its present form. Her
further questions were: was International PEN going to replace Amnesty as a global human rights
monitor? was the Writers in Prison Committee to be renamed Humanity in Prison Committee? and
why was there no comparable resolution on the grave mistreatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and
Guantanamo Bay and demanding their release? Was there some kind of double standard? She did not
support the Chinese regime, but questioned the inclusion of non-writers in the Resolution. If PEN
focused on writers, whether in the printed medium or in cyberspace, the result might be good; but
touching the sensitive nerve of political activism would backfire – it should be left to a modern-day
Hemingway or Lord Byron.
Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) asked whether these concerns had been raised in the
sessions of the Writers in Prison Committee. He pointed out that the Resolution had been circulated
ten weeks previously, and if a Centre wanted to influence it their delegate should attend the
Committee’s meeting at which it would be discussed. Bringing concerns, which might be extremely
relevant, to the Assembly at the last moment was not the appropriate way to work.
Sara Whyatt said that the proposers would answer the various comments, but she could suggest
changing the word ‘citizens’ in the first paragraph to ‘writers’, and similarly later in the Resolution.
Isobel Harry (Canadian Centre) said that all the names in this resolution were of writers, including
the monks of the Drepung monastery, whose correct name was the Drepung Monastery Publishing
Group. They had been imprisoned for publishing leaflets and also a translation into the Tibetan
language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. She agreed with Sara Whyatt’s suggested
change in the first paragraph and was sorry for this mis-draft. She suggested also calling the regions
by the names by which they were known at the United Nations, for example the Tibet Autonomous
Region; and she would check the correct name for Xinjiang and incorporate that as well. There was no
intended support for political activism; the Resolution was entirely about the right to freedom of
expression and not about human rights in general.
Terry Carlbom said that the Committee had accepted the text of the resolution and the debate should
be between those in favour of the Resolution and those against, not involved in discussion on factual
information that might need further research.
Sara Whyatt said she agreed to any changes making it clear that the Resolution referred only to
writers and not all citizens; and asked whether the Chinese Writers Abroad Centre’s concerns would
be modified by using the official international names in the references to Tibet and Xinjiang. She also
confirmed that in the paragraph referring to autonomous Tibet the prisoners were all writers and this
should be incorporated into the text.
Prakash A. Raj (Nepalese Centre) said that to state, as the Resolution did, that China was ‘the largest
jailer of writers and journalists in the world’ was a value judgement. He had recently been in China
and did not think the situation was so bad as to make this true. That line should be changed.
Sara Whyatt suggested changing the sentence to read ‘making the country one of the largest jailers of
writers and journalists in the world’.
45

Zhang Yu (Independent Chinese Centre) said that he agreed with the changes, and added that the
only addition to Xinjiang needed was the national name ‘Uighur’ to give the full formal name of
‘Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region’.
A vote was then taken and the Resolution was passed unanimously, with 3 abstentions.
(h)
Resolution on Cuba, submitted by the Canadian, Czech, Danish, English, Finnish, Italian,
Norwegian and Quebecois Centres
‘The Assembly of Delegates of International PEN, meeting at its 70 th Congress in Tromsø,
Norway, 6th – 12 th September 2004,
Alarmed by the repression undertaken by the Cuban government since March 2003 against 34
writers, independent journalists and librarians on whom prison sentences of up to 27 years have
been imposed. The majority were tried under Law 88 and Article 91 of the Penal Code. Law
88, introduced in 1999, is used as a means for sending writers and journalists to prison. It
allows for prison sentences of up to twenty years. Article 91 deals with charges of acting
against “the independence of the territorial integrity of the state”, the maximum penalty for
which is death.
Among those imprisoned are:
Raúl Rivero Castañeda: poet, director of CubaPress, co-founder of Manuel Márquez
Sterling Journalists Society, and librarian – sentenced to 20 years;
Ricardo Severino González Alfonso: short story writer, president of Manuel Márquez
Sterling Journalists Society, director of De Cuba magazine and librarian – sentenced to
20 years;
Oscar Espinosa Chepe economist and journalist – sentenced to 20 years;
Appalled by the lack of adequate medical attention being received by several of the detainees
and the fact that many prisoners are detained in towns far from their homes and families
thereby limiting their visits.
Deeply concerned about the adoption of the new Information Security Law which further
restricts the ability of Cuban citizens to access to the Internet ;
Welcoming the provisional release of Manuel Vázquez Portal, novelist, poet and journalist
with Grupo de Trabajo Decoro and correspondent for the Miami-based website CubaNet; and
Carmelo Díaz Fernández, editor of Agencia de Prensa Sindical Independiente de Cuba and
CubaNet correspondent Marta Beatriz Roque Cabello, author and economist; and Roberto de
Miranda, librarian;
Stressing that, while the Cuban government cites American policies towards it when
discussing the rights situation in Cuba, it is the unique and singular responsibility of the Cuban
government to preserve and protect the rights of its citizens;
Urges the Cuban government to release unconditionally the 30 remaining journalists, writers
and librarians, imprisoned after the trials of that were neither fair nor open for exercising their
right to freedom of expression;
Calls upon the Cuban government to strike Law 88, Articles 91, 144 and 200-1 from the
Cuban Penal Code and the newly adopted Information Security Law, and to ratify the
46

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which guarantees the right to freedom of
expression and information.’
Sara Whyatt (Writers in Prison Committee Programme Director) reminded the Assembly that
they had been given a revised version of the resolution text, which was the text they would vote on.
There being no comments, the vote was taken and the resolution passed unanimously, with one
abstention.
(i)
Resolution on Egypt, submitted by the Finnish and Norwegian Centres
‘The Assembly of Delegates of International PEN, meeting at its 70 th Congress in Tromsø,
Norway, 6 th – 12 th September 2004,
Learning that the novel The Fall of the Imam, by the Egyptian writer and psychiatrist Nawal
el-Saadawi, has been banned from republication in Egypt, on the grounds that the novel is
allegedly contrary to “Islamic values”;
Considering that the banning of books is contrary to the International Convention on Civil and
Political Rights, to which Egypt is a party;
Further considering that the banning of The Fall of the Imam is an absurdity, since the novel -
which was partly written while its author was imprisoned for her earlier writings - already was
published in Egypt in 1987, and has been translated into and published in 14 foreign languages;
Also considering that there seems to be a more or less continuous campaign of harassment
going on against the writer Nawal el-Saadawi in her home country, resulting in frequent arrests
for her writings, in her books being banned and in 2001 also in the government trying to
divorce her from her husband by force;
Urges the government of Egypt to immediately lift the ban on the republication of Nawal el-
Saadawi's novel The Fall of the Imam and on all other books;
Further urges the government of Egypt to immediately stop all harassment against Nawal el-
Saadawi and all other writers, and to respect the international conventions to which Egypt is
a party.’
Sara Whyatt (Writers in Prison Committee Programme Director) said that, following discussion,
it had been agreed that the resolution should reflect the fact that there were a number of writers under
repression. Two new paragraphs were to be inserted at the beginning of the resolution and a change
made to the start of what would now be the third paragraph, which she would now read out:
‘Concerned that the presidential decree that bans the imprisonment of writers and journalists
has not been put into effect, and that ministerial decrees give senior Muslim theologians the
right to issue search warrants to inspect any bookshop for publications which they consider to
violate the dominant interpretations of the Koran;
‘Disturbed that this decree and other restraints against the right to freedom of expression serve
to severely restrain the rights of all writers and intellectuals in Egypt to practice this right
without fear of reprisal;
Points as an example of this to the banning of the novel The Fall of the Imam …’
47

Shawki Osman (Egyptian Centre) requested an additional paragraph at the end of the resolution to
read: ‘Urges the government of Egypt to immediately stop all harrassment against writers and
intellectuals, and to respect the international convention to which Egypt is a party.’
This was agreed. A vote was then taken and the resolution was adopted unanimously, with one
abstention.
(j)
Resolution on Eritrea, submitted by the Danish, Norwegian and Swedish Centres
‘The Assembly of Delegates of International PEN, meeting at its 70 th Congress in
Tromsø, Norway, 6 th – 12 th September 2004,
Concerned by the fact that Yusuf Mohamed Ali (editor-in-chief of Tsigenay), Mattewos
Habteab (editor-in-chief of Meqaleh), Emanuel Asrat (Zemen), Temesken Ghebreyesus (Keste
Debena), Dawit Isaac (Setit), Fesshaye Yohannes (Setit), and Said Abdelkader (editor of
Admas) were arrested in September 2001. Dawit Isaac, a Swedish citizen, is hospitalised under
strict security. His ill health is believed to have been caused by his treatment in prison.
Deeply disturbed by the arrests of the journalists, which followed shortly after the 18
September 2001 closure of all eight private newspapers in Eritrea, leaving the country with no
independent press.
Shocked by the fact that the journalists are still in custody in communicado, and by the
repeated insistence of the Eritrean government that they have not been arrested but are carrying
out their military service. Although the journalists are known to have been transferred from
their original places of detention, it is believed that they are currently being held at secret
security sections of the 2 nd and 6 th police stations in Asmara.
Therefore urges the Eritrean Government to release the journalists immediately or bring them
to trial by a fair and transparent legal process.
Furthermore calls upon the Eritrean Government to allow Dawit Isaac proper medical care,
and to guarantee him visits from Swedish diplomatic personnel.’
There were no comments on this resolution. A vote was taken and the resolution was carried
unanimously.
(k)
Resolution on Iran, submitted by the Canadian, Danish, Italian and Norwegian Centres
‘The Assembly of Delegates of International PEN, meeting at its 70 th Congress in
Tromsø, Norway, 6 th – 12 th September 2004,
Alarmed by the systematic suppression of public dissent in Iran;
Noting that hundreds of student protesters have been summoned to court around the country or
sent to university disciplinary committees for punishment, and that a number of political
detainees received harsh prison sentences for articles they had published;
Further noting that Iran’s judiciary has shut down an increasing number of independent
newspapers and that numerous journalists and intellectuals have been prosecuted under the
provisions of the Press Law and Penal Code;
Concerned that political detainees have been tortured in the presence of judges, held for weeks
in solitary confinement and denied basic due process rights;
48

Worried about the growing trend of Internet censorship in the country, in which thousands of
Web sites considered “un-Islamic” are censored, on-line journalists harassed and privatelyowned
Internet service providers (ISPs) ordered to shut down or put themselves under
government control;
Extremely concerned about the lack of progress in identifying and prosecuting those
responsible for the torture and subsequent murder of Iranian-Canadian photojournalist Zahra
Kazemi;
Urges the government of Iran to:
Release all political prisoners currently held for the legal exercise of their right to free
expression, association and assembly, including Siamak Pourzand, Akbar Ganji,
Hojjatoleslam Hassan Eshkevari, Khalil Rostamkhani, Ensafali Hedayat, Amir Abbas
Fakhravar, Ali-Reza Jabari and Nasser Zarafshan;
Create enforcement mechanisms for its recently adopted anti-torture laws, including
accountability for judges and interrogators who torture detainees;
Conduct a thorough investigation of its secret prisons, granting full access to international
observers;
Take concrete steps to ensure the full and unhindered access to the right to freedom of
expression in Iran.’
Sara Whyatt (Writers in Prison Committee Programme Director) read out the changes to the
resolution. The first was an additional paragraph to be inserted between paragraphs 4 and 5:
‘Shocked by the reports that the life of writer and lawyer Nasser Zarafshan was gravely
threatened in July when he and other prisoners were staging a hunger protest and where
criminal convicts were allowed to enter the room with the intention of attacking Zarafshan,
whose life was only saved by the intervention of other prisoners;’
In the paragraph beginning ‘Release all political prisoners’ the word ‘currently held’ were to be
replaced by ‘sentenced for’; and Said Sadr’s name was to be added among the names of the prisoners
held.
There being no comments, the vote was taken and the resolution carried unanimously.
(l)
Resolution on Mexico, submitted by the American, Canadian, Guadalajaran, Mexican, Salta
and San Miguel Centres.
‘The Assembly of Delegates of International PEN, meeting at its 70 th Congress in
Tromsø, Norway, 6 th – 12 th September 2004,
Considering the principles and rights established in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, especially articles 3, 5 and 19;
Considering the principles and rights established in the Declaration of Fundamental
Principles Relating to the Contribution of the Mass Communication Media for the
Empowerment of Peace and International Understanding, for the Promotion of Human Rights
and the Fight against Racism, Apartheid, and Incitement to War, especially articles 2.1, 2.4, 9,
10.1 and 10.2;
49

Considering the principles established in the Teheran Proclamation, especially principles 1
and 11:
Considering the principles and rights established in the International Pact on Civil and
Political Rights, ratified by Mexico on March 23, 1981, especially its articles 9.1 and 19;
Considering the guarantees and rights established in the Political Constitution of the United
Mexican States, especially articles 1, 6, 7 and 133;
Considering the terms of Article 6 of the Press Law, in effect since April 15, 1917;
Considering the terms of the Federal Law to Prevent and Eliminate Discrimination, published
in the Official Journal of the Federation on June 11, 2003, especially articles 2,3, and 4;
Noting the repression of freedom of expression prevailing especially in the northern border
zone of Mexico, which recently claimed as victims the editor and journalist of the El Mañana
newspaper Roberto Mora, of Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas (murdered on March 19, 2004) and
the journalist Francisco. J. Ortiz Franco, staff member of the weekly newspaper Zeta, from
Tijuana, Baja California, (gunned down on June 22, 2004,) and less recently, as the victim of
an attempted murder, its editor, the journalist and editor of Zeta, Jesús Blancocornelas;
Observing that the persecution of journalists takes place in an atmosphere of impunity and an
absence of the Rule of Law:
1. Condemns the climate of impunity, insecurity and absence of Rule of Law in Mexico,
especially in the northern zone;
2. Demands that the Mexican government resolve the murders of Roberto Mora and
Francisco J. Ortiz Franco, as well as all the unsolved cases of journalists murdered in their
exercise of freedom of expression, among them the murders of Héctor Félix Miranda and
Manuel Buendía.
3. Urges the Federal Government of Mexico as well as the state governments to offer special
guarantees to journalists, in order to permit them to carry out their work with freedom of
expression and security, and without reprisals.’
Sara Whyatt (Writers in Prison Committee Programme Director) said that there were three
changes to be made. The first was the inclusion in the paragraph starting ‘Noting the repression of
freedom of expression…’ of the case of another journalist, murdered since the original text had been
written. The words to be added at the end of the paragraph were: ‘and Francisco Arratia Saldierna,
newspaper columnist in Matamoros, Tamaulipas (murdered on 31 st August 2004)’. Arratia Saldiema’s
name should then be added to point 2 of the final paragraph. And in point 3 of the final paragraph the
words ‘, and their support groups,’ were to be inserted after ‘special guarantees to journalists’.
Jens Lohmann (Danish Centre) said that his Centre wanted also to second the resolution. He wanted
also to say that excellent work had been done on the resolution by Maria Elena Ruiz Cruz of Mexican
PEN – it concerned Mexican legislation, and he believed it should be used as a model for other
countries where the authorities could also be pressed to change their legislation. He wanted to draw
delegates’ attention to the fact it was not only journalists who were being murdered in Mexico –
threats and harassment were increasing there and the situation was becoming much more serious.
A vote was then taken and the resolution was carried unanimously.
50

(m)
Resolution on Myanmar (Burma) submitted by the American, English, Italian, Melbourne,
Nepalese, Perth, San Miguel, Sydney and Vietnamese Writers Abroad Centres
‘The Assembly of Delegates of International PEN, meeting at its 70 th Congress in
Tromsø, Norway, 6 th – 12 th September 2004,
Considering that since the Myanmar government's crackdown on the National League for
Democracy (NLD) in 1988, the ongoing systematic violation of human rights of the people of
Myanmar, and the detention and ill-treatment of numerous writers and journalists, has
remained largely unchanged;
Noting that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the NLD, has spent the large part of the past
sixteen years in detention and presently remains so again, her basic rights of freedom of
movement and expression denied;
Recognizing that the writers Aung Myint, Ko Aung Tun, U Myo Htun, Khin Zaw Win, Kyaw
Sein Oo, U Ohn Kyaing, U Sein Hla Oo, and Win Tin are all serving prison sentences of
between seven and twenty-one years for the peaceful expression of their opinions;
Recalling that in his report to the 59th session of the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights, published in March 2003, the UN Secretary-General concluded, "I am concerned that
the national reconciliation process could be reversed unless some tangible progress is quickly
made in the near future";
Disturbed that Myanmar's State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) has remained
impervious to sustained international pressure for its gross violations of human rights;
Calls upon the SPDC to cease its ongoing and systematic violation of the civil, political,
economic, social and cultural rights of the people of Myanmar;
Cease the arbitrary arrest and prolonged detention of writers, journalists, and peaceful political
activists;
Discontinue their torture and ill-treatment in prison, particularly during pre-trial Detention;
Release Aung Myint, Ko Aung Tun, U Myo Htun, Khin Zaw Win, Kyaw Sein Oo, U Ohn
Kyaing, U Sein Hla Oo, Win Tin and all writers and journalists held merely for the peaceful
expression of their views;
Release Daw Aung San Suu Kyi immediately and unconditionally from house detention and
fully restore her rights of movement and free expression;
Restore democracy and respect the results of the 1990 elections by releasing immediately and
unconditionally the leadership of the National League for Democracy, and allow them to play a
full role in bringing about national reconciliation and the transition towards democracy.’
Sara Whyatt (Writers in Prison Committee Programme Director) read out wording to be added at
the end of paragraph 5: ‘and has failed to respond to the letter of April 2004 from International PEN
President Jirí Gruša, Vaclav Havel and fourteen other Nobel laureates’.
Kjell Olaf Jensen (Norwegian Centre) queried the use of the word ‘other’ in the additional sentence,
saying that with all due respect neither Jirí Gruša nor Vaclav Havel were Nobel laureates.
Jirí Gruša (International President) commented that they were not yet Nobel laureates. [Laughter]
51

With the removal of ‘other’ from the resolution, it was then put to the vote and adopted unanimously.
(n)
Resolution on Russia, submitted by the Russian Centre
‘The Assembly of Delegates of International PEN, meeting at its 70 th Congress in
Tromsø, Norway, 6 th – 12 th September 2004,
Expresses concern about the assault on freedom of speech and self-expression caused
by the absence of any independent media in Russia resulting in the holding of
presidential elections in the Russian Federation where the general public had no
access to alternative sources of information other than that provided by the
government in power, a contradiction of the concept of democracy;
Shocked by the assassination of writer and journalist Paul Klebnikov on 9 July
2004, believed to be in retaliation of his exposés of criminal activities of some of
Russia’s most wealthy people;
Notes with deepening alarm that Klebnikov’s murder brings the total number of
journalists killed in Russia since 2000 to fifteen, making Russia one of the most
dangerous countries in which to be a journalist:
Raises questions about the fate of Chechen journalist, Ali Astimarov, about whom
nothing has been heard since he disappeared in Ingushetia in July 2003 after being
seen driven off in a car by unknown persons, and sharing Astimarov employer’s,
Agence France Press, concerns that he may have been taken by the Russian Federal
Security Service because of his reporting on the crisis in Chechnya;
Also concerned about the reported disappearance of Maxim Maximonov, journalist
from St Petersburg
Points out with utmost alarm that contrary to the Constitution of the Russian
Federation, writer Bayan Shirianov is currently before the courts on charges of
“pornography” for his books that are widely considered to be works of critical realism,
independent thinking, non-standard aesthetics, which offer an important diversion
from the average statistical commercial literature;
Is indignant at the judgment of the Russian Court concerning the case of Igor
Sutiaghin, a scholar of American studies sentenced to 15-year imprisonment on
charges of “espionage” despite the fact that he had made use only of the materials
found in the open press. This judgement contradicts not only the laws of the Russian
Federation but also to the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Article 19
that guarantees the right to freedom of expression and information;
Calls upon all Centres of International PEN to urge their own governments to protest
at an inter-governmental level about the above-mentioned abuses of the right to seek
and impart information;
Calls upon the President and the Government of the Russian Federation to guarantee by deeds,
and not only in words, Russian citizen’s rights as pronounced in international human rights
standard to which Russia is committed, most notably the rights to freedom of speech and
information, alongside judicial and legislative powers that are truly independent of government
influence.’
52

Sara Whyatt (Writers in Prison Committee Programme Director) reminded delegates that they
had been given a revised text of the resolution incorporating a number of changes. There was one
more, to paragraph 2, where it had been agreed that the wording should read: ‘…believed to be in
retaliation for his exposés of criminal activities of some of Russia’s most wealthy people’, all of whom
were not necessarily criminals. [Laughter]
Alexander Tkachenko (Russian Centre, International Board member) liked the revised resolution
but wanted to talk about paragraph 7, concerning Igor Sutiaghin. He said that his Centre had always
had difficulties with the justice system – people asked why they protected ‘spies’. Pasko was a
journalist, but Sutiaghin, who belonged to a branch of the Russian Centre, was not a writer and he felt
that a few words should be added to indicate that Sutiaghin had used words, treating the reports that he
had read as if he were.
Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) proposed that this suggestion should be discussed during
the lunch break so that the final wording of this paragraph could be agreed in the afternoon session,
after the presentations of candidates standing for election had taken place.
The session was then closed.
Third session, Friday, 10 th September, afternoon
Jirí Gruša (International President) said that before continuing with the Agenda he had two points
to make. First, he had been given the names of two people who should be included among those on
the In Memoriam item: Anthony Babington of the English Centre and Czeslaw Milsoz of the Polish
Centre. He asked delegates to honour them and agree to their inclusion on the list. [This was
unanimously agreed] Second, there were delegates present who did not use any of the working
languages of PEN but who nevertheless had statements or messages to make to the Assembly. It was
very important that they should be able to participate by this means, and delegates would find a
statement, translated into English, from Abdjamil Nurpeisov of the Kazakh Centre on the table outside
the hall.
19. Report of the Search Committee
Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) informed the delegates that after the Report had been
made there would be an opportunity for comments, before the first phase of the elections, the
presentation of the candidates. Each candidate would be presented by one of his or her nominating
Centres, who would speak for no more than 2 minutes, before the candidate him- or herself would
speak, for no more than 4 minutes.
Chip Rolley (Sydney Centre, Search Committee Chair) said that it had been an honour for the
Committee members to serve PEN. They had started immediately after the elections at the Mexican
Congress in 2003, and had worked remarkably efficiently and co-operatively – he could not have
asked for better colleagues. Everyone had made a significant contribution to the work, and he wanted
to record his thanks to them. They had been able to meet in person twice, in Mexico and at the WiPC
conference in Barcelona, although one person had not been present on that occasion; all other
communication had been by phone and e.mail. Their task had not been easy since as well as a search
for the Secretary and Treasurer positions they were conducting a search for three Board positions.
They had prepared a timetable to ensure they met the regulatory deadlines, and had divided the PEN
Centres between them according to the Search Committee members’ own geographical representation.
Nominations had been tracked on a chart, and they had communicated frequently on the status of the
nominations – he believed that had they not done so a number of candidates would not have completed
their nomination processes.
53

Early on they had set goals, and he would mention four of these. The first goal was to act in
accordance with Article 11 (d) of the Regulations: to work towards gathering Board candidates from a
variety of geographical areas and to consider issues of ethnicity, minority language and gender. The
second goal was to ensure that every election was contested: partly because they believed in
democracy and that PEN Centres should be offered a choice of candidate for each position; and also
because it was important to remember that ultimately all power in PEN is derived from the Assembly
of Delegates. Apart from the Treasurer position, this had been achieved – he was particularly happy
that there was a choice of candidates for the International Secretary position. Their third goal had been
that in addition to the administrative work of the Committee they would consult the Centres to the best
of their ability. And finally – because information-flow in PEN was uneven, with the more active
Centres, whose members participated in Congresses, Committees or as Officers, privy to information
that other Centres were not – perhaps their most important goal was both to be and to be seen to be an
honest and fair broker in their dealings with candidates, potential candidates and nominating Centres.
The Committee had therefore decided that all nominations to all the posts were to be treated as
confidential until such time as everyone in PEN would be informed of a nomination.
There were several remaining inconsistencies and shortcomings in the Rules of Procedure, particularly
in respect of the search for International Secretary. Some of these were the result of revisions made at
different times; others related to the reporting relationships among PEN’s officers, which the Deputy
Chair of the Board had referred to in her report; and still others had to do with need to clarify the
screening aspect of the Search Committee’s work and whether the search process for Secretary and
Treasurer should proceed differently to that for members of the Board. The Committee looked
forward to addressing these questions over the next year. [Applause]
Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) then proposed that the Search Committee Report be
recorded for the minutes, and this was agreed.
20. Elections to the Board (1)
At the request of the International President, Jane Spender (Administrative Director) reminded
delegates of Article 24 bis, one of the amendments to the Regulations that had been agreed at the 69 th
Congress in Mexico. This changed the cycle of elections to the Board from one in which elections
were held in two out of three years to one in which elections were to be held every year, through a
transitional period of two years. In the current election the candidate gaining the most votes would be
elected for three years while the other two successful candidates would be elected for a two-year term;
at the subsequent Board elections there would be a further adjustment.
Jirí Gruša (International President) then invited the candidates and their nominating Centres to
address the Assembly in turn, reminding them of the time constraints.
Kjell Olaf Jensen (Norwegian Centre) said that his great friend Sylvestre Clancier of the French
Centre was well known to delegates, and had been a decisive force within PEN for years. He was
from the Limousin, traditionally the centre of France. He had been one vote short of being elected to
the Board in 2002. He was a patient man, but also an impulsive one; he was someone who really knew
how to make a mistake and also how to apologise for it afterwards. He himself found this admirable: it
was very easy to make friends with people with whom one always agreed; but it was even better to
make friends with whom one could debate and sometimes disagree. This trait gave him confidence in
Sylvestre Clancier. He knew International PEN and its members well, he was a friend who was
always cordial. And, finally, the francophone world was not currently over-represented in PEN’s
governance and Committees. He warmly recommended Sylvestre Clancier to the Assembly.
Sylvestre Clancier (French Centre) was touched by what his friend Kjell Olaf Jensen had said.
Friendship that partly arose from confrontation was very moving, and was perhaps the best pledge of
friendship between writers, ensuring they were truly writers who would devote their energy to giving
54

life to the PEN Charter. He wanted to thank Kjell Olaf Jensen, not for the kind things he had just said,
but as the Congress host, because he and his Centre had given participants such a wonderful welcome,
and for their choice of speakers and special guests, for the quality of the seminars and the poetry
evenings – it was an honour for International PEN to have this kind of Congress. [Applause]
If elected to the Board, he would commit himself to being the itching powder there, not a black sheep
but someone who would push himself to inspire new ideas that would give more strength, impact and
resonance to PEN’s actions and resolutions. He committed himself to strengthening the links between
Centres and regions of PEN through contact and exchanges between and during Congresses,
international and regional conferences. He committed himself to active participation in the
reactivating passive or dormant Centres, such as the Langue d’Oc Centre that had been declared
dormant at the Assembly of Delegates in 2003. He committed himself to assisting in the formation of
new Centres, as his Centre had done with the creation of the Moroccan Centre in 2003 and as he hoped
to do through their contacts in the formation of a Tunisian Centre. He rejoiced at the likely formation
in Bled of a Haitian Centre; his Centre, which had many Haitian members, would work with other
Haitian writers and with the Quebec Centre towards this outcome – as they would for many other
future Centres. He committed himself to encouraging the PEN regions to organise more literary
conferences and writers’ gatherings, and would work to obtain regional grants and funds to make this
possible. Finally, and most importantly, he committed himself to encouraging International PEN
regularly to evaluate the impact of its actions, by, among other things, thoroughly following-up the
effects of its resolutions on the authorities and institutions concerned – as had been proposed by the
Swiss German Centre in the Assembly in Mexico. [Applause]
Anton Peršak (Slovene Centre) said that there were many reasons for his Centre’s nomination of
their colleague Edvard Kovac for election to the Board. They had felt that it would be useful to have
a personal link with the Board in the run-up to the 71 st Congress which they were hosting in 2005. But
why propose this particular candidate? Many delegates had had a chance to meet him here in Tromsø,
or previously, and they would know him as a friendly, sociable and co-operative man, and as someone
who strongly promoted PEN ideas and values. He was a professor, fluent in both Slovene and French
culture, someone who thought, worked and created with and in those cultures and who was a positive
example of a living and sensitive co-operation between them. For these reasons his Centre had
nominated Edvard Kovac and warmly recommended him for election to the Board. Finally, he wanted
to thank those Centres that had supported Edvard Kovac’s nomination. [Applause]
Edvard Kovac (Slovene Centre) thanked Anton Peršak for his friendly and pleasant comments,
which had made him blush like a boy. With regard to the Congress in Bled in 2005, it would be a
great joy for his Centre to organise it, particularly since it was part of the Slovene culture, and his own
personal philosophy, to bring people together – something exemplified by the fact that in the Slav
languages the word for ‘to meet’ derived from the words for happiness and luck. So in his language, if
members were to come to the Congress in Bled it would be to his Centre’s happiness, their joy, their
luck. He believed that this idea was underlined in his personal philosophy, in which he expressed his
faith in the word. There were three degrees of the word in writing and meetings. First, the word gives
the atmosphere of meetings, something pleasant and peaceful, where the word of greeting creates a
melody and a poetry. Second, unlike politicians who were capable of talking a lot without saying
anything, writers did not talk much but said a great deal. The morning’s resolutions had truly said a
great deal and he thanked delegates for their work on them. But he believed chiefly in the third degree
of the word, the thing itself which was pure creation. Participants were present at the Congress not
because PEN was an NGO among other NGOs, but because they believed in writing and the literary
word. In that sense the word is like a child, a being which is able to create from joy; like a child it is
fragile and can be killed or disposed of, but its weakness was its strength. He himself had witnessed
this fifteen years before in the former Yugoslavia when he and others had organised a poetry and song
evening around the statue of the Slovene national poet, Prešeren, in support of four imprisoned
journalists. The army had been on the verge of intervening, but had not felt able to against people who
simply sang and read poetry. They had succeeded in obtaining the release of the journalists. He
55

