[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
A REGIONAL OVERVIEW OF SOUTH ASIA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
THE MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 25, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-23
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
50-634 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the
GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
Samoa DAN BURTON, Indiana
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey ELTON GALLEGLY, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts RON PAUL, Texas
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
DIANE E. WATSON, California MIKE PENCE, Indiana
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JOE WILSON, South Carolina
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York CONNIE MACK, Florida
JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
GENE GREEN, Texas MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
LYNN WOOLSEY, CaliforniaAs TED POE, Texas
of 3/12/09 deg. BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida
BARBARA LEE, California
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
JIM COSTA, California
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
RON KLEIN, Florida
Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director
Yleem Poblete, Republican Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York, Chairman
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri DAN BURTON, Indiana
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York JOE WILSON, South Carolina
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
JIM COSTA, California GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota DANA ROHRABACHER, California
RON KLEIN, Florida EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
GENE GREEN, Texas
Howard Diamond, Subcommittee Staff DirectorAs of 4/20/09 deg.
Mark Walker, Republican Professional Staff Member
Dalis Blumenfeld, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
The Honorable Robert O. Blake, Jr., Assistant Secretary, Bureau
of South and Central Asian Affairs, U.S. Department of State... 6
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Robert O. Blake, Jr.: Prepared statement........... 9
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 34
Hearing minutes.................................................. 35
The Honorable Gary L. Ackerman, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Middle
East and South Asia: Prepared statement........................ 36
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Virginia: Prepared statement................. 39
Written responses from the Honorable Robert O. Blake, Jr. to
questions submitted for the record by:
The Honorable Joseph Crowley, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York........................................ 41
The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California................................. 43
The Honorable Gary L. Ackerman................................. 44
A REGIONAL OVERVIEW OF SOUTH ASIA
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Middle East
and South Asia,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:53 a.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gary L. Ackerman
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Ackerman. The committee will come to order.
In land area, South Asia, composed of the Nations of
Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan,
Bangladesh, and the Maldives, is half the size of the United
States. Literally, two South Asias could fit within the borders
of the United States.
But South Asia is the home to more than 1.6 billion people,
and the United States, just over 300 million. In India alone
there are over 2,000 ethnic groups and 22 official languages.
These facts are not a basis for policymaking, but they should
be a cause for concern. South Asia is a region of almost
unimaginable complexity, and we come to it as strangers, as
outsiders.
Unfortunately, for many Americans this region is still seen
primarily through the lens of the attacks on our country on
September 11th, 2001. This association is doubly tragic. The
madmen responsible for 9/11 are, of course, not from South
Asia, and their true ambitions are directed toward the Arab
Middle East, not the subcontinent.
But worse still, South Asia's own problems have become
horribly engrossed in the struggle we face to destroy the
threat of radical extremism. Before 9/11, India and Pakistan
had fought several wars and gone to the brink of war many times
over. Afghanistan was a badly ravaged country even before the
Taliban took over and before al-Qaeda set up shop and began
plotting the attacks on our country. Pakistan was not a stable
democracy before we called upon that government to assist us in
the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
And it should be recalled, that before 9/11, the United
States could not honestly claim that our commitment to either
Afghanistan or Pakistan was sustained, deep, or serious. It
wasn't. We used them, and they used us. And we assumed their
dysfunctional governments and failing economies were problems
of little consequence to us.
We made a lot of assumptions: That the fundamental
political instability of the region could be contained by
states and constitutions, and that they would make the
conflicts between religions, tribes, and ethnicities go away;
that flags and governments would suffice in place of genuine
political reconciliation; that the conflicts between states and
within states would not bleed over borders, or at least not
beyond the region; in short, that the complexity of South Asia
could be sealed up and shrink-wrapped into tidy national
packages and then left in cold storage.
Suffice it to say, these assumptions didn't pan out. So
today we are engaged in extensive military operations and
massive efforts at governance and capacity building. At a time
when our own economic and fiscal position is strained, the
circumstances in Afghanistan and Pakistan still absolutely
necessitate these extraordinary efforts.
Like many, I remain concerned that all the money and
initiative and effort--and let us never forget, the blood of
our heroic troops--will be for naught if we don't start making
some very fundamental changes in how we do business.
We have poured billions of dollars in both economic and
military assistance into both Afghanistan and Pakistan, and in
many cases, it is not hard to conclude that the money was badly
spent, if not completely wasted.
We have fought for years in Afghanistan, and it can't be
truthfully claimed that the country is safe and getting safer.
Moreover, the current counterinsurgency campaign in
Pakistan, though badly overdue, has given rise to massive
displacement of approximately 2 million people. The anger and
desperation of this population should give us pause if the
continued growing public outrage about civilian casualties
caused by our drone strikes was not enough.
I have no doubt that we and our allies will not be able to
destroy al-Qaeda and block the revanchist dreams of the Afghan
Taliban and other militants in Pakistan without violence. The
fanatic ambitions of these groups leave us and our allies no
real alternative.
What is becoming clear is that, while our own understanding
of regional security, ethnic and tribal dynamics is growing, so
too is the popular backlash against the methods we have been
using. So something needs to change.
Albert Einstein's warning holds true today: We can't solve
our problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we
created them.
In approving billions of dollars of assistance and
supporting the heroic efforts of our troops and our diplomatic
and development officers on the ground, Congress has done a
great deal. But I wonder if perhaps we wouldn't do more if we
helped infuse a bit more circumspection about our ability to
buy or impose changes in the interests and perceptions of other
states, a bit more cautiousness about our capacity to build the
capacity of others, and maybe a bit more modesty about the
ability of the U.S. military to deliver political
reconciliation and economic development.
Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't say a few words
about the other states in the region. Truthfully, there is too
much to say. With India, we are moving forward on what I
believe can be and will be a true strategic partnership, one
built on both shared values and genuine cooperation across a
broad range of shared interests. Though people tend to focus on
cooperation on nuclear energy, I believe the potential of the
relationship is much, much greater.
The recent Indian elections hold out real hope of a strong
government in New Delhi that is ready and willing to address
the many political and economic challenges facing a country
that, despite its shining achievements in the new economy,
remains overwhelmingly rural, agrarian, and impoverished. I
think there is a tremendous opportunity for us to engage
successfully with this government across the full spectrum of
our interests.
Special relationships aren't announced; they are built one
agreement and one success at a time. It is time for New Delhi
and Washington to get to work.
Sri Lanka is emerging from an awful civil war, whose recent
conclusion only opens new questions about how the Sinhalese and
Tamils can reconcile themselves to sharing one government and
one nation. The end of the war, and we all pray that the war is
truly over, has left thousands upon thousands injured,
displaced, and embittered.
I think the United States should offer its assistance to
relieving the suffering of the displaced as much as we can,
while fully respecting the sovereignty of Sri Lanka, and we
should encourage true national reconciliation.
