[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
FULFILLING THE PROMISE OF PEACE:
HUMAN RIGHTS, PEACE AND RECONCILIATION
IN NORTHERN IRELAND AND BOSNIA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND OVERSIGHT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 16, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-127
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
58-307PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
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
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York RON PAUL, Texas
DIANE E. WATSON, California JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MIKE PENCE, Indiana
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey JOE WILSON, South Carolina
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, CONNIE MACK, Florida
FloridaAs of 5/6/ JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
10 deg. MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee TED POE, Texas
GENE GREEN, Texas BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
LYNN WOOLSEY, California GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
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 International Organizations,
Human Rights and Oversight
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri, Chairman
BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts DANA ROHRABACHER, California
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota RON PAUL, Texas
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey TED POE, Texas
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
The Honorable Kurt D. Volker, Senior Fellow and Managing Director
of the Center on Transatlantic Relations, Johns Hopkins
University's School of Advanced International Studies.......... 7
Mr. Daniel P. Serwer, Vice President, Centers of Innovation, U.S.
Institute of Peace............................................. 16
Ms. Ivana Howard, Program Officer Central & Eastern Europe,
National Endowment for Democracy............................... 22
Ms. Aideen Gilmore, Deputy Director, Committee on the
Administration of Justice...................................... 33
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Russ Carnahan, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Missouri, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight:
Prepared statement............................................. 3
The Honorable Kurt D. Volker: Prepared statement................. 10
Mr. Daniel P. Serwer: Prepared statement......................... 18
Ms. Ivana Howard: Prepared statement............................. 25
Ms. Aideen Gilmore: Prepared statement........................... 36
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 70
Hearing minutes.................................................. 71
The Honorable Russ Carnahan: Material submitted for the record... 72
FULFILLING THE PROMISE OF PEACE: HUMAN RIGHTS, PEACE AND RECONCILIATION
IN NORTHERN IRELAND AND BOSNIA
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2010
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on International Organizations,
Human Rights and Oversight,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Russ Carnahan
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Carnahan. Good morning. I want to call to order the
Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and
Oversight, for the committee hearing this morning, ``Fulfilling
the Promise of Peace: Human Rights, Peace and Reconciliation in
Northern Ireland and Bosnia.''
The chance to live in peace, free from violence,
discrimination and oppression, intimidation and fear, is a
fundamental human right. As a global leader, defending and
supporting peace and human rights is an historic priority for
the United States and reflects our deep belief in equality and
rule of law.
As Members of Congress we represent various communities,
often hailing from diverse backgrounds. We understand keenly
the importance of the U.S. role in promoting peace abroad. We
also understand the solemn responsibility we all have to our
citizens to help build a secure world and uphold our core
values.
Today the U.S. is deeply involved in helping to advance
peace and reconciliation efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan where
brave Americans, and our allies, are fighting insurgents and
working with the local people to stabilize those countries. And
this week, Secretary Hillary Clinton is meeting again with
Israeli and Palestinian leaders in order to help negotiate an
agreement that would lay the framework for a sustainable peace.
In many other parts of the world, the U.S., along with our
international partners, have engaged in many types of valuable
peace-building, peacekeeping, and humanitarian work. This makes
us stronger and safer at home as well.
Back in St. Louis, my home city, neighbors look out for
each other, and this strengthens our community. The U.S. also
needs strong, safe neighbors where peace is stable and lasting
and human rights are respected without question, so that we can
focus instead on growing jobs and rebuilding our economies.
Where the current critical efforts in which we are engaged
weigh heavily on all of us in Congress, to deliver effective
results we cannot and must not forget the communities we made
to help bring about a lasting peace in protection of human
rights in Northern Ireland and Bosnia. Both of these countries
have come a long, long way from their darkest days of conflict,
and in both the U.S. has played a major role in advancing
peace-building and reconciliation.