wanted to finish in English with a short anecdote: a poet wrote to his beloved, ‘I love you so much,
that I am ready to swim the ocean for you. I will come tomorrow, if it is not raining.’ [Laughter] He
thanked the delegates, not for perhaps voting for him, but because they loved literature and peace and
that was why they had come to Tromsø in spite of the rain. [Laughter, applause]
Kjell Olaf Jensen (Norwegian Centre) said that his presence at the rostrum for a second time did not
mean that he was schizophrenic. [Laughter] It was simply that there were so many excellent
candidates on the list. He believed that a Board without Eric Lax would have a very serious hole in it.
First in Mexico and now in Tromsø, when the Assembly had to deal with some really delicate and
difficult work, who did the Assembly call upon? Who was it that conducted the Assembly through the
most intricate logical questions without faltering, even when it became confused, asking ten questions
at a time in seven or eight different languages? Who waited quietly until he could bring the discussion
to the logical, evident answer which stopped all protests, resolved all disputes? Eric Lax. He was also
one of the most sympathetic, nicest, kindest men he had had the pleasure to know. He soothed all
conflicts, something sorely needed in the Board; and he was also a marvellous representative of the
North American continent in the Board. He was already in the Board and the still Board needed him,
PEN needed him, and he urged delegates to vote for him. [Applause]
Eric Lax (USA West Centre, International Board member) thanked Kjell Olaf Jensen for his kind
and wonderful words, and also for what he and his colleagues had done to make everyone so welcome
at such a memorable Congress. In the 83 years since PEN’s founding some things had not changed.
PEN’s belief in the freedom to write and in the importance of a literary society remained as strong and
relevant as ever; so too did PEN’s commitment to the free exchange of literature among all people and
dedication to freedom of expression and association. But relevance was not enough. In an era of
instant information, better ways must be found both to compile and broadcast PEN’s accomplishments
and actions, and to share PEN’s successes and publicise PEN’s battles on behalf of imperilled
colleagues. If this was achieved, PEN would become a more dynamic organisation better able to carry
out its work. PEN was less well known than Amnesty International because, unlike Amnesty, it did
not have the staff to tell its story to the world. He believed that PEN was close to reaching the goals
that the organisation had long worked towards, and he was grateful that for the past three years he had
been able to be part of the process that had taken PEN from planning to acting. As a member of the
Board he had made it his top priority to find funding to support and advance Centre development and
to fight for imprisoned and imperilled writers. He had worked to create a stronger Secretariat, one
capable of giving better support to the Centres and with a greatly improved ability to raise the money
necessary to keep PEN strong. There was much left to do, and he had two goals to work towards if reelected
to the Board. The first was to enable the Secretariat to transform PEN’s vision into even better
programmes, programmes that were imaginative and able to respond to developments in the world of
literature and to advancing Centre development and strength. The second was to make PEN better
known throughout the world, so improving its ability to promote literature and defend the freedom to
write. He pledged himself to both. [Applause]
Anders Jerichow (Danish Centre) had read in all PEN’s documents that PEN formed a world
community of writers. And yet PEN lacked proper representation of vast areas and of many countries,
for example Africa and in the majority of Arab countries. He now had the privilege to present a fine
gentleman and colleague who would bring the African and the Arab worlds to the Board, where they
belonged. The privilege was the greater because Mohamed Magani embodied many aspects of
International PEN. He had spent five years in exile in Berlin; and thanks to the Finnish Centre, he had
escaped death threats in his own country, Algeria. He was needed by PEN to help fulfil its aim of
building bridges, by connecting other countries with the Arab and African regions. He was fluent in
Arabic, French, English and German. He had published ten books, novels in French, short stories in
English, educational and other books in Arabic. He was one of the founders of the Algerian Centre,
now a very active Centre, and was one of the founders and most active members of the PEN Africa
Network, through which many activities were taking place. It was the members’ duty to ensure that,
while others spoke of a clash of civilisations, PEN was not only working on behalf of Africa, but that it
56

was represented there and that writers in Africa were represented in PEN. He was very happy to be
able to say that Mohamed Magani would be a fine and important member of the Board. He was an
ambitious PEN activist, an important figure in strengthening the African Centres and a necessary
presence in enlarging the network of Centres in the Arab world. Delegates had heard that morning of
the many limitations on freedom of speech in the Arab and African countries: PEN needed Arabia and
Africa to be inside the organisation and in the Board. He urged delegates to vote for Mohamed
Magani. [Applause]
Mohamed Magani (Algerian Centre) said that, coming from a country, Algeria, that had seen almost
all writers, intellectuals, and literature and the very concept of literature, wiped out in the 1990s, he
believed it his duty to reaffirm the fundamental place in society of literature and creativity and the
freedom to express them. The Strategic Planning document provided essential guidelines, and would
constitute for him the basis of future action, with a particular emphasis on interest in and the defence
of literature and literary activity through the structure of International PEN. Equally important was the
need to strengthen existing Centres and consolidate the links between them, between members in parts
of the world. A more urgent need was the formation of new Centres in Africa and the Middle East,
and the greater involvement of writers and intellectuals there in protecting freedom of expression, civil
liberties and fundamental rights, and education in citizenship. Central to his activity as a PEN member
was the constant awareness of the plight of fellow African and Arab writers who risked their lives by
proclaiming the values, principles and human rights common to all people. It followed that it must be
rule to bring to light individual cases of threatened, persecuted or imprisoned writers and intellectuals.
The role of writers and intellectuals in Africa and the Middle East was to stress that human dignity lay
in man’s capacity for thought, of which literature and freedom of expression were vital parts. It was
because of these convictions that he was standing for election to the Board. [Applause]
Kata Kulavkova (Macedonian Centre, Translation and Linguistic Rights Committee Chair)
said that her Centre was delighted to present Gustav Murin, of the Slovak Centre. He had been
President of the his Centre for four years, and had travelled widely, acting as a bridge between eastern
Europe and other countries. He represented a new model of PEN members, and was dynamic, creative
and unconventional, with a considerable capacity for innovation while remaining true to the Charter.
Through all this he did not forget to write – essays, novels and scientific studies. Under his leadership
the Slovak PEN Global Library project had flourished, demonstrating new methods of work,
communication and information-gathering between PEN Centres and their members; the book his
Centre had published on the project had been distributed to delegates in Tromsø. She believed that the
structure of PEN’s Board should be slightly changed, to ensure that the people elected were capable of
giving PEN a new dimension, something that would not only help PEN to become more efficient but
that would leave a trace in the organisation. She urged delegates to elect Gustav Murin to the Board.
[Applause]
Gustav Murin (Slovak Centre) expressed his gratitude to Kata Kulavkova, one of those people
within PEN who demonstrated the great contribution to be made to PEN’s mission by the small
Centres. He would go straight to the aim of his candidacy. What could he do for PEN if elected to the
Board? Despite the tough competition, he felt he could fill a gap by contributing his long experience –
more than twenty years – of working with young writers and poets. In 1985 he had established the
Circle of Young Authors in Slovakia, with the aim of helping young writers to have their voices heard.
This had led to his being blacklisted by the communist authorities. However, after the revolution in
1989 he had been able to connect with colleagues thinking along similar lines in neighbouring
countries, and he had organised a conference of young writers from Central and Eastern Europe in
1994. The first detailed discussion of the role of young writers as future members of PEN had taken
place in Latvia in 1998; a special session on the subject had been held at the Ohrid Congress in 2002;
and as a result, with the help of PEN’s headquarters in London and with the financial support of
UNESCO, in 2003 his Centre had organised a European conference of young writers, with participants
from Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands,
Serbia, Slovakia and Slovenia. Details of the conference were included in the book, already
57

mentioned, on the Global PEN Library. His discussions with participants throughout these years had
convinced him that connection with young writers was a necessity for PEN. He also believed strongly
in the need to welcome new Centres not only into PEN’s family living-room but also into PEN’s
kitchen, to exchange experiences and work with them. When he had attended his first Congress in
Guadalajara, Mexico, in 1996 as delegate from a small, almost unknown PEN Centre, he had been
enormously grateful to all those who had helped him and had accepted him into the family: it had felt
wonderful to be given a helping hand. By focusing on the new generation of Centres and on the new
generations of members, his aim was to bring new blood and enthusiasm to PEN’s mission. There
should be no frontiers in PEN between generations, between large and small Centres or between wellestablished
and young Centres. He believed that by voting for him delegates would also be voting for
the future of International PEN. [Applause]
Elisabet Middelthon (Norwegian Centre) said that the first Congress she had attended had been in
1995 in Fremantle, Australia, where she had met Judith Rodriguez for the first time. Now, almost a
decade later, she was honoured to be introducing her to the Assembly and recommending her reelection
to the Board. Since 1995 Judith Rodriguez had attended many Congresses as delegate of the
Melbourne Centre, and had impressed with her ability to grasp the essence of a problem, to analyse it
and then suggest a solution that was acceptable to everyone. She had been active in the Writers in
Exile Network, the Translation and Linguistic Rights Committee and the Writers in Prison Committee,
and had notified PEN of the first Australian writers-in-prison case in 2001, that of Cheikh Kone of the
Ivory Coast. She was a widely anthologised Australian poet, and had taught literature and writing at
universities in four continents. She had worked on the Search Committee for candidates for office in
International PEN, and in 2001 had herself been elected a member at large of the Board. She had
prepared discussion papers for the Board and the Assembly, and since 2002 had served as the Board’s
Deputy Chair, presenting its reports to the Assembly. Within the Melbourne Centre she had held
committee positions, including that of President, had assisted in the setting-up of the Asia and Pacific
Writers Network, and had brought that region’s perspective to the Board’s discussions. She had been
active in the democratisation process of International PEN and had greatly contributed to PEN’s new
image. For the past ten years she had been one of PEN’s most active members, and as a re-elected
Board member would help PEN to work actively for and with all Centres. She was proud to introduce
her to the Assembly and to recommend her re-election. [Applause]
Judith Rodriguez (Melbourne Centre, International Board Deputy Chair) thanked her nominating
Centres and Elisabet Middelthon for their good opinions. She believed the Board had entered a most
active phase. For a long time it had worked on PEN’s documentation, wrestling with phrasing to
express members’ wishes for a structure that worked well and furthered PEN’s mission. Now the
Board had begun work that was much more to do with expanding PEN in more difficult terrain, such
as the Western South Pacific, her own region, and with equipping PEN with the means to do this. She
had been very honoured to be elected to the Board and had found its work joyful and fulfilling. There
had been difficult issues, but also achievements and opportunities such as the proposed Turkish –
Kurdish seminar in Diyarbakir. She believed passionately that these joys and challenges were part of
the work she could most usefully do. Her first contact with PEN had been in 1981 in Sydney; but it
was since the Fremantle Congress that she had felt fully involved, a time that had coincided with the
transformation of PEN more firmly into the hands of its membership, a transformation that would see
great enrichment of all its characteristic activities. PEN would meet a world that had changed in many
ways, some of the them disastrous – and she pledged herself, whatever her role in PEN, to support all
the enrichment that PEN could bring to the world. She was at PEN’s disposal, and hoped to be a part
of an increasingly pro-active Board working at the heart of the organisation. [Applause]
Carles Torner (Catalan Centre) felt it was impossible to introduce Eugene Schoulgin but would
take the opportunity to testify that he was a good friend, someone who was steeped in the values of
International PEN and who loved to share his involvement, someone who liked to push others, and to
search, but someone who was open to other people’s views. As Chair of the Writers in Prison
Committee he had done tremendous work. He had supported his excellent staff in London and had
58

encouraged Centres everywhere to join in the Committee’s efforts. He had advanced campaigns,
missions to several countries and the preparation of reports, such as the Freedom of Expression and
Impunity handbook. He had financially supported the WiPC by dedicating much time and effort to
fundraising. His great advantage was that he had several lives: a life in Turkey, one in Norway, one in
Sweden, another travelling the world, and one in Afghanistan dedicated to helping the formation of the
Afghan Centre and its House of Writers. He knew the work of the Board well, since as Chair of the
WiPC he had taken part in its meetings; and he had had a significant role in the difficult decisionmaking
during the Moscow Congress. He believed Eugene Schoulgin to be someone of tremendous
hope, and someone who wanted to keep sharing his hope with PEN, and he invited everyone to vote
for him. [Applause]
Eugene Schoulgin (Norwegian Centre, Writers in Prison Committee Chair) thanked Carles Torner
for his very nice words. He would try to say something about his intentions if elected to the Board.
When the WiPC had been created in 1960, there had been some in PEN who were sceptical about it,
who perhaps had feared that PEN would change from a literary organisation or community into an
NGO for human rights. History had shown that this had not happened. Everyone worked for the same
aims, and if the organisation was to develop it had to overcome all kinds of frontiers not only in the
international community of writers but also within itself. In darkening times, PEN’s community
needed to stick together, to be a light to itself, to believe in the organisation and its mission. PEN
members should be proud of their engagement with this mission – there were few around the world
who had the same capacity. PEN relied on individuals: people came and went and, as they did so,
small Centres became large and large Centres shrank – and this was why a strong Board was essential,
active between Congresses, capable of vitalising the organisation and focusing its imagination and
creativity on new goals to be faced in the changing world. During his years of involvement with the
WiPC he had missed one thing, the opportunity to participate in other aspects of International PEN –
the literary field, the linguistic field, the Peace Committee, and of course the Women’s Committee
[laughter]. Now, whether or not he was elected to the Board, he was free to do so. Finally, he
believed that improvement in the state of PEN’s finances was crucial. He knew that sometimes
Centres felt that the headquarters in London was not doing enough to support their work, for example
by providing translations of documents. PEN would never completely fulfil its task, but the
headquarters and Centres needed to support and understand each other, the Board needed to listen to
the Centres and the Centres needed to trust the Board to deal with the problems. He would do his best
to continue fundraising for PEN, to help to overcome the acute financial crisis, and he agreed with Eric
Lax that PEN was on the right track. [Applause]
Jukka Mallinen (Finnish Centre) said he was delighted to be presenting Alexander Tkachenko,
although he really needed no presentation. The Russian Centre was extremely active under very
difficult circumstances, of war, the violation of law and the increasing power of the secret services.
And it was Alexander Tkachenko who was the moving force in the Russian Centre in fighting for
freedom of expression, human rights and so on. He had been the key person in many of PEN’s
campaigns on behalf of writers, for example Anna Politkovskaya, Grigori Pasko, Alexander Nikitin
and Mamadali Makhmudov. He had supported numerous other Centres in the former Soviet Union,
many of them facing frightening situations, such as the Tatar, Kazakh, Bishkek, Belarusian and
Ukrainian Centres, and had been extremely helpful to them. He was the largest, most important
dynamo for all PEN activities in the former Soviet Union, really working on the front line of PEN
activity, and this took great personal courage. Moscow writers said that Alexander Tkachenko would
be the first person to fight for human rights when the good old times returned. Everyone in PEN knew
him as a person, very modest, moderate, correct, diplomatic [laughter] and he urged delegates to reelect
him to the Board. [Applause]
Alexander Tkachenko (Russian Centre, International Board member) thanked Jukka Mallinen for
his very kind words. He had attended his first Congress in Prague in 1994, and in the years since that
Congress anything good that he had done for PEN had been because he had grown up in the PEN
family. He felt that Jukka Mallinen had touched on something important, which was that it was
59

extremely important for the Board to have a member who knew and understood contemporary Russia
and the CIS countries, who could bring an accurate picture and good information from the region. He
worked with the Centres and members in the CIS countries and would continue to do so, protecting
their rights without question. Within the Board he wanted to suggest that each member should take
responsibility for a part of PEN’s work – at present there was much discussion and exchange of
information, but for a strong Board its members should be active in a particular field, on which they
could report to PEN members, and thereby show the work carried out by the Board. He was eager to
work in the this way, and would be very grateful for delegates’ support. [Applause]
21. Election of the International Treasurer
Jirí Gruša (International President) reminded delegates that Britta Junge Pedersen had had to leave
the Congress early. He would simply invite the Finnish representative to present her nomination for
the position of International Treasurer.
Elisabeth Nordgren (Finnish Centre, International Board member) said that as President of the
Finnish Centre and as a Board member it gave her great pleasure to present the candidacy of Britta
Junge Pedersen for re-election as International Treasurer. In two years’ working with her on the
Board she had seen how earnestly she worked, how constructive she was in finding new ways of
handling the accounts and reducing the expenses, and seeking funds, and what good ideas she had for
restructuring the budget of International PEN. She was active in the Board meetings on all matters,
was now a member of the Danish Centre and her fifteen years’ working in NGOs in Africa gave her
empathy with similar aspects of PEN’s work. Although delegates did not have the opportunity to hear
her speak on this occasion, she recommended that they vote for her because PEN’s finances would be
in very good hands if she were re-elected. [Applause]
Jirí Gruša proposed that since there were no other candidates, if there were no comments the
Assembly should take the vote immediately.
Britta Junge Pedersen was re-elected International Treasurer by acclamation.
22. Election of International Secretary (1)
Chip Rolley (Sydney Centre, Search Committee Chair) said that the election of the International
Secretary had thrown up a small anomaly in the Regulations. Article 28 required the Search
Committee to present the candidates for this position, although not for any of the other offices in PEN;
this needed to be considered. However, he was happy to have the opportunity to say something special
about the two candidates. As he had mentioned in his report, the Committee had been particularly
pleased that there were two candidates. Both were distinguished individuals who were committed to
PEN, and both had strong support among the Centres. The decision to stand for the position was not
one that could be made lightly, and delegates would be aware of the level of commitment in time,
energy and focus required to fulfil the role. The successful candidate would play a critical part in
shaping the role of the Secretariat and in the direction of the organisation arising from the changes
made to the Regulations at the Mexico Congress. Whoever might win, the Assembly owed both
candidates their warm thanks for making the commitment to take on the work of International
Secretary. [Applause]
Carles Torner (Catalan Centre) reminded delegates that until three months previously, when he had
taken employment that prevented him from standing for International Secretary, he had himself been a
candidate; and he first wanted to thank all those Centres that had supported him. He now wished to
present Joanne Leedom-Ackerman for election. He believed she was the right person for the office.
She had been a member of PEN for twenty years, and belonged to the American, English and USA
West Centres. She had been President of the last-mentioned in 1989, the year of the fatwa against
Salman Rushdie and of Tiananmen Square. He had first met her when she was elected Chair of the
60

Writers in Prison Committee at the Santiago de Compostela Congress in 1993, a position she held for
four years. The WiPC conferences had been her idea, the first being held in Elsinore under her
chairmanship, and she had promoted the WiPC publication This Prison Where I Live. Under her the
number of Centres belonging to the WiPC had multiplied. She had travelled to Turkey, South Korea,
Nepal, the Middle East and Mexico on behalf of the Committee, and had represented International
PEN at the UN Human Rights Commission during her time as the Committee’s Chair. On her
retirement as Chair she had been elected an International Vice President, and had continued to attend
Congresses, where her skills as a mediator had been much used. She was on the boards of Save the
Children, the International Crisis Group and Human Rights Watch, as well as of Johns Hopkins
University, and was Chair of the Asia Committee of Human Rights Watch. To all these important
qualities must be added personal charisma and, as delegates knew, the ability to work as part of a team.
She would keep in contact with all Centres, she knew how to listen, she was very patient and knew
how to wait for things to mature, and would be a unifying and strengthening force within PEN. Her
long experience with financial matters in other organisations, gave her the real capacity to redress
International PEN’s financial situation. As Chair, at each WiPC meeting she had read out the words of
an imprisoned writer, to place them at the centre of the discussion. He believed that the value of the
word was one of the driving forces in her life and in electing her International Secretary PEN would
benefit greatly. [Applause]
Joanne Leedom-Ackerman (International Vice-President) said that, having listened to all the
candidates for the Board, she had been impressed by the strength of the organisation and wanted them
all to be elected. She had great respect for Terry Carlbom, who been International Secretary for 6
years, because it was such a large job. Perhaps no one could do it on their own – the whole of PEN
would have to share it. She would try to bring to it what she could and would rely on the strengths of
the rest of PEN to do the things she herself could not do so well. During the summer she had spent
time reading about the history of PEN, and had been struck by how often PEN’s members understood
a particular historical moment, whether the book-burnings in Germany in 1933, the fatwa against
Salman Rushdie or the siege of Sarajevo. PEN was an organisation that was founded on its ideals, but
it realised those ideals in its actions – for example, at this Congress the Women Writers Committee
had planned a conference of women writers in Central Asia and the Writers in Exile Network had
initiated a network of exiled writers linked to websites. It was not only members’ literary work that
had given PEN its worldwide reputation, it was also how members had set PEN’s ideals in motion. If
she were elected she wanted to think, with the whole of PEN, about PEN’s activities, and look at the
particular issues that PEN should be engaged in. Among those issues should be the one already
mentioned as the clash of civilisations, and how PEN might be a part of turning that clash into a
dialogue, through literary forums and visits of writers and through the exploration of new Centres –
because at its best PEN was not a place where cultures clashed but where they communicated.
In her reading she had come across many interesting observations, among them one from the French
poet Pierre Emmanuel, International President from 1969 to 1971: ‘My PEN experience tells me that
PEN is not a comfortable meeting-place and that it is better that your comfort should be disturbed by
important questions, instead of petty ones.’ He had also called the continued existence of PEN ‘a
miracle of precariousness’. In twenty years of working in PEN she had witnessed that miracle time
and again, and she attributed it to the idealism at the heart of the organisation and the fellowship of the
writers involved. As PEN restructured and fundraised, as it debated issues and expressed internal
differences, she hoped that fellowship would underpin all, because it formed the fabric of the
organisation and was the reason for PEN’s creation. As to the precariousness, this should be put into
three categories: financial, structural, and of the spirit. First, it seemed that PEN had faced financial
difficulties ever since its founding and had always come through; but it was time to stabilise the
finances, and she felt encouraging signs that this could be done. Second, over the years PEN had
grown to 138 Centres in 98 countries, with more than 15,000 members, and had added a Board, a
Foundation and Board of Trustees; and yet the Secretariat remained the same size as it had been
twenty years before, two and a half people, excluding the WiPC staff. PEN’s strength was its
members, and its wonderful decentralised structure of Centres operating autonomously but linked and
61

connected to the international. The difficulty was that the spokes of this giant wheel were connected to
a tiny hub that was under a great deal of strain. A more fully staffed professional office would offer
the needed support for the organisation’s activities and would allow PEN to operate more dynamically
as a global NGO.
She would expect to work with the whole of PEN in fundraising for this and such other purposes as
working with Centres in developing regions, increasing aid to writers through the PEN Emergency
Fund, translating PEN’s work into the three working languages and expanding PEN’s
communications, which would include a more dynamic website. She would expect to call on members
for help with ideas and actions as well as finances, and looked forward to discussions on these. It was
important that PEN’s finances be clear and transparent, that the structure should be inclusive; but most
important was that the spirit be one of friendship even in disagreement. She had learned much about
how organisations worked and fundraised and governed themselves through her work with those
mentioned by Carles Torner, and she would use her experience to help PEN.
She wanted to thank the two International Secretaries she had worked with, Alexandre Blokh and
Terry Carlbom, who had served PEN with dedication over the years. And she would conclude with an
observation by another International President, Arthur Miller, who had said: ‘None of us comes here as
a representative of his country, none of us is obliged to speak here as an apologist for his culture or his
political system’, and had noted that ‘PEN is a neutral ground, a kind of sanctuary, where members can
focus on the stubborn, underlined saneness of the human spirit, whatever the variety of forms in which
it is expressed.’ [Applause]
Sibila Petlevski (Croatian Centre, International Board member) said it was her great privilege to
introduce Giorgio Silfer, novelist, short-story writer and one of the most influential Esperanto
playwrights. A Master of Arts, he had great experience in International PEN and in NGO matters in
general, and was a consultant on NGO structure and in international law. There were two major
utopias concerning language. The first was the utopia of one language spoken by all – a huge idea
with the terrible consequence of the battle for cultural and political domination. The second utopia
was of one language to be understood by all, which would breach the walls encircling individual
nations and languages to enable communication. Giorgio Silfer was known within PEN as the
representative of the Esperanto Centre; and the idea of Esperanto was the idea of the utopia of one
language not to be spoken by all but to be understood by all, of one language enhancing
communication, much in accordance with PEN’s ideals.
Giorgio Silfer was indeed a polyglot, having lived in Finland, Switzerland, Africa, Italy, Bulgaria and
Belgium. He had dual nationality, Italian and Swiss, and was a person who had opted for
communication as well as speaking. His competence in PEN matters should be stressed: he was a
cultural manager, a polyglot, a writer who was cool-headed and engaged, strict but flexible. Many
delegates would remember his valuable contributions to discussions, his active participation in
Congresses and conferences for more than ten years, especially in the Writers for Peace and
Translation and Linguistic Rights Committees. He had stated in his letter confirming his willingness
to stand that he would aim to help PEN emerge from its temporary crisis, applying methods he had
previously used to help other NGOs in a similar position. His use of many languages would be a
guarantee to smaller Centres that they would be represented through an intellectual who, in her view,
represented the post-national ethos, one who, like all PEN members, felt it was time to act in a world
lacking in security. PEN needed a cultural manager, a polyglot and a writer who was both cool-headed
and engaged. She believed that Giorgio Silfer fulfilled this need. [Applause]
Giorgio Silfer (Esperanto Centre) said he would speak in French, since that was the language
required by the constitution of the Esperanto community if a choice of several languages had to be
made. But his friends had also advised him to say something in English; and a Bulgarian friend,
congratulating him on some of his poems that had been excellently translated into Bulgarian, had
suggested the previous evening that he should sing his song. This was a song he had written in
62

Esperanto which had been recorded and was widely known in schools in French-speaking Belgium,
and was very popular with children. So since he was the last of the candidates to be presented, as it
were the desert, he thought he would write a song in English and present his identity through it.
Delegates should be happy – he would not sing [laughter]. He would start with the chorus, just as his
Esperanto song did:
[Applause]
People ask me to say,
Who am I? and for what? and why?
Just now, just today, in any way?
Of which nation am I a member?
Darling, please remember
My language is my nation.
Because there is no state
For which I am a candidate.
People ask me to say,
who am I? and for what? and why?
Graduated in Italian,
My home is Esperanto,
And on the other hand,
My house is in Switzerland.
People ask me to say,
Who am I? and for what? and why?
And look, I could be able
To help our association,
Coming here from the base,
Not coming from the table.
People ask me to say,
Who am I? and for what? and why?
Whose candidate am I?
A voice of minority,
A voice of the small Centres,
A voice of diversity,
A voice of a new generation.
People ask me to say,
Who am I? and for what? and why?
Let us just have a dream,
To build our future together,
Not only coming from the past,
But going on from it, however.
Tea break
23. Report of the Writers in Prison Committee (cont.)
Returning to Resolution (n), the resolution on Russia, Sara Whyatt (Writers in Prison Committee
Programme Director) said that discussions with the Russian delegate had led to a minor amendment
to the 7 th paragraph: the words ‘and other publications’ should be inserted after ‘…found in the open
press’.
A vote was then taken and the resolution was adopted unanimously.
63