Bangladesh and Nepal are both transitioning to new and more
democratic governments, which is good news, most of all to
their own citizens. But I remain concerned that the fundamental
political problems in both societies remain, by and large,
unresolved. Ethnic tensions, endemic corruption, and political
violence affect both countries and, I would argue, are going to
continue until a broader consensus within these societies is
achieved.
Bhutan and the Maldives are both places where a little bit
of United States assistance can go a very long way. In Bhutan,
the progress toward democracy is heartening, and could probably
benefit from some United States assistance in strengthening the
capacity of the national assembly.
The Maldives is in growing jeopardy from increasingly
violent weather, rising sea levels, and a disturbing increase
in local Islamic militancy. Again here, a small amount of
United States help could help the Maldives Government cope with
its own problems before they become problems for others or
ourselves.
If we should have learned one thing from that awful day in
2001, it should be this: Either we visit bad neighborhoods on
our terms, or eventually they are going to visit us on theirs.
I turn now to the distinguished member from California, Mr.
Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I am afraid that I will have to take the place of Mr.
Burton today. I don't have a prepared statement----
Mr. Ackerman. That is frightening.
Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. Whereas I have been drafted
to take Mr. Burton's spot, but I am a member of this
subcommittee, and am very pleased to be able to expand my
knowledge base today and also engage in the give and take for
which I am inclined to do.
Let me note I am not let's say someone who is totally
unfamiliar with the region. And I have spent considerable time
in my life in Afghanistan. And I have over the last 30 years,
since the time I worked at the White House with Ronald Reagan,
spent a lot of time focusing on Afghanistan. During the Cold
War. We had a relationship with Pakistan and a relationship
with India. We were allies with Pakistan; they had allied with
us. India allied with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
That Cold War positioning still has some impact today, but we
need to understand that the Cold War is long over. And the
people of Pakistan have to understand that either they are the
friends of the United States, or we are not going to be friends
with them.
This isn't the Cold War, where we need to be friends with
Pakistan for a global strategy. And if indeed by not being
friends with the United States Pakistan, the people of Pakistan
bring chaos and bring bloodshed to their area, their region,
they are the ones who will suffer. So I think one of the things
that we should be focusing on, I would hope that the United
States does more, now that the Cold War is over, to end the
animosity between India and Pakistan than we did during the
Cold War, because at that time, Mr. Chairman, we were just
playing the game, the Cold War global game, and frankly, that
has to be over with, and we should be focusing our activities,
instead of building the military in Pakistan, which is still
what some people--I am looking forward to hearing what
Ambassador Blake has to say on this--some people still want to
act as if the solution to the problem is a strong military in
Pakistan; let me suggest that I think that is absolutely wrong.
We should be doing everything that we can to encourage
India and Pakistan not to waste their limited resources on
weapons. And we can make that real by doing everything we can
to try to mediate any differences between those two countries,
because much of their weapons acquisition is done in the name
of confronting each other. What a waste of resources for poor
countries. We put up with that with the Pakistani Government
for far too long. And I think that we need to focus on the
policy of arming Pakistan and actually go in the opposite
direction.
We are not in the Cold War. We are in a war with radical
Islam. Radical Islam declared war on the United States. We did
not declare war on Islam. And the fact is we can live at peace,
as our new President has bent over backwards to suggest, we can
live at peace with the Islamic world. But there are segments of
the Islamic world, radical segments that will not be satisfied
until they have conducted a war on us. And that war is--nowhere
is it hotter right now than in Afghanistan, again, the country
that I traveled to years ago with a Mujahedin military unit and
fought Russian troops outside the City of Jalalabad.
And let me just note that while the Russian troops that I
fought were brave, and we--they didn't want to be there either
at that time, and that was part of our Cold War strategy. The
Cold War is over, again. Not only did we change our policies
toward India and Pakistan, we should do our best to bring
Russia back into play. And I am looking forward to Mr.
Ambassador Blake's reaction to that concept.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to
discussing and listening to the issues that are important today
for this significant region, and I want to thank you for
letting me take Mr. Burton's place for this moment.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you very much.
I turn now to our distinguished colleague from South
Carolina, Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And it is an honor to be here with you, Ambassador.
And I like to point out that I grew up with a great
appreciation of the people of South Asia. My father served in
the Flying Tigers during World War II. He arrived by ship in
Karachi, India, at the time, then traveled across India and
served in Kunming and Xian, China. But as I was growing up, he
told me how entrepreneurial and capable the people of South
Asia are. And it has come to fruition.
And so when Indian Americans started buying hotels and
motels in the communities that I represent, I became their
attorney. I said I know who you are. And so it was a great
relationship. I was able to incorporate the Hindu Temple and
Cultural Center of South Carolina. I have seen the Indian
American population of the United States become assimilated to
the point 2.2 million people, and this would include people of
South Asia and of Pakistan also, with the highest per capita
income of any immigrant group in the United States, with the
highest percentage of millionaires of any immigrant group in
the United States. So what a wonderful, positive relationship
that we can have with the people of South Asia.
And I also have an interest in Central Asia. The
opportunities there, hopefully for the people of that region,
with friendship with the United States, and that would even
include, and I agree with my colleague always, Congressman
Rohrabacher and I agree on about 92 percent of the things, but
I would tell you I see a bright future for western Siberia. And
so Russia itself can be looked at in different regions, as you
look at America.
And so I am very hopeful, and I wish you well in your
service, and however I can work with my colleagues.
And Congressman Ackerman and I have traveled together. What
an extraordinary guy. He is tireless. So I look forward to
working with this team.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you very much.
We turn now to our colleague from California, Mr. Costa.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I think that both you and the ranking member gave a good
overview in terms of the subject matter at hand and what we
would like to hear this morning from Ambassador Blake.
Having been 6 weeks ago with both the subcommittee chairman
and the full committee chairman to both India and Pakistan, I
came away with a number of impressions that I would like the
Ambassador to cover in his statement.
Clearly, with the elections that have been completed in
India, do we find or does the administration believe, I guess,
that India is in a stronger position today to carry a more
regional effort and responsibility as it deals both with
Pakistan and its other neighboring countries?
In turn of course, we had our visit in Pakistan, and
President Zardari was here following that. And I would like to
get some sense as to whether or not we sense that the Pakistan
Government is capable of dealing with the counterinsurgency
efforts that are taking place now in the Swat Valley and
elsewhere and winning the hearts and minds of the Pakistani
people.
At the heart of all of this lies, as both my colleagues
noted, an important effort I think, and we need to play a
positive role in--the term ``reset'' I guess is popular these
days--trying to reset or refocus what has been the traditional
hostile relationship between India and Pakistan. Because I
think if that is changed, I think a whole lot of good can come
from that.