In Bosnia the U.S. was instrumental in brokering the Dayton
Peace Accord in 1995 and has consistently been providing
diplomatic financial and military resources toward the peace
process. Aid to Bosnia since 1993 totals over $2 billion aimed
at institution building, policing to fight organized crime and
terrorism, an independent judiciary, and reconciliation efforts
among other key programs.
However, in the last 15 years Bosnia has outgrown the
Dayton Accord that was intended to and effectively did
establish a structure to bring about an end to the war. The
task ahead for Bosnia is to reform its Constitution and
government institutions and engage in a more serious nation-
building effort in order to take its rightful place among
democratic nations in key international and regional
organizations such as the EU and NATO.
With elections coming up in Bosnia in October, there is a
real opportunity for the Bosnian people to take on this
challenge. The role of the international community, and of the
U.S. in particular, must evolve and mature and it must be the
Bosnians themselves who lead the way. But the U.S. in
coordination with the EU can continue to play an important role
in supporting them.
In Northern Ireland the Clinton, Bush, and now Obama
administrations have been instrumental in procuring and then
supporting the 1988 Good Friday Peace Agreement. Earlier this
year, Secretary Clinton helped advance the agreement on
devolution of policing and justice powers. In addition, the
U.S. has provided approximately $500 million in aid to Northern
Ireland since 1986, through the International Fund for Ireland,
to support dialogue and reconciliation and social and economic
development in the areas most affected by sectarian conflict.
The nature of the relationship between the U.S. and
Northern Ireland is evolving into one that is more focused on
continuing to promote peace through economic development.
Secretary Clinton's appointment in 2009 of the first U.S.
Special Economic Envoy to Northern Ireland reflects this
principle. And as we know, strong markets abroad mean more
opportunities to put American workers to work at home producing
the quality goods and services people want.
An integral part of this remains to be vigilant in
supporting ongoing peace and reconciliation efforts in Northern
Ireland, especially efforts aimed at building confidence within
and among the communities and respect for Northern Ireland's
unique history.
Growing up in Missouri I was always taught the value of my
word. As Americans, we believe in seeing our commitments
through. And our troops in the field, past and present, are a
best example of this belief and commitment.
We have committed money, resources, and time over many
years in order to uphold these core values of peace, freedom,
equality, democracy and human rights. We have a responsibility
to our friends and our own citizens to ensure these efforts
advance and endure. We must continue to help fulfill the
promise of peace.
I am very eager to hear from our witnesses today. I
appreciate you being here. And I now want to recognize our
ranking member, Representative Rohrabacher from California.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Carnahan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this hearing in which I expect to learn a great deal
from the witnesses, and I am very grateful for you being here
to share your knowledge with us. I am going to have to admit
that my knowledge base on the Bosnia question as well as the
Northern Ireland question is rather dated, and I am anxious to
have you bring me up to date.
Let me just note in general that I think the United States
can be very proud of the role that we have played in my
lifetime as people that are committed to peace and to freedom
on this planet, and that we have played an active role in
trying to attain those goals, those goals that come together,
peace and freedom.
It has been at great cost to the American people. The
American people have spent billions upon billions of dollars
promoting peace and freedom for other people in the world. We
have also sacrificed tens of thousands of American lives for
peace and freedom throughout the world.
There was an old saying that the fastest drying liquid
known to all of mankind are tears of gratitude. And quite
often, I feel that the sacrifice made by our people is not
deeply appreciated, even by our own people, much less by some
of the people overseas.
I personally go in my district to the Los Alamitos Reserve
Center where many of the Reserve and National Guard units that
go overseas to Iraq and Afghanistan leave from that location,
and I always try to see them off and I always try to welcome
them home. And I know the sacrifice those Americans are making.
They have given everything. Their families are separated. I
have three little kids at home and I see these people leaving
their families for a year, and their little kids are coming to
hug them good-bye and they don't know if their daddy is coming
home or mommy is coming home in this case. So we need to be
very respectful and proud of what America does to help bring
freedom and peace in this world.