(o)
Resolution on Spain, submitted by the Danish and Finnish Centres
‘The Assembly of Delegates of International PEN, meeting at its 70 th Congress in
Tromsø, Norway, 6 th – 12 th September 2004,
Considering that all forms of acts of “terrorism” are to be denounced as unacceptable and
hinder all moves towards achieving real peace, whether carried out by individuals, groups or
governments;
Further considering that freedom of the press is an essential part of freedom of expression in
general particularly at times of conflict;
Alarmed by the fact that the Spanish authorities have closed down the Basque-language
newspaper Egunkaria, which is accused of being controlled by the Basque group Euskadi Ta
Askatasuna (ETA) which has carried out a policy of bombings and assassinations to further its
demands for Basque independence;
Also alarmed about the reports that the editor-in-chief Martxelo Otamendi of Egunkaria and
others working for the newspaper were mistreated or tortured during detention after the
newspaper was forcibly closed;
Refers to the international standards that prohibit the use of cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment and to which the Spanish government is committed;
Notes that the investigation against Egunkaria is still under way over eighteen months after it
has been banned, and that one staff person – Iñaki Uria – remains in detention;
Shares concerns that the links between the newspaper and ETA appear to be tenuous;
Calls upon the Spanish government to hasten the investigations into the case against
Egunkaria and to summon an impartial and international board of inquiry to investigate the
case of Martxelo Otamendi and other similar cases.’
Sara Whyatt read out two minor amendments to the resolution. In paragraph 1 the words ‘forms of’
had been deleted, so that the paragraph now began ‘Considering that all acts of terrorism …’. And in
paragraph 6, the final words of the paragraph, ‘and that one staff person – Iñaki Uria – remains in
detention’, had been deleted in recognition of the fact that the writer and journalists Iñaki Uria had
been freed on bail.
Joxemari Iturralde (Basque Centre) informed the Assembly that, having been in prison for 18
months, Iñaki Uria had been released in August after his family had bailed him for half a million
dollars. Now he and ten other staff members of Egunkaria were awaiting trial.
A vote was then taken and the resolution was passed unanimously.
(p)
Resolution on Turkey submitted by the Ghanaian, Italian, Netherlands, San Miguel and
Scottish Centres
‘The Assembly of Delegates of International PEN, meeting at its 70 th Congress in Tromsø,
Norway, 6 th – 12 th September 2004,
Hopeful that the implementation of political reforms in Turkey, introduced over the past two
years, the redress of its previously poor human rights records through legislative reforms, will
64

continue to move forward, but disturbed that trials and imprisonment of writers and journalists
continue;
Deeply disappointed that the trial against noted writer and academic, Fikret Baskaya, is still
current with the court’s most recent session being held during the course of this International
PEN Congress (9 th September 2004);
Condemns the fact that the trial against Dr Baskaya for his book Articles Against the Current -
a collection of articles written in the early 1990s that focussed upon allegations of human rights
abuses by the Turkish army – accused under Article 159 of the Turkish Penal Code of “insult”
to the military, is a direct attack upon the right to freedom of expression;
Disturbed however by the 15 month prison sentence handed down on 20 May to the journalist
Hakan Albayrak for "insults to the memory of Ataturk" in an article published in 2001; and to
Mehmet Terzi, the newspaper's then editor-in-chief, his sentence reduced to a fine;
Welcoming the release on bail of MP and writer Leyla Zana, imprisoned since December
1994 on a 15-year sentence for her legitimate activism around the Kurdish question; and the
release of her co-defendants, MPs Orhan Dogan, Hatip Dicle and Selim Sadak;
Nevertheless underlines the fact that Leyla Zana and her co-defendants are still on trial, in
denial of international conventions that safeguard the rights to freedom of expression and
association;
Therefore calls for the immediate and unconditional release of any writer or journalist who is
detained solely for the peaceful practice of his or her profession and an end to the trials against
others charged under laws that remain in breach of international standards;
Therefore urges:
• a further review of Turkish legislation with the aim of removing from Turkish law any
remaining laws that can lead to the imprisonment of writers and journalists solely for
the practice of their right to freedom of expression, and embeds unequivocally into law
full respect for the right to freedom of expression
• repeal of the charges that had been brought against journalists and writers under the
now abandoned laws and close the cases.’
Sara Whyatt reminded delegates that a revised version of the resolution, showing the many
amendments to it, had been circulated in the morning. The amendments had been made to reflect the
fact that despite the very positive changes of recent years, trials and other attacks on journalists
continued, and that these were in breach of international standards.
Berivan Dosky (Kurdish Centre) suggested a small change to improve the sense of the penultimate
paragraph: to insert the word ‘all’ before ‘others’, so that the phrase read ‘… trials against all others
charged …’.
Zeki Ergas (Suisse Romand Centre) said he wanted to urge that PEN should not always stress the
negative, but should sometimes point up the positive developments taking place in Turkey, of which
recently there had been many.
There being no further comments, a vote was taken and the resolution, incorporating the proposed
small change, was carried unanimously, with one abstention.
65

(q)
Resolution on Uzbekistan, submitted by the Danish and English Centres
‘The Assembly of Delegates of International PEN, meeting at its 70 th Congress in Tromsø,
Norway, 6 th – 12 th September 2004,
Appalled by the government of Uzbekistan’s disregard for the rights of its citizens to
protection against human rights abuses including not to be subjected to torture or arbitrary
detention, to be granted fair trial, and to be able to speak out without fear of reprisal;
Brings to attention once again the fact that writers and journalists are held in Uzbek prisons
convicted of “crimes” that are clearly linked to their legitimately expressed opposition to the
authorities, following trials that have been condemned for falling foul of international standards
of fairness, and in some cases despite evidence that the prisoners had been subjected to threat
and torture, and inhumane prison conditions;
Further appalled by the fact that many prisoners are detained in towns far from their homes
and families thereby limiting their visits.
Referring in particular to:
- Mamadali MAKHMUDOV, a noted author sentenced in February 1999 to 14 years in prison
for his links to the exiled opposition activist, Muhammed Salih, himself a writer;
- Muhammad BEKJANOV and Yusif RUZIMURADOV, journalists, arrested and tried
alongside Mamadali Makhmudov, and serving 14 years and eight years respectively;
- Ruslan SHARIPOV, a human rights activist and journalist who in July 2003 was sentenced
to five and a half years in prison, ostensibly on charges related to his homosexuality, but which
are apparently in retaliation for his role as one of Uzbekistan’s most outstanding campaigners
for free speech. This despite reports that Sharipov was eligible for release on 11 June, the
appeal commission recommended that he be required to serve his full term.
Also noting concerns that journalist Khayrullah (Hairulla) ERNAZAROV, arrested in April
2003 year and who is on trial for having disseminated “wahabi-ism”, seen as part of a
disturbing pattern of religious intolerance in Uzbekistan.
Calls upon the Uzbek authorities to:
- Release all writers and journalists held in solely for the practice of their right to freedom of
expression or their peaceful political and religious affiliation;
- Review legislation that allow Uzbek courts to pass sentences that breach international human
rights norms, notably those relating to the right to freedom of expression;
- As a matter of urgency investigate all claims of torture and ill-treatment in interrogation
centres and prisons, and to take measures to prosecute any officer found to have carried out
such acts, and to put into place training programs and other measures to end the practice of
torture in Uzbekistan.’
Sara Whyatt said that the resolution was also sponsored by the Finnish Centre. There was one small
change to the 3 rd paragraph: the words ‘in towns’ had been deleted.
Alexander Tkachenko (Russian Centre, International Board member) said that his Centre wished
to co-sponsor the resolution.
66

A vote was then taken and the resolution was adopted unanimously.
(r)
Resolution on Vietnam, submitted by the Algerian, Belgian (French-speaking), Danish,
English, Finnish, Hungarian, Italian, Melbourne, Mexican, Portuguese, Russian, Slovak,
Suisse Romand, Swiss German, Swiss Italian and Reto-Romansh and Vietnamese Writers
Abroad Centres.
‘The Assembly of Delegates of International PEN, meeting at its 70 th Congress in Tromsø,
Norway, 6 th – 12 th September 2004,
Recalling that in February-March 2003, International PEN has launched "Focus on Vietnam",
a worldwide campaign bringing to attention the intensification of repression of the right to
freedom of expression by the Vietnamese authorities, and in November 2003, a resolution on
Vietnam, adopted at its 69 th Congress in Mexico City, asks for the release of all persons,
notably including writers, arrested and detained arbitrarily or condemned to sentences of
imprisonment following trials not in conformity with international standards, in violation of
their right to speak, to write, to search for, to receive and to circulate and publish information
on the Internet, and to form an association freely;
Deploring that since then, there has been no improvement in the situation of persecuted
writers, journalists and intellectuals in Vietnam. Their fate remains extremely worrying. Only
Trân Dung Tiên, Tran Khuê, Pham Quê Duong and three of Nguyên Van Ly's relatives have
been released at expiry of their sentence. Besides, arrested in February 2002 and condemned to
4 years' imprisonment and 3 years of probatory detention, Lê Chi Quang has been released in
June 2004 only for health reasons. As a matter of fact, Lê Chi Quang, who suffers from acute
renal failure and peptic ulcers, risked dying in prison;
Expressing its consternation and its indignation at the sentence unjustly inflicted upon the
journalist Nguyên Vu Binh (35-year-old), former collaborator of a Communist Party's official
publication during 10 years and active member of the (forbidden) Association of Citizens
against Corruption. Arrested in 2002, Nguyên Vu Binh was condemned on December 31, 2003
to 7 years' imprisonment and 3 years of probationary detention for his articles which had not
submitted to censorship and yet were distributed on the Internet, one of which was a testimony
regarding violations of human rights. On May 5, 2004, after the confirmation on appeal of the
verdict, Nguyên Vu Binh staged a hunger strike for over 2 weeks calling for his case to be
referred to the Supreme Court and that his wife would be allowed to visit him. We express a
similar consternation and indignation at the unjust sentence of the writer and editor Nguyên
Dan Quê (62-year-old). His arrest in March 2003 related to the circulation of a communiqué
in which he denounced the absence of freedom of speech and freedom of the press in his
country. On July 29, 2004, after an unfair trial, Nguyên Dan Qué was condemned to 30
months’ imprisonment. Suffering from serious ulcers, nephritic calculus, and arterial
huypertension, he has already spent 18 years in prison, between 1978 and 1998, for his
opinions;
Declaring itself profoundly worried at the deteriorating health of many prisoners, among
whom some are very old, suffering from chronic illnesses due to the hard conditions of prison
life, malnutrition, lack of medical care, forced labour and long years of detention or
deportation. Among others, the Buddhist monks and scholars Thich Huyên Quang (87-yearsold)
and Thich Quang Dô (76-years-old), the publisher and novelist Nguyên Dinh Huy (72-
years-old) and the intellectual Trân Van Luong (64-years-old);
67

Condemning the ongoing imprisonment of Trân Van Luong and Nguyên Van Ly, and the
house arrest of Thich Huyên Quang, in spite of Opinions of the United Nations Working
Group on Arbitrary Detention. As a reminder, the Commission on Human Rights has declared
that the deprivation of their liberty was arbitrary, as a contravention of Article 19 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights. (Trân Van Luong/Opinion Nr 13/1999/VIETNAM, Nguyên Van
Ly/Opinion Nr 20/2003/VIETNAM and Thich Huyên Quang/Opinion Nr 4/2001/VIETNAM);
Urges the Vietnamese authorities:
1. to release immediately and unconditionally all writers, journalists and intellectual still in
prison or under house arrest for having peacefully exercised their right to free expression
of their opinions, among others: Nguyên Dinh Huy, Trân Van Luong, Nguyên Van Ly,
Thich Huyên Quang, Thich Quang Dô, Nguyên Khac Toàn, Pham Hông Son, Nguyên
Vu Binh, Nguyên Dan Quê, Nguyên Hông Quang, Thich Tuê Sy and Nguyên Xuân Tu;
2. to cease all measures of harassment, intimidation and threat against their relatives;
3. to grant rights of visit for their families, adequate medical care for the sick prisoners and
in urgent cases, the right to receive treatment in a specialized hospital while awaiting
their release;
4. to observe the principles and fundamental rights expressed in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, including Article 19 that guarantees the right to freedom of expression
and opinion.’
Sara Whyatt said that delegates had been circulated with a copy of the revised resolution which
contained many changes, almost all of which were corrections to the English translation of the original
resolution. In addition, two new cases had been added, and the wording on one of the cases – that of
Nguyên Dan Quê – had been strengthened.
Zeki Ergas (Suisse Romand Centre) said that Nguyên Hoang, the author of the resolution, did
tremendous work not only for Vietnamese prisoners but also for prisoners of other nationalities. As
this was a highly complicated resolution Hoang had asked him to summarise its content: first, the
situation in Vietnam remained very bad; second, both of the prisoners who had been released had
come to the end of their sentences; and third, some elderly intellectuals, whose poor health meant that
their lives might be endangered, remained in prison.
There were no further comments. A vote was then taken and the resolution was passed unanimously.
(s)
Resolution on Zimbabwe, submitted by the South African Centre
‘The Assembly of Delegates of International PEN, meeting at its 70 th Congress in Tromsø,
Norway, 6 th – 12 th September 2004,
Alarmed by the continuing deterioration of the level of governance in Zimbabwe including the
systematic violation of the human rights of Zimbabwean citizens;
Aghast at the anti-democratic nature of the Zimbabwean government and its attack on one of
democracy’s founding principles: freedom of expression;
Apalled that the tyrannical disregard for rule of law and for democratic constitution in
Zimbabwe is leading to economic and civic deterioration, threatening the very lives of millions
of Zimbabweans;
68

Noting that freedom of expression has not been restored in Zimbabwe as called for by PEN and
that the government continues to attack the national media:
Calls on the government of Zimbabwe to:
• Restore freedom of expression as called for by PEN in resolutions in 2002 and 2003,
return to the rule of law, allow independent newspaper to continue to publish without
official harassment.
• Amend or repeal the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act and ensure
that the Media and Information Commission meets international standards on freedom
of expression and a free press.
• Abandon its attacks on human rights and plan for free and fair elections in the country
to be monitored without hindrance by international observers.
• Return to democratic government under the existing constitution.
• Ensure, in terms of Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, that all citizens of Zimbabwe are able to “seek, receive and impart information
through any media”.’
There being no comments, a vote was then taken and the resolution was adopted unanimously.
(t)
Resolution on the UN World Summit on the Information Society, submitted by the Finnish
and Norwegian Centres
‘The Assembly of Delegates of International PEN, meeting at its 70 th Congress in Tromsø,
Norway, 6 th – 12 th September 2004,
Learning that the WSIS, at the conclusion of the first phase of the Intergovernmental Summit
on Geneva, adopted a Declaration of Principles affirming the centrality of human rights and
freedom of expression as fundamental principles for the information society;
Deeply disturbed by the fact that the Tunisian government continues to violate its
commitments under the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, and that the broadcast media
remain dominated by the state, and that websites and newspapers critical of the government
have been blocked or are prevented from publishing, that censorship of the Internet is routine
practice and that Tunisia continues to imprison its citizens for exercising their freedom of
expression.
Reminding the United Nations of the recognition of and respect for the unfettered right of
human rights and other civil society groups, including freedom of expression organisations, to
operate freely in Tunisia.
Demands that no further charges or terms of imprisonment are levied against individuals for
the exercise of their right to freedom of expression, consistent with international human rights
law and a reform of the media and communications environment, including the right to
establish independent media outlets and uncensored access to the Internet.
Further demands guarantees that all local and international human rights and other civil
society organisations are free to distribute and to receive material at and from the conference
site without threat or practice of any form of censorship and that local and international media
will be able to report freely and without interference from the Summit, including directly from
the conference site.
69

Calls on the United Nations and Member States to insist that the Tunisian government make
these guarantees concerning the Summit itself and that it commit to substantial and measurable
progress with respect to the benchmarks that we have set out above.’
Sara Whyatt said there were two changes to the resolution. In the title the words ‘being held in
Tunisia’ had been added after ‘the Information Society’, for clarification. The other change was to the
final paragraph, which would now end with the word ‘guarantees’. The rest of that paragraph had
been deleted.
There being no comments, a vote was taken the resolution was unanimously adopted.
Sara Whyatt then informed the Assembly that Resolution (u), Recommendation on the Spanish and
French versions of the name of the Writers in Prison Committee, had been postponed until the 2005
Congress in Bled. She added that four In-session Resolutions would be presented to the Assembly, on
the United States’ restriction on information and cultural exchange, on Nepal, on the Maldives and on
the cases of the French journalists held hostage in Iraq.
Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) invited the delegates to thank the Committee members and
Sara Whyatt and the rest of the WiPC staff for all the good work that had been done. [Applause]
Sara Whyatt then asked for a final word. A book of thanks to Eugene Schoulgin for all his work as
Chair of the WiPC had been prepared. It contained many messages of thanks and appreciation for
everything he had done; and she would now like to present it to him. [Prolonged applause]
Eugene Schoulgin (Writers in Prison Committee Chair) said that there were moments in life when
even he did not have any words. He did not know what to say, believe it or not, just that he was deeply
touched. [Applause]
24. Report of the Translation and Linguistic Rights Committee
Kata Kulavkova (Macedonian Centre, Translation and Linguistic Rights Committee Chair) said
that the Committee had adopted a written report of its work between the Mexican and Tromsø
Congresses, but she would now make a verbal report to the Assembly.
The Lebanese Centre had joined the Committee, and a complete list of members was now on the
Committee’s website. Two regular meetings had been held: 15 member Centres were represented at
the first, held in Ohrid on 18 th June during the Ohrid Literary Conference; and the second, on 8 th
September in Tromsø, had been attended by delegates from 19 member Centres and by representatives
of non-member PEN Centres. She wanted to thank Terry Carlbom for the report he had written and
circulated on the Ohrid Conference and the Committee’s work during the Conference.
In addition to accepting the already mentioned reports, the Committee had agreed to a programme of
activities for the coming year, which included a seminar planned for Diyarbakir in the spring of 2005.
Resolution (v), on the Diyarbakir Seminar Project, which the Committee was presenting to the
Assembly, had been proposed by the Kurdish Centre and was fully supported by the Turkish Centre.
The Seminar would be of great importance to PEN: it would deal with issues of linguistic diversity as
well as the place of the Kurdish language within Turkey, and would take place in an atmosphere
worthy of literature and of International PEN. It would be designed by the Committee and would have
the active participation of the new International Secretary and Jane Spender at the London Office. The
other major planned activity, proposed by the Catalan Centre, would be a Committee conference to
take place in Barcelona probably in 2006.
The Diversity Project – to publish on the internet a collection of writings both in their original
languages and in translation, in particular writings in languages of lesser currency and minority
70

languages – was proceeding well. In June the Committee had elected a seven-member editing team,
including an editor-in-chief, who would communicate and work together through e.mail since there
were insufficient funds for them to meet. To date the work of fifteen authors had been included in the
collection, among them Valak, Corsican and Kurdish writers, and all the works appeared in at least
three languages, one of them Macedonian, since that was where the project was based. They hoped to
ensure that all works appeared in PEN’s working languages.
At the Committee meeting just held, the Finnish Centre had proposed a resolution concerning the use
of the Tatar alphabet. Since this would have largely repeated a resolution adopted in Mexico in 2003,
with the agreement of the Tatar Centre it had been decided to quote it in its written report, thus
formally enabling the Committee to write officially on the subject to the Russian authorities.
The next two regular meetings of the Committee would be in Ohrid and in Bled in 2005.
Applications for additional funding for the Diversity Project and for the Diyarbakir Seminar were
being prepared.
She would conclude by saying that there had been an intense discussion in the Committee concerning
the use of languages in International PEN’s work. The discussion had begun in Ohrid where a
working group had proposed a text on this question. However, since in Tromsø there had been quite a
delicate context concerning Spanish, and since the Committee felt that it was not the only or the most
competent body to discuss the matter, they had put the text aside for the time being; and because there
were funding implications, they would return to it in a way that would include all Centres as well as
the International PEN Secretariat. [Applause]
(v)
Resolution on the Diyarbakir Seminar Project, submitted by the Translation and Linguistic
Rights Committee
‘The Assembly of Delegates of International PEN, meeting at its 70 th Congress in Tromsø,
Norway, 6 th – 12 th September 2004,
Recalling the basic commitment of International PEN to build a world community of writers
guided by the values of the PEN Charter,
Further recalling that over the past two years International PEN's Standing Committee on
Translations and Linguistic Rights has worked to realise the Diyarbakir Seminar Project, aimed
at bringing together Turkish and Kurdish writers as a PEN contribution to the building of a
Culture for Peace in this region,
Keeping in mind that language is a central component of cultural diversity, and must entail
encouraging more people to study less commonly taught languages, as for example in this
instance Kurdish,
Firmly supporting the ongoing efforts to enable and implement this pilot project in
Diyarbakir,
And gratefully acknowledging the support of and material contributions from the City
authorities of Diyarbakir and others,
Referring to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, the statutes of the Council of
Europe, the accords of the European Union and the PEN/UNESCO initiative regarding the
Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights,
71

Respectfully submit that the appropriate national and local authorities of Turkey extend their
full co-operation and support in enabling this international project to be implemented without
undue administrative or judiciary restraints on participants and invited guests.’
Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) first of all wanted to record his vote of thanks to Kata
Kulavkova and the Committee for their hard work during the year. Turning to Resolution (v), he said
there were two adjustments to be made to the text which he would now go through. First, the 6 th
paragraph was to be moved to become the resolution’s opening paragraph. And second, in the last
paragraph the words ‘without undue administrative or judiciary restraints on participants and invited
guests’ should be deleted, so that the paragraph ended with the word ‘implemented’. He added that the
Diyarbakir project would be carried forward by a steering group led by the Chair of the Committee and
including the Presidents of the Kurdish and Turkish Centres, the International Secretary and Jane
Spender as Administrative Director.
A vote was then taken and the resolution was passed, with one against.
Terry Carlbom proposed that the Report of the Translation and Linguistic Rights Committee be
adopted by acclamation. [Applause]
25. Report of the Women Writers Committee
Judith Buckrich (Melbourne Centre, Women Writers Committee Chair) said how privileged she
felt to have been elected as Chair of the Committee; she hoped she could fulfil the job as well as her
predecessors, Martha Cerda and Lucina Kathmann. Her first action on becoming Chair had been to
establish an up-to-date network, which had taken her two months: most Committee members were not
able to attend Congress, so it was extremely important that the working network should be fully
inclusive of Committee members and other interested women writers in PEN who wanted to be kept
informed of the Committee’s work.
The next step had been to find out from members what their issues and problems were, and how these
might be handled. It quickly became obvious that one of the great problem areas for women writers –
one of many in the world – was Central Asia. Following many discussions with Tiina Pystynen of the
Finnish Centre, who was a human rights commissioner, and Vera Tokombaeva of the Bishkek Centre,
they had decided that the Committee should try to organise a meeting of women writers in Bishkek
immediately after the Bled Congress in 2005. It was an ambitious project but a very worthy one,
particularly given that many of the writers in the region, whether women or men, PEN members or
otherwise, had very few opportunities of meeting.
She had sent out a request for contributions for the Committee’s newsletter, and had received an
incredible number of articles. She and the co-editors of the newsletter, Judith Rodriguez and Rowena
Hilton, had decided that, this once, all the submitted material would be included, and it was already
available in English and Spanish, with the French version to follow shortly. They would continue to
publish in all three languages. She had also set in train the creation of a tri-lingual website, which
would help communication within the Committee and would contain information on all kinds of
women’s activities, news and so on. Finally, she wanted to inform the Assembly about the
Committee’s mentoring programme, initiated by Tiina Pystynen during the Barcelona conference
earlier in the year, in which individual women writers would act as contact and support people for
women writers who were in prison or who were experiencing other difficult circumstances. She could
not over-stress the importance of networking for women writers, who often had to work and live in all
kinds of isolation; and she felt that everyone involved in the Committee should try to be as active in it
and in networking as possible.
In the next few months she hoped to be able to report that the Bishkek conference would be going
ahead. [Applause]
72

Jirí Gruša (International President) asked if he might interpret the applause as approval of the
report, and this was agreed with further applause.
Zeki Ergas (Suisse Romand Centre) said that he had promised Fawzia Assaad, who did an excellent
job working on behalf of International PEN at the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva, to
mention a conference called ‘Women Defending Peace’, to take place in Geneva 22 nd – 24 th November
2004. It was being organised by the Suzanne Mubarak Women’s International Peace Movement, and
Micheline Calmy-Rey, the Swiss Minister of Foreign Affairs, and its aim was to strengthen women’s
role in the construction of a new world. Three hundred NGOs would participate, with Nobel laureate
nominees and other eminent people. He could give the web address to anyone interested in the
conference
Asked by Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) whether the conference was connected with the
Women Writers Committee report since it seemed to be simply an announcement of a conference,
Ze ki Ergas said that he had spoken to the Committee’s Chair and she had been very excited about it.
He felt there was a direct relationship between the Committee and the conference.
Kristin Schnider (Swiss German Centre) said that perhaps confusion had arisen from the fact that
sometimes the Swiss had no settled working language, speaking French or German or Turkish, or
other language. But the conference did pertain to the Women Writers Committee. She herself had
been mandated to represent the Committee at the conference, while Fawzia Assaad was to represent
the Writers for Peace Committee, because the Committees wanted International PEN to contribute at
the conference.
Terry Carlbom thanked her for this clarification.
26. Report of the Writers in Exile Network
Isobel Harry (Canadian Centre) said that the past year had been very productive. Since its formal
constitution in 1999, the Network had grown into a valuable working mechanism of PEN, furthering
the aims of the organisation and enhancing the principles of the Charter. PEN Canada was the second
Chair of the Network, having taken over from the German Centre at the Macedonian Congress in
2002.
Present at the Tromsø Congress were many exiled writers who had benefited from the work of the
Network; thanks to the Norwegian Centre, the distinguished writers Chenjerai Hove, Mansur Rajih,
Soudabeh Alishahi and Rais Reza Boneza had participated in a round table to discuss their
experiences, at which the keynote address ‘The Third Zone of Literature’, on new exilic forms of
writing, had been given by the past President of the Canadian Centre, Reza Baraheni. Thanks also to
the Congress theme of exile and the excellent programming done by the Norwegian Centre, the special
session had shown films about exiled writers that had underlined the importance of PEN’s work in this
area – and she urged everyone to see Sandra Camps’s outstanding film on Cities of Asylum.
During the year, the Network had held its first conference, sponsored by Barcelona Forum 2004 and
hosted by the Canadian and Quebec Centres in Ottawa under the aegis of the Canadian Department of
Foreign Affairs, on Building a Writers in Exile Network. Network colleagues from Germany,
Norway, Spain and the United States had been invited; and they had talked about their work to
approximately 80 delegates from universities, institutions, organisations and municipalities from
across Canada. As a result there was considerable official interest in Canada in helping exiles to
rebuild their professional lives, and the Network itself had taken another stride towards becoming truly
international.
73

The Network had produced its first draft handbook, a compilation of the work of various Centres,
which outlined three broad areas of assistance: Cities of Asylum, particularly strong in Norway,
Finland and Germany; university placements and other residencies, being spearheaded in Canada and
the United States, as well as readings, lectures and events programmes, such as those in Sweden; and
the concept of writers’ retreats, already in place in Switzerland and Great Britain. Other Centres
specialised in legal assistance, for example Finland; or working on translation programmes, as in the
United States; or on the problems of refugee writers being held in detention camps, as in Australia. A
final version of the handbook would be made available on the Canadian Centre’s website shortly. Her
Centre, as Chair, was working towards a larger web presence to further internationalise the Network in
the areas of referrals and information exchange. The Network was also exploring ways of working
with the existing Cities of Asylum Programme, which had about 50 cities offering support to exiled
writers but which was currently somewhat at risk.
A wonderful accomplishment of the meetings in Tromsø had been the creation by exiled writers
themselves of a Writers in Exile Forum within the Network, to maintain contact between them on
issues of concern to them and to the Network and to report regularly on Forum activities. The Forum
would work towards the goal of developing writer refugee potential to the best advantage of the writers
and the countries in which they lived; under discussion were the publication of an anthology, as well as
other publishing ideas, and a mentorship programme. It was hoped that the Network would be able to
raise funds to enable exiled writers to attend Congresses in the future in sufficient numbers to continue
their valuable contribution to PEN.
The executive council members of the Network were the Australian, English, German, Independent
Chinese, Mexican and Norwegian Centres and Simon Mol, a Cameroonian writer refugee in Poland;
the Canadian Centre had agreed to continue as Chair for a further year. The Network wanted to thank
Barcelona Forum 2004 and the Norwegian Centre for their strong support, and to all in International
PEN for their concern for writers in Exile. On behalf of the Network she had pleasure in giving copies
of the handbook to the International President and to the Secretariat. [Applause]
Jirí Gruša (International President) asked the Assembly to adopt the report by acclamation.
[applause], and then closed the session.
Fourth session, Saturday 11 th September, morning
27. Elections to the Board (2) and Election of the International Secretary (2)
At the request of the International President, Jane Spender (Administrative Director) took the
Assembly through the election process: voting would be by secret ballot, and when their Centre’s
name was called delegates were asked to bring the both ballot papers to put into the appropriate ballot
box. The scrutineers appointed at the start of the Assembly would remove the boxes and count the
votes.
Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) then called Centres in alphabetical order, followed by
those Centres acting as proxies, to place their ballot papers in the ballot boxes. The scrutineers then
removed the boxes to count the votes.
28. General Resolutions and Recommendations
(w)
Recommendation on the Honours System of International PEN, submitted by the Board
‘The Assembly of Delegates of International PEN, meeting at its 70 th International Congress in
Tromsø, Norway, 6 th – 12 th September 2004,
74