Obviously, both of those countries are central to our
efforts with regards to Afghanistan and to Iran. And so I would
like, Ambassador, you in your narrative to describe to us how
you see a progression taking place in South Asia with regards
to a thoughtful, transparent, and clearly a balanced approach
that uses all the diplomatic tools in our diplomatic toolbox as
it relates to both carrots and sticks in terms of trying to
reset, in essence, what has been a challenge for
administrations in the past, both Republican and Democratic, as
we try to make the sort of changes that I think deal with this
jihadist terrorist point of view that obviously is almost, in
this part of the world, is almost ground zero for that.
So to cut to the chase, I look forward to hearing the
Ambassador's testimony.
And thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
important hearing.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you. It is now my pleasure to introduce
the new Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central
Asian Affairs, Ambassador Robert O. Blake. We are delighted to
have him here for the first of what I hope will be regular
appearances before the subcommittee.
Ambassador Blake is a career Foreign Service officer,
having joined the Foreign Service in 1985. He has served at the
American Embassies in Tunisia, Algeria, Nigeria, and Egypt, as
well as important assignments here in Washington. Ambassador
Blake served as deputy chief of mission in New Delhi from 2003
to 2006, and as Ambassador to Sri Lanka and Maldives from 2006
to mid-2009, when the Senate confirmed Ambassador Blake in his
new role as Assistant Secretary.
So Mr. Secretary, without objection, your full statement
will be entered into the record. I would ask you to summarize
your testimony and remarks in somewhere between 5 and 7 minutes
if you could, and then we will move directly to questions.
Welcome to the subcommittee.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT O. BLAKE, JR., ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, BUREAU OF SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ambassador Blake. Chairman Ackerman, Congressman
Rohrabacher, Congressman Wilson, Congressman Costa, thank you
very much for inviting me here today.
And let me say that I appreciate the committee's sustained
interests in the South Asia region, and welcome the opportunity
to provide an overview of recent developments and our
initiatives in South Asia.
Mr. Chairman, the President has made it a top foreign
policy priority to disrupt, dismantle, and eventually defeat
al-Qaeda and affiliated extremist groups and eliminate their
safe havens in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Under the direction of
the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan,
Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, the broad based interagency
strategy to achieve this goal is now being implemented.
Pakistan has demonstrated a renewed commitment to
countering the militant threat. Since May of this year, the
government has made progress in pushing back the extremist
encroachment in Swat, Lower Dir and Buner. The United States
and the international community have worked together to respond
quickly to the internal refugee crisis that you mentioned
resulting from these operations.
We have committed over $300 million in immediate relief
efforts and mobilized an international response. Secretary
Clinton and Ambassador Holbrooke have personally rallied the
international community for its assistance, most recently in
Europe and the Gulf, to ensure that U.N. agencies on the ground
are able to respond effectively to the needs of the displaced.
As the Afghan elections approach, we are encouraging the
Afghan people to determine the issues that are important to
them, demand that the candidates explain their programs, and
vote for their future. We are working with the Afghan
Government and international community to help ensure an
electoral process that is credible, secure, and inclusive. And
we have provided $120 million to support the elections.
Mr. Chairman, South and Central Asia is one of the least
economically integrated regions in the world. As we implement
the President's strategy on Afghanistan and Pakistan, we are
working more closely to knit these two countries with their
surrounding neighbors and with their region, and to open up
foreign markets to their products. Integration is vital to
creating interdependence, which will foster peaceful relations,
closer cooperation, and sustained, vibrant economies in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the broader region.
The establishment of Reconstruction Opportunity Zones, as
called for in legislation currently being considered by
Congress, will be an important step in stimulating economic
growth in both countries and drawing people away from
extremism. And let me say that we appreciate the House's
support for the ROZ legislation. In partnership with other U.S.
departments and agencies, my staff has engaged donors, host
governments, and the private sector, and established working
groups on regional economic integration and cooperation. We are
working on power transmission, gas pipelines, road development,
railroads, trade facilitation, border crossings, information
and communication technology, and water.
Mr. Chairman, President Obama and Secretary Clinton have
both expressed a deep commitment to building stronger ties with
India, a commitment based on mutual respect and mutual
interests. As Secretary Clinton recently put it in a speech
here before the U.S.-India Business Council, we see India as
one of the few key partners worldwide who will help us shape
the 21st century.
As you said, sir, this spring, the ruling Congress Party
won a substantial victory in India. They formed a coalition
that is supportive of a stronger United States-India
relationship. And we look forward to working forward with Prime
Minister Singh's government to make that vision a reality.
We also continue to support dialogue between the Indian and
Pakistani leaders. The timing and scope and content of any such
dialogue are strictly matters for the Indians and Pakistanis to
decide. Let me just briefly touch on some of the other
countries, Mr. Chairman.
In Nepal, we continue to press for progress on implementing
the peace agreement signed in 2006, including the drafting of a
new constitution. We believe it is important for the Maoists to
remain involved in the peace process and in the political
process, and avoid a return to armed conflict.
In Sri Lanka, we continue to press the Sri Lankan
Government to grant humanitarian relief organizations full
access to the internally displaced persons who are now residing
in the camps and to engage in political reconciliation with Sri
Lanka's Tamil minority. Overall access has improved, but more
progress is needed. The actions that the Sri Lankan Government
takes now in the aftermath of the war with respect to both
humanitarian relief and political reconciliation will be
important to securing a lasting end to terrorism and a lasting
peace.
Last December, Bangladesh held the fairest and most
transparent elections in its history. This promising backdrop
makes it important for the United States to engage Bangladesh
as it confronts daunting challenges, including chronic
political partisanship, widespread poverty, civil and military
tensions, porous borders, and corruption. We are working with
Bangladesh to strengthen institutions that will deter violent
extremism, and have encouraged the new Prime Minister, Sheikh
Hasina, to engage with the opposition and include them in the
decision-making process.
Bhutan's transition from an absolute to constitutional
monarchy has gone smoothly.
And the Maldives continues to consolidate its democracy
after holding historic democratic elections last year that
ended former President Gayyoom's 30 years in power.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, thank you again for giving me
this opportunity to discuss one of the most dynamic and
important regions to U.S. foreign policy and security
interests. And let me say that I look forward to working
closely with you and all the other members of this committee to
advance our Nation's interests in this important region. Now I
would be happy to take any questions that you and the other
members have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blake
follows:]Robert Blake deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Let me start us off with a question about Afghanistan, if I
may. Secretary Clinton has said that the billions of dollars
that we have spent to aid Afghanistan during the past 7 years
have been largely wasted. She cited problems with aid program
designs, staffing levels, implementation, accountability. That
echoes the complaints that I have heard from NGOs and others
over the years about inefficiencies created through the use of
multiple subcontractors, lack of consultation with Afghan
officials and incorporation of local priorities in assistance
projects, and security rules that severely limit interactions
with Afghans in project oversight.