The question is, is where will we commit and how much money
can we commit to in the future? I believe that our efforts
throughout the world have drained our resources and that we are
now vulnerable. And we have got to prioritize what we are going
to do overseas or we will not be able to do anything overseas.
It is the old adage that the person of the country that tries
to do everything for everybody ends up not being able to do
anything for anybody.
In this case, we must look to our allies to play a much
more significant role, especially in European areas, in that
region of the world. I would have expected that in Bosnia and
Northern Ireland and in Kosovo that the European Union and
NATO, the European Union basically taking the lead, would have
been able to take the lead in these areas. And I will be very
interested in finding out how much lead our European allies
took in these areas.
So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing. I
plan to listen to the witnesses and upgrade my data, my mental
database on this, and maybe learn some lessons about making the
decisions that will help us in the decisions we have to make in
the months and the years ahead. Thank you.
Mr. Carnahan. I want to thank my friend, the ranking
member. And now I will recognize Congressman Ellison from
Michigan for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ellison. That is Minnesota, but close enough.
Mr. Carnahan. Ouch.
Mr. Ellison. No problem.
Mr. Carnahan. So noted.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Are you sure you don't come from
California?
Mr. Ellison. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for
this excellent hearing. It is very important that we be
focusing on Northern Ireland and Bosnia at this time. Both our
examples for the United States was able to play a supportive
role in establishing peace and justice, although in both cases
the people of Northern Ireland and Bosnia were the ones who
really carried the heavy lifting for their own people. But more
must and should be done to build on progress.
And I look forward to hearing from the panel and the
witnesses to help bring forth a better quality of life for the
people of Northern Ireland and Bosnia. And I do have a number
of questions, and I look forward to hearing the testimony of
our witnesses.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you. I am going to run through some
quick introductions. First, I want to start to my left,
starting with Ambassador Kurt Volker. Ambassador Volker serves
as the senior fellow and managing director of the Center of
Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins University's School of
Advanced International Studies. He also serves as senior
advisor at the Atlantic Council of the United States and is a
member of its Strategic Advisory Group. Previously Ambassador
Volker served as Ambassador and U.S. Permanent Representative
on the Council of NATO. Prior to NATO, Ambassador Volker worked
as principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and
Eurasian affairs. Ambassador Volker earned his bachelor's
degree from Temple University, his master's in international
relations from the Elliott School of International Affairs at
George Washington University.
Next we will hear from Daniel Serwer. He is the vice
president of the Center of Innovation at the U.S. Institute of
Peace. At the Institute he oversees work in rule of law,
religion and peace-making in sustainable economies. He has
worked on preventing interethnic sectarian conflict in Iraq as
well as facilitating talks between Serbs and Albanians in the
Balkans. He has also served as a U.S. Special Envoy and
coordinator for the Bosnian Federation. During this time, Mr.
Serwer worked with Croats and Muslims to negotiate the first
agreements reached at the Dayton peace talks.
Next we will hear from Ms. Ivana Howard. Ms. Howard serves
as the program officer for Central and Eastern Europe at the
National Endowment for Democracy. Through this role Ms. Howard
manages the NED democracy assistance to six Balkan countries.
Previously she has trained U.S. soldiers serving in the Balkans
in language, politics, history and religion. Ms. Howard earned
a master's degree in public administration from Bowie State
University in Germany; earned a master's in democracy and human
rights in southeastern Europe from the University of Sarajevo
and University of Bologna.
And finally we will hear from Ms. Aideen Gilmore. She is
the Deputy Director of the Committee on the Administration of
Justice, the CAJ, which is an NGO that works to ensure high
standards in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland,
particularly relating to international human rights law. Ms.
Gilmore also worked to establish and now sits on the Board of
Management of the Human Rights Consortium. The consortium is a
coalition of over 150 civil society organizations who are
working for a strong and inclusive Bill of Rights for Northern
Ireland. Ms. Gilmore earned a bachelor's degree and master's in
administrative and legal studies from the University of Ulster
at Jordanstown.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you for being here today.