Having declared a moratorium in November 2003 on the election of new Vice Presidents, as
the upper limit of 20 had been reached, and
Having decided to review the question of Vice Presidents and Honorary Members of
International PEN, initiated a formal consultation process with the Centres on these proposals
and requested the Board to report on them with a Recommendation to the Assembly of
Delegates in 2004:
Decides to introduce the category of Presidents Emeritus, and furthermore
Decides to request the Board to finalise the proposal on the Honours system of International
PEN, to be decided on by the Assembly of Delegates no later than 2006, replacing the present
Articles 19 and 20 of the Regulations and Rule 13 of the Rules of Procedure.
=============================================================
Proposal for the Honours system of International PEN
The Board proposes that the following paragraphs be voted in preparation for the presentation
of its completed recommendations concerning the Honours system at Bled in 2005.
Section B
Members of Honours categories of International PEN
Members of Honours categories of International PEN, including those belonging to the
category of Vice President, may attend Congresses and participate in the Assembly of
Delegates, and shall perform such duties and carry out such responsibilities as may be
requested by the Board or the International President.
Article 19
Honour categories
(a) Category I, Presidents Emeritus. Every person who has held the position of President
of International PEN shall belong to a special Honours category called Presidents Emeritus.
[In French, Présidents émérites (Président(e) émérite) ; in Spanish, Presidentes eméritos
(Presidente emérito, Presidenta emérita).]’
Judith Rodriguez (Melbourne Centre, Board Deputy Chair) reminded delegates that they had been
circulated with a revised recommendation, to replace the original version. She would explain the
history behind the matter. PEN had among its Officers the category of twenty International Vice
Presidents. Among them were people that PEN wished to honour for service to literature, such as
Arthur Miller, a former International President, Nadine Gordimer and others; and people, perhaps not
so well known, who had for many years done great service to PEN. Now the category of Vice
President had reached its full complement of twenty, and there was a logjam – it was no longer
possible to honour anyone of either kind in this way. Rethinking was clearly needed. The matter had
been on the table since 2002, and in Mexico in 2003 the Assembly had adopted a recommendation
authorising the Board to try to resolve the matter. The Board had made considerable progress, and had
hoped to present a complete system of honours. But unfortunately they had proposed to use the words
‘Honorary Member’ in the Recommendation, and this was a much-loved term already in use as a title
bestowed on writers adopted by member Centres of the Writers in Prison Committee.
The Board had therefore decided to put the matter on hold for a short while, but hoped that the
Assembly would agree to what was now presented on the revised recommendation. First, it gave the
go-ahead to further thinking and, second, it proposed one category of honour, which already had one
member. In Mexico in 2003 Homero Aridjis, International President from 1997 to 2003, had been
75

appointed President Emeritus, a Latin term that could be used in English and had been naturalised in
French as ‘émérite’ and in Spanish as ‘emerito’. She had been assisted by the French and Spanish
Centres in providing these translations, which were given at the foot of the page
It was proposed, in Article 19 in the revised recommendation, that all former International Presidents
should belong to the special honours category of Presidents Emeritus. She believed that PEN should
move ahead on this very good idea – several people who had made PEN illustrious by their writing and
by their work for PEN already belonged to this category, and PEN would be well served by noting the
great service performed by its International Presidents. That was why the Board recommended it at
this stage; and they promised to complete the job at the next Congress. [Applause]
Francis King (International Vice-President, former International President) said that as the oldest
of the three Vice Presidents present at the Congress, he wanted to offer a few thoughts on the
proposals that would be taken forward to Bled – he was not urging their rejection, but suggesting that
they should be further considered. Vice Presidents had the unfortunate habit of living too long – at 81
he was an example, but there were others even older than he. So there was a logjam. Some Vice
Presidents would soon be departing [laughter], but even if they failed to do so there was no reason that
he could see for not increasing the number to thirty to accommodate their longevity. As a former
President he would be perfectly happy to be called a President Emeritus. But he was unhappy with the
division into three categories, because very often these categories overlapped: there were people who
were Vice Presidents primarily for their services to PEN; there were others so honoured for their
services to international literature – and Mario Vargas Llosa and Arthur Miller immediately sprang to
mind as internationally famous authors who had also done great service to PEN. He did not see why
there was a need to distinguish between the categories. All Vice Presidents had in one way or another
served the literary community.
A further difficulty with honouring internationally famous writers who were not members of PEN was
that some, to his knowledge, had been unsympathetic to PEN and had refused on many occasions to
co-operate with PEN. For PEN to restrict itself to fifteen authors of international distinction would
also be to lay up a tremendous problem because, very naturally, Centres would wish their greatest
writers to be so honoured. Fifteen was a very small number, there were many Centres, and there could
be many writers of huge distinction in countries whose languages had small currency so that they
might not have come to the attention of the international public. If the Board were able to exclude
certain writers, and perhaps even to withhold their reasoning for such an exclusion, considerable
resentment could be created.
He did not see why the present system could not continue, with an increase in numbers to thirty or
forty in order to be able to include more people. Or would it not be possible to invite internationally
famous authors to become patrons of PEN? Museums, art galleries, orchestras, theatres in Britain all
had patrons, people who by financial or other forms of assistance had helped them – why could not
PEN have a similar category of person? Those were his thoughts, and he begged the delegates to give
a little more thought to the problem. [Applause]
Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) reminded delegates that the decision would be to request
the Board to finalise the proposal, which did leave room for thought or for complete postponement or
for referral back to the Board.
Judith Rodriguez added that the vote would also be to introduce the category of President Emeritus.
Very little response had been received from Centres when the ideas were first circulated, and the delay
now provided the opportunity for further thought and comment. She found the suggestion of patrons
interesting, and the Board would appreciate ideas on a further elaboration of the system.
Sylvestre Clancier (French Centre) said that his father, Georges Emmanuel Clancier, was very like
Francis King – a Vice President known for having honoured literature and also for having rendered
76

great and various services to PEN. His father had asked him to inform the Assembly of his feelings
and position, should the subject be discussed; and it so happened that, without any communication
between them, his father held exactly, practically to the word, the views expressed by Francis King.
As for his Centre, they believed that the proposal needed to be improved, and they supported the idea
of an increase in the number of Vice Presidents without the creation of categories and sub-categories;
and the suggestion of patrons, of people who wanted to support International PEN with their fame,
might be a good addition, but not in the form of a sub-category. The outcome should be greater
numbers of Vice Presidents on the one hand and people who would act as patrons of International PEN
on the other.
Giorgio Silfer (Esperanto Centre) pointed out that the proposed change to the Section B preamble
and Article 19 of the Regulations meant that there was no longer a definition of Vice President, as
there was in the been in the Regulations to date.
Judith Buckrich (Melbourne Centre, Women Writers Committee Chair) said that she thought that
part of the problem was that if Vice Presidents wanted to attend Congresses some of their expenses
had to be paid for them. If the number were to be increased to thirty and they all wanted to attend a
Congress, how were their costs to be covered?
Hanan Awwad (Palestinian Centre) said that her Centre supported the idea of increasing the number
of Vice Presidents. The original limit had probably been established when PEN had had many fewer
Centres. There were many distinguished writers who should be included as Vice Presidents.
Jens Lohmann (Danish Centre) expressed his pleasure at listening to Francis King’s clear, eloquent
and reasonable intervention. However, he thought it a good idea to change the concept of Vice
President, a term which implied an executive role, that of the person who took over when a President
was unable lead an organisation. The current system was a muddle which the Board was trying to sort
out; but the Board’s proposal was too complicated and would not solve the problem. PEN needed
simple rules. He believed that Francis King’s suggestion of a system of patrons would work; the
position of Vice President would then be freed to become an executive position. It was useful to have
the time before the next Congress to consider the matter further.
Prakash A. Raj (Nepalese Centre) also thought Francis King’s suggestion of patrons an excellent
one. It would be a great honour for writers, and as patrons they could help in PEN’s fundraising
efforts.
Terry Carlbom felt that, guided by Francis King’s extremely lucid comments, he had a way forward
to suggest. But first the Assembly did need to introduce the category of Presidents Emeritus – they
owed it to the former International President whom they had not been able to elect a Vice President at
the Mexico Congress. He suggested that the words ‘introduce the category of Presidents Emeritus, and
furthermore decides to …’ be inserted into the recommendation’s third paragraph between ‘Decides
to’ and ‘request’. The matter would then be taken on to the next Congress. [Applause]
Jirí Gruša (International President) proposed to take the applause as acceptance of the
recommendation, including the suggested amendment, by acclamation. [Applause]
(x)
Resolution on the Declaration of Bari, submitted by the French and Italian Centres
‘The Assembly of Delegates of International PEN, meeting at its 70 th International Congress in
Tromsø, Norway, 6 th – 12 th September 2004,
Aware of the threats to human rights, and especially to freedom of expression;
77

Warmly supports the Bari Declaration – below – and embraces its concluding
recommendations.
Declaration of Bari
The Congress on Human Rights and Freedom of Expression held in Bari, on the 3rd of May
2004,
Declares that respect for human rights is the guiding ideal of the contemporary society;
Recalls the commitment of nations regarding these rights as enshrined in the Charter of the
United Nations and in the constitutions of its Institutions;
Notes that there is a growing violation of these rights by member states of these organisations;
Urges the United Nations, its Institutions and particularly UNESCO:
• to reactivate or to establish the procedure for banning or excluding from the United
Nations or from its institutions those states found guilty of such violations;
• to allow NGOs (Non Governmental Organisations) with a consultative status with the
United Nations and/or its Institutions, to initiate such procedures for whistle-blowing,
banning or excluding member States found guilty of human rights violations.’
Emanuele Bettini (Italian Centre) said that PEN’s desire for freedom of expression and democracy
was well known. On 3 rd May, World Press Freedom Day, the Italian Centre had organised a
conference on freedom of expression and the press at Bari, which had been attended by representatives
of the Algerian, English, French and Italian Centres. Because of the date the participants had felt they
should write a declaration – not a resolution against anything, but a recommendation, an invitation.
Among the members of the United Nations were countries that did not care for freedom of expression
and democracy. What did the declaration mean? It meant that International PEN, which had no actual
power, could recommend to the United Nations that it reactivate the procedure for expelling countries
that did not respect human rights. The present recommendation was not against the United Nations or
UNESCO; it was for freedom of expression and democracy.
Johano Strasser (German Centre) said that he did not doubt the good intentions of those who had
drafted the recommendation. But by the wording of the final paragraph and its bullet points it was
actually asking the United Nations to exclude all those states that violated human rights [laughter],
which would amount to more than half the UN membership – perhaps three-quarters. This was not a
wise procedure, since exclusion from the United Nations structures would mean that the
representatives of such states would not meet people who were engaged in human rights, would not
have to justify their own activities, and would no longer have to pay dues to the UN, dues which were
then used for activities that such states would never themselves promote. He was certain that PEN
should follow its own principles strictly, and should keep an eye on those Centres that never alerted
PEN to human rights violations in their own countries. But this was not a wise recommendation.
[Applause]
Nadezda Cacinovic (Croatian Centre) said that members of the United Nations had to accept the UN
Charter, and although it was a very weak instrument it was an instrument that could be used. To
exclude states belonging to a community that made them accept the criteria of such an instrument was
not something that should be done; the recommendation should not be accepted.
Kjell Olaf Jensen (Norwegian Centre) urged delegates to reject the recommendation. It had been put
to the Writers for Peace Committee at its meeting in May in Bled; it had not been accepted by the
78

Committee for several reasons. First, there had been diverging reports on what the Declaration of Bari
really was; and the Declaration of Bari had not in fact been supported by all the Centres listed as
supporting it. Second, the Committee had decided that its content was in no way a matter for
International PEN: the recommendation was asking PEN to urge the United Nations and the
organisations under its umbrella to take steps to exclude countries that violated human rights. PEN
was a freedom of expression organisation: what had this to do with PEN’s work? As VenoTaufer
would confirm, the two of them, as Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee, had subsequently
discussed the recommendation by e.mail and had agreed to insistently urge the Assembly not to adopt
it.
Jirí Gruša (International President) said that as someone who had been active in diplomacy for
more than fifteen years, he knew that to adopt the recommendation would be the most counterproductive
thing that PEN could do. He understood the Italian Centre’s position, because morally
speaking it was a proper one. But PEN represented inclusion and not exclusion; and, furthermore, to
exclude without having the power actually to do so would be a laughable act.
Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) said that the Board had been uneasy about the
recommendation. The paragraphs on banning or excluding were in fact asking the United Nations
membership to choose whether or not they wished to activate their exclusion procedures. And should
International PEN try to initiate any such procedures, the effect on the Centre in the country concerned
could well be imagined. The Board position was to reject the recommendation.
Sylvestre Clancier (French Centre) said that as the French Centre’s delegate to the Assembly it was
his duty to reply to the points that had been made. His position was quite delicate in that he had not
himself been present in Bari but must nevertheless try explain what might have been the intentions
behind the recommendation. The drafting might not express these adequately and therefore the text
could be seen as counter-productive. He had discussed the it with Alexandre Blokh, who had been in
Bari and who had reported the high quality of the work, the great enthusiasm and idealism, of a kind
that PEN cherished, the desire to uphold respect for the rights of writers and bring about the cessation
of their persecution. He believed that the aim of the declaration was find a way to enable PEN to
apply more efficient pressure on the great institutions than was provided by PEN’s normal resolutions.
He could see that the way chosen was not a good one; but for PEN, its Board and its Centres to find a
way of making constructive proposals that would increase the pressures on a country – in consultation,
as the International Secretary had implied, with the Centre in that country – would make its protests
stronger and clearer to the international community. Such were the intentions of the signatories to the
declaration, even if it were not well phrased; and he felt that PEN needed to find answers to the
questioning implicit in it, and the sooner the better.
Emanuele Bettini agreed with Sylvestre Clancier that the matter was one of diplomacy. He was now
leaving the room, and asked the Assembly to note that he was doing so before the vote had been taken.
Terry Carlbom said that it was possible to withdraw a resolution or recommendation so that it was
not put to a vote, which would allow the positive comments that had been made to be taken up by the
Committee and others concerned.
Alexander Tkachenko (Russian Centre, International Board member) said that he honestly
believed that within PEN were some very political ideas. His Centre was strongly opposed to the
recommendation: it was easy to make a challenge in the United Nations, but terrible to have to battle
with the authorities at home.
Zeki Ergas (Suisse Romand Centre) agreed with the International President that countries that
violated freedom of expression or human rights should not be excluded, since PEN was an
organisation of inclusion. But PEN was not solely a literary organisation. The world was going
through a crucial stage, and it was inconceivable that an organisation that had Writers for Peace and
79

Writers in Prison Committees could suggest that human rights were outside its remit or responsibility.
On this he totally disagreed with the Norwegian delegate.
Joanne Leedom-Ackerman (American Centre, International Vice-President) thought that the
whole Assembly could agree in spirit with the intention of the recommendation – to make human
rights important and to ensure that the United Nations did not become a laughing-stock. She suggested
that PEN should concentrate its efforts on the UN Human Rights Commission. Many organisations
were concerned about its membership, and PEN could be in touch with them and with the new
Commissioner Louise Arbour, who was a wonderful, astute jurist from Canada, and put its efforts into
lobbying on the criteria for membership of the Commission. It would be appropriate for PEN to do so,
specifically as the voice for literature and freedom of expression; and perhaps that might target the
concerns implicit in the recommendation and allow its proposers to decide whether they wished to
withdraw it.
Sylvestre Clancier said that he found the discussion very interesting. He wanted to make it clear that
the French Centre was not obstinate, but had wanted to open the matter up for reflection. Joanne
Leedom-Ackerman’s suggestion was highly appropriate, and his Centre would withdraw from the
recommendation. He could not speak for his Italian colleague who had now left the room.
A vote was then taken and the recommendation was unanimously rejected, with six abstentions.
29. Report of the International PEN Foundation
and Report of the Special Committee of Trustees
Eric Lax (USA West Centre, International Board member) said he would take the two reports
together. The International PEN Foundation had held two meetings during the year, in London in
March and also in Tromsø. It gave him great pleasure to welcome Gloria Guardia as a new Trustee
and Jirí Gruša as an ex officio Trustee, and to announce that Fawzia Assaad and Edmund Keeley,
whose terms would expire in October, had been re-elected to a second term.
The audited accounts, which had been included in delegates’ folders, were self-explanatory; so he
would update the Assembly on developments in 2004. Including the generous donation to the
Solidarity Fund by the Norwegian Centre, the Foundation had to date received about £66,500; after
direct expenses and support for the Secretariat offices, it was in profit by over £56,000, although more
expenses would come in.
There were two items he wanted to mention in particular. First was the donation of over £6,000 by the
Neil Kreitman Foundation. Neil Kreitman was a long-time donor to PEN, with gifts averaging £5,000
a year, and PEN was indeed grateful to him. If anyone knew of others of such generosity, he would be
delighted to hear of them. Second, nearly £2,000 had been raised through special events. More than
£1,200 of that total had been raised in a single night when the playwright Mark Lee, a member of the
Board of the USA West Centre, convinced an 80-seat London theatre where his play was produced to
give over one evening as a benefit to the Foundation, to raise funds for a new telephone system at the
London office which would allow every staff member to have a phone. He urged other playwrights to
consider following Mark Lee’s example.
In Mexico the Assembly had approved the formation of a new special committee of PEN, the
Committee of Trustees. It had been formed because British charitable law required that foundations
such as PEN’s be composed of more than 50 per cent United Kingdom residents. For an international
organisation this made fundraising impossibly difficult, since half the responsibility fell on the citizens
of one country. The Committee of Trustees welcomed members from all countries, the sole
requirements being an understanding of PEN and the commitment to raise a minimum of $10,000 a
year. Trustees need not be PEN members; but for the present no non-PEN members had been invited
80

to join the Committee, because it was essential that they be supported by a staff person in London and
for the time being this could not be afforded.
The current Trustees were Niels Barfoed of Denmark, John Ralston Saul from the Canadian Centre,
who had addressed the Assembly during its first session, and himself. The Committee’s members
were elected and their names brought to the Assembly for ratification. So he would ask the Assembly
now to approve these three Trustees as members of the Committee. [Applause] He was happy to say
that from January 2005 there would be a Trustee from the Japanese Centre, and others would join
thereafter. He was even happier to say that so far in 2004 the Committee had raised $40,000 and an
additional $40,000 was expected, making a total of $80,000 in unrestricted funds. [Applause] Finally,
standing orders for the Committee had been written, and now that the membership had been approved
these would be confirmed at the Committee’s next meeting and reported on at the Bled Congress.
[Applause]
30. Results of Elections to the Board and Election of the International Secretary
Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) said that he had now been given the results of the voting
for the Board and for the position of International Secretary.
The result of the election of three members at large of the Board was:
Eric Lax (USA West Centre)
Eugene Schoulgin (Norwegian Centre)
Judith Rodriguez (Melbourne Centre)
Sylvestre Clancier (French Centre)
Mohamed Magani (Algerian Centre)
Edvard Kovac (Slovene Centre)
Gustav Murin (Slovak Centre)
Alexander Tkachenko (Russian Centre)
40 votes
39 votes
30 votes
28 votes
24 votes
20 votes
20 votes
10 votes
Eric Lax, having the highest number of votes, was elected for a term of three years, and Eugene
Schoulgin and Judith Rodriguez were elected for two-year terms. [Applause]
He would now announce the outcome of the elections for the new International Secretary. The total
number of votes cast had been 80, and the result was:
Joanne Leedom-Ackermann
Giorgio Silfer
Invalid
47 votes
31 votes
2 votes
Joanne Leedom-Ackermann was therefore elected International Secretary for a three-year term.
[Applause]
Coffee break
31. Report of the Iberian-American PEN Foundation
Gloria Guardia (Panamanian Centre) explained that the Iberian-American PEN Foundation had
been established as the Latin American PEN Foundation in October 1998. As the only legally
established working network of International PEN, it had complied with UNESCO’s strategic plan that
International PEN be an umbrella organisation.
The Latin American PEN Foundation Board had met on 27 th November 2003, in Mexico City. At that
meeting the majority of its members had decided: (1) that the Brazilian, Catalan, Galician, Paraguayan,
81

Portuguese and Spanish Centres be invited to join; to these should now be added the Basque Centre;
(2) that the Foundation’s name be legally changed to Iberian-American PEN Foundation; (3) that new
aims be formally added to its Charter so as to protect the human and linguistic rights of Basque,
Catalan, Galician, Portuguese and indigenous Latin American languages and writers; (4) that the
Foundation’s members should present a Resolution to amend the Regulations, so that the use of
Spanish as one of the three working languages of PEN should not be conditional on funding being
available; (5) that as a legally established NGO the Foundation should subscribe to the Universal
Declaration of Linguistic Rights; (6) that the Foundation should have as its literary magazine Periplo,
hitherto published by Martha Cerda, President of the Guadalajara Centre; and (7) that a website be
created as soon as possible, to consolidate the Foundation’s internal communication and working
networks.
The Foundation’s lawyers had recorded the necessary legal changes in Panama’s public registry, and
as of May 2004 the Foundation had been able to fulfil the mandate it had been given. It had
established a bank account; it had signed the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights; it had
appointed Homero Aridjis (Mexico), Mario Vargas Llosa (Peru/Spain) and Nélida Piñón (Brazil) as its
Honorary Presidents; Galicia, Paraguay and Spain had been incorporated into its working network;
Luis Tosar and Basilio Rodríguez Cañada, respectively Presidents of the Galician and Spanish Centres,
had been named as members of its Board of Directors; an Amending Resolution on Article 31 of the
Regulations had been submitted; it had assigned Martha and Luis Mario Cerda of the Guadalajara
Centre to launch its website and to revive Periplo as its official literary magazine; it had signed a
covenant with the Panamanian Ministry of Culture enabling donations to the Foundation in Panama to
be tax-exempt; it had initiated exchanges with the editor-in-chief of Editorial Victoria Ocampo in
Argentina as a preliminary to signing a cultural covenant with that publishing house; and it had
collaborated with the Guatemalan writer Carlos Garcia Escobar on the formation of a Guatemalan PEN
Centre.
In July 2004 the Galician Centre, an active member of the Foundation, had held an excellent regional
literary conference attended by more than 30 novelists, journalists, poets and essayists living and
writing in Spain, Argentina, Brazil and other Iberian American countries. This conference had set an
example and a precedent for future gatherings organized by the Iberian-American working network.
Future plans for the Foundation were to sign cultural covenants with Convenio Andrés Bello in Latin
America and Instituto Cervantes in Spain, two NGOs working to promote and defend the Iberian-
American region’s tangible and intangible cultural and linguistic legacies. The Foundation also hoped
to help organize regional conferences and lectures commemorating literary landmarks throughout the
region. And finally it planned to work closely with the International PEN Foundation to raise the
funds needed to cover the costs of interpretation and translation of PEN’s working languages, and to
pay some of the travel costs to enable Iberian-American writers to attend PEN Congresses in the
future.
The achievements of the Foundation would not have been possible without the generous co-operation
and valuable suggestions of the presidents and boards of the Bolivian, Brazilian, Colombian, Cuban
Writers in Exile, Galician, Guadalajaran, Mexican, Nicaraguan, Panamanian, Paraguayan, Peruvian,
Puerto Rican, Salta, San Miguel de Allende, Spanish and Venezuelan Centres. She expressed her deep
gratitude to them all. [Applause]
Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) asked the Assembly to confirm that the Iberian-American
Foundation Report should be recorded for the minutes. [Applause]
32. PEN International magazine
Jane Spender (Editor, Administrative Director) said that she had been greatly excited by the
development that had taken place, of having an annual Congress issue of the magazine. In the first, the
82

Norwegian Congress issue, distributed to all delegates, more than 60 per cent of the content was from
Norway, giving a introduction to Norwegian literature in all its breadth and variety. In preparing it, the
co-operation between the Norwegian Centre, herself and Siobhan Dowd, her deputy editor who did so
much for the magazine, had been an extremely interesting and stimulating experience; and she very
much hoped and intended that such Congress issues would continue.
PEN International magazine was published at a loss, and the Board had been carefully considering its
future direction. The plan was first to prepare an aims and policy document, in conjunction with the
Advisory Board, and then to formalise the magazine as a distinct programme of International PEN.
The financial position of the magazine was a matter of great concern. UNESCO had for many years
supported it with an average of $10,000 a year, and had done so again in 2004; and there was a small
subscription income. The 2004 financial position had been much improved by the Congress issue: to
match the percentage of Norwegian content, the Norwegian Centre had raised the funds to pay for 60
per cent of the editing, proofreading and printing of the current issue, and to buy 800 copies.
Two possible avenues for improving the financing were being explored: the first was to seek a media
underwriter to finance the magazine and take responsibility for its production and distribution in the
expectation of covering its own outlay through sales revenue; the second was to seek additional
funding from a private trust fund, and this was being researched.
Finally, she reminded delegates that a free subscription was given to every PEN Centre, and that a few
Centres bought multiple subscriptions, for which PEN was very grateful. She hoped that readers
enjoyed PEN International, and that many more members of PEN would take out subscriptions and
enjoy it too.
Clara Gyorgyey (Writers in Exile Centre, American Branch) said that she could not let the
opportunity go of expressing the Assembly’s most sincere thanks to Jane Spender [applause], who in
addition to her role in the Secretariat, had taken on the terrific job of editing the magazine. In the
name of all Centres and herself, she thanked her. [Applause]
Prakash A. Raj (Nepalese Centre) suggested that printing and publishing the magazine in a
developing country would be much cheaper, about one-fifth or one-tenth of the costs in Britain; and
with e.mail and the internet there would be no delays. [Applause]
Jane Spender thanked the Nepalese delegate for his suggestion. It was an idea that had been proposed
at the group meeting on the magazine at the Ohrid Congress, and the President of the Bulgarian Centre
had sent information on much cheaper printing in Bulgaria. The problem was that the magazine was
produced to a very tight schedule, because of the difficulty she had in combining her roles as
Administrative Director and Editor, and much of the work with the designer and printers was done
over the phone to save time – because of this it simply hadn’t been practical to try to move the printing
overseas. She was very aware that such a move could save money, and the idea was merely on hold
for the time being.
Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) explained that in order to protect the integrity of the
magazine it was supplied with a publisher, the International Secretary, who appointed the editor.
There had been real development over the past few years: Jane Spender had mentioned the advisory
board and the discussion in Ohrid; he would also like to mention UNESCO and their expectation that
International PEN should publish a quality magazine. He thought PEN International was absolutely
excellent – it was guided by the universality of the PEN fellowship, and he thought a remarkable job
was being done on it. As publisher he had taken on board the idea of printing it abroad; but production
costs were only a part of overall costs that included editorial costs and the cost of the time that was
poured into it, and there would be added shipping costs. He wanted to stress Jane Spender’s
marvellous work on the magazine, and added that at lunch on the opening day a copy of the magazine
had been presented to Crown Prince Haakon, who had looked through it and commented on its
83

excellence – at which Jane immediately invited him to take out a subscription [laughter]. Over many
years the editorial cost of the magazine had been included in Jane’s salary, which meant that she had
received no compensation for the editorial work she did – this was a marvellous effort on her part.
[Applause].
Hanan Awwad (Palestinian Centre) wanted to pay tribute to Jane Spender and all those who worked
on an important and useful magazine. She suggested that, rather than move the printing, Centres
should encourage members and others to take out subscriptions, and should try to think of ways in
which they could help in the editorial work. Her Centre was ready to do so, and she urged others to
give their support.
Chen Maiping (Independent Chinese Centre) thanked Jane Spender for the magazine. For cheap
printing he suggested Hong Kong or China. He wondered whether it would be possible to produce a
Chinese version? Research would need to be done on the costs, but his Centre had many people who
could handle the editing and lay-out and try to raise funds – and he would like to invite other Chinese
Centres to join him in such a project, which would reach one of the largest readerships in the world.
And for cheap printing, he suggested Hong Kong or China. [Applause]
Jane Spender (Administrative Director) thought that to have a Chinese translation of each issue of
PEN International would be absolutely wonderful. She was very grateful also for all the offers of
assistance; if she did not immediately take them up it was because the management of such a process
would be complex and would fall to her. But she hoped that anyone who had a proposal would write
to her so that full consideration could be given to ideas. Meanwhile, Terry Carlbom had mentioned the
need for PEN to have a quality printed magazine; in addition, from now on part or all of the content of
each issue would be put on the PEN website.
Judith Rodriguez (Melbourne Centre, International Board Deputy Chair) asked whether there
were others beside herself for whom payment for the magazine would be much easier if it could be
done by card – to pay by cheque doubled the cost of a subscription.
Jane Spender said that research into the costs of payment by card had shown that unless a certain
number of transactions were achieved each year the costs to PEN of payment by card would be
prohibitive. But in other ways it clearly made sense to be able to pay by card, and they would keep it
under review.
Trinh Pham (Vietnamese Writers Abroad Centre) mentioned the e-bay system, which was called
‘pay-pal’: International PEN could open a pay-pal account and receive payments from all over the
world.
Jane Spender thanked Trinh Pham for reminding her that in fact they had found a similar system for
internet payments which would not involve large costs to PEN, which she had totally forgotten about.
She would ask Katy Nicholson to circulate the information.
33. Reports on Regional Conferences
At the request of the International President, Jane Spender (Administrative Director) then read the
list of regional conferences that had taken place since the Mexican Congress:
• Cyprus Centre, Literary Symposium, Nicosia, Cyprus, 19 th – 23 rd February 2004.
• Portuguese Centre, 4 th Poetry at Porto Santo Festival, Madeira, 15 th – 19 th May 2004, and
Conference on Peace on the theme ‘Why Peace after those Wars?’, Funchal, Madeira, 20 th
– 22 nd May 2004
• Writers in Prison Committee, Fifth Conference, Barcelona, 17 th – 21 st May 2004
• Slovene Centre, 37 th International Writers’ Conference and meeting of the Writers for
Peace Committee, Bled, Slovenia, 26 th – 30 th May 2004
84

• Translation and Linguistic Rights Committee, Ohrid, Macedonia, 17 th – 20 th June 2004
• Turkish Centre, Turkish–Greek Writers Dialogue, in partnership with the Association of
Intercultural Communication, 24 th – 31 st July 2004
• Vietnamese Writers Abroad Centre, Women Writers Conference, August 2004
In addition, the Palestinian Centre had informed her that in co-operation with the Portuguese–
Palestinian Friendship Society they had held a meeting to protest the siege and the wall. She would
also mention the meeting referred to by Gloria Guardia, which had been organised by the Galician
Centre. She urged Centres to inform the Secretariat in advance of the meetings they were holding –
the information could be circulated in the International PEN electronic newsletter and put on the PEN
website, both of which were perfect ways of informing the outside world of Centres’ activities.
Teresa Salema (Portuguese Centre) asked for a correction to be noted to the title of her Centre’s
Conference on Peace: the correct title was ‘What Kind of Peace after those Wars’.
34. Future Regional Conferences
Jirí Gruša (International President) reiterated the request to Centres to inform the Secretariat about
conferences they planned to organise so that the information could go out to a world audience. Future
regional conferences listed on the Agenda were:
• Bosnian Centre, ‘The Bosnian Culture and the Mediterranean’, October 2004
• Portuguese Centre, Conference on Peace on the theme, ‘Want some peace? Let’s talk about
war’, Madeira, 4 th – 8 th June 2005
• Serbian Centre, ‘The Challenge of Mediterranean Culture Today’, autumn 2006
• Writers in Prison Committee, 6 th Conference, Istanbul, February 2006
Ermis Lafazanovski (Macedonian Centre) said he would inform the Assembly briefly about future
regional conferences in Ohrid, which took place every year in collaboration with the Translation and
Linguistic Rights Committee. A conference would therefore take place in September 2005, although
he did not know the exact dates or title.
Zeki Ergas (Suisse Romand Centre) expressed gratitude to the Portuguese Centre, not only for
having already organised a conference on peace but also for organising one in the future, which he had
been dismayed to find was not being done by International PEN’s executive.
Teresa Salema (Portuguese Centre) said that her Centre proposed to hold a conference every two
years, because there was no peace in the world. And in order to achieve peace it was necessary to talk
openly about war and the themes of power, geo-political interest, terrorism, and others. The
government of Madeira gave wonderful support to the conferences. Invitations would be sent out by
mail, and members would see from the programme that two or three specialists would be invited and
there would be debates and roundtables. Everyone was warmly invited to attend. The conferences
would continue to be held every two years until there was peace in the world, until the end of the
world! [Applause]
Emanuele Bettini (Italian Centre) said he had pleasure in announcing that on May 3 rd 2005, World
Press Freedom Day, the Italian Centre would be organising a regional conference on the theme of
press freedom and freedom of expression, when a Chair of Human Rights of Writers would be
established in conjunction with the University of Venice. [Applause]
Bled 2005
35. Future Congresses
85