I understand that some contracts have been put on hold at
this point and that efforts are underway to develop a new
agriculture program for Afghanistan. What other steps are being
taken to guard against such inefficiencies and ensure that more
of our taxpayer money is not being wasted? I am particularly
concerned about the system or the scheme, or to be more blunt,
the racket, of subcontractors, where somebody with connections
gets the contract, takes a big chunk of the money right off the
top for doing nothing but passing the contract off to somebody
else, who very often does the same thing, and half the money is
gone before it even reaches anything at a level near a project.
Ambassador Blake. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
that important question.
And it will not surprise you that I agree with Secretary
Clinton's assessment of past assistance efforts.
In terms of what we are doing now, I would say that we
have, under Ambassador Holbrooke's direction, and the
Secretary's approval and the President's approval, we are
completely restructuring our assistance program. As you say, we
are trying to reduce our reliance on large contractors. We are
trying to--we are deploying many more civilians there,
including a large increase in people from the U.S. Department
of Agriculture and USAID so that they themselves can directly
implement these programs. And we are working very closely with
the inspector general that Congress has appointed, who we
believe has a very important role to play. We also have a much
more closely integrated civil and military strategy at the U.S.
Embassy in Kabul to make sure that this is all knitted up with
our military efforts.
Mr. Chairman, you mentioned agriculture. That is going to
be one of the important new directions in our policy in
Afghanistan. We are going to put a much greater emphasis on
agriculture--frankly, a much reduced emphasis on eradication of
poppy--to put people back to work in Afghanistan and to,
frankly, increase our aid effectiveness. So what is going to be
different about our new program will be first of all, we are
going to be working directly with the ministry, in this case
the Ministry of Agriculture. We are going to have a
counterinsurgency focus.
In terms of the agricultural products, a lot of the things
that we are trying to do will be things like more--helping grow
more pomegranates, to help grow, for example, nuts. Some of
those take a long time to actually grow and start to produce
fruit, so we will have some quick fix programs like voucher
programs, cash for work programs to get people back to work, to
get them to support the efforts of the Afghan Government.
We will also be increasing an irrigation initiative, again
to enable more crops to be grown in Afghanistan.
Thank you.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you.
Do we have any idea of the percentage of U.S. aid that has
been absorbed by contractors that actually didn't perform on
contracts?
Ambassador Blake. Sir, I don't know that figure off the top
of my head, but I will be glad to take that back and get it for
you.
Mr. Ackerman. Would you be able to get back to us or tell
us also how we intend to eliminate that waste?
Ambassador Blake. Certainly. Certainly.
Mr. Ackerman. Is there a plan in place now, or are we
working on that?
Ambassador Blake. Sir, as you know, Ambassador Holbrooke
has already testified that he is going to be personally
reviewing every single program that we have, along with
Ambassador Eikenberry, to make sure that we remove all waste
and fraud. And as I said earlier, we will be working very
closely with the inspector general on this as well.
Mr. Ackerman. I have 8 seconds left, but I will forego
that, assuming that I can't ask the question in that time, and
ask my colleagues to keep within the 5 minutes as well. And if
we have time, which I assume we will, we will go around again.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am going to focus on Afghanistan, although I think that
the idea that we need to start focusing on trying to promote
peace between India and Pakistan as a major goal is significant
and something we need to get into, but the crisis of the moment
is Afghanistan.
And there are things that are happening right now that are
very disturbing. And some of your testimony, quite frankly, is
very disturbing. Let me ask you this. Under your current plan
that I have spoken to at length with Mr. Holbrooke and many of
the people who are the players in this here in Washington, let
me ask you if you could confirm for me the structure that we
are trying to build, or have built and continue to rely upon,
is the structure going to have regional and provisional and
district leaders appointed by Kabul or elected by the local
people?
Ambassador Blake. Well, let me answer that by saying that
we are--as I said earlier, we are starting to make intensive
efforts to prepare for the Afghan elections that will take
place later this year in August. And those will include not
only Presidential elections but elections for 34 different
provincial councils. So that will be--that will put in place
elected representatives in all of these provincial councils.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So the provincial councils will be elected
by the people of the province?
Ambassador Blake. Correct.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And then who will be--they will then elect
their own leader, meaning elect the equivalent of the governor?
Ambassador Blake. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. So a provisional council will then
be elected and then would sort of like----
Ambassador Blake. Oversee----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Sort of like a state legislature then
elects their leader.
Ambassador Blake. Right. Correct.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Very happy to hear that. Thank you.
Ambassador Blake. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Ackerman. I am from New York. Can you explain how that
works?
Mr. Rohrabacher. It doesn't work.
Let me ask you this about something that you also mentioned
in terms of the deemphasizing poppy eradication. Right now many
of us believe that many of the funds that are being used to
finance the war with radical Islam, especially in Afghanistan,
come from that poppy production. So I take it from what you
have said today and what I have gleaned from other remarks of
other people involved in this project that we are no longer
aiming at eradicating poppies.
How can we--if that is where the resources are for the
money paying for the insurgency--now, I understand if we
eradicated the poppies, we would have to give an alternative
and provide an alternative, which you suggest here, but why is
someone, if we are going to improve their irrigation and have
other agricultural products, why are they not just going to
grow more poppies?
Ambassador Blake. Thank you, sir, for that important
question.
I think it is our assessment that the eradication program
was not successful, because in eradicating these crops, we were
not providing alternatives, as you just said.
So, in that process, we were actually driving people into
the arms of the Taliban. So it was a counterproductive policy.
So that is why we are putting a much greater focus on
providing alternatives. And that will be the agricultural
programs that I just described. But I don't want to say that we
are completely stopping eradication. We are just deemphasizing
it.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Ambassador Blake. And we are obviously going to continue to
play a major role to arrest drug warlords, to stop the
networks.
Mr. Rohrabacher. If we are not going to go to poppy
eradication, we are deemphasizing that, to say we are going to
go and arrest the other people involved in the system is
absurd.
And you are either going to deemphasize it or you are not.
And it sounds like to me that we are going to walk away from
the battle against heroin production out of Afghanistan. And
Mr. Ambassador, with all due respect, I think that basically
this deals a lot more with our inability to work with certain
political leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan who are up to
their eyeballs in the drug trade. And this is the same sort of
problem that has been going on ever since we worked with the
ISI to help defeat the Russians when they were in Afghanistan.
And I think that, frankly, that policy is doomed to failure.
Unless we confront that challenge, we will continue--their
side will be better financed than our side. And our side
hopefully is good government and democratic government and a
government at peace with the United States.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you.
Mr. Costa.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to follow up on Mr. Rohrabacher's last comment.
Having been in Afghanistan several times in the last 2
years, and Pakistan, as I noted, the reset as I described it
and as you started to articulate it in terms of what you are
doing with agriculture in Afghanistan and others, it all sounds
good, but how do you expect to cut through, both in Afghanistan
and in Pakistan and other areas, in what my, from all the
visits I have had there, sense is that corruption in that part
of the world, if not endemic, seems to be a way of life.