I want to start with Ambassador Volker who has been kind
enough to come today, even though he is squeezing us in before
another appointment, so we are going to let him go first.
Ambassador, we are going to recognize you for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KURT D. VOLKER, SENIOR FELLOW AND
MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER ON TRANSATLANTIC RELATIONS,
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY'S SCHOOL OF ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL
STUDIES
Mr. Volker. Thank you, Chairman Carnahan, Ranking Member
Rohrabacher, distinguished members. Thank you for giving me
this opportunity to testify today. I found the topic of this
hearing very interesting because I had the chance in my career
to work on both Northern Ireland and Bosnia, and I have never
taken the time really to look at the lessons learned, and this
is a good exercise.
As a diplomat, both as Ambassador of NATO and as the
Principal Deputy in European Affairs at the State Department, I
worked on Northern Ireland and also on Bosnia. But actually I
did my first tour working on Bosnia in 1993 when I was a
special assistant to the Bosnia peace negotiator for the United
States. So I followed these issues for some time.
In the case of Northern Ireland, we see a successful peace
agreement, a functioning executive and a promising future,
though of course challenges remain. But in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, although violence stopped nearly 15 years ago, we
continue to see great challenges in governance and
reconciliation. And in Bosnia and Herzegovina today, the future
remains cloudy. And with these dramatically different results I
think it is worth looking at some of the lessons learned.
I am going to outline very quickly what I see as ten of the
key similarities or differences between the two, so that we can
see whether there are any lessons that we might apply in our
work with Bosnia today. First and most obviously is the scale
of the conflict itself. While the conflict in Northern Ireland
was indeed terrible, it was not on the same scale as an all-out
war in Bosnia in terms of numbers killed, in terms of the
brutality, in terms of displaced persons. And that makes it
harder in Bosnia to build reconciliation after that scale of
conflict.
Second, in Northern Ireland there was a palpable public
fatigue with the divisions and with separatism in the province,
and there emerged a public demand for change and
reconciliation. This is only partially true in Bosnia today.
And I think that there still remains a great deal of desire for
separatism in parts of Bosnia.
Third, Northern Ireland enjoyed a sustained period of
economic improvement leading up to and extending beyond the
Good Friday agreement. And I think that was critical because
that gave the people of Northern Ireland a stake in a
prosperous functioning territory. In Bosnia we haven't ever
seen that level of economic development, and I think that is
held back. So when we look to the future, I think an increased
focus on what it will take to improve the economy, jobs,
entrepreneurship is an important factor.
Fourth is the role of the indigenous NGO community. In
Northern Ireland, diverse groups ranging from educators to
businessmen to human rights activists to social workers to
former police officers all came together across religious lines
to expose past abuses, build cooperation, and develop the
structures of a more integrated society. While the NGO
community in Bosnia-Herzegovina has grown and carries out
vitally important work, it has yet to achieve a sufficiently
broad-based impact as we had seen in Northern Ireland. And
this, therefore, is another area where we can focus in helping
to sustain and build these indigenous NGOs.
Fifth is the positive political support and the
facilitating role played by the two key governments in London
and in Dublin. They helped create and advance a functioning
Executive in Northern Ireland. By contrast, the war in Bosnia-
Herzegovina have largely been caused by the actions of
neighboring states. And while their later support for the peace
process grew, reconciliation and unified governance has been
slow to grow, with only tepid support from the neighbors which
has been growing over time. It is better today, especially when
you look at the government in Serbia and its policies, but it
has not had that emphasis and sustaining support as we had in
the U.K.--I am sorry, in Northern Ireland.
Sixth is the quality of the governing agreements, the Good
Friday agreement, and then the power-sharing that followed
functions as executive power. The Dayton Accords were essential
to stop the violence, and the constitutional arrangements that
followed were necessary, but they have not proved to be
effective as a governing mechanism.
Seventh, the engagement of the U.S. in the international
community was more consistent and sustained in Northern
Ireland, and had a lot of ups and downs in Bosnia.