Tone Peršak (Slovene Centre) said that he hoped that everyone had been given the material brought
by his Centre on the 71 st Congress to be held in Bled in 2005. He would not repeat the information in
this; he wanted only to stress the reasons why they hoped and expected to see many participants at the
Congress. First, that it would be held exactly forty years after the first Slovene Congress in 1975,
which had been the first to be entrusted to a communist countries. This anniversary was important for
the whole of PEN, and would be a kind of celebration of PEN and its successes. Second, there would
be three topics for discussion at the roundtables; the special or main topic was connected with
questions delegates had started to discuss in Tromsø, concerning the destiny of languages and cultural
diversity in the 21 st century. Finally, perhaps it was not universally known that Slovenia, although
very small, was the country with the greatest biological diversity in Europe – so that it was natural that
the Congress should deal with cultural diversity since nature and culture were closely connected.
[Applause] He would only add, Welcome. [Applause]
Berlin 2006
Johano Strasser (German Centre) said that the planning process for the Berlin Congress in 2006 was
well in hand, and they would present Congress material in 2005. One of the main topics in Berlin
would be African literature – they believed that Europe especially should feel responsible for giving
African literatures the opportunity to demonstrate their quality to the world. And since the Congress
would take place in Berlin German PEN would also particularly try to present writers from the
countries of middle and eastern Europe that had just joined the European Union. [Applause]
Senegal 2007
Alioune Badara Beye (Senegalese Centre) began by thanking the Norwegian Centre for welcoming
everyone to such a well organised and excellent Congress. He also wanted to congratulate and thank
all those who had driven PEN’s destiny, and especially the former International Secretary Terry
Carlbom, who had adopted progressive pan-African policies during his tenure of office. Africa had
truly felt him to be a compatriot in PEN and he wanted to thank him publicly for this. [Applause] He
would also like to congratulate the new International Secretary on her election.
His Centre would be organising a Congress in Dakar in 2007. They would be holding a preliminary
meeting from 5 th to 10 th November, first to improve the co-ordination of African Centres’ activities,
second to awaken dormant Centres and third to encourage the new, rising Centres. Africa needed
International PEN and it needed PEN to have policies that turned much more towards Africa. In 2003
the African candidate – the delegate from the Egyptian Centre – had not been elected to the Board; in
2004 it was the Algerian delegate who had not been elected. The world had moved and changed: the
United Nations was run by an African; Africa was a special continent because of its political and
economic difficulties. If Africa did not entirely integrate into PEN, if PEN did not take on board
Africa’s preoccupations, PEN would always be perceived to be a closed circle: closed to progress,
closed to small nations, economically, and closed to large nations, culturally. The African Centres
sincerely hoped that in years to come a mechanism would be found to ensure that Africa was present in
the decision-making processes of International PEN. [Applause]
In 2007 Africa would be welcoming the whole of PEN to Senegal, a country with a tradition of
hospitality and key in the continent in the field of culture. Senegal’s first President Léopold Sédar
Senghor had been an International Vice President of PEN. Many writers were supported by the
authorities, without strings, to enable them to do their work. His colleague Fatou Ndiaye Sow, a
member of PEN’s Women Writers Committee, had just been elected to the Senegalese Senate, where
she would represent writers – a signal honour and one which would enable writers to be heard at the
highest level. Dakar would give PEN a traditional welcome, supported by an organising committee of
writers and intellectuals as well as the President of the Republic, who had already proposed that the
Congress should take place from 20 th to 28 th October 2007. [Applause]
86

Jirí Gruša (International President) thanked Alioune Badara Beye for his very important remarks,
which chimed with comments on Eurocentrism he himself had made in his opening speech, and he
promised that PEN would achieve equilibrium in its decision-making structures.
2008
Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) informed the Assembly that there had been three draft
proposals for the Congress in 2008. The procedure to be followed was that the host Centre candidates
would prepare their applications with the International Secretary who would then report to the Board;
presentations would be made in Bled to the Assembly which would decide where the 2008 Congress
would be held. As a preliminary, he would briefly inform delegates about the three proposals.
Cecilia Balcazar, President of the Colombian Centre, had written to propose that the 2008 Congress
should be held in Bogota, a city well prepared for international events. It had a mild climate and an
interesting cultural life; and rates of exchange with the local currency meant that it would be
financially advantageous to participants. She would begin the initial preparation and would present a
budget during the Bled Congress.
Maria Elena Ruiz Cruz, President of the Mexican Centre, had also written to propose hosting the 2008
Congress. She had informed him that her Centre wished to hold the Congress in the city of Oaxaca,
and that the necessary resources for doing so were available. They envisaged developing the theme of
indigenous literature at the Congress.
Finally, Giorgio Silfer had written on behalf of the Esperanto Centre, inviting International PEN to
hold the 2008 Congress in La Chaux-de-Fonds, the town of Utopia, in Switzerland.
He was sure that the Board and International PEN would want to consider all three proposals very
carefully, and would now pass the offers to the new International Secretary.
36. In-session Resolutions and Recommendations
Jirí Gruša (International President) reminded delegates that in-session resolutions required a twothirds
majority to be adopted.
Terry Carlbom (International Secretary) added that he could confirm that all the resolutions to be
put forward under this item were genuine in-session resolutions, and that they had all been distributed
to delegates.
In-session Resolution on the French journalists taken hostage in Iraq, submitted by the French
Centre and supported by the Algerian, Belgian (French-speaking), Danish, Esperanto, German,
Kurdish, Malawian, Norwegian, Palestinian and Swedish Centres
‘The Assembly of Delegates of International PEN, meeting at its 70 th Congress in Tromsø,
Norway, 6 th – 12 th September 2004,
Calls upon all authorities that are in a position to assist in freeing Christian Chesnot and
Georges Malbrunot, the two French journalists currently held as hostages in Iraq, to do all
that lies within their power to assure that they are freed as quickly as possible.’
Philippe Pujas (French Centre) said that the Panamanian Centre also wished to support the
resolution. The two French journalists had been held for more than 20 days. There had been a
significant mobilisation of public opinion, locally and in the Arab and African worlds; but as time
passed there was concern that the situation might turn sour, and they were therefore asking for a
renewed effort to draw the world’s attention to these journalists who had simply being doing their job
87

of informing the world on the situation in Iraq. The resolution called on the authorities of all the
countries present in Iraq, whichever side they might be on, to act or to use any influence they might
have on the hostage-takers. [Applause]
Hanan Awwad (Palestinian Centre) said that when her Centre had heard that the journalists had been
abducted they had contacted the Palestinian President, Yasser Arafat, and he had publicly urged the
factions in Iraq to cease such actions. Her Centre continued to campaign for the release of the
journalists; and they urged all PEN Centres to press their own governments to apply pressure for the
release of the journalists.
Teresa Salema (Portuguese Centre) said that the abduction of the two journalists was the most
sensitive issue of the entire Congress and she urged all delegates to support the resolution by adding
their names to it.
A vote was then taken, and the resolution was adopted unanimously. [Applause]
Resolution on the Maldives, submitted by the English Centre
‘The Assembly of Delegates of International PEN, meeting at its 70 th Congress in
Tromsø, Norway, 6 th – 12 th September 2004,
Protesting the detention of internet writers Ahmed Ibrahim Didi, Mohamed Zaki, and
Fathimath Nisreen (f), who are among scores of people to have been arrested for their
participation in large scale demonstrations held in the capital, Malé, on 12 and 13 August 2004
calling for democratic reforms. Didi, Zaki and Nisreen managed to attend the rallies in spite of
being under house arrest at the time. They have been detained since early 2002 for their
involvement with the online publication Sandhaanu, and International PEN considers them to
be sentenced in violation of their right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 19 of
the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
Deeply disturbed at reports that the detainees are being held incommunicado in poor
conditions and are at risk of torture;
Fearing especially for the health of Ahmed Ibrahim Didi, who suffers from a serious heart
condition.
Expressing serious concern at reports that the families of detainees have also been targeted
during the recent wave of arrests;
Demanding the immediate and unconditional release of all those detained in the Maldives
solely for the peaceful expression of their opinions, including our colleagues Ahmed Ibrahim
Didi, Mohamed Zaki, and Fathimath Nisreen, and urging that they are treated humanely whilst
in detention.’
Sara Whyatt (Writers in Prison Committee Programme Director) explained that the resolution
followed mass demonstrations and the arrests of a number of people; among them were some of PEN’s
main cases who, briefly freed from imprisonment, had then taken part in the demonstrations and had
been rearrested and tortured.
Chip Rolley (Sydney Centre) said that the first word of the final paragraph should read ‘Demands’,
and not ‘Demanding’. He added that the Sydney PEN would be happy to second the resolution.
A vote was taken, with this change incorporated, and the resolution was unanimously adopted.
88

Resolution on Nepal, submitted by the San Miguel de Allende Centre
‘The Assembly of Delegates of International PEN, meeting at its 70th Congress in Tromsø,
Norway, 6 th – 12 th September 2004,
Appalled at the murder by the Nepal (CPN) Maoist cadres of journalist Dekendra Thapa on
August 11th last and at Maoist insurgents’ attempts to muzzle the Nepali press by threats of
violence and "sentences" of execution;
Disturbed by the wanton and violent destruction of the Kantipur Newspaper’s building in
Kathmandu on 1st September 2004, attacks on its journalists and the destruction of the Space
Time Network Television Station;
Saddened by the willingness of various advocacy groups to downplay the very real danger to
freedom of expression and objective journalism posed by the violent conflict in Nepal;
Notes with concern the Nepalese government’s delayed response to the attacks upon members
of the media during the recent demonstrations in Kathmandu protesting the brutal executions of
12 Nepalis in Iraq by Islamic extremists;
Urges His Majesty’s Government in Nepal not to retaliate to atrocities in the countryside by
curbing freedom of expression of opposition groups but to support this right amongst all;
Further Calls Upon the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights, through its
Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, to use its good offices to find a means of
resolving the crisis for all those attempting to practice their right to peaceful freedom of
expression in Nepal.’
Sara Whyatt said that the resolution had been slightly revised, in consultation with the Nepal Centre,
after it had been discussed in the Writers in Prison Committee meeting.
There were no comments. A vote was taken, and the resolution was adopted unanimously.
Resolution on United States Restrictions on Information and Cultural Exchange, submitted by the
American Centre
‘The Assembly of Delegates of International PEN, meeting at its 70 th Congress, in Tromsø,
Norway, 6 th – 12 th September 2004
Considering that for 83 years International PEN has sought to advance the principle that
literature knows no frontiers and should remain the common currency between nations in spite
of political or international upheavals and has advocated for the principle of unhampered
transmission of thought within each nation and between all nations;
Noting that the right to freedom of expression as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American
Convention on Human Rights, and other binding international covenants includes the right to
seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds in any medium regardless of
frontiers;
Further noting that, consistent with these principles and with the free speech guarantees
enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the U.S. Congress in
1988 passed the so-called Berman Amendment, which established that “information and
informational materials” should remain untouched by US trade sanctions and embargo regimes
89

and specifically denied the Executive Branch the authority “to regulate or prohibit, directly or
indirectly, the importation from any country, or the exportation to any country, whether
commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission, of any information
or information materials, including, but not limited to, publications”;
Shocked that the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the United States Treasury (OFAC)
nevertheless continues to assert control over the flow of information and ideas, including
information and ideas contained in literature, by asserting the authority to grant licenses to
publish material from countries under US trade embargoes including Cuba, North Korea, Iran
and Sudan and to decide which publishing projects or information exchanges are exempt from
its licensing requirements;
Disturbed that, contrary to announcements earlier this year that barriers to publishing
information and informational materials from embargoed countries had been lifted, recent
OFAC decisions including its April 2, 2004 and July 5, 2004 opinion letters make clear that
significant barriers remain to importing and publishing work from embargoed countries,
barriers which include a) a requirement that work be previously published in the country in
question; b) a prohibition on collaborations and on “substantive or artistic alteration or
enhancement of informational materials”; and c) a prohibition on “the provision of marketing
and business consulting services.”
Believing that these regulations and indeed any regulatory systems that requires publishers to
seek licenses from the Executive Branch or any other government entity amount to a form of
prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and a
barrier to the free flow of information and ideas in violation of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
Believing, further, that restrictions on importing and publishing information and informational
materials from abroad are a hallmark of repressive societies, and that societies that routinely
impose such restrictions will be emboldened when an open society such as the United States
seeks to control exchanges of information;
Calls upon the government of the United States to end attempts to regulate the flow of
literature, information, and ideas, and specifically to strike the OFAC regulations that limit
certain kinds of publishing and collaborative creative projects and guarantee that information
and informational materials of all kinds will not be affected by or subject to trade embargoes or
sanctions regimes;
Further calls upon the government of the United States to advance policies that promote the
free exchange of information and ideas between citizens and residents of the United States and
all the world’s citizens including those living in countries currently under U.S. trade embargoes
or trade sanctions.’
Larry Siems (American Centre) explained that he was speaking on behalf of the USA West Centre
too. He apologised for the long and boring resolution; it was addressed to bureaucrats at the United
States Department of Treasury, so the resolution had to be in their language. His Centre was very busy
with a whole range of problems and issues in the US concerning freedom of expression and human
rights – they had been wonderfully supported by the report on Anti-Terrorism, Writers and Freedom of
Expression, and the tremendous resolution passed in Mexico on human rights and the role of the
United States – in the world as well as within its own borders – in upholding those rights and
standards.
The present issue had surfaced in 2003, when the Treasury Department had said that writers in
countries under a US trade embargo were included in that embargo and could therefore be prevented
90

from being published in the United States. Although US law very clearly stated that information and
informational materials should be exempt from trade embargoes, the Treasury Department continued
to insist that American publishers needed a government licence in order to publish writings and
materials from embargoed countries. His Centre was insisting, as were US publishers, that under no
circumstance should publishers and writers need to get a licence before being able to conduct basic
cultural exchanges and collaboration with colleagues in any country, and especially not when it was
more necessary than ever to open and deepen channels of communication between the US and all parts
of the world. This diktat needed to be struck down, and a strong statement from International PEN,
known internationally for promoting the free flow of literature and ideas, would be enormously
helpful. [Applause]
Prakash A. Raj (Nepalese Centre) proposed that the resolution be addressed to the United States
Congress as well as the Treasury Department.
Terry Carlbom suggested leaving the decision on that to the American Centre.
Gloria Guardia (Panamanian Centre) said that her Centre wished to second the resolution.
A vote was then taken and the resolution was unanimously adopted, with one abstention.
37. Any Other Business
Jane Spender (Administrative Director) said that two of the noted points had already been dealt
with under item 7, the presentation of the new Guatemalan Centre and brief information on the
situation in Haiti. The two other points to be taken under the current item concerned, first, the
Brazilian Centre and, second, the Langue d’Oc Centre.
In the summer the Secretariat had received a letter from the Brazilian Centre saying that the Centre had
held new elections following their work to revive the Centre. She had now been informed that Luis
Tosar of the Galician Centre had given considerable help to them to do so, and had attended their
ceremony of reactivation, at which Mr Geraldo Holanda Cavalcanti had been confirmed as President.
Gloria Guardia had mentioned in her report of the Iberian-American Foundation that the Brazilian
Centre was joining the Foundation’s network. Mr Cavalcanti hoped to come to the Bled Congress.
[Applause]
Second, delegates would remember the report made in 2002 in Ohrid about the problems in the Langue
d’Oc Centre, and that the French, Galician and Portuguese Centres had offered to try to contact Joan
Yves Casanova, its President, and any other members they knew, to see whether it existed in anything
but name – and if it did to try to assist it to revive. All three Centres had reported to the Mexican
Congress in 2003 that in their opinion revival was not possible at that time; and the Assembly in
Mexico decided to declare the Langue d’Oc Centre to have ceased to exist, to leave the way clear for a
new Centre to be formed in the future. The Galician Centre had now passed on a message from Mr
Casanova that a group was working to re-establish the Centre and had already gathered a lot of
support, and they would be writing to the Secretariat shortly. So it seemed that the decision taken in
Mexico had stimulated energy and activity, and that a new Langue d’Oc Centre, with their colleagues’
assistance, might be presented to International PEN. [Applause]
There was one final point: the President had agreed to a request from the new President of the Slovak
Centre, Mr Anton Hykisch, that he be given the floor very briefly.
Anton Hykisch (Slovak Centre) said that listening to Eugene Schoulgin’s strong declaration on the
work of the Writers in Prison Committee, he had been reminded that exactly a century before a great
Norwegian writer, Nobel laureate Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson, had raised his voice in defence of the stillunknown
Slovak people: he had informed European public opinion of the many injustices and the
91

cultural and linguistic oppression suffered by this minority in the Austro-Hungarian empire, and of the
detention of some of their journalists. In speaking now he wanted to pay tribute to the hundred-year
tradition of his Norwegian colleagues. [Applause]
Returning to the present day, he asked delegates not to forget to send books and other interesting
printed materials to the Global PEN Library, a project that continued to develop successfully. Now
that the printed media was in retreat and reading was becoming an endangered activity, it was
important to collect books and other printed media from all over the world. Since sending books by
mail was very expensive, he suggested that colleagues should seek other channels – personal travel,
through their own embassies or consular services, or via Slovak embassies in their countries. The
Global PEN Library was the achievement of all of PEN within Slovakia. [Applause]
38. Date of Next Meeting
Jirí Gruša (International President) announced that the next meeting would take place from 14 th to
21 st June in Bled, Slovenia.
39. Conclusion
Judith Rodriguez (Melbourne Centre, International Board Deputy Chair) invited everyone to
take the opportunity of showing their warm appreciation for the last time they would sit together with
Terry Carlbom as International Secretary. [Warm applause]
Joanne Leedom-Ackerman (American Centre, International Vice-President) said she would add a
few words and provide the opportunity to applaud again. In the past year PEN had been in transition,
developing the governing structure because the organisation had grown to large; and it had found itself
with someone with the experience, the background in government and political science to serve in the
process: Terry Carlbom had undertaken with a ready hand the somewhat thankless and tedious work of
going through the Regulations and Rules and helping to reshape the governing structure. [Applause]
She wanted to mention one historical moment that had touched her when she was reading about
International PEN. Early in PEN’s life, she believed in 1924 at a meeting in Vienna, the French
representative had turned to the German representative and said, ‘PEN means Paix Entre Nous’.
Members perhaps would not always agree with each other, and would perhaps get angry, but hopefully
in general they would serve that acronym as well.
Jane Spender (Administrative Director) wanted to add a few thanks of her own and to say that she
had had a very happy and productive six years working with Terry Carlbom.
In addition, she wanted to thank the interpreters who had done a remarkable job – there were only two
of them doing all the interpretation throughout. [Applause] She had worked with the Norwegian
Centre for at least 18 months, having visited them in Tromsø in 2003 with Terry Carlbom. There must
have been at least 20 people in Tromsø working hard with Kjell Olaf Jensen, Carl Morten Iverson and
Elisabet Middelthon to produce such a wonderful Congress. They had asked to be treated as a team,
but she did want to mention two people. One was Ole Gunnar Solheim, who had organised a truly
remarkable Congress. He had been a pleasure to work with to work with – and she had enjoyed a fine
joke of his father’s which was, ‘If you can still keep your head above water, you are only seeing the tip
of the iceberg!’ [Laughter and applause] And she also wanted to thank Frode Bjellund of the Congress
organisers, and his wonderful volunteers. Between them all they had made it a very successful
Congress. [Applause]
Jens Lohmann (Danish Centre) added that now was the moment to thank the person who was
leaving the Board, Alexander Tkachenko. [Applause] He would undoubtedly continue his work and
efforts in Russia, and PEN members should support him in what was a very difficult moment in his
92

country. He also thought it was the right time to thank Jane Spender, Jirí Gruša and Terry Carlbom for
the way they had carried out and directed the Assembly: it had been a wonderful Assembly, with no
rushing through items and everything carried out in the proper, decent way and with a lot of humour –
he thought delegates should thank them very much. [Applause]
Zeki Ergas (Suisse Romand Centre) pointed out that 2005 would be the 400 th anniversary of the
publication of Don Quixote [laughter], and he thought that everyone present could be thought of as
Don Quixotes in the work that PEN did – it had also occurred to him that Terry Carlbom looked
somewhat like Don Quixote [laughter and applause]. He suggested to the four Centres in Spain that
they might do something at the Congress in Bled to celebrate this very important event in world
literature.
Jirí Gruša (International President) suggested a new title, Don Quixote Emeritus. [Laughter]
Isobel Harry (Canadian Centre) offered one more set of congratulations from her Centre, to all the
delegates on an extremely collegial session. [Applause]
Clara Gyorgyey (Writers in Exile Centre, American Branch) said that as one of the senior PEN
members present she wanted to make a very important observation: she believed that this had been the
only PEN Assembly that had finished earlier than arranged. [Laughter and applause]
Hanan Awwad (Palestinian Centre) asked to come to the stage to honour colleagues by awarding
them the medal of the Palestinian Centre. She then gave medals to Kjell Olaf Jensen for hosting such a
wonderful Congress; to Terry Carlbom, for his work during a very critical period and for his
diplomacy; to Eugene Schoulgin for all his contributions to justice and peace; and to Jirí Gruša for this
meeting and for future meetings. [Applause]
Kjell Olaf Jensen (Norwegian Centre) thanked Hanan Awwad for the honour, and said he would
interpret it as a recognition of the work of the whole of the Norwegian Centre. His Centre supported
all parties in the conflict in the Middle East and would continue to work with their friends from Israel
and from the other countries of the region.
Eugene Schoulgin (Writers in Prison Committee Chair) said that the Palestinian and Israeli Centres
had been in extremely difficult situations, as had the whole region, and his wish for the future was to
bring together the PEN writers from the region to seek with PEN a better future. Not to hold to old
quarrels, but to find new solutions. [Applause]
Jirí Gruša thanked Hanan Awwad for his medal, a big surprise. He then closed the Assembly.
93

ANNEX 1
Report of the International President
My first official task after my election in Mexico in November 2003 was to visit the Francophone
Book Fair in Guadalajara together with the Czech Ambassador to Mexico.
January. At the beginning of January 2004 I organised, together with the former president of Czech
Republic, Vaclav Havel, an action supporting the persecuted authors of Burma – especially Aung San
Suu Kyi. This took the form of a protest signed by 14 Nobel Prize Laureates. Later in March I
presented it in Prague – again with Havel – at a Human Rights Conference.
I took part in a press conference in Austria, on the topic of persecuted authors and the strategy of PEN,
together with the President of Austrian PEN, Wolfgang Greisenegger, the International Secretary,
Terry Carlbom, the Chair of the Writers in Prison Committee, Eugene Schoulgin, and Rosl Merdinger
of the Austrian Centre.
On 25 th January, I took part in the Karel Capek Prize Ceremony in Prague together with Terry
Carlbom.
February. In February I visited the Czech PEN Centre for a discussion and a lecture. I had a meeting
with Jara Muserova the Czech delegate to UNESCO, at which we discussed co-ordinating PEN
contacts and the promotion of PEN.
March. In March I attended the Conference in Slovakia organised by the Slovak PEN Centre. I gave a
talk on television, gave some interviews and a lecture, and was invited by the President of Slovakia.
At the Leipzig Book Fair I was asked to give the opening speech in the presence of the prime minister
of Saxony and an audience of 2,000 people.
I took part in the March Board meeting of International PEN in London.
April. In April I was invited to present the opening speech at the Book Fair in Prague. I also
participated in the annual conference of the German PEN Centre in Potsdam, giving a reading and a
speech.
May. I was invited to address the assembly at the Writers in Prison Committee Conference in
Barcelona.
Later I took part in the Slovene PEN Centre’s Bled Conference, during which we began preparations
for the 71 st International PEN Congress, which is to be hosted in June 2005 by the Slovene Centre.
June. At a conference organised in Udine by the University Club of Carinthia, I lectured on the theme,
‘The power of the powerful’.
In Lower Austria, at a gathering held by the governor of the state, I spoke on the topic of ‘The
European Identity’.
July. In July I was invited to Berlin by the German PEN Centre, together with the International
Secretary, Terry Carlbom, and the Administrative Director, Jane Spender, to assist in the preparations
for the 72 nd World Congress, which will be held in Berlin in May 2006.
August. In August I had the opportunity to lecture in Salzburg, promoting PEN and its principals and
ideas.
94

ANNEX 2. International Treasurer’s Report
INTERNATIONAL PEN
INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNTS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2003
INCOMING RESOURCES
2003 2002
INT PEN WIP UNESCO TOTAL TOTAL
£ £ £ £ £
Dues from Centres 83,180 13,942 97,122 90,560
Donations 40,063 17,209 57,272 13,277
Subsciption 1,583 1,583
Congress Grants & Income 4,375 4,375 6,835
Grants 19,845 62,953 35,480 118,278 192,094
Artsnet - 2,810
Administration Contribution 6,000 6,000
Digitel Freedom Network 416 416 1,306
Special Donation - 120
Bank Interest 116 27 36 179 8
TOTAL INCOMING RESOURCES 153,579 94,547 37,099 285,225 307,010
EXPENDITURE
Salaries & Fees 76,269 76,334 323 152,926 126,849
Rent & Rates 2,092 14,807 16,899 14,183
Repairs & Maintenance 1,049 393 1,442 1,983
Computer Costs 1,030 9,826 10,856 1,634
Travel 2,420 2,003 4,423 1,986
Congress 11,836 1,500 9,457 22,793 28,362
Officers Expenses 18,820 489 19,309 17,687
Other Meetings 1,048 10,517 11,565 21,636
Postage 903 1,214 1 2,118 2,422
Telephone & Electricity 1,624 1,946 3,570 2,368
Fax & Internet 1,909 2,575 4,484 5,063
Digital Freedom Network - 759
Artsnet - -
Legal Fees - 235
Stationery & Printing 1,981 1,142 3,123 2,921
Photocopying 805 805 1,111
Publications 2 5,279 11,321 16,602 14,718
Bank Charges 1,021 4 14 1,039 985
Insurance 675 619 1,294 295
Accountancy 1,100 1,090 1,090 3,280 3,290
Reference Books 1,079 1,079 880
Translation & Publishing 808 808 553
Staff Expenses 364 7 371 668
Entertainment 255 132 387 229
Fundraising - 99
Depreciation - 25% Reducing Balance 227 227 303
Profit on foreign exchange balances 5,765 5,765 -
DIRECT COSTS 129,923 122,519 32,723 285,165 251,219
Surplus/(Deficit) 23,656 (27,972) 4,376 60 55,791
95

EMPLOYMENT OF FUNDS: 2003 2002
£ £
FIXED ASSETS
Fixed assets-Cost 10,947 10,947
Less: Accumulated Depreciation- 25% R.B. (10,266) (10,040)
CURRENT ASSETS
681 907
Debtors 20,000 19,375
Bank Accounts 77,791 109,787
Cash in Hand 781 743
CURRENT LIABILITIES
98,572 129,905
Balances with International PEN Foundation - 42,532
Sundry Creditors, Accruals & Deferred Income 39,191 28,278
39,191 70,810
NET CURRENT ASSETS/(LIABILITIES) 59,381 59,095
.
TOTAL ASSETS LESS CURRENT LIABILITIES 60,062 60,002
REPRESENTED BY:
INTERNATIONAL PEN
BALANCE SHEET
AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2003
Accumulated Fund B/F (15,379) (4,774)
Surplus/(Deficit) for the year 23,656 (10,605)
8,277 (15,379)
Writers in Prison B/F 86,743 8,985
Surplus/(Deficit) for the year (27,972) 77,758
58,771 86,743
UNESCO B/F (11,362) -
Surplus/(Deficit) for the year 4,376 (6,986) (11,362) (11,362)
60,062 60,002
…………………………………….. …………………………………..
Approved
Approved
96

THE INTERNATIONAL PEN FOUNDATION
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2003
Incoming Resources Notes Unrestricted Restricted Total Total
Funds Funds 2003 2002
£ £ £ £
Interest 95 --- 95 149
Deferred Income Release 59,438 --- 59,438 ---
Donations Received 5,520 --- 5,520 ---
Grants Received 48,770 11,326 60,096 84,466
---------- ------------ ------------ ------------
Total Incoming Resources 113,823 11,326 125,149 98,615
====== ======= ======= =======
Resources Expended
Direct Charitable Expenditure
Charitable Expenditure 2 98,315 8,010 106,325 37,029
----------- ------------ ------------ ------------
Other Expenditure
Fundraising Costs 45 --- 45 145
Management & Administration 3 26,185 --- 26,185 46,154
---------- -------- --------- ----------
26,230 --- 26,230 46,299
====== ===== ====== ======
Total Resources Expended 124,545 8,010 132,555 83,328
------------ ----------- ---------- -----------
Net Movement in Funds
for the year 4 (10,722) 3,316 (7,406)5,287
Funds balance brought forward
at 1 January 2003 (3,440) 109,482 106,042 100,755
------------ ------------ ------------- -------------
Funds balances carried forward
at 31 December 2003 (14,162) 112,798 98,636 106,042
======= ======= ======= =======
97