And you can separate, as my colleague just noted, the
jihadists and all of those who obviously have an agenda to just
those who are a throwback from what we dealt with here in the
1930s with the underworld and you know, kind of a Mafioso style
kind of a way of life. I mean, these folks live in villages and
in tribal areas, and the culture and the concept with power
attached to money attached to their ability to control regions
are, it seems to me, so much of what is going on there.
And to create a real central government in Afghanistan, as
an example--I mean, even in Pakistan, we know that the
territories really have been left to their own since the
founding of Pakistan. So what is going to change? How are you
going to redo this, given the nature of what seems to be a way
of life?
Ambassador Blake. Mr. Costa, thank you very much for that
very important question.
And I think I agree that corruption is one of the most
significant challenges that Afghanistan faces. And it is a
major focus of the United States Government.
And let me just say that as we try to change the dynamic in
Afghanistan, obviously, we are looking to improve economic
opportunity for the people of Afghanistan, looking to improve
governance, to establish the legitimacy of the central
government, and expand their writ into other parts of
Afghanistan. And a major part of that will be for them to
address the problem of corruption.
And I think there has been some steps that have been taken
already. There is a very dynamic Minister of Interior, Minister
Atmar, who has taken a number of steps already and has himself
personally committed to addressing corruption across the
system. They have set up a criminal justice task force in
Afghanistan.
The attorney general has an anti-corruption unit. And I
think, most encouragingly, they have sought advice from our own
inspector general about how they can do more to address
corruption. So I think this is very much on the radar screen.
But they have only just begun, quite frankly, so there is a
long way.
Mr. Costa. Are our German allies doing a better job with
the police, training the police, or are we taking that
responsibility over now?
Ambassador Blake. I think we appreciate what they are
doing. And yeah, we are working closely with them.
Mr. Costa. So it is getting better you think, the
performance of the police in Afghanistan?
Ambassador Blake. Well, again, that is going to be a
significant challenge, and one of the----
Mr. Costa. It has been. We have been working on it for 3-
plus years.
Ambassador Blake. That is right.
Mr. Costa. And I mean, I am not sure what the criteria are
we use to measure on how that performance has improved. I mean,
you are telling me it is getting better. Well, you know, I
mean----
Ambassador Blake. I don't want to exaggerate that, sir. I
think, as I say, we have got a long way to go on the police
side to help.
Mr. Costa. I mean, I think that is the heart of it. If you
are going to try to deal with corruption, I mean that has got
to be a key component, I would believe.
Ambassador Blake. Absolutely.
Mr. Costa. Moving over back to Pakistan, I talked about
using the levers in the diplomatic tool chest of carrots and
sticks. Since the recent positive performance of the Pakistani
Government in the Dir and Swat Valleys, as you have noted, what
is going to continue, notwithstanding the internal political
differences that exist between the Sharif family and brothers
and the current President in trying to ensure that they
continue to go down this road of what seems to be a more
positive performance?
Ambassador Blake. Well, as you said, Mr. Costa, I think we
are very encouraged by the steps that President Zardari and his
team have taken recently in Swat, in Buner, and elsewhere. They
have taken the fight to the Taliban, and that is a very
encouraging sign. And it is encouraging on two levels: First
because they are taking the fight to the Taliban; but also
because it has helped to improve their own standing with their
people. And there is much greater support now for the Zardari
government, which again is a very positive sign.
So as long as they continue to do that, as long as they
continue to take concerted action, the United States will
continue to support them. And as you know, we are putting in
place now efforts to help them to expand their
counterinsurgency capabilities through things like the Pakistan
PCCF, Capabilities Counterinsurgency Fund.
Mr. Costa. So the legislation that we passed out of this
committee you think is one of those carrots?
Ambassador Blake. It will be important. That is right. And
of course, in terms of Pakistan, you know that a major new
focus of ours will be to dramatically increase economic
assistance again to help address a lot of the economic
problems, and also a lot of the governance problems that have
plagued Pakistan. So we very much appreciate----
Mr. Costa. Historic.
Thank you.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you.
Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Ambassador, I am very grateful to serve as cochairman
of the Afghan Caucus with Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.
Ambassador Blake. Right.
Mr. Wilson. And I have visited Afghanistan eight times. I
have high respect for President Karzai. I have met with
Minister Atmar. And I understand that he is a person of
integrity. I find inspiring my meeting with General Wardak, the
Minister of Defense, an extraordinary person.
On my visits, beginning in 2002, when I first visited, this
was a country that had had a 30-year civil war, identified as
possibly the third poorest country on earth. There was rubble
right up to the side of the unpaved roads.
It is not perfect, but on my subsequent visits, I have seen
remarkable changes. And I want to give credit to the military.
My former National Guard unit, the 218th Brigade, was
stationed there for 1 year training Afghan police and army
units. And in talking with General Bob Livingston, he said they
identified their Afghan brothers. There was such a good
relationship. From my first visit, I was very impressed with
the Provincial Reconstruction Teams. They were out in the
provinces. The one I visited was a joint U.S.-South Korean
reconstruction team working with local government officials. I
have seen the development of farm-to-market roads, paved roads
in a country that didn't have any paved roads.
So it is not perfect, but I want to thank the American
military for what they have done. The highlight for me was to
visit with Navy personnel who have volunteered to serve as sand
sailors in Jalalabad, in Asadabad, where they are building
bridges.
But I see this as a NATO function. And so what efforts are
being made to encourage our NATO allies to fully engage to
create a civil society?
Ambassador Blake. Thank you very much for that question,
Congressman.
With respect to the PRTs, let me say, I think that is one
of the most successful elements of our policy, as you yourself
pointed out. Every provincial governor wants to have a PRT in
his area because they have made a dramatic difference. And we
very much appreciate the partnership that the State Department
and Department of Defense and many, many other agencies who
participate in these PRTs have enjoyed together.
In terms of burden sharing, which is I think the heart of
your question, right now, 14 out of 26 PRTs are run by allies,
by other countries. So I think they have already assumed a
great deal of the burden. And we appreciate very much their
role.
As you said, you visited the South Korean one, but there
are many, many other examples. So we think our allies have
stepped up and have played an important role.
Mr. Wilson. And I was happy to meet on my last trip with
troops from Romania, Bulgaria. I mean, it is really exciting to
see----
Ambassador Blake. Right.
Mr. Wilson [continuing]. Our new allies.
I am concerned, though, about poppy production, to me a
direct relationship with narcoterrorism. And it is my
understanding that there are crops, even something as simple as
wheat or grapes, table grapes, that can replace poppies. And so
in lieu of ignoring the situation, what are we doing to promote
alternative crops?