Eighth, the role of the International Commission on
Decommissioning in Northern Ireland was critical in giving the
public confidence that the political institutions would work.
And we have never quite put together a monopoly of force that
is bringing the arms together, a single defense establishment,
single leadership over the police establishment in Bosnia.
Ninth, the international financial assistance provided was
more effective in Northern Ireland, and that is largely because
the conditions were more ripe for that to be used well.
And then, tenth, I want to say specifically about the role
of the United States. As both our chairman and the ranking
member mentioned, the United States role was consistent,
sustained, and important in Northern Ireland. In Bosnia. I
would argue it has had its ups and downs. We largely stayed out
in the early days; then we came in in a big way; then we pulled
back again. We have tried to hand over to the European Union,
and I think that a more consistent role of the United States is
important.
And to address two of the issues raised by the ranking
member, on the one hand I believe there remains a high degree
of appreciation for the role of the United States in both
Bosnia and in Northern Ireland. So I hear what you say about
appreciating the sacrifices, and I believe there they do.
The second is that the European Union and the United States
working together has been the best model in Bosnia. The
European Union alone has never been able to fully replicate
what we have been able to do together, so I think the continued
U.S. role is critical.
I see I am out of time. So Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, I
am delighted to answer any questions that follow, but I believe
that points to some of the areas where we can change and focus
in the future in Bosnia.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Volker follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Ambassador, for your insights,
unique because of your time spent on both of these areas.
Next I want to turn to Mr. Daniel Serwer.
STATEMENT OF MR. DANIEL P. SERWER, VICE PRESIDENT, CENTERS OF
INNOVATION, U.S. INSTITUTE OF PEACE
Mr. Serwer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Carnahan, Mr.
Rohrabacher, Mr. Ellison. I enormously appreciate your
attention to this issue. The ideals you set forward in your
opening remarks are ones I very strongly share. At the same
time, I have to underline that I share Mr. Rohrabacher's view
that we need to identify clearly what it is the U.S. can do in
this situation and not commit to too much. It is an economy-of-
effort approach that I think is simply a necessity today.
I am going to propose three things that really count today
on which the U.S. should focus: The Constitution in Bosnia, the
educational system, and the High Representative are the three
issues I want to discuss.
Constitutional reform, which I have advocated for a long
time, is going to have to start with a small package, not a big
comprehensive package. There are only two things that I think
need to be done right away, even before the process of
accession to the EU begins. One is to eliminate the
discriminatory provisions in accordance with the decision of
the European Court on Human Rights. All Bosnian parties seem
agreed on this. We need to press them to get it done.
The second is much more controversial. Bosnia needs a
strong EU clause; that is, a clause in its Constitution that
makes the government in Sarajevo responsible for negotiating EU
membership. That EU clause in my view should also include a
provision that there would be no entity veto for legislation
required for EU accession. What does that mean? It means that
neither entity, neither Federation nor Republika Srspka, would
be able to exercise a provision of the Constitution that
currently allows them to block legislation, and they have done
it many, many times. But for legislation required for EU
accession, I think they should give up that privilege.
I want to emphasize that I agree with Ambassador Volker on
the question of civil society in Bosnia. It needs more
``oomph,'' if I can use that technical term. My proposition is
that immediately after the Bosnian elections in early October,
the EU and U.S. should be financing a broad discussion of
constitutional reform in Bosnia from the grass roots up,
instead of trying to get constitutional reform only through the
leadership, which is what we have tried several times in the
past.
On educational reform I think we need to reactivate the
OSCE effort to end separate but equal education in Bosnia. All
Bosnian schools should be appropriate for children of all
groups. We know from our own history that you can't have people
taught in ``separate but equal'' schools, and you can't have
them taught things that encourage hatred of others.
Let me turn finally to the question of the High
Representative. I fear that the High Representative today, who
is the ultimate authority for implementation of the Dayton
agreements, cannot use the more or less dictatorial powers he
has had to prevent serious Dayton violations. In particular, I
regard the threat of holding referenda on any subject as a
serious threat to the Dayton peace agreements.