THE INTERNATIONAL PEN FOUNDATION
BALANCE SHEET
AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2003
2003 2002
Notes £ £ £ £
Fixed Assets
Tangible assets 6 1,225 2,020
---------- ----------
1,225 2,020
Current Assets
Other Debtors 7 --- 42,532
Prepayments 1,326 ---
Bank & Cash 109,354 136,287
------------- -------------
110,680 178,809
======== ========
Liabilities:
Other Creditors 8 --- 53,600
Sundry Creditors & Accruals 22,269 21,197
--------- ----------
22,269 74,797
====== ======
Net Current Assets 88,411 104,022
---------- ----------
Net Assets 89,636 106,042
====== ======
Represented By
Funds
Unrestricted Funds 10 (14,162) (3,440)
Restricted Funds 11 103,798 109,482
------------ -------------
89,636 106,042
======= ========
Approved by the Trustees on
2004 and
signed on their behalf by
…………………………
Chairman
Treasurer
…………………………
98

INTERNATIONAL PEN DUES PAID
$ $ $ $ $ $ $
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Afghanistan
African Writers Abroad 240 240 240
Albania
Algeria 240
American / 2000 26,400 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 7,000
Argentinian 360 468 468 360 420 420
Argentia (Salta)
Armenia 252 200 200
Australia/North/Brisb. 231
Australian/
Canberra Canberra/11 264 420 240 240 132
Australia/Melbourne 430 348 348 290 492 432
Australia/ Perth 320 264 276 402 360
Australian/ Sydney 408 720 726 922 1680 2136
Austrian 3,900 2,695 2,695 2,500 3,060 3,149 2,800
Azerbaijan 137
Bangladeshi 338 340 240 240 228 100
Belgian/ Dutch 1,500 1,890 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,716
Belgian/ French 1,000 1,000 945 942 1,017
Belarus 260 648 648 670 670
Benin
Bolivia 372 288 288 240 252 240
Bosnia 684 246 233 236 240 120
Brazil (Rio) 725 750 750 750
Brazil (SP)
Bulgarian /25 33 336 300 275 275
Cameroon
Canadian/ 320 6,168 6,168 5,832 4,200 3,840 3,100
Canada/Quebec 85 515 1,010 1,140 1,232 1,000 1,200 1,010
Catalan 1,010 1,516 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 2,000
Chilean 200 200 240 284
China
Chinese Writers Abr. 200 200 240 240 240 240
Colombia 264 360 240 240 240 160 240
Congo
Costa Rica
Cote d'Iviore
Croatian 240 240 240 240 240
Cuban W-in-Ex 852 756 997 972 900 900
Cyprus 360 360 360 360 476 240 280
Czech 1,272 300
Danish 3,480 3,888 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,936
Egyptian 260 300 300 240 300 230 160
English 4,800 10,206 9,336 9,516 7,500 7,500 5,200
Esperanto 200 220 220 220 220 220
Estonian 732 840 720
Finnish 2,160 2,160 2,160 2,160 2,160 1,730
French 3,600 2,400 2,400 2,040 1,768 1,358
Galician 240 240 240 240 480
Germany 7,500 7,512 7,536 7,610 7,478 7,800 8,078
Subtotal
68,552 72,831 71,121 68,564 67,346 64,376 28,108
99

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
B/Forward 68,552 72,831 71,121 68,564 67,346 64,376 28,108
German Sp. W-Abroad 1,810 1,000 750 500 500
Georgia 60
Ghana 240 240 240
Greek 900 188
Guadalajara 200 240 240 188 120
Guinea 240 240 240
Hong
Kong/Chinese /Chinese/21 330 100 210
Hong Kong/English 375 375 375 282
Hungarian 3,300 3,290 3,144 3,000 3,000 3,000
Hungarian W-in-Romania
Iceland 348 364 305 350 400 400
All India 200 14
Independent Chinese 780
Indonesia
Iran Writers-in-Exile 560 240 220 240
Irish 138 143 240 240 330 350
Israel 250 660 660
Italian 570 285 600 600 627 627
Italy (Trieste)
Japanese 16,176 16,800 18,000 19,200 19,200 19,200 21,000
Kazakhstan 150 300
Kenya 75
Korean 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,156 907 300 301
Kurdish 258 268 270 270 320 320
Latvian
Lebanon 200
Liechtenstein in / 30 300 360 360 360
Lithuanian 125 240 240 240 240
Macedonian 300 200 240 240
Malawi 240 240 240 240
Mexico 240 420 445 420 528 451
Moldova 310 78 210
Monaco / 17 131 152 186 209 200 240 250
Montenegro 366 350 350 350 350
Morocco
Nepal 240 250 240 100
Netherlands 2,500 3,000 3,000 2,500 2,500 2,400
New Zealand / 29 350 336 276 240 348 348 280
Nicaragua
Nigeria 240
Norwegian / 251 3,276 3,276 3,276 3,384 3,396 3,514
Pakistan 240 100
Palestine 240 240 60
Panama 240 240 240 240
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines 345 180 204 456
Polish 1,203 1,200 1,975 2,000 1,800 1,800 1,800
Portuguese 460 552 516 516 516 516
Puerto Rican 350 350
Romani 240
Romanian 300 290 195 300 300
Sub-Total 104,372 109,731 109,266 107,908 104,826 100,019 53,220
100

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
B/F 104,372 109,731 109,266 107,908 104,826 100,019 53,220
Russian 1,300 400 400 240 500 540 384
San Miguel Allende 480 420 324 420 420 336
Sardinia 220 240 220
Scottish / 200 2,130 2,560 2,328 2,356 2,400 2,520 3,160
Senegal 240 240
Serbian 250 320 300 40 240
Sierra Leone
Slovak 348 240 264 276 312 243 220
Slovene / 102 1,020 1,164 1,140 1,212 1,176 1,224 1,224
Somali Speaking Writers 240
South African 480 390 240 210 175 240
Spain
Sri
Lanka
Sudan Writers in Exile
Swedish 6,600 7,250 5,760 6,096 6,216 6,120
Swiss/ German 1,610 1,130 1,450 1,200 2,748 2,640
Swiss/It/Roman/ 60 210 437 600 697 720 720 896
Swiss/Romand/56 732 780 720 792 744 784 672
Taipei 1,200 1,368 1,368 618 620 621 800
Tatar 150 120
Thailand 200 240 240
Turkish 150 150
Uganda 240
Ukraine 82
USA
West / 1199 7,850 9,600 9,600 8,400 14,388 7,000
Venezuelan
Vietnamese W-Abroad 2,304 1,968 2,119 2,592
W-in-Ex. Germany 150 243 230 214 340 180
W-in-Ex. London 70 51 60 100 110
W-in-Ex. USA 400 350 350 400 700 450 450
Yiddish
Former Yugoslavia
Zambia
Zimbabwe
TOTAL$ 129,634 136,894 134,880 133,853 139,353 126,236 63,618
101

ANNEX 3.
Report of the International Secretary
Dear President, Vice-presidents, Delegates and distinguished guests,
The Congress in Mexico 2003 approved changes in our Regulations made with the aim of
strengthening the governance structures of International PEN. The task of the Board underlined its
character as a team concerned with policies and strategies of PEN, chaired by the International
President. The International Secretary became part of the Board ex officio, and also its executive
member. The Secretariat was placed squarely under the Administrative Director, who thus takes a
greater formal responsibility for the running of London headquarters.
These roles are being defined with greater clarity as we move forward. PEN’s weak financial situation
led to the appointment at the Mexico Congress of a Special Committee on fundraising, which was
empowered by the Board at its March 2004 meeting to commence functioning. The future of the
Secretariat was much discussed, leading to added functions to be detailed as soon as funding became
available.
Much time has been allocated to the review of the Rules of Procedure, a consequence of the Mexico
decisions concerning the Regulations. In addition the Strategic Plan has been further elaborated as a
result of the Bellagio-associated discussions; although it is an evolving text, at any stage the most
recent version will be of assistance in presenting to others with greater clarity our aims and ideals as
the leading writers’ association among international non-governmental organizations.
My first post-Congress travel took me, apart from office visits to London, to Paris in order to attend
the UNESCO General Conference of NGOs, 17 th – 19 th December, which provided a useful
opportunity for reviewing the PEN programmes together with our counterparts in UNESCO. Our
UNESCO links are still very important, though the UNESCO economic contribution to our activities
has decreased over the past years, as mentioned in earlier reports. International PEN seems to one of
quite a few NGOs which has been negatively influenced by UNESCO policy and allocation changes.
Added to this is, frankly, the fact that the administrative handling of project contributions is quite timeconsuming
from our point of view.
Nevertheless, our administrative counterparts can in no way be blamed for this; they have always been
extremely helpful in manoeuvring among UNESCO’s internal departmental demands concerning
allocation matters. As for these, International PEN has responded in very frank terms to a
questionnaire circulated this summer by UNESCO to NGOs maintaining consultative relations with
them, in the belief that frank and friendly analysis can be of guidance for the future.
My first visit to one of our Centres took place already in mid-January, when the Austrian Centre
hosted an important internal meeting between International President Jirí Gruša, Eugene Schoulgin,
myself and the Austrian Centre’s President Wolfgang Greisenegger, his colleagues and secretary Mrs
Rosl Merdinger. A very friendly start to the new year indeed! Later that same month, the Czech PEN
Centre invited me to attend the biennial Karel Capek Award ceremony in Prague on 23 rd January. This
also gave me the opportunity of again meeting International President Jirí Gruša and the Czech
Centre’s President Jirí Stransky on their home ground, as well as many others during the seminars coordinated
by Czech PEN with this significant event.
Again in London early February, on the initiative of Jirí Gruša I was invited by Senator Jara Moserova,
a member of the Czech delegation to UNESCO, to pursue discussions on aspects of UNESCO. This
also brought me in touch with other organizations interested in the governing values concerning
literature and the media.
102

An interesting invitation to visit the Slovak Centre for an anniversary celebration, linked with the
Global PEN Library project, had unfortunately to be turned down because of the half-yearly Board
meeting in London, whose important decisions I have already mentioned. Part of this meeting was held
with the assistance of George Gawlinski, the extremely helpful consultant to the Board towards a new
governance structure in PEN; and the International Treasurer, lead staff in the office and I had also had
a constructive earlier meeting with George Gawlinski in London. Our thanks go to him for his
generosity in giving International PEN two days’ of his time entirely free of charge.
In May the travel season really seemed to take off, starting with the marvellously high-profiled WiPC
meeting in Barcelona. Chaired by Eugene Schoulgin, master-minded as I understand it by Carles
Torner and Catalan PEN, and fully boosted by the WiPC crew from the London HQ, headed by Sara
Whyatt, it was in substance an extremely important and bonding get-together. Last-minute reservations
about elections of a new Chair will undoubtedly be sorted out by Tromsø, allowing no waste of energy
in the essential work ahead in this area.
A week afterwards, 25 th – 30 th May, the Writers for Peace meeting took place in Bled, where Tone
Persak, the newly elected President of the Slovene Centre, carried on the tradition of generous
hospitality so closely associated with his Centre. This meeting heralded the World Congress in
Slovenia in 2005, and included important meetings with Slovene government officials. It will itself be
remembered by the participants both for the efficient and kind Writers for Peace Committee
chairmanship of Veno Taufer and for the excellent quality of the accompanying literary seminars. The
Committee work achieved will be accounted for by the Committee itself.
Immediately afterwards, 6 th – 9 th June, at the invitation of the Moldovan Centre I travelled to the
Republic of Moldova. Placed as it is between the ideological continents of Western Europe and Russia
and its hinterland, the independent-minded writers and journalists of Moldova are in dire need of all
the outside support they can get, in face of some of the uglier facets of politics. I am convinced that we
can be proud of what our PEN Centre there is attempting to stand for and achieve, and I thank
president Vitalie Ciobanu and his colleagues for their co-hosting of the important seminar meetings
they had arranged in Chisinau.
In mid-June, Professor Kata Kulakova called the Translation and Linguistic Rights Committee
together in Ohrid. Mixed weather did not dampen interest in the proceedings, which were both lively
and pertinent. A very important stance was taken both concerning languages and the planned
Diyarbakir project, which will take place under the aegis of the Committee. It is obvious that the
Committee is well geared to carry forward the work which originated in the Catalan PEN Centre. It
was a great pleasure to see Kata supported by Dimitar Bashevski and other friends of Macedonian
PEN, well-remembered from the World Congress in Ohrid in 2002.
In July, German PEN invited President Jirí Gruša, Administrative Director Jane Spender and myself to
“inspect” the proposed venue for the Berlin 2006 World Congress. Installed in the very hotel in which
the Congress will take place, the meetings with the organizing committee of the Host Centre was an
undiluted pleasure, combining effectiveness with generosity. It left no doubt in my mind that this
oncoming Congress will be blessed both by good management and good humour. Warm thanks to
President Johano Strasser, Karin Clark and Ursula Setzer among others for their kind concerns.
On Friday 6 th August, I started off on a long-promised visit to the Vietnamese Writers Abroad Centre,
to be held in San José, California, USA on Sunday August 8. My hosts were Mr Pham Quang Trinh
and Mr Tran Vu, President and Treasurer of the VWA Centre. As you will know, the Centre was
reconstituted in 2001, which has obviously provided the basis for a stable development in the hands of
the present leadership, doing its best to build bridges both within and between the writers’
communities of the world. They had timed my visit to coincide with the Women Writers Forum of the
VWA. The presentations that afternoon were entirely by women writers and academics. Some two
hundred participants attended.
103

The evening for all the participants was a very friendly and spirited occasion, combined with fundraising.
Representatives of VWA Chapters across the continent participated. I held my main
presentation here, with an accent on PEN balance in political situations and our individual support for
writers in prison or under repression. A presence through travelling gives an irreplaceable opportunity
to meet those members of board and Centre who are unable to participate at international Congresses,
and who may otherwise seldom meet writers from other PEN Centres. Continuous explanation and
clarification are always called for, questions are many, interest is invariably high in what PEN stands
for. There is no better way to make a contribution to stability and explain the ideals of the PEN Charter
than through a personal presence under such circumstances. My warmest thanks to my hosts for
providing this rewarding opportunity for communication.
Much in this year’s HQ work has been overshadowed by our long-standing problems in making ends
meet. The fact that our expenses are extremely difficult to reduce or restrict adds up to a structural
deficit which ultimately can only be countered by fundraising. Although this seems to have become
standard information over these past few years, I think the Assembly can be reasonably assured that,
slowly but surely, steps have been taken to place International PEN on a solid platform of paragraphs,
organizational structure and strategic aims, which together will enable it to rise to the challenges of our
times.
Reviewing other Centre contacts, they touch on an amazing range of concerns which cover the entire
globe. When we become dismayed at problems, friction and shortcomings, let us remind ourselves of
the tremendous vitality within ourselves, which so quickly can turn despondency into everencouraging
optimism. Let us never forget the accumulated good common sense embodied in our
organization, nor the strength in the collective memory of who we are, and what we stand for. I am
convinced that International PEN has a future to make all of us proud of both membership and
achievements.
Terry Carlbom
London, August 2004
------------------------------------------------
ANNEX 4. Report of the PEN Emergency Fund
After having held the position for fifteen years, Henk Bernlef was succeeded as chairman of the PEN
Emergency Fund by Rudolf Geel. Once again the board would like to express its gratitude for the work
carried out by Bernlef during that time. Thanks to his efforts, the Fund acquired several substantial
financial backers, by which its work could be continued with undiminished strength. Despite the fact
that there are no deficits, the dependence upon only a few, primarily Dutch sources is cause for
concern. Various PEN centers in the world, whose solidarity with persecuted writers was formerly
made evident by way of annual contributions, have declined to participate in recent years. In the
previous report, the board voiced its apprehension about this, though to no avail. The decreasing will
to contribute financially for the work of the Fund is inconsistent with the solidarity shared among
writers, this being the very cornerstone on which PEN International is founded. Since its inception in
1973, the PEN Emergency Fund has proven its worth by offering financial aid rapidly and effectively
in cases where other solutions became unfeasible. Effectiveness is guaranteed by a close collaboration
with the Writers in Prison Committee. Not only do the professional investigators of the WIPC propose
candidates for financial aid; they also verify whether the circumstances in which these candidates find
themselves justify a donation from the Fund. In this way various writers and journalists have managed
104

to save their skins again this year. In order to ensure continuity, the board will remain committed to the
search for new sources of income. To start, at the coming PEN meetings and conferences, it will
approach the various centers with the urgent request to do justice to the international character of the
Fund by means of financial support. In addition to this, the board will continue diligently to seek
external donors.
In 2003 the board included Rudolf Geel (chairman), Jan Honout (treasurer), Eugene Schoulgin
(chairman of the Writers in Prison Committee and advisory member), Martin Mooij, Mineke Schipper,
Joachim Sartorius, Inger Christensen and Ferial Ghazoul (all members only). On the advisory board
are Harold Pinter, Kurt Vonnegut, Michael Scammell, Nadine Gordimer, Makoto Ooka, Mochtar
Lubis, Bei Dao, Amas Ata Aido and Bernlef.
In November, during a well-attended evening of The Hague’s yearly Crossing Border Festival, which
draws writers from all over the world, the Novib Awards for 2003 were granted to the Turkish
publisher Ragib Zarakolu, the writers Saul Paul and Tamba Mbetoka Allieu from Sierra Leone, the
Chinese writer Jiang Qisheng and the Algerian writer Saâda Omar. Information about their work and
living circumstances can be found in the survey of countries. Ragib Zarakolu was present at the award
presentation.
As in previous years, the Fund received a considerable sum of money from the Dutch organization
Novib, from the copyright organization LIRA and from an anonymous Dutch publisher – in total
51,430 euros. Together with the contributions made by the Japanese and the Dutch centers, as well as
one personal donation, the income for this fiscal year amounts to 59,080 euros. Expenditures came to
50,480 euros. Contributions went to writers and journalists, as specified in the survey.
Africa
Algeria
Saâda Omar, who received a Novib Award, was employed as a civil servant. In 2002 he published La
Déchéance Administrative, La Drame d’un Officier. In this book he reveals to the public numerous
cases of embezzlement by various civil servants. After its publication he was fired; he is deprived of an
income. The individuals named in the book took legal action against him. Without success, the Writers
in Prison Committee requested intervention by the Algerian president.
Benin
After studying criminology in Liège (Belgium) Gilles Dossou-Gouin devoted himself to writing. His
first novel L’Imaginaire et le Symbolisme de Dieu deals with the contrast between the teachings of the
first Western Christian missionaries and traditional African culture and history. Intimidation and abuse
by government officials followed its publication; 886 copies of the novel were confiscated. In 1997 he
fled to Senegal, where he now resides. His economic situation is extremely difficult; the PEN Center in
Senegal is not able to support him financially.
Cameroon
In 2002 aid was offered to the journalist Philip Njaru. Because of his publications, about matters such
as the torture of the population by the military during the collection of taxes and the corruption of
government officials, he was forced to flee his country. For his continuing struggle to defend the
freedom of speech, he received a Novib Award in 2002. This sum was transferred to his account in
early 2003.
Congo
Richard Nsamba Olangi, publisher and editor of the semiweekly Congolese newspaper Le Messager
Africain, was charged with insulting and falsely accusing Congolese authorities in June 2000. After
being arrested twice, he fled via Congo Brazzaville to Cameroon, where he was without an income.
105

The PEF initially provided him with support in 2001. Due to the desperate situation in which he had
arrived, the Fund sent him another contribution in 2003.
Aid was also given to Michel Museme Diawe, newscaster and writer. In 1998 he was arrested for the
first time, suspended and then fired. In 2001 he fled to South Africa. His family remained in Kinshasa,
where his seven children live on the street and have not been going to school for two years now. Diawe
himself is suffering from a ravaging illness. He has no means to support himself.
Ethiopia
The situation of the free press in Ethiopia is alarming. Authorities make every effort to prevent
unwelcome journalists from publishing work by way of threats, robbery and arrests.
Yoannes Abebe, one of the founders of the Ethiopian Free Press Association, fled his country in 2003,
because he was faced with six charges of violating laws concerning the press.
Student leader Mahmoud Asfaday was forced to flee due to his critical stance toward the authorities.
He ended up in Saudi Arabia, where he began to write articles about the situation in his country. In
response to this, the Ethiopian authorities made it impossible for him to return to his country. They
threatened him even in Saudi Arabia. Asfaday eventually obtained a visa for Malaysia, where he has
been living in destitute circumstances as a refugee.
As a journalist, Seyfu Mekonen was arrested, interrogated and tortured several times before he
managed to escape his country. Through the mediation of PEN, he received political asylum in
Canada. Mekonen is now trying to save money in order to bring his family to Canada. By means of a
contribution, the PEF is helping him to achieve this.
The Gambia
Occasionally there is reason to deviate from the principle of offering aid only once for each case. Alagi
Yorro Jallow, managing director of The Independent Newspaper, and his fellow editors were beaten,
threatened with death and imprisoned by the authorities several times. The intention was to shut down
their newspaper, one of the few means for the publication of free speech in this country. Until now,
none of this has prevented Yorri Jallow from continuing to publish The Independent Newspaper.
Eritrea
Aaron Berhane worked as the editor of a daily newspaper in Eritrea. Like many other journalists, he
encountered difficulties with the authorities and was forced to flee the country. Via the mediation of
PEN, he was granted political asylum in Canada. In order to assist him in starting a new life, the PEF
made a financial contribution.
Liberia
In September 2000, Charles Jackson and a number of his fellow editors from the newspaper The New
Democratic were forced to flee Liberia. They had received countless death threats from the security
forces, who were accusing them of circulating damaging information via Internet. Since their escape,
which brought an end to the newspaper, the journalists have been waiting in a Ghanaian refugee camp
for the possibility of emigrating to the United States. Meanwhile they are living with a considerable
fear of being kidnapped by Liberian secret agents who have entered Ghana. The journalist Grody
Dorbor, editor of The Enquirer, also had to flee the country and has since been staying in the same
refugee camp that houses Jackson and his colleagues.
Nigeria
In 2002 the Fund assisted the journalist Henri Olonisaye, who was employed at the Sunday Times
newspaper in Lagos. He was accused of investigating the unethical behavior of the police force.
Olonisaye managed to go to the United Kingdom, where he obtained a residence permit and found a
106

low-wage job with the London Underground. Because his scant income prevented him from affording
the airfare for his wife, who was still being harassed by the authorities, the PEF granted a contribution.
Sierra Leone
The writers Saul Paul and Tamba Mbetoka Allieu began, in 1996, a joint investigation of the genital
mutilation of women. They wished to publish their findings in a book with the working title Female
Genital Mutilation. Information about this plan became known, after which Paul and his wife were
threatened with lynching and the genitals of his wife were set on fire. Allieu lost his wife and his
daughter. The two investigators fled and found refuge in Guinea. Their manuscript still awaits
publication. In order to make it possible for them to finish the book in complete freedom, a Novib
Award was granted to each of the authors in November 2003.
Somalia
Omar Faruk is a journalist and member of SOJON, a Somalian organization for human rights. After
the publication of a series of articles on the political and social situation in Somalia, he was threatened
by Somalian warlords and high-ranking officials. In order to save his life, he fled to Nairobi (Kenya).
His family still lives in Somalia. When it becomes safer there, he would like to return to his country.
Zimbabwe
In 2003 the journalist Perseviarance Kakwindi was arrested and tortured due to his work. After his
release he fled to Botswana, leaving his children in the care of a former colleague. Because he had the
prospect of work at The Guardian Newspaper in Botswana within three months, the PEF offered him a
financial contribution to bridge the gap.
Aid was also given to the writer Cyprian Muketiwa Ndawana, who specializes in political and social
topics. His articles, critical toward the authorities, put his life in danger. He fled to Gabarone, the
capital of neighboring Botswana.
Writer, journalist and PEN member Chenjerai Hove was put in prison immediately following a visit
from Terry Carlbom, international secretary of PEN. Prior to this the authorities had offered him a sum
of money if he would succeed in bringing an international conference of PEN to Zimbabwe. Such an
event could be used to boost the country’s image. Hove initially fled to Germany but later returned to
Zimbabwe. There he witnessed the raiding of his house by the police, who confiscated his computer
and several manuscripts. At the invitation of the International Parliament of Writers, he then went to
Paris, where he now gets by on a small allowance.
Asia
China
At the end of 2002 a Novib Award was granted to the Chinese historian Tohti Tunyaz. The
accompanying sum of money was transferred to him within the fiscal year. Tohti Tunyaz was arrested
in 1998 and charged with “theft of secret information of the state” and the publication of a book on
ethnic minorities, The Inside Story of the Silk Road. The book was never written, however.
Nonetheless he received a prison sentence of eleven years. Four of those years have now passed. No
one may visit him. Nothing is known about his state of health. The reason for action on the part of
Chinese authorities must be sought in problems which they encounter in repressing a largely Muslim
population in the Xinjiang region and depriving them of their cultural identity. Tohti Tunyaz, who
comes from this region himself, was specialized in the history of minority groups in Xinjiang.
During the past fiscal year, a Novib Award has once again been granted to a Chinese writer. Jiang
Qisheng has been one of the most important dissident writers in Beijing since 1989. In 1999 he was
sentenced to four years in prison for his pro-democratic activities. In an article he had criticized the
Chinese system which allows for only one party. Many articles by him appeared in the periodical
Beijing Spring, published outside of China, and in these he showed himself to be an advocate of
107

human rights and democracy in China. He was released in May 2003. His physical condition
deteriorated during the time in prison.
Europe
Belarus
Vasil Bykou, president of the White-Russian PEN center, is a prominent writer of prose and can be
considered the intellectual leader of the White Russians. He is also an outspoken opponent of the
White-Russian regime. Since 1997 Bykou has been living in voluntary exile – initially in Finland and
in Germany, now in the Czech Republic. There he has no fixed income and is suffering from a
debilitative illness. In order to assist him, various organizations and private individuals are
contributing whatever possible. A contribution has also been made by the PEF.
Turkey
Due to his ongoing resistance to bans on publication in his country, a Novib Award was given to the
Turkish publisher Ragib Zarakolu. In 1979 he and his wife Ayse Nur Zarakolu set up the publishing
house Belge in Istanbul. During the early years, the couple focused on Kurdish writers, in the
southeastern part of Turkey, who wrote about the suppression of Kurdish minorities. In 1980 Ayse Nur
Zarakolu was put in prison for sixteen months. Together Ragib and Ayse Nur Zarakolu, who has since
died, were convicted thirty-three times for the publication of books on political abuses and the
violation of human rights in Turkey. At present Ragib Zarakolu is undergoing a lawsuit for the
publication of a book in which the official Turkish policy toward minorities in the country’s
southeastern region is referred to as “organized genocide”. Meanwhile he is travelling abroad, against
the will of the authorities, in order to report on the situation in his country, and Zarakolu continues to
publish the books that he believes should be printed.
Latin America
Colombia
Writer and journalist Carlos López Castro was also publisher of the periodical De Interés. Following
the publication of a critical article on corruption and armed violence, he received death threats.
Moreover, the magazine was taken out of circulation for some time, after which it appeared only
bimonthly rather than monthly. A return to Colombia is out of the question for him. For a considerable
time he has been living in destitute circumstances in the United States, where he has requested political
asylum. This has still not been granted. His wife and three children have gone into hiding in Colombia.
Peru
Poet and journalist Juan de Jara Mata Berrospi was manager of the magazine El Informador at the time
of his arrest. He worked for Radio Comas and for the newspaper El Heraldo Huanuqueno. In addition
to this, Berrospi was on the staff of El Diario, which is said to have been linked to the guerrilla
movement Senderro Luminoso (Shining Path). The periodical was declared unlawful in 1988; its
publication was brought to a halt by order of the authorities. Berropsi, who is an honorary member of
the PEN center USA West, was sentenced to twenty years in prison on a charge of collaboration. In
2000 all criminal cases against imprisoned Peruvian journalists were reviewed. The review of
Berropsi’s case will be possible only through the involvement of a lawyer. Although the PEF does not,
in principle, contribute for such costs, an exception has been made in this special instance, because
without legal assistance he will be forced to remain in prison.
108

PEN Emergency Fund: Financial survey 2003
-in Euro-
Balance 01/01/03 112.622 Income 59.080
Balance 31/12/03 121.222 Expenditures 50.480
Saldo 8.600 8.600
Income: 59.080
PEN-CENTR ES: 4.843
Japan 2.295
Netherlands 2.548
INSTITUTIONS /PERSONS : 52.430
Dutch Publisher 16.430
Lira Foundation Netherlands 10.000
NOVIB Netherlands 25.000
Personal gift 1.000
INTEREST: 1.807
Donations: 46.125
AFRICA: 27.660
Algeria 2.500
Benin 1.000
Cameroun 2.500
Congo 1.000
Eritrea 1.000
Ethiopia 4.250
The Gambia 2.700
Liberia 2.000
Nigeria 1.000
Sierra Leone 7.350
Somalia 1.110
Zimbabwe 1.250
ASIA: 5.000
China 5.000
EUROPE: 11.165
Belarussia 6.000
Turkey 5.165
LATIN AMERICA: 2.300
Columbia 1.000
Peru 1.300
Costs: 4.355
Representation and Congresses 2.262
Bank and administration 993
Board 1.100
Amsterdam, April 14, 2004.
J.Honout,
Treasurer
109