Ambassador Blake. Well, as we talked earlier, this is going
to be a major new focus of our policy is to promote agriculture
as an alternative to poppy. And this is a significant new
focus. And I think we are well on our way already. We have
already got more than 50 U.S. Department of Agriculture
employees who are on the ground. And we are expanding
irrigation. We are working directly with the relevant
ministries, and we are excited about the potential for this
program.
Mr. Wilson. And I want to commend Chairman Ackerman. He was
one of the leaders of his party in regard to the civilian
nuclear agreement. He was very brave standing at the door
encouraging his colleagues to vote correctly. And so what is
the status of the civilian nuclear agreement with India?
Ambassador Blake. Well, as you said, sir, we are making a
great deal of progress. We are most of the way there now.
India, as you know, just signed their additional protocol. And
now they have got to file with the IAEA the list of their
safeguarded facilities.
And then, after that, Secretary Clinton will be going out
there later in July, which will be a major visit for us. And we
hope at that time that the Indians will be in a position to
announce when nuclear parks, we hope to have two sites that
would be announced where American companies can go in and
provide new reactors, which would be a major source of new
business opportunities for American companies.
And then we are also hoping to see action on nuclear
liability legislation that would reduce liability for American
companies and allow them to invest in India.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you for your efforts. This is so good for
the people of India and the United States.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you.
Mr. Crowley.
Mr. Crowley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador Blake, good to see you again. Welcome back.
Ambassador Blake. Nice to see you, sir.
Mr. Crowley. I am just going to divert for a moment, and
not to diminish at all what my colleagues have been talking
about in relation to Pakistan and Afghanistan, but I want to
just bring you back, you made some mention of Bangladesh. I
have always felt that they have been given less attention than
I think they deserve. They have gotten short shrift over the
years, even in terms of discussion here at the committee level;
although my good friend and colleague and chairman, Gary
Ackerman, has always himself maintained a strong interest in
all issues related to that country.
You know, being not stuck between but next to rising India
and faltering Pakistan, they have been given short shrift. They
have had their troubles, and we know that they have had
historic elections, as you mentioned in your comments. They are
never as bad, though, as some of their neighbors. And because
of that, I think they often fall out of sight, or at least it
seems to be pushed aside more often than we would like to see.
Can you tell me what--the new administration, what is it
going to do to engage the newly elected government? And how can
we in Congress, in your thoughts, better assist this fledgling
democracy? And also, have you or anyone in the administration
been involved with the potential war crimes tribunal the
Bangladesh Government is trying to establish to prosecute
suspected war criminals from the 1971 war of secession?
And lastly, many of my constituents of Bangladesh descent
have been promoting a Regional River Commission under the
auspices of the United Nations. I want to know of the United
States engagement on that issue with Bangladesh and India over
the water rights of the Ganga and the Ganges Rivers. If you
could comment on those three questions.
Ambassador Blake. Thank you, Mr. Crowley. It is good to see
you again.
I went out with Under Secretary Burns to India to prepare
for the Secretary's visit later in July; but right after that,
I decided to make one of my early priorities a visit to
Bangladesh, so I spent 2 days there, and, you know, I came away
with agreeing with what you just said. I think we have some
opportunities to work with Bangladesh. It is a country that
everybody knows all the challenges they face--the political
partisanship that has divided them, the poverty that has long
plagued that country, the natural disasters that seem to come
with regular intervals--but at the same time, I think it is a
country that has achieved quite a lot. I mean, they have
reduced poverty. They have achieved 5 or 6 percent growth for
the last 15 years or more, and they have a lot of pockets of
excellence.
One of the things that I learned while I was there is that
they have made tremendous progress in terms of improving
women's literacy, for example, which is quite rare, in many
cases, for Muslim countries. So they are really enhancing the
role of women, and we think there are some opportunities to
work with them on that.
They have taken some interesting and important steps on
madrasah reform in Bangladesh to sort of get at the root of
some of the extremism there to make sure that the madrasahs are
producing graduates who can get jobs in the Bangladeshi economy
and who are not then tempted to join extremist groups. So we
think there are a lot of opportunities to work more with them,
and we will try to do what we can to.
Mr. Crowley. Would that include possibly, Ambassador, some
high-level visits to Bangladesh----
Ambassador Blake. Sure.
Mr. Crowley [continuing]. And return, when they are here,
some exposure to some of our higher level, both diplomatic as
well as possibly the President, et cetera?
Ambassador Blake. Sure.
When I met with the Foreign Minister, I invited her to
come, and I think she is going to be coming this fall, so that
will be a very important visit, and I think she would welcome
the opportunity to see you.
With respect to the war crimes tribunal, we discussed that,
and I said to them that that is obviously up to them, but they
have got to make sure that this is not perceived by the people
of Bangladesh as an effort to undermine the progress that has
been made on democracy, specifically with respect to the
Jamaat-e-Islami, that this is not perceived as a political
effort to get rid of a troublesome opponent, and that this is
really, clearly, a designed effort. So I think they understood
that message, but it is a very fine balance that they are going
to have to draw on that.
With respect to the regional river commission, I confess I
have not been in office long enough to be able to tell you what
we are doing on that particular initiative, but I will
certainly take that back and find out the answer for you.
Mr. Crowley. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you.
Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Assistant Secretary Blake. It is good to see you.
You noted the establishment of reconstruction opportunity
zones in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Unfortunately, because of
the way in which this legislation has been written in Congress
with the restrictions and with the burdensome requirements, I
think that that legislation is not going to do anything to
increase trade with Pakistan, and trade with Pakistan right now
should be an important goal.
As this bill moves to conference with the Senate, and as
the process continues, this provision must be liberalized if it
is going to affect Pakistan. I think you would concur with that
judgment.
Ambassador Blake. Sure.
Mr. Royce. I think, on India, you mentioned the strategic
partnership with India, and I know that Secretary Clinton is
soon going to travel there. I would suggest that, at this point
in time, the security relationship be a big part of that focus,
of that opportunity for counterterrorism cooperation. I think,
in many ways, we are just beginning to realize the potential of
the relationship with India in terms of promoting stability and
security in the region, but this is an area that is of
immediate interest, I think.
In terms of Bangladesh--and let me just raise a word of
caution here, because you testified that extremism finds little
popular support there. I think this bears close scrutiny
because of the madrasahs that are opening up. I have spoken to
a number of people on the ground, including those in Bangladesh
who are monitoring this situation, and they tell me that the
Islamist schools there are increasingly radicalizing young
Bangladeshis, and that they are proliferating at a particularly
fast pace, and, in addition, that those that have been
established are, shall we say, some of the most extreme in
South Asia. So there should be some focus on that and also on
some of the funding that has come in. Reportedly, in the media,
it is from the Gulf States in order to fund the types of
madrasahs we are talking about right now. That would be, I
think, on order.