The Europeans have been talking about creating a super EU
Special Representative. I think we should consider seriously
going along with that proposition, provided the EU really makes
this a powerful position with real tools of imposition at its
disposal and the so-called Bonn powers, the dictatorial powers
of the High Representative, in reserve in case they need to be
used. They should be kept until the agreed conditions are in
place. This kind of Super EU Representative would I think
ensure European leadership, but should also incorporate
American support.
My proposition is that we help to staff the EU Special
Representative as we have the International Civilian Office in
Kosovo. There is nothing unusual about Americans working in
European Union operations. We should do it again in Bosnia. I
would include in that a strong American deputy to the EU
Special Representative.
Just to summarize quickly, the Dayton Constitution needs a
few reforms right away, more later on. The education system
needs to eliminate separate but equal. And the international
community needs to fix its own structure so they are more
unified, European-led, and strongly American-supported. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Serwer follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
And now I want to turn to Ms. Ivana Howard, and will
recognize you for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MS. IVANA HOWARD, PROGRAM OFFICER CENTRAL &
EASTERN EUROPE, NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY
Ms. Howard. Thank you Chairman Carnahan, Ranking Member
Rohrabacher, and Mr. Ellison. I welcome the opportunity to be
here today and speak to you about human rights, the peace
process and reconciliation efforts in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
And on behalf of the National Endowment for Democracy I would
like to thank you for a continued support and commitment to the
Balkans.
I am very humbled to be in the company of these two
gentlemen who have committed so much of their time and their
life to Bosnia. I would just like to note that I would provide
a brief summary of my remarks to the subcommittee and would
hope that my longer written statement can be submitted for the
record.
It is estimated that over $15 billion in international aid
has been spent in Bosnia over the last 15 years. Mr. Carnahan
has hinted to the amount that the U.S. has spent, and
approximately $1.5 billion of that has come from the Support
for East European Democracy fund approved by U.S. Congress. And
NED has also been a beneficiary of these funds.
As we pause to reflect on the international engagement
since the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords, it is without a
doubt that the significant investment has produced notable
results. And I would just like to point out a few because I
think it is very important for the sake of appreciation as
well.
To date, Bosnia has really come a long way. And it remains,
first of all and very importantly, the only postconflict
country in modern history in which international intervention
has secured lasting peace without a major incident of violence
since 1995. Substantial state-building reforms were also
achieved as was small but consistent progress in electoral
processes, civil society, governance and judicial framework.
Most notably, defense reform succeeded in unifying three
completely separate and previously warring armies.
But the most significant recognition of progress achieved
over the last 15 years was the country's election as a
nonpermanent seat in the U.N. Security Council starting in
January 2010.
Here I would just like to note as a Bosnian American, there
is great appreciation in the Bosnian community for all the
efforts and the resources that the United States has put into
Bosnia. I think I can speak on behalf of my fellow Bosnians
when I say that, especially because I was in Bosnia in the
early days of our action, following the signing of the Dayton
Peace Accords, supporting the NATO peacekeeping mission as a
freshly out-of-high-school interpreter.
However, of course, concerns remain and a multitude of
challenges are still here to fulfilling the promise of peace
that was made with the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords. I
am only going to emphasize a few because my colleagues have
already spoken about the challenge of constitutional reform and
the continued violation of human rights, or actually minority
rights, in the Constitution.
I would like to focus on reconciliation. Punishing those
guilty of war crimes has been an essential element in
consolidating peace in Bosnia. The work of the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, known as the ICTY,
has made a major contribution to rule of law, democratization
and reconciliation. The ICTY has provided justice for war
crimes victims and lent them a voice for the world to hear.
That being said, there have been major shortcomings in the
process of transitional justice. And above all, these include
Serbia's failure to arrest Ratko Mladic, a mastermind and chief
executive of the Srebrenica genocide. Continued impunity from
Mladic is a major impediment to the international community's
efforts for reconciliation in Bosnia.