ANNEX 5. Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Procedure
Proposed amendments to the Rules of Procedure, to be read with:
(c)
Key:
AMENDING RESOLUTION ON THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, submitted by the Board
new paragraphs / clauses / phrases are underlined. A simple omission is crossed through.
=======================================
RULES OF PROCEDURE
OF THE ASSEMBLY OF DELEGATES OF INTERNATIONAL PEN
Rule 1
Convening of the Assembly of Delegates
A communication convening the Assembly of Delegates, together with the draft agenda, shall be addressed by the
International Secretary to all Centres not later than six weeks before the date of the opening of the Assembly.
Rule 2
(a)
(b)
(c)
Agenda of the Assembly of Delegates
The International Secretary shall prepare the draft agenda of each Assembly of Delegates and shall submit it
for the approval of the Board.
The draft agenda shall be sent to all the Centres in accordance with Rule 1 of these Rules of Procedure.
The agenda of the Assembly of Delegates shall contain the following items:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
the report of the Board;
the International Treasurer's report on the finances of International PEN, as well as the budget of
International PEN for the following year;
the International Secretary's report on International PEN's activities, which shall include an
itemised account of any pending business relating to the previous resolutions of the Assembly of
Delegates.
other items as deemed necessary.
Rule 3
Chairperson of the Assembly of Delegates
The International President shall serve as Chairperson of the Assembly of Delegates, or may delegate this
responsibility.
Rule 4
(a)
Rights and Duties of the Chairperson
The Chairperson shall:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
declare the opening and closure of each meeting;
before proceeding to the agenda, bring before the Assembly of Delegates any communication
which in his or her opinion may immediately concern it;
appoint two scrutineers to assist the International Secretary in the conduct of the voting;
110

(iv)
(v)
direct the discussions, maintain order, ensure the observance of the Regulations and of the Rules of
Procedure by such means as circumstances may demand, accord or withdraw the right to address
the Assembly of Delegates and put motions, resolutions and amendments to the vote;
in exceptional circumstances at his or her discretion, declare a meeting or any part thereof
private, as provided in Rule 5 (h).
(b)
(c)
Rule 5
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Rule 6
The Chairperson shall not vote.
In the absence of both the Chairperson or his or her delegate during a meeting or any part thereof, the
Assembly of Delegates shall choose an Acting Chairperson who, until the Chairperson or his or her
delegate resumes the Chair, shall have the same rights and duties as the Chairperson.
The Conduct of the Assembly of Delegates
No one shall address a meeting except by permission of the Chairperson.
The Chairperson may exercise discretion in selecting the order of speakers.
No one shall be entitled to speak more than once upon the same motion, resolution or amendment,
without the Chairperson's dispensation, save the proposer who shall be entitled to speak twice unless the
Chairperson shall first have declared the discussion closed.
The Chairperson may require a speaker to resume his seat or withdraw from the meeting.
A point of order shall be decided immediately by the Chairperson.
Except with the consent of the Chairperson, no speech shall exceed five minutes.
The International Secretary, together with the two scrutineers appointed by the Chairperson, shall supervise
the voting.
Quorum
At every meeting of the Assembly of Delegates the quorum shall consist of Delegates, as specified in Article 8 (b) (i)
of the Regulations, from no fewer than 20 Centres.
Rule 7
(a)
Resolutions and Recommendations
There shall be three categories of substantive decisions, namely Amending Resolutions concerning the
Charter and Regulations; Resolutions, regular or in-session, pertaining to public affairs or to the Rules of
Procedure; and Recommendations, regular or in-session, directed at the Board or Centres.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Amending Resolutions. These are resolutions to amend the PEN Charter or the Regulations, and
shall be treated in accordance with Article 10 (b) of the Regulations and Rule 17 of these Rules of
Procedure;
Regular Resolutions and Recommendations. These shall be submitted in writing in one or more of
the working languages to the International Secretary not less than 10 weeks before a session of the
Assembly of Delegates. They may be submitted by a Centre, by an Officer or by the Board. The
Administrative Director shall circulate them to Centres as soon as practicable before the opening of
the Assembly. Regular resolutions shall be voted on in accordance with Article 10 (b) of the
Regulations and Rule 9 (d) and may be passed by a simple majority.
In-session Resolutions and Recommendations. These are resolutions and recommendations on
matters that have arisen during the period of 10 weeks before a session of the Assembly of
Delegates or during such a session. They shall be submitted in writing in one or more of the
working languages, and may be submitted by a Centre, by an Officer or by the Board. If submitted
in advance of the session, the Administrative Director shall circulate them as soon as practicable to
all Centres represented at the session. If submitted during the session, the proposers shall be
111

esponsible for circulating them to all Centres represented at the session. In-session resolutions
shall be voted on in accordance with Article 10 (b) of the Regulations and Rule 17 of these Rules of
Procedure.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Rule 8
(a)
The Secretariat shall, in consultation with the chairpersons of the standing committees where relevant and
whoever else may be appropriate, be responsible for ensuring as far as possible that Resolutions which are
relatively similar are merged and that those which are clearly outside the competence of International PEN
are deleted from the agenda.
Every resolution and amendment must be proposed and seconded by members of the Assembly of
Delegates before it is discussed or voted upon.
If there are several amendments to a resolution, the Chairperson shall decide the order in which they will be
discussed and put to the vote.
If a resolution is amended as a result of a vote or votes, that resolution as amended shall be put to the
Assembly of Delegates for a final vote.
Any resolution or part of a resolution or amendment may be withdrawn by the Centre which proposed it at
any time before it is put to the vote, but upon such withdrawal it may without previous notice be proposed
anew, if also seconded, by any other Centre.
Motions
Motions concerning procedure may be made orally by any member of the Assembly of Delegates without
previous notice and such motions may include:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
a motion to refer a matter back;
a motion to postpone consideration of a matter in question;
a motion to adjourn the meeting;
a motion to adjourn the discussion on a particular question;
a motion that the Assembly of Delegates proceed with the next item on its agenda.
(b)
Any Officer or delegate may move the closure of a discussion either on a particular resolution or
amendment or on a general question. The decision on such motions shall be taken in accordance with the
following provisions:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
the Chairperson shall put a motion for closure to the vote if it is supported by at least 12 delegates.
the Chairperson may give permission to speak against a motion for closure.
no speaker shall be entitled to speak on a motion for closure for more than three minutes.
after a motion for closure of a discussion on a particular resolution or amendment has been carried
the Chairperson shall immediately put such resolution or amendment to the vote.
Rule 9
(a)
(b)
Voting Procedure
Each Centre, through its official delegates, is entitled to one vote only, which may be cast subject to the
provisions of Rule 10 on postal ballots.
At the discretion of the Chairperson, a vote by show of hands of the whole Assembly may be taken on
motions as to procedure and on questions affecting the conduct of the proceedings and the convenience of
members, e.g. time and place of meetings.
112

(c)
(d)
(e)
The Assembly of Delegates shall vote by a show of hands except where the Regulations or these Rules
require that a recorded vote be taken or that voting shall be by secret ballot. Postal votes received by the
Secretariat in accordance with Rule 10 shall be included in the votes.
Votes by a show of hands shall be counted by the International Secretary and appointed scrutineers and
announced by the International Secretary. Where a clear majority vote by a show of hands is established, the
Chair may declare a proposal as accepted or rejected with such a show, unless a count is requested by a
Delegate.
A recorded vote shall be taken in the case of Resolutions to amend the Regulations or Charter. A recorded
vote is one in which each Centre's vote or its decision to abstain is declared.
(f) A recorded vote shall also be taken on any other question at the request, on a show of hands, of at least 10
delegates entitled to a vote.
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
Rule 10
(a)
(b)
Rule 11
The delegate who proposes the resolution for which a recorded vote will be taken shall be the first to vote
and the order of voting shall follow the English alphabetical order by names of Centres, commencing with
his or her Centre.
A full note of a recorded vote shall be written down by the International Secretariat and the itemised result
announced by the Chairperson.
The International Secretary, together with the two appointed scrutineers, shall provide for the
administration of any secret ballot so as to ensure its confidentiality and the authenticity of all votes cast.
A two-thirds majority shall mean two-thirds of the total votes cast for or against a resolution or
recommendation; votes of abstention shall not be counted.
In case of a tied vote the resolution shall be put to a second vote, and if the second vote is also tied it shall
be considered to have failed.
Postal ballot
Each Centre may cast a ballot by post in the elections of the International President (Rule 12), Honorary
Members (Rule 13), the International Treasurer (Rule 14), Members of the Board (Rule 15) and the
International Secretary (Rule 16). Such ballots shall be addressed by post or by fax to the Administrative
Director and must reach the Secretariat not later than one week before the opening of the Assembly of
Delegates.
The postal ballot may nevertheless be replaced by a vote cast by the delegate of the Centre concerned
during the Assembly of Delegates.
Proxy vote
Any proxy votes, as described in Article 12 (c) of the Regulations, shall be counted after the vote by show of hands
and added to its total. In the case of secret and recorded votes the proxy votes shall be annotated and cast by the
authorized Centres.
Rule 12
Election of the International President
(a)
(b)
(c)
The Administrative Director shall notify all Centres of a presidential election not less than six months in
advance of the proposed date of election.
Nominations shall, as described in Article 17 (a) of the Regulations, be submitted to the Secretariat not less
than three months in advance of the proposed date of election, or such shorter period as the Board may
decide. Nominations shall include a letter signed by the candidate agreeing to stand for election, a biography
and a statement of intent.
The Administrative Director shall distribute to all Centres as soon as possible, but not later than 9 weeks
before the date of election, the names, biographies and statements of intent of all candidates for President.
113

(d)
(e)
(f)
Unless otherwise decided by the Assembly of Delegates, the election shall be held by secret ballot at a
meeting of the Assembly of Delegates. Each Centre entitled to vote shall receive an official ballot at least six
weeks before the date of election. Ballots may be brought to the meeting by delegates or submitted by post
or by fax to reach the International Secretariat not later than one week before the election.
The candidate receiving an absolute majority of the votes cast shall be elected President.
If no candidate receives an absolute majority of the votes cast, a second ballot shall take place during the
Assembly among delegates present and entitled to vote, to decide between the two candidates who received
the highest number of votes in the first ballot. Should the two candidates receive the same number of votes
in the second ballot, lots shall be drawn.
Rule 13
Election of Vice Presidents
NOTE TO CENTRES AND DELEGATES: The Assembly of Delegates, meeting at the 69 th Congress in
Mexico City in 2003, declared a moratorium on the election of International Vice Presidents and requested
the Board to report with a Recommendation to the Assembly of Delegates meeting at the 70 th Congress in
Tromsø.
However, because the Recommendation is likely to be a later item on the Agenda than this Amending
Resolution on the Rules of Procedure, and is not certain to be passed by the Assembly, the following
amendments to Rule 13 are proposed in order to bring the election of Vice Presidents into line with the
elections of the other Officers of International PEN.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Nominations for the office of Vice President shall, as described in Article 19 (a) of the Regulations, be
submitted to the Secretariat not less than three months in advance of the proposed date of election, or such
shorter period as the Board may decide. Nominations shall include a short explanatory note about the
candidate and the reasons for his/her nomination.
The Administrative Director shall inform all Centres as soon as possible, but not later than 9 weeks
before the date of election, of the names of all candidates for Vice-President and shall circulate the notes
mentioned in paragraph (a) above.
The election shall be held by secret ballot at a meeting of the Assembly of Delegates. Each Centre
entitled to vote shall receive an official ballot at least six weeks before the date of election. Ballots may be
brought to the meeting by delegates or submitted by post or by fax to reach the International Secretariat not
later than one week before the election. To be elected the candidate must receive a majority of two-thirds of
the votes cast.
Rule 14
Election of the International Treasurer
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
The Administrative Director shall notify all Centres of an election for the office of Treasurer not less than
six months in advance of the proposed date of election.
Nominations, as described in Article 21 (a) of the Regulations, shall be submitted to the Secretariat not less
than three months in advance of the proposed date of election, or such shorter period as the Board may
decide. Nominations shall include a letter signed by the candidate agreeing to stand for election and a
biography.
The Administrative Director shall distribute to all Centres as soon as possible, but not later than 9 weeks
before the date of election, the names and biographies of all candidates for Treasurer.
Unless otherwise decided by the Assembly of Delegates, the election shall be held by secret ballot at a
meeting of the Assembly of Delegates. Each Centre entitled to vote shall receive an official ballot at least
six weeks before the date of election. Ballots may be brought to the meeting by delegates or submitted by
post or by fax to reach the International Secretariat not later than one week before the election.
(e)
The candidate for whom the highest number of votes is cast shall be elected.
114

Rule 15
Election of Members at Large of the Board
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
The Administrative Director shall notify all Centres of an election of members at large of the Board not less
than six months in advance of the proposed date of election.
Nominations, as described in Article 24 (a) of the Regulations, shall be submitted to the Secretariat not less
than three months in advance of the proposed date of election, or such shorter period as the Board may
decide. Nominations shall include a letter signed by the candidate agreeing to stand for election and a
biography.
The Administrative Director shall distribute to all Centres as soon as possible, but not later than 9 weeks
before the date of election, the names and biographies of all candidates for the membership of the Board.
Voting shall be by secret ballot. Each Centre entitled to vote shall receive an official ballot at least six weeks
before the date of election. Ballots may be brought to the meeting by delegates or submitted by post or by
fax to reach the Secretariat not later than one week before the election.
The candidates receiving the highest number of votes cast shall be elected, up to the number of seats to be
filled. In case of a tie between two candidates for the last place, a ballot shall be held between them during
the Assembly among delegates present and entitled to vote.
Rule 16
Election of the International Secretary
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
The Administrative Director shall notify all Centres of the election of an International Secretary not less
than six months in advance of the proposed date of election.
The Administrative Director shall distribute to all Centres as soon as possible, but not later than 9 weeks
before the date of election, the names and curricula vitae of all candidates for International Secretary.
Unless otherwise decided by the Assembly of Delegates, the election shall be held by secret ballot at a
meeting of the Assembly of Delegates. Each Centre entitled to vote shall receive an official ballot at least 6
weeks before the date of election. Ballots may be brought to the meeting by Delegates or submitted by post
or by fax to reach the Secretariat not later than one week before the election.
The candidate for whom the highest number of votes is cast shall be elected.
Rule 17
Amendments to the PEN Charter and to the Regulations
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Amending Resolutions to the PEN Charter or the Regulations shall be submitted jointly by two Centres in
writing in one or more of International PEN's working languages to the Secretariat not less than 16 weeks
before a session of the Assembly of Delegates.
The Administrative Director shall circulate such Resolutions to all Centres not less than 12 weeks before a
session of the Assembly of Delegates, with an invitation to submit their written comments not less than 1
week before the session. Comments received from any Centre not represented by a delegate at the
Assembly of Delegates at which such a Resolution is an item on the Agenda shall be communicated in
writing to the Assembly by the International Secretary before the resolution is discussed and voted on.
The vote on a resolution to amend the Regulations shall be held in accordance with Article 10 (b) of the
Regulations.
In the case of a resolution to amend the PEN Charter:
(i)
A revised draft of the resolution, embodying the suggestions approved by delegates at the
Assembly at which the resolution is discussed, shall be sent to all Centres by the Administrative
Director not less than 6 months before the subsequent session of the
Assembly of Delegates;
(ii) This revised draft shall be put on the agenda of the subsequent Assembly of Delegates ;
115

(iii)
(iv)
A Centre unable to, or uncertain whether it will, send a delegate to vote on the resolution at such
subsequent meeting shall be entitled to a postal vote, and shall receive a ballot paper not less than 6
weeks before the session of the Assembly of Delegates. Such a vote shall be submitted by post or
by fax to the Secretariat and must reach the Secretariat not later than one week before the opening
of the Assembly of Delegates.
The vote on a resolution to amend the PEN Charter shall be held in accordance with Article 10 (b)
of the Regulations and shall include every valid postal vote not replaced by a vote cast by a
delegate.
Rule 18
Documents of the Assembly of Delegates
(a)
(b)
(c)
Minutes shall be recorded of any Assembly of Delegates and circulated with the draft agenda provided for
in Rule 2 (b).
Such minutes shall be signed by the President and the International Secretary when accepted by the
Assembly of Delegates as correct at the beginning of its next session.
The text of all resolutions adopted at a session of the Assembly of Delegates shall be sent to all Centres by
the Administrative Director immediately after the end of the session.
Rule 19
Languages
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
The working languages of International PEN shall be used at all meetings of the Assembly of Delegates, as
well as the language of the Host Centre, if different.
At all meetings of the Assembly of Delegates the Host Centre shall arrange for simultaneous interpretation
in the working languages.
At the request of any Centre offering to pay the extra cost the Host Centre shall, if practicable, also provide
simultaneous interpretation into and from that Centre's language.
At the discretion of the Chairperson a language other than those referred to in sub-paragraphs (a) and (c) of
this Rule may be used by a Delegate who provides at his expense a summarised translation of his speech in
one of the working languages.
Rule 20
Guests and observers
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Only members of PEN Centres have the right, in accordance with Article 13 of the Regulations, to attend
meetings of the Assembly of Delegates.
At the discretion of the Host Centre, members may bring guests to any Congress or Conference, who shall
not be entitled to attend any meetings of the Assembly of Delegates or meetings of any International PEN
Committee.
The Host Centre has the right to request the President and the International Secretary to invite eminent
writers to attend a Congress or Conference as Guests of Honour at the Host Centre's expense. The Centre
of the country of domicile of a proposed Guest of Honour shall be consulted before the issue of such an
invitation.
The Host Centre may, in consultation with the International President or the Board, invite observers who
are not members of PEN to any Congress or Conference. The Chairperson may allow such observers to
attend any meeting.
The International President, in consultation with the Board, may invite to any Congress or Conference
guests and observers who are not members of International PEN
Rule 21
Services Provided by the Host Centre
116

(a)
The Host Centre shall be responsible inter alia to the International Secretariat for:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
distributing to delegates all Congress and Conference documents;
the provision of photocopying as well as access to a telephone and a fax;
tape-recordings of all proceedings of the Assembly of Delegates to be delivered promptly to the
Administrative Director;
the provision of simultaneous interpretation of all proceedings of the Assembly of Delegates in
accordance with Rule 19.
(b)
The Host Centre shall meet such other expenses as are specified in the document ‘Advice to Centres’,
which is appended to these Rules of Procedure.
Rule 22
(a)
Committees
Committees, as laid down in Article 11 of the Regulations, may be:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
a standing committee or a special committee, which shall be one established as a permanent
committee of International PEN, and which may be constituted by Centres and/or individuals;
an ad hoc committee, which shall be one established for a particular, limited, purpose and shall
exist only until that purpose is fulfilled, and which shall be constituted only by individuals.
a temporary committee, which shall be one established for a particular limited purpose for the
duration of the Assembly of Delegates only, and which shall be constituted only by Centres.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
The Assembly of Delegates shall, at the time of election or appointment of any committee, specify how the
committee shall be funded and what shall be its membership and terms of reference.
Each committee shall nominate its chairperson from amongst its members and propose their appointment
to the Assembly of Delegates.
A Centre serving as a member of a committee shall be represented at any time by one member of that
Centre designated by the Centre for the purpose.
Minutes shall be kept of all meetings of every committee.
The Chairperson or some other member of a committee shall either submit to the Board a written report
on its activities and recommendations since the previous session of the Assembly of Delegates or may
report to the Assembly at the subsequent session of the Assembly.
A committee may consult Centres and members of PEN who are not members of the committee on any
matter under consideration.
Rule 23
Entry into Force and Amendments
(a) These Rules of Procedure shall enter into force and may be amended in accordance with Articles 10 and 14
of the Regulations.
(b)
In case of any discrepancy between the Regulations and the Rules of Procedure, the Regulations shall be
followed. In case of any discrepancy between the working languages, the English version shall be followed.
117

ANNEX 6. Statement concerning terrorist actions in Russia
‘The Assembly of Delegates of the 70 th International PEN World Congress in Tromsø, Norway, joins
in the worldwide condemnation of the terrorist actions perpetrated during recent weeks. The
Assembly grieves together with the families of the victims of the hostage-taking at the school in
Beslan on 1 st September of this year.
We call upon religious leaders, artists, opinion makers and politicians to use their influence to stop
those who use terrorist acts in the name of Islam to achieve their goals by bringing to the world
destruction, division, fear and uncertainty about both the present and the future.
We call upon the President of Russia and the Russian government to:
Open a multilateral dialogue with organizations, leaders of ethnic groups and leaders of
opposing sides, with the aim of ending violence on the territory of Northern Caucasia, and
Restore civil living conditions in the Chechnyan Republic by means of political decisions,
commitment to dialogue, and economic support, and not by means of reinforcement of military
power.
We call upon all government officials from the local to the national level, and all sectors of society, to
ensure the free and open access necessary for the media to report fully and accurately on events and
developments in the region.’
ANNEX 7. Writers in Prison Committee, Chair’s Report
As is true of an opera, a farewell to the Writers in Prison Committee is not something you can prepare
yourself for just like that. We know that cases can often drag on for a long time, and so too has my
departure from the scene. However, I promise you that this is my final swan song.
It would be easy to look back and pick over the failures and achievements of my four years as Chair of
the WiPC, but “done is done and eaten is eaten” as grandma mouse says in the
children’s opera when she realises that her family has been swallowed by a fox. What is of real
importance is what we in the WiPC have accomplished together, because for me the greatest
pleasure during these last four years has been the close cooperation and friendship in our work, both
during meetings, and in the intervals between them. I must say, I am proud of the improvements we
have made, and I am highly impressed by the amount as well as the quality of the work done by Sara,
Cathy, Sara B and Dixe in the office, as well as by all of you with whom it has been such a pleasure to
share worries, experiences, happy moments and thoughts.
To go into all the different areas and strategies we have worked on in order to become more effective
falls outside the scope of an article like this. I would therefore like to mention just a few. First, there
are the networks and the campaigns aimed at specific regions and countries, and the methods used by
WiPCs to highlight the cases we work on, such as visits to embassies and foreign ministries, protests
and the writing of articles. Then there are the missions to countries where the imprisonment of writers
and publishers is government policy. My experience is that the missions tool is highly effective
provided that the delegation is well prepared, has a good knowledge of the cases they want to
highlight, knows how to present PEN and how to get appointments with the right people as high up in
the hierarchy as possible. Finally, there is the work we do in fields closely connected to our main
goals, such as the impunity campaign and the anti-terror report.
118

Since my last farewell we have had another WiPC Conference , and I think all of us who had the
privilege of being hosted by Carles, the Catalán PEN Centre and Forum 2004 will never forget their
hospitality, the quality of the meetings, and their efficiency and friendliness. More agreeable
surroundings for serious gathering like ours would be very difficult to find, and in the aftermath of that
week in May, a number of new centres have joined the WiPC. I would like to welcome them warmly,
and I am convinced they will find the work we are doing, and the atmosphere in WiPC, much to their
liking. The goals we wanted to achieve during the Barcelona Conference were not all fulfilled, but I
think we moved further on than ever before.
Even so, I do not want this to turn into a self-congratulatory message. There are many areas in which
we shall have to improve in the future. I think particularly of the need for better dialogue between the
centres, and between the centres and the London headquarters. Communication has improved, but it is
still not good enough, and I think we have to get much better at publicising our positions and in getting
our protests and messages out to the public. This is a great challenge to all of us. The voice of PEN
and WiPC must be heard loud and clear.
This brings me to the future.
As I see it, the world today has become a much darker and more troublesome place to live in for most
of us, and especially for people whose views do not align themselves with the opinions of officialdom.
These people are, of course, our potential cases. What worries me, and what makes it so important for
us in PEN generally – and perhaps the WiPC in particular – to be on high alert, is the growing
tendency to dismantle the judicial security net established by the United Nations and other
international bodies to protect the individual from arbitrary violations of their right to free expression.
Threats and harassment that invite self-censorship have become more common in a frightening number
of countries which until recently had been proud of their human rights standards. The damaging signal
this new pattern of behaviour sends to countries already notorious for their oppressiveness cannot be
over-estimated.
In my opinion, PEN is today standing at a crossroads. We not only have the duty of living up to our
charter, but are also in a position to play a major role in the defence of the right to free
expression which has taken so many decades to achieve, and which can be demolished with
frightening celerity.
I would like to conclude these reflections by wishing my successor as chair the best of luck. May she
or he experience the same energy, the same richness of imagination, and the same friendship I have
received from all of you during these past four years.
A warm THANK YOU from me,
Eugene Schoulgin
AFRICA
Although no fewer than fifteen countries in the region currently have cases being monitored by the
WiPC, there are three nations that stand out for their particularly poor record with regards to freedom
of expression: Eritrea, Ethiopia and Zimbabwe. The notoriety of this dubious triumvirate has been
hard-earned by their respective regimes over the years. However, the methods by which presidents
Isaias Afewerki, Meles Zenawi and Robert Mugabe have suppressed freedom of expression in the
countries in which they rule differ considerably.
119

In Eritrea, in September 2001, the entire private press was closed down and mass arrests of editors
and reporters were made. Although some journalists managed to flee the country, nine are apparently
still being held incommunicado in police station cells in the capital Asmara. Another nine journalists,
who disappeared prior to the clampdown, are believed to be in detention or in enforced military service
in remote parts of the country. The Eritrean government’s tactic in dealing with any appeals on behalf
of these journalists used to be to deny that they were being detained. Nowadays, they simply don’t
bother to respond at all. With the release of Ethiopia’s Tewodros Kassa on serving his two-year prison
sentence, Eritrea became the only country in the region with any main cases.
The Ethiopian variant on this theme is rather more subtle. Charges are pressed against journalists in
an indiscriminate manner – normally on grounds of “defamation” or of “disseminating false
information” – high bails are set, and then the court cases drag on for years. In the meantime, the
journalists concerned have legal costs to meet and are forever living in the shadow of a possible prison
term. This leads inevitably to self-censorship by those unwilling to go through the judicial mill.
The situation in Zimbabwe is different again. An all-out war has been declared by Robert Mugabe’s
Zanu-PF party on anyone deemed to be in opposition to them. Those who criticise the government are
instantly branded as “lapdogs of the British”, the former colonial power in the country. The major
independent newspaper, the Daily News, has long since been closed down and almost its entire staff is
on trial for some supposed crime or other. The Public Order and Security Act (POSA) and the Access
to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA) continue to be used to clamp down on any
voices that veer from the government line.
As for the region as a whole, attacks on journalists were reported in Gambia, Liberia, Nigeria, Sierra
Leone and Zimbabwe. Court cases are in session or pending against members of the press corps in
Angola, Ethiopia, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda, Zambia and
Zimbabwe. Death threats and attempted killings are mercifully rare in the region. However, the
startling exception to this rule is the case of The Independent in Gambia. A series of attacks on the
non-government newspaper culminated in April in a combined armed assault and arson attack in which
miraculously no one was killed.
Francophone Africa
As in previous reports, almost all cases highlighted by the WiPC during the first six months of 2004
concerned journalists rather than writers, the major reason being that it is extremely difficult for
writers in Africa to publish their work. In January 2004 the WiPC was pleased to report on a number
of early releases of journalists in Algeria, Niger and Morocco including the release on 7 January of
Ali Lmrabet and six other journalists, on whose behalf PEN members had campaigned, following a
royal pardon by the King of Morocco
However writers and journalists continued to face persecution in the countries mentioned above
throughout 2004 and RANs were issued on behalf of journalists in Algeria, Niger and Morocco who
had received prison sentences following charges of “defamation”, some of whom were subsequently
freed. On almost all occasions RAN actions on cases in the Francophone Africa region appeaed for
the release of journalists who were imprisoned following charges of defamation. Other countries
where journalists were convicted and imprisoned on charges of defamation were Benin, Cameroon,
Central African Republic (CAR), Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Ivory Coast. The
WiPC also received reports of brief detentions and attacks in several of the aforementioned countries
and additionally in Djibouti, Gabon and Togo.
In Algeria, the repression of the freedom of expression continued to escalate and on 14 June 2004
Mohammed Benchicou, director of the newspaper Le Matin, received a two-year prison sentence
after being found guilty of currency exchange control violations. It is believed that the charge may
120

have been used by the Algerian authorities as a pretext to silence the newspaper in the run up to the
presidential elections in April 2004. Since the presidential elections in April which returned President
Bouteflika to power there has been an increase in the repression of the privately owned press in
Algeria.
(Sara: this has been shifted in to Americas). There is still much concern over the disappearance on 16
April 2004 of journalist/writer Guy-André Kieffer in the Ivory Coast. Almost all national and
international media are under the control or influence of the major political parties in the Ivory Coast
and journalists continued to be the targets of violence, pressure and death threats.
The WiPC continued to monitor closely the freedom of expression situation in Tunisia in view of the
second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) taking place in Tunis in
November 2005.
In May, participants in the WiPC’s 5 th International Conference in Barcelona had the pleasure of
meeting with Ali Lmrabet who spoke of the difficulties of being a writer in Morocco. There are many
taboo subjects, including criticism of the King, alternative interpretations of Islam, and the vexed issue
of Western Sahara.
The denial of a visa to Cheikh Kone, a refugee journalist from the Ivory Coast who had, after a
lengthy imprisonment in an Australian detention camp, been granted asylum, mean that the meeting
was unable to hear him speak of the dangers that had led him to flee. However a combined
presentation on his behalf by his partner who was able to attend, and a representative of Sydney PEN
which has supported Kone, served to underline the difficulties faced by writers in exile even when
reaching countries of safety.
AMERICAS
As has been the case for many years, physical violence or the threat of it were the arms most
commonly used by those seeking to silence writers – for which read journalists in the main – in the
Americas. The one exception to this rule can be found in Cuba, where long prison sentences are the
weapon of choice.
There were fewer killings (2) of print journalists than for the same period last year (5) – though the
pressure on journalists as an entity was illustrated by a spate of murders of television and radio
journalists in the region. Such killings naturally have an intimidatory effect on print journalists as well.
The two murders of newspaper journalists occurred in Mexico, which sadly has a long history of
killings, particularly of investigative reporters. Roberto Javier Mora García was stabbed to death in
March in the Mexico/US border town of Nuevo Laredo; whilst Francisco Ortiz Franco was shot dead
in June in Tijuana. Of particular interest, given PEN’s Impunity Campaign, is that the Mexican
authorities set up investigations into both killings almost immediately. To date, seven suspects have
been arrested in connection with the Ortiz case. However, the quality of the police work carried out in
the Mora murder seems to have been particularly questionable. The Mexican PEN Centre is one of six
organisations that have formed a commission to monitor the investigation into this latter crime.
Foreign correspondents and journalists were attacked in Haiti whilst covering the rebellion that lasted
from January to March and which saw the ousting of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in February.
Death threats continued to play a major role in the stifling of freedom of expression on the continent.
Reports of such intimidation were received from Argentina, Colombia, Grenada, Guatemala,
121