Lastly, Chairman Ackerman brought up the point about his
concern over the contracting process in Afghanistan, and you
explained that you were completely restructuring the
contracting process, looking at how we spend our end dollars. I
hope that Afghan Americans play a large role in that process
because I am also very interested in how the Afghan Government
contracts. It is, frankly, a mess, and China and other
countries play a very detrimental role. Putting it charitably,
I would say they play that role by bringing contracting
standards that are far from acceptable. I would like your
thoughts on that. From my trips to the regions, I have
firsthand examples from those in our Government who have
witnessed that and who have relayed that to me about what we
can do on that front.
Ambassador Blake. Thank you very much, sir, for those
questions. Let me try to take them in order.
First of all, I agree entirely with your comment on the
importance of security cooperation with India. As you probably
know, we just had our first meeting of our Joint
Counterterrorism Working Group, which is chaired by our
Coordinator for Counterterrorism. An Indian delegation came
here, so I think that is an early signal of the importance that
we attach to working very closely with our Indian friends on
this.
More broadly, you know that the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and other agencies have been working closely with
their Indian counterparts on various aspects of these security
challenges, so we agree with what you have been saying.
With respect to the Bangladeshi madrasahs, I must say I did
not hear the same fears that you articulated about the large
proliferation of madrasahs. Very few people said that to me,
but certainly I will take that under advisement, and we will
check on that.
Mr. Royce. Ambassador Blake, I might send you some
information on that, too, okay?
Ambassador Blake. Sure.
As I said, I think, at the same time, the Bangladeshi
Government is very much focused on this, and they see the
importance of working with these madrasahs and of trying to
reform their curricula so that they are turning out graduates
who can get jobs and who are not going to then join the ranks
of the extremists. So I think this has certainly gotten their
attention, and our Embassy is working very closely with Sheikh
Hasina and her team on this very important issue.
On the question of Afghan Americans, I mean, I could not
agree more. I think it is very important to include Afghan
Americans in this process. One of the encouraging signs
recently has been the return of Afghan Americans to Afghanistan
to help in all of these processes. So we are very encouraged by
that, but we appreciate your comments.
Mr. Royce. I appreciate that. It is surprising, though, how
many of these contracts go to China or go to neighboring
countries where the work crews do not end up being Afghani. If
we want to build that capacity internally in Afghanistan, in
particular because of the way in which these contracts are let
and the questionable nature of them of which you are quite
familiar, this is going to have to be an area of real focus. I
appreciate your testimony, Ambassador Blake.
Ambassador Blake. Thank you.
Mr. Ackerman. Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding these hearings.
Welcome, Ambassador Blake, and thank you for being here
today.
Mr. Chairman, I have an opening statement. I would just ask
unanimous consent to have it entered into the record.
Mr. Ackerman. Without objection.
Mr. Connolly. Let me ask about contracts. When I was in
Afghanistan earlier this year, what struck me was the enormous
explosion in the use of CERP funds by military commanders in
the field. Now, within reason, that program may make an awful
lot of sense in terms of trying to broaden our mission and
demonstrate the constructive aspects of it; however, when you
start to get to figures that look like $900 million, that is a
lot more than walking-around money, and that starts to look
like one of the largest bilateral aid programs in the world.
I am deeply concerned. Military commanders in the field,
they know a lot. Experts in foreign assistance, in development
assistance and in technical assistance they are not. When you
ask what could go wrong with $900 million in the field in
Afghanistan, for example, the answers are not all wonderful.
I wonder if you would comment on what the State Department
is doing or on whether the State Department even shares my
concern that perhaps this has gotten to the point where we need
to rein it in or need to certainly look at a new framework for
the administration of such funds.
Ambassador Blake. Thank you very much, Mr. Connolly.
I do not know if you remember, but before I joined the
State Department, I actually worked for a couple of months on
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Mr. Connolly was
then a senior staffer, so it is good to see you again.
Mr. Connolly. It is good to see you. You have a nice title.
I had to go into politics.
Ambassador Blake. With respect to the CERP funds--and it is
an important question--I think the CERP funds actually have
been one of our most successful programs in Afghanistan, so
that is why we have had an increase in those. As I said earlier
to one of the earlier questions, every one of the provincial
governors wants to have a PRT in their area because the PRTs
and the CERP funds that they administer have made a great deal
of difference in terms of local development in these areas.
With respect to your question about, you know, are these
being used wisely, I think they are, because in almost every
PRT that we have, we have interagency teams who are there, who
are administering these. We have agricultural experts; we have
USAID experts; and we have other people who are administering
these programs. So I think you can have a high degree of
confidence that the money is going to good use.
Mr. Connolly. I hope you are right. Nine hundred million
dollars is a lot of money. A word of caution: I want it to
work, too, and I want flexibility in the field, but when you
ask yourself what could go wrong, I just caution the State
Department and AID and the military that you have got to watch
that program carefully.
Ambassador Blake. I appreciate that.
Mr. Connolly. Let me turn my attention to Sri Lanka. It
would seem that the long-running battle between the government
and the Tamil Tigers has now concluded.
What is the State Department's assessment of the likely
success and desirability by the Sri Lankan Government for the
reintegration of the Tamils into Sri Lanka's society in the way
that avoids some of the tensions and frictions that caused some
of the trouble in the first place?
Ambassador Blake. On the question of Sri Lanka, as I say,
Sri Lankans achieved an important victory in the north by
defeating the LTTE in the north. As a result of that, the LTTE
no longer controls any territory whatsoever in Sri Lanka, which
is an important step forward.
Now, Sri Lanka has to take additional steps to really win
the peace and to ensure a lasting peace, to ensure
reconciliation, so we are really focused on two different parts
of that. First is the rapid resettlement of the almost 300,000
internally displaced persons who are in the camps or who are in
and around Vavuniya. Then, secondly, it is to encourage the
government to undertake a real political reconciliation
program. That program would have several elements: First, to
undertake local elections and provincial council elections so
there can be an elected government in the north for the people
of the northern region. They have not had an elected government
for the entire time of the LTTE rule; more broadly, to look at
other ways to share power with the Tamils and with other
minority communities. That would include things like
implementing the 13th Amendment, which is already in the Sri
Lankan Constitution, which provides for the devolution of power
to these provincial councils, but to undertake new steps to
ensure that they have real power because the 13th Amendment has
not really been implemented to date. So there are additional
steps that are needed there.
Then more broadly, there has been an effort under way for
many years now under what is called the All Parties
Representative Committee, and that has been looking at various
possible constitutional amendments, again, to share power. That
process is near its conclusion now, and we have encouraged the
Sri Lankan Government to finish that process and to achieve a
consensus among the parties about what are the steps that they
should do and undertake to provide for additional
constitutional reforms. The President, for example, has been
talking about creating an upper house of Parliament that would
be comprised of representatives from the various provincial
councils. That, again, would be a way to further share power.