In addition, the limited capacity of the ICTY and the
national courts to prosecute war criminals warrants alternative
approaches to satisfying truth and justice for all victims. One
such approach is offered by the Coalition for RECOM, a regional
collision of NGOs, victims, associations and individuals, which
advocates for the establishment of an official independent
interstate commission which would investigate and disclose
facts about war crimes and other serious violation of human
rights, including the fate of the 11,000 persons still missing
in Bosnia.
I would just like to note that two Presidents in the
region, that of Croatia and of Serbia, have endorsed this
initiative, and I do hope others are soon to follow. And to the
extent that you can, I would like to encourage you to encourage
other leaders to endorse the process.
I am not going to elaborate on the issues that have already
been mentioned, but I will just note why the constitutional
reform is important for two reasons. The Constitution, as it
currently is, not only denies equal representation to national
minorities, but it also discourages hundreds of thousands of
refugees and displaced persons from returning to their original
place of residence where they would now be a minority.
In addition, the system as it is created, which rewards
political extremism, has not only helped to cement the position
of ethnically defined political parties, but has also
suppressed alternative voices from civic groups, moderate
political parties and the media, which goes to some of the
concerns that were raised about the civil society. The result
of this is a vicious circle which creates a dysfunctional and a
divided country which suffers a serious democracy deficit. At
best, Bosnia will remain unable to meet the requirements of
Euro-Atlantic integration, and, at worst, its weak institutions
will render it vulnerable to political instability and even
conflict.
Now, this situation poses a considerable risk to the
substantial investment that was made by the international
community, including the United States. It is important to note
that Bosnia is key to this regional stability and security. And
another Bosnian implosion or even prolonged stagnation is sure
to have a ripple effect throughout this still vulnerable
region.
In addition, Bosnia has served as a trail-blazer for
subsequent interventions in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. And
a failure in Bosnia would seriously question the credibility of
the more demanding peace-building processes and democratization
efforts in places like the Middle East.
In my written testimony I offer several recommendations;
but here, for the sake of time, I am going to summarize them.
And I will just maybe reiterate the point that was made by Mr.
Serwer, is that the process of a constitutional reform in which
the international community has a role to play should be
domestically driven and facilitated by the international
community only by offering expertise and incentives for change.
Next, and to go to answering the ranking member's question
about the role of the EU, the U.S. and the EU must continue to
share the burden of civilization democratization efforts in
Bosnia. It is often said that Bosnia is a European problem by
the virtue of geography. However, Bosnia's particular set of
problems has proven to be too complex to be resolved simply by
the lure of EU membership. And the U.S., as was pointed out I
believe by Ambassador Volker, still possesses unrivaled
credibility in the region, and it remains as such,
indispensable in forging a common international policy and
providing the necessary political and technical support to its
EU partner.
And finally, again just addressing what was brought up, and
that is the support to not just formal state institutions, but
also to civil society organizations, independent media, and
moderate political parties. Civil society is working for
moderation, compromise, and dialogue and helping to mitigate
political conflict. And strengthening moderate political
parties and objective media can enlarge political space that is
currently monopolized by the nationalist political elites.
These democracy-building efforts are really indispensable and
substantially contribute to political stability and durable
peace in Bosnia.
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members, I would just like to
point out that, as was mentioned, on October 3rd Bosnia is
holding its Presidential and Parliamentary election. Foreign
diplomats often say it is up to the Bosnian people to elect the
kind of leadership to lead them to a better future, but they
too recognize that fear and uncertainty about the future
strongly influence voters' choices in favor of ethnically based
parties. And consequently, as most observers will note, they
don't see potential for any substantial change to the political
landscape in what will be the country's tenth poll.
I have to say I am optimistic about these elections, if for
nothing then the fact that NED will have supported well over 30
NGOs, youth movements, media outlets, civic associations
throughout Bosnia to educate citizens, boost voter turnout,
hold politicians accountable for their performance and promote
issues that unite--and this is very important--unite different
ethnic groups. It is these kinds