Mexico, Peru and Venezuela. Since it can be assumed that many death threats go unreported due to
fear of the consequences of publicity, these reports probably constitute the tip of the iceberg.
With the release of Peruvian journalist Juan de Mata Jara in January, Cuba is now the only country in
the region with writers or journalists behind bars. However, there is a substantial tranche of countries
in which journalists find themselves facing criminal proceedings (or in one or two instances have been
sentenced and are free pending appeal). Charges are usually related to alleged defamation or insult,
and are very often brought by government officials accused in newspaper articles of involvement in
corruption. This practice would appear to be becoming more widespread throughout the region.
Perversely, this could almost be seen as a positive step – whereas these journalists might once have
received a death threat, they now receive a writ. Journalists in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia,
Ecuador, El Salvador, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela have found themselves
dragged through the courts or are awaiting trial. In Canada, a journalist and a writer – Juliet O’Neill
and Stephen Williams – both face the prospect of imprisonment. O’Neill has fallen foul of Canada’s
post-9/11 Security of Information Act whilst Williams has no fewer than 97 criminal charges lodged
against him in connection with a book he published in 1996 about a triple killing.
A number of legal measures directly affecting freedom of expression for good or ill came into force
across the region in the first six months of 2004. The bad news came from Mexico where a new law on
criminal defamation was passed in February in Chiapas. Anyone found guilty of defamation in the
southern state now faces a prison sentence of between three and nine years, and a fine of up to three
years’ salary. It is a sad irony that the governor of Chiapas, Pablo Salazar, used to be a lawyer
specialising in human rights issues.
Elsewhere, the news has been decidedly more encouraging. In Honduras, the Supreme Court of
Justice ruled in favour of removing the offence of “insult” (Article 345) from the statute books, on the
grounds that it violated freedom of expression. The matter was consequently handed to a commission
which will make a recommendation to Congress to have the law repealed. A draft Freedom of
Information Law promulgated in Paraguay in April seeks to secure the right to information in the
landlocked South American nation and, despite some perceived weaknesses, marks a step in the right
direction. A month later, Ecuador passed an access to information law which has been welcomed as a
means of strengthening democracy there. Also of note was the major campaign launched by American
PEN in May calling for a review of the USA’s Patriot Act, the so-called anti-terrorism law which has
eroded many of the freedoms previously believed to have been safeguarded by the First Amendment.
As was the case last year, Cuba’s record on freedom of expression radiates out like a beacon of
darkness in the region. Despite the fact that four of the journalists, writers and librarians imprisoned in
the March 2003 clampdown on the opposition have now been released from prison – apparently on
humanitarian grounds – there remain 31 others serving sentences of up to 27 years. Two other
journalists – Léxter Téllez Castro and Carlos Brizuela Yera – were also sentenced to prison terms
having spent over two years in custody awaiting trial.
In response to this parlous state of affairs, the WiPC launched a four-week Cuba Campaign in
July/August, concentrating on appeals for the release of the 33 prisoners and for the repeal of laws
which violate freedom of expression and freedom of access to the internet on the Caribbean island.
ASIA AND PACIFIC
PEN’s work on Asia continues to be dominated by long-term case-work on behalf of writers and
journalists imprisoned in the key countries of China, Myanmar (Burma), and Vietnam. PEN’s major
concerns in all three countries are long term imprisonment, large numbers of writers detained, and
poor treatment in prison. PEN also welcomed a number of releases.
122

On 11 June 2004 in China internet writer and Independent Chinese PEN member Du Daobin was
released from prison after being convicted of subversion and sentenced to three years in prison,
suspended for four years. The Writers in Prison Committee of International PEN welcomes Du
Daobin’s release, though is concerned that he remains under heavy surveillance. Du Daobin was
arrested on 28 October 2003 in his home town of Yingcheng, Hubei Province. On 17 February 2004 he
was formally charged with ‘subversion’ for articles he posted online. Du Daobin, aged thirty-nine, has
been under close surveillance since 23 August 2003, and is a prominent and well-respected writer on
social, political and cultural issues. His essays have been published on several Chinese-language
overseas websites, including Dajiyuan (Epoch Times, www.dajiyuan.com) and Minzhu Luntan
(Democracy Forum, www.asiademo.org).
On 18 April 2004 Tibetan monk Ngawang Oeser was freed from Tibet Autonomous Region Prison
(formerly Drapchi Prison), Lhasa, on expiry of his sentence. He was among a group of monks from
Drepung Gonpa monastery to be arrested in April 1989 and sentenced in a mass rally in November
1989 for their involvement in the Drepung Monastry printing group. The group secretly produced
literature criticising the Chinese occupation of Tibet and were discovered by the Chinese authorities in
April 1989. He was sentenced to 17 years in prison plus five years' deprivation of political rights,
reduced by two years in August 2003. Ngawang Oeser is said to be in poor health after his many years
in prison.
PEN is currently campaigning for the release of thirty-one people detained for the peaceful exercise of
their right to freedom of expression in the People’s Republic of China (including the Tibet
Autonomous Region). Eleven are serving sentences longer than 10 years.
In Vietnam, PEN welcomes the imminent release of writers Tran Khue and Pham Que Duong, who
are due to be freed on 29 July 2004 on expiry of their sentences. They were both arrested in December
2002 for their dissident activities and held without trial until July 2004, when they were each
sentenced to nineteen months’ imprisonment. Since the start of 2002 the Vietnamese authorities have
been staging a crackdown on the use of the internet, leading to the imprisonment of at least five
dissident writers. This is in addition to the ongoing imprisonment of democracy activists detained for
their writings, and those detained for their comments on the restriction of religious freedom in
Vietnam.
A relatively recent development in PEN’s work in the region has been the campaign for the release of
writers held in immigration detention, led by our PEN centres in Australia. These campaigns have
secured a number of releases, most recently that of Cambodian journalist Lam Khi Try and his wife
Nary Thong, who were taken into immigration detention in Villawood Detention Centre, Sydney, in
February 2001.Lam Khy Tri was a journalist for the newspaper Angkor Thom based in Phnom Penh
from 1996-1998. He fled Cambodia on 13 February 1998 in fear of his life following death threats he
had received in connection with articles he had published in Angkor Thom critical of the government
of Hun Sen. His wife Nary Thong, who had initially stayed in Cambodia with her family, arrived in
Australia on 24 August 1998 amidst fears that she too would be targeted by association with her
husband. Despite ample evidence to support their case, their application for asylum in Australia was
unsuccessful. Following PEN’s intervention the couple were granted asylum in France, where they
have relatives, and were released on 1 March 2004.
International PEN Writers in Prison Committee is now working on a another case in Australia, that of
Iranian journalist and poet Hassan Hakimi. Hakimi has been held in immigration detention at Topside
Camp, an Australian ‘Offshore Processing Centre’ on the Pacific island of Nauru, since 2000 after
fleeing Iran on an asylum boat which was intercepted by the Australian navy as part of the Australian
government’s policy known as ‘The Pacific Solution’, which denies refugees entry to Australia by
intercepting asylum boats and sending them to ‘offshore processing centres’ under Australian
123

administration. Hassan Hakimi was reportedly a regular contributor to the now-closed reformist
weekly newspaper Eman, based in the city of Ghom, between 1996 and 1998. The newspaper was
reportedly taken over by the government in 1998, and the entire newspaper staff sacked. Hassan
Hakimi and his colleagues started to produce another publication underground. However, following
the student protests of 1999 and the subsequent government crackdown, Hassan Hakimi fled Iran in
fear of arrest after being pursued by security forces. He has now been held at Topside Camp for over
three years. PEN fears that he would be in danger if repatriated, and therefore considers that he has a
legitimate claim to asylum.
Elsewhere in the region, the issues of impunity continue to be of serious concern in both Nepal and
Bangladesh. In Nepal dozens of writers and journalists have been detained since the breakdown in the
latest round of talks between the government and the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN-Maoist) on 27
August 2003. This latest escalation in the conflict brings renewed fears for the safety of writers and
journalists in Nepal, who are being targeted by both government security forces and CPN-Maoist
rebels. Many detainees are held incommunicado in army custody without charge or access to legal
representation, family visits or adequate medical care, and are at risk of ill-treatment in detention. In
Bangladesh, there has been particular concern for the safety of leading writer and lecturer Dr Humayun
Azad, who was seriously injured in a knife attack in February 2004 and who continues to be
threatened. Dr Humayun Azad is believed to be targeted for his novel Pak Sar Zamin Saad Baad (the
first line of the Pakistani national anthem). The book is said to be based on religious groups in
Bangladesh who collaborated with the Pakistani army during the 1971 independence war. Islamist
groups reportedly took exception to comments made in the book which they felt were allegorical and
derogatory references to their own activities.
EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA
Attacks on free expression in Europe are wide-ranging. In Russia journalists continue to be murdered
by those believed to be connected to the criminal underworld. Although Turkey has seen
improvements, trials of writers continue. For much of Central Asia there is little or no respect for free
expression, with writers and journalists imprisoned and attacked. Similarly in Belarus long term
imprisonment remains a threat, while low level yet continuous harassment undermines the free press.
In Azerbaijan, short sentences were passed against journalists involved in last year’s protests during
the presidential elections. Brief details are given below. The WiPC case-list covering January to June
2004 gives details of all reported attacks against writers in the region.
In February 1999 bombings in Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan, that were followed by mass arrests
among them dissidents, including writers and journalist. All were members of the banned opposition
party, Erk. Earlier this year, members of English PEN visited the country and met with the relatives of
the detainees - journalists Mohammed Bekjon and Yusif Ruzimuradov, and, despite being one of the
country’s most noted writers, Mamadali Mahmudov. The delegates also met with Ruslan Sharipov, a
journalist sentenced to four years and freed into house arrest. Ostensibly accused in connection with
his homosexuality, it is clear that this was a means of attempting to stop his activities as a dissident
journalist and human rights activist. In Kazakhstan, accusations of sexual misconduct have also been
used to imprison a journalist who has denounced human rights abuses. Sergei Duvanov was also freed
into house arrest in January this year.
In Turkmenistan, Rakhim Esenov, a 78-year-old writer was arrested in February and held for two
weeks before being freed pending trial for “inciting social, national and religious hatred”. The charges
relate to Esenov’s book The Crowned Wanderer, banned in Turkmenistan for 10 years. Esenov had
published the book in Moscow in 2003 and had 800 copies delivered to his home in the Turkmen capital
Ashgabat later that year. In January 2004, customs authorities had removed the books, alleging they had
been imported illegally. The book, set in the Moghul Empire that was founded in the 16 th Century, centres
on Bayram Khan, a poet, philosopher and army general who is said to have saved Turkmenistan from
124

falling apart. President Niyazov denounced the book as being “historically inaccurate”. A reporter for
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Esenov has also been banned from working for the radio station and
contacts with foreigners. He suffers from acute heart disease.
In Belarus, a doctor and author of scientific works, Professor Yury Bandazhevsky, has entered his fifth
year in prison. Ostensibly accused of accepting bribes, his imprisonment appears to be in retaliation for
his research into the after-effects of the Chernobyl disaster, particularly cancer in children. He has
been openly critical of the Belarus government’s response to the impact that Chernobyl has had on
public health, and specifically so of the research methodology of the Belarus Ministry of Health’s
Clinical Research Institution for Radiation Medicine. In July, as part of a UK government funded
program, English PEN members visited Belarus where they met with family and supporters of
Bandazhevsky, as well as journalists who had been imprisoned and harassed in recent years.
Positive developments in Turkey with the changes in legislation that have much eased the previous
decades of heavy repression of writers as well as the lifting of restrictions on the use of Kurdish
continue to have an impact. The release pending retrial of the Kurdish MP, Leyla Zana, whose
writings formed part of the 15-year sentence against her, is another positive sign. However, a Human
Rights Association report states that 35 court cases against 218 people accused on freedom of
expression offences were initiated in the first half of 2004. Also April 2004 saw the imprisonment of
Hakan Albayrak, a journalist given 15 months in Prison (reduced to six months) for “insult to
Ataturk”. There is evidently much further to go before there is complete free expression in Turkey.
Murder is common in Russia, and journalists are not exempt. Since 2000, 16 have been killed, the
latest being Paul Klebnikov, editor of the Russian edition of the US Forbes Magazine, and author of a
book criticising Russia’s wealthy business community. He was murdered on 12 July. July 6 this year
saw the first anniversary of the disappearance of Chechen journalist Ali Astamirov, who has not been
seen since he was kidnapped from a car in Ingushetia. The Russian authorities say he is held by
Chechen rebels. Howsever his friends and colleagues point to the fact that Astimirov had been
detained by FSB officials on several occasions in 2003 for his reporting on Russian human rights
abuses. They mourn the loss of a truly independent journalist at a time when news from Chechnya is
dominated by Russian propaganda.
Recent years have seen the emergence the “shock literature” in Russia – books that step beyond the
boundaries of what some see as good taste and decency. Commentators refer to this genre as being
similar to the ban on the work of William Burroughs in the USA in the 1960s. One such writer,
Bayram Shiryanov, is on trial for “pornography” stemming from a complaint made by a right wing
youth group. Although a first court hearing dismissed the case, it was reopened following a dispute
among academics as to whether the book in question, Lower Pilotage, does include pornographic
language. The Writers Union on one side says it does, with the Russian Language Institute of the
Russian Academy of Sciences disagreeing, saying that the book was simply a creative work. A
disturbing element of the Shiryanov case is the claim that his publishers and printing house have been
threatened. There have been reports of police swoops on alternative bookshops and publishing houses,
confiscating books on the drugs culture, the war in Chechnya and other controversial issues. In late
2003 an entire shipment of the book Blowing Up Russia: The Terror Within by an émigré historian and
a former Russian intelligence officer was seized on grounds of breaching states secrets laws.
The WiPC has been working increasingly closely with the International Publishers’ Association (IPA).
In April, the IPA, WiPC and Norwegian PEN hosted a joint round table on publishing in Turkey at the
UN Commission on Human Rights meeting in Geneva (see page 8). We are also collaborating on a
trial in Greece where Angelos Petroutsas the head of the Oxy Publishing House, will appear before a
court on 20 September, alongside the Austrian writer Gerhard Haderer, on charges of blasphemy.
Haderer’s book, a gently humorous look at the life of Jesus depicted mainly in cartoons, has led to
outcry in Greece, despite having been published without judicial consequences in several other
European countries.
125

MIDDLE EAST
Tensions in the Middle East region remained high in the first half of 2004, with the situation in Iraq
and continuing hostilities between Israelis and Palestinians making the region particularly volatile.
The “war on terror” has led to increased international scrutiny of the region, and has contributed to
political instability in some countries. This is particularly apparent in Saudi Arabia, a country that
until recently has not featured highly on PEN’s records but where writers are among leading reformists
to be targeted for their calls for reform. Many reformist and dissident voices want to see speedier and
more radical change than is being offered by the government, and as calls for wide-reaching political,
social and economic reform have been growing, so have the numbers of journalists to have been
dismissed from their posts, banned from publishing, or detained.
PEN is campaigning for the release of leading Saudi writer and poet Ali Al-Domaini, who is among
about twelve leading intellectuals to have been detained in the kingdom since 15 March 2004 for
criticising the National Commission on Human Rights (NCHR) and for planning to set up their own
human rights organisation. The NCHR is the kingdom’s first human rights watchdog, and was
approved in early March 2004 by the Saudi government as part of limited steps towards political
reform. Several of the detainees have since been released, but Ali Al-Domaini is believed to be among
those who remain detained for refusing to sign a document renouncing their political activism. Al-
Domaini is a well-known writer, and his publications include three collections of poetry and one novel
in Arabic.
To mark International Women’s Day on 8 March, International PEN Writers in Prison Committee
focussed on the case of leading Saudi Arabian journalist Wajeha Al-Huwaider. Al-Huwaider, who
writes for the Arabic-language daily Al-Watan and the English-language daily Arab News, has been
banned from publishing since August 2003. Wajeha Al-Hawaider writes broadly on political, social
and cultural issues in the Arab world, including the marginalisation of women, the plight of the Shiite
minority, and relations with the West. She has written a book which she is unable to publish, and has
started on a second. She has two sons and has recently left Saudia Arabia with her family in fear for
her safety. Many of her articles are available online at www.arabnews.com
The Writers in Prison Committee of International PEN is gravely concerned for the safety of Kuwaiti
writer, journalist and researcher Yasser al-Habib, who was sentenced in absentia by the Kuwait
Criminal Court on 5 May 2004 to ten years in prison on charges of attempting to overthrow the
regime. Yasser al-Habib, who has worked for several Arabic-language newspapers including the
monthly al-Menbar (The Pulpit), was arrested on 30 November 2003 and sentenced to one years’
imprisonment on 20 January 2004 for defaming the companions of the prophet Muhammad in a lecture
he had delivered on Islamic historical issues. His research is believed to have relied heavily on
Wahhabi references and texts, and is said to have angered hard-line Wahhabi groups who have used
their influence within the establishment to bring about the maximum punishment against al-Habib. He
was released on 25 February 2004 as part of a prisoner amnesty to mark Kuwaiti National Day, and it
is believed that International PEN’s campaign contributed to his early release. However, according to
PEN’s information the Wahhabi lobby within the National Assembly pressurised the Minister of
Justice to order al-Habib’s re-arrest, and on 9 March 2004 new charges were brought against him
under the National Security Laws. Yasser al-Habib went into in hiding, and was reportedly sentenced
in absentia to ten years in prison on 5 May 2004 for attempting to overthrow the regime. He remains in
hiding.
In February 2004 PEN welcomed the release of Syrian Kurdish writer and poet Marwan Osman, who
was arrested in Damascus, Syria, on 15 December 2002 for his participation in a peaceful
demonstration held by the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Unity Party (SKDUP) on 10 December 2002
demanding greater protection for the rights of Kurds living in Syria. He was charged on 15 January
2003 with ‘inciting religious and ethnic discord’, and acquitted by the Supreme State Security Court on
126

22 February 2004. However, PEN is deeply concerned by the sentencing on 20 June 2004 of internet
writer ‘Abdel Rahman al-Shagouri to three years in prison. The arrest of Al-Shagouri in February 2003
for his writings is the first known jailing of an internet dissident in Syria, and marks the beginning of
an alarming new pattern of repression of dissident writers in the country.
In Iran the situation for reformist and opposition writers continues to be bleak, and the number of PEN
main cases has risen to sixteen, with dozens more briefly detained or facing charges. These arrests are
part of the ongoing repression of reformist and independent figures by the conservative judiciary that
has been gathering momentum in Iran since the victory of President Khatami’s Reform movement in
the parliamentary elections of February 2000. Writers, journalists and publishers have been
particularly targeted, and over ninety reformist publications have now been closed down. PEN’s
concerns in Iran centre on the following issues: the on-going long-term and widespread arbitrary
detention of writers and journalists; ill-treatment in prison, including the practice of solitary
confinement; concerns about fair trial.
On 24 June 2004 the Writers in Prison Committee of International PEN wrote to the Egyptian Minister
of Justice expressing concern about his decision to grant the Al-Azhar Islamic Research Centre (IRC)
wide-ranging powers to ban and confiscate material deemed to violate religious principles. PEN fears
that these powers granted to Al-Azhar may threaten the right to free expression of writers in Egypt,
and is also concerned that these book bannings may encourage violence by Islamic fundamentalists
against secular writers targeted by Al-Azhar. Those recently targeted include leading feminist writer
Nawal El Saadawi for her novel The Fall of the Imam, first published nearly twenty years ago and reissued
in Arabic in 2002.
Statement from the 5 th International Writers in Prison Committee Conference, Barcelona May
2004
"Many of us have been asking, is this what we went to jail for? What has all our struggle come to? A
mere clearing of the path for another set of murderers and looters? Right now, a cloud of despair
hangs over us."
Nigerian journalist Kunle Ajibade expressed what is increasingly the mood of our times when he
addressed the Barcelona meeting of the Writers in Prison Committee (WiPC) of International PEN in
Barcelona, Spain.
Delegates attending the conference recognised that these are dark days for the right to freedom of
expression, but reaffirmed their belief that the role of the writer is more important than ever. That is
why so many of us came together to exchange ideas and experiences.
WIPC not only campaigns for writers while they are in prison but provides a forum where they can
share their experiences with members and learn from each other.
Thanks to the generosity of the Catalan PEN Centre and three levels of government, this has been the
largest gathering ever of delegates from Writers in Prison Committees around the world, including
writers from Centres in Algeria, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Afghanistan, Paraguay, Uganda and Sierra Leone.
During this conference, writers, journalists and publishers recounted the repression they experienced
simply for expressing themselves. Among them were:
- Kunle Ajibade, jailed for life in Nigeria by the dictator Sani Abacha in 1995 and released in July
1998
127

- Eritrean journalist Aaron Berhane, who, under threat of death, escaped across the border to Sudan
and who now lives in exile in Canada
- Cheikh Kone, who fled the Ivory Coast and ended up in Australia where he was detained in a
refugee camp. He was refused a visa to be with us. Furthermore, the Australian government has
invoiced him for A$89,000 for the cost of his detention.
We also heard the testimony of Basque journalist Martxelo Otamendi, who reported that he was
tortured for five days in a Madrid jail and that his newspaper Egunkaria was closed down on
allegations of supporting terrorism.
These cases are a vivid reminder of the range of problems that writers are now facing in all parts of the
world, even those living in Western democracies.
In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, more than 50 countries have introduced new legislation and
amended existing laws with the stated purpose of confronting the threat of terrorism.
Countries like Bangladesh, the United States of America, Britain, Kenya, China, Morocco and
Australia have adopted new measures to control the flow of information and restrict movement of
persons from certain parts of the world.
The Writers in Prison Committee recognises the genuine threat that acts of terror pose to peace and
security in the world. We believe, however, that governments must take a balanced view and recognise
the right to free expression under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
We also urge governments to respect the right of persons to oppose their policies and laws by peaceful
means, and to acknowledge that dissent is fundamental to the democratic process.
Members of the WiPC are also concerned about restrictions and state sabotage of internet activity in
countries such as China, Cuba, Vietnam, Iran and Tunisia. We appeal to governments in these
countries to allow their citizens to communicate freely with each other and the outside world.
We condemn the use of criminal libel laws to imprison writers, prevent publication and which
encourage self-censorship in many countries.
We deplore the killing and persecution of local and foreign journalists in the Middle East and other
areas of conflict. We appeal to the governments in the region to respect the right to free expression and
the right of the media to carry out its work.
Finally, the Writers in Prison Committee of International PEN is deeply concerned about the
proliferation of detention camps for immigrants and refugees around the world and the limits on
freedom of expression and associated rights for the detainees.
As Salman Rushdie said in his keynote address, "Books survive, writers do not." In times like these,
when freedom of expression is threatened in so many countries and regions of the world, governments
often depend on the fact that their citizens are not able to share their experiences across borders.
The hospitality Catalan PEN extended to the Writers in Prison Committee Conference created a
climate of good will and creative exchange, and offered proof that it is possible for people from all
continents and cultures to share their concerns and work collectively to protect the right of all to
express themselves.
•
128

The Conference was preceded by four pre-meetings sponsored by the Conference hosts, Barcelona
Forum 2004, in London, New York, Ottawa and Istanbul.
• First of these was English PEN’s Day of the Imprisoned Writer event in London on 15 th
November 2003. There were three round tables dedicated to the persecuted world were held at this
event. The first centred on the plight of Roma writers. The second round table focussed on the
relationship between literature and collective memory. The third focussed on the trial, torture and
imprisonment of the Turkish writer Asiye Güzel Zeybek, who appeared in conversation with Joan
Smith and the writer Anne Sebba.
• In December 2003, the American PEN Centre hosted a panel discussion in New York entitled
Mind the Gap! that used the context of Iraq to discuss the extent to which the growing gap between
the cultural and literary worlds of the US and Europe can explain the differences of opinion
regarding the occupation of Iraq. Writers that took part included Tariq Ali, Ian Buruma, Jane
Kramer, Bernard Henri Levy, Peter Schneider, and Carles Torner.
• In March 2004, the report Anti-Terrorism, Writers and Freedom of Expression was launched in
Istanbul by Turkish PEN in collaboration with the Biligi University Human Rights Centre. Turkish
PEN President Usten Akmen noted that the danger of silencing dissident voices was that it would
only lead to an increase in state terrorism, and there followed debate about the misunderstandings
about the definition of the word ‘terrorism’. The impact of the “war against terror” on free
expression was particularly pertinent in Turkey were anti-terror legislation, long used to suppress
critics, is being eased.
• Also in March was an entitled Building a Writers in Exile Network held in Ottawa by Canadian
PEN. Representatives were invited to the meeting from PEN centres involved with exiled writers,
as well as representatives from external organisations such as NGOs, libraries, literacy
organisations and Arts councils. The aim was to inform these external bodies about PEN´s work as
well as to discuss ways of developing a larger national network for everybody with working with
exiled writers.
The Writers in Prison Committee at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, April 2004
At the United Nations Commission on Human Rights 60 th Session, held in Geneva in April, the WiPC
delivered two oral and one written statement on its key concerns. The texts of two of these are given
below. The third gives more details on PEN’s concerns in Cuba and is available on request. PEN also
collaborated with the International Publisher’s Association on a round-table event on freedom of
expression in Turkey. The IPA’s report on this event is available on the IPA website www.ipa-uie.org
or on request from the PEN headquarters.
Statement made under UN Commission Agenda Item 9: Question of the Violation of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms in any Part of the World
Detention of Writers
Around the world today over 200 writers and journalists are in prison. Their only “crime” is to have
made known their opinions, through their writings and speeches, or to have been affiliated with others
whose views are in conflict to those in power. The detentions are in direct violation of the Universal
Declaration on Human Rights, notably Articles 9, 19 and 20 relating to the right not to be subject to
arbitrary detention, and guaranteeing the rights to freedom of expression and association. Many are
held in countries which are currently members of this Commission, and the detained writers themselves
represent only a fraction of the total numbers of prisoners of conscience held in these countries.
129

The most notable are China, Cuba and Eritrea, all of whom have sizeable numbers of writers and
journalists held in their prisons.
China has long been of concern to PEN and for decades has dealt with its disssenters harshly. The
situation in the past ten years has improved somewhat with an overall decline in the numbers of writers
in detention. However, today, PEN still has on its records over 20 writers and journalists held on
charges that are in breach of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights..
In Cuba, over 70 dissidents were arrested in a major crackdown in April 2003, of which 34 are writers,
journalists and librarians. All are accused of “subversion” through their alleged links with office of the
US Special Interests section in Havana. All have been sentenced to exceptionally harsh prison terms of
up to 26 years in prison.
Eritrea’s detention of over 20 journalists and writers since September 2001 is another cause for concern
to PEN. Although the authorities state that a number of them are held for avoiding national service, it is
believed that their detentions are linked to their work for the independent press. Others were arrested
after publishing an open letter critical of the government and for this have been accused of “treason”.
International PEN urges these member states of this Commission to review their policy of imprisoning
those who express views that do not comply with those of the authorities, and, by so doing, bring their
practice into accordance with the principles of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights to which
every person present in this room is committed.
Agenda Item 11: Freedom of Expression
In April 2003, at the 59 th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, International PEN,
the world association of writers, welcomed legislative and constitutional changes in Turkey that have
led to the easing of the constraints against writers who focus on controversial issues, specifically
criticism of state bodies and officials, and on Kurdish issues.
The organisation is pleased to report that today, a year later, there are no writers in prison in Turkey
solely for what they have written, a situation to be very much welcomed. However there remains the
persistent problem of continuing trials faced by publishers of books that fall foul of laws that continue
to be applied against publications, leading to the confiscation of books and bannings. The main
legislation used to prosecute publishers is article 312/2 of the Turkish Penal Code related to
“incitement to enmity” which has been used against publications on minority issues. Although in
practice imprisonment is rarely applied, a maximum sentence of two years can be passed. Another is
Article 159 that penalises writings that are seen to “insult” the State, the judiciary or the military. Any
person who publishes material that is critical of any state institution can thus also find themselves
before the courts.
International PEN, alongside the International Publisher’s Association, is monitoring the trials against
the many books and publications that have been brought to the courts during the past year. The usual
outcome of these trials are fines, in some cases heavy. If the fines are not paid, the publishers can be
imprisoned. In a considerable number of cases, the trials end with acquittal. However, we believe that
whatever the outcome of these trials, the very fact that the publishers have been subjected to a series of
long, time-consuming and expensive court hearings is in itself a form of harassment and punishment
for daring to produce works which touch on sensitive issues. The financial, time and emotional cost of
the hearings to the defendants is such as to act as a deterrent against future publications.
International PEN repeats its call on the Turkish authorities to once again review all legislation that
allows for the penalisation of those who write on or publish issues that are not in accord with the views
of those in authority. It also calls for the removal from Turkish law all remaining impediments to the
practice of the right to freedom of expression. PEN requests that Mr Ambeyi Ligabo, Special
130

Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, joins
International PEN in looking upon the trials of authors and publishers books as a serious obstacle and
derivation from the right to freedom of expression.
For details of other meetings held during this session, see the report by Fawzia Assaad of Suisse
Romand PEN, which will be available at the PEN Congress in Tromsø or from the PEN headquarters.
131

132