So I think all of these are things that should be
undertaken, and if they are, those will help to really achieve
political reconciliation.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ackerman. We will go around again, if the committee
would like.
You have a unique--it is not originally unique, but it is
unique within the Department. It is almost a structure where
you have the President's representative as well as the
Secretary. Structurally do you report or answer to both the
Secretary and Ambassador Holbrooke? How is that working?
Ambassador Blake. Mr. Chairman, Ambassador Holbrooke is in
charge of our policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Mr. Ackerman. Not the Secretary?
Ambassador Blake. Well, he is in charge of the policy. He
reports to the Secretary and, through the Secretary, to the
President. I am in charge of the South Asia Bureau, so that is
all the other countries in South Asia and also in Central Asia
as well; but, of course, Ambassador Holbrooke and I work very
closely together.
Mr. Ackerman. You say all the other countries or all the
countries?
Ambassador Blake. All the other countries of South Asia--in
other words, not Afghanistan and Pakistan. Those are his area
of responsibility.
Mr. Ackerman. So you have no area of responsibility over--
--
Ambassador Blake. Not in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He is in
charge of that policy.
The way we coordinate is we share a deputy assistant
secretary. Ambassador Holbrooke's deputy is a career Foreign
Service officer by the name of Paul Jones, who is his deputy,
but who is also a deputy assistant secretary in my bureau. So,
that way we make sure that we are properly coordinating and
communicating with each other.
Mr. Ackerman. So he answers directly to the Secretary and
to the President as to those areas?
Ambassador Blake. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ackerman. The Secretary has no staff directly in those
areas?
Ambassador Blake. No.
Mr. Ackerman. None at all?
Ambassador Blake. No. Of course, she has staff that follows
the issues very closely, but they are not dedicated
specifically to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Mr. Ackerman. How do you assess that is working out?
Ambassador Blake. I assess it is working very well so far.
I mean, I go to a lot of their meetings. We exchange. We clear
on each other's papers. I talk to the Ambassador several times
a day, so I think it is working well.
Mr. Ackerman. Should I continue asking you questions about
Afghanistan and Pakistan?
Ambassador Blake. As you wish, sir. I am at your disposal.
Mr. Ackerman. In that case, I will.
In announcing the new Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy a
couple of months ago, the President stated ``the goal of clear
metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable.''
That is a quote.
At a hearing yesterday, Ambassador Holbrooke indicated that
these metrics are complete. My question is: Were the
Governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan consulted in preparing
these metrics? When can we expect them to be announced?
Ambassador Blake. Sir, I do not have an answer to that
question. That is something that Ambassador Holbrooke has been
working on directly. Let me just take that question. I want to
make sure I get the right answer for you in terms of when it is
going to be announced and so forth.
Mr. Ackerman. So, if we have questions about Afghanistan
and Pakistan, they should not be to representatives of the
Secretary of State, they should be to those people who work
with and for Ambassador Holbrooke?
Ambassador Blake. Yes. I mean, I am certainly familiar with
the broad outlines of our policy, and as I say, I work closely
with him, but I am not involved in the day-to-day
implementation of the strategy.
Mr. Ackerman. I guess we will figure it all out, but it is
a bit awkward from our working perspective.
Ambassador Blake. Yes.
Mr. Ackerman. Another question about Pakistan. Their
offensive against the Taliban in the Swat Valley, does this
offensive and recent statement by the army chief that the head
of the Taliban in Pakistan must be eliminated--those were his
words--indicate a turning point in Islamabad's strategic
calculation with both the government's and the military's
viewing the Taliban there as a serious threat? If so, does
Pakistan have the capacity to succeed in this effort? What more
do they require, or should this, again, be referred to Mr.
Holbrooke's shop?
Ambassador Blake. No. I think there has been a turning
point, sir, and we are very encouraged by the progress that has
been made in Swat Valley. As you said, much more needs to be
done still, and I think they do have the capabilities to
undertake that. An important part of that will be, as
Ambassador Holbrooke said, to reorient the Pakistani military
from its focus on India toward a focus on dealing with the
extremist threats that it faces. Some troops already have been
deployed away from the Pakistan-India border, but I think more
needs to be done in that respect. We are encouraged by the
progress that has been made so far, sir.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you.
Mr. Royce.
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think, Ambassador, I would like to further examine this
issue of aid distribution and aid spending.
With regard to the Commander's Emergency Response Program,
which was discussed earlier--and I have had an opportunity to
talk to commanders in the field in Afghanistan who have
deployed this in PRT teams, but also to Afghanis. I think the
conclusion that they have reached is that the impact is
immediate, and there is a chance after the fact to audit. I do
not know of any serious problems that have ever arisen, and
yet, on the ground, we have got some pretty exciting
consequences of that program.
General Petraeus talked to us before, and I have seen this
also since it was deployed in Iraq by Petraeus. It has become
sort of a central thesis to the counterinsurgency strategy, and
it has worked pretty well in the minds of the officers on the
ground and also in the local community. I think if you contrast
that with the foreign aid process, which, you know, in the view
of our Secretary of State is broken--and I think, if we recall
her words, she said it is heartbreaking the amount of aid
spending that has been undertaken, given the results. I think
she is right, that that is heartbreaking. So I do not have
confidence at the end of the day that the system in Washington
with Beltway NGOs is better than our commanders on the ground
when it comes specifically to their deployment of this
strategy. So I was going to make that counterargument to the
one raised and just get your response, Ambassador Blake.
Ambassador Blake. Well, thank you, sir.
As I said earlier with respect to the CERP funds, this has
been one of our more successful programs already because of
precisely what you said. It is a quick-dispersing, quick-impact
program that gets people immediately back to work. It is a more
nimble program in terms of eliminating huge layers of
bureaucracy, and it is in great demand by the people of
Afghanistan, and I think that is the most important test.
As a rule, also, we are, as I said earlier, trying to
reduce our dependence on large contracts and are trying to move
to much smaller contracts, and in many cases are just trying to
give money directly to the Afghan Government to support the
Afghan Government. To do so, we are also deploying an
increasing number of civilians to help work and disburse those
and make sure that the money is well spent.
Mr. Royce. I think that is the key there. Going through the
Afghan Government, bringing the auditors in tow and having them
in every stage of the process is going to be a prerequisite for
any major assistance.
Ambassador Blake. Then, of course, we are going to work
very closely with SIGAR, with the inspector general, to make
sure that these are properly spent.
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Ambassador Blake.
I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ackerman. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Your maiden voyage before our committee, I think, was very
successful and was much appreciated by all of us. Very
edifying. We look forward to having you back and working
closely with you. Thank you very much.
The committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:11 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Minutes deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ackerman statement deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Connolly statement deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
QFR Crowley deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
QFR Royce deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
QFR Ackerman deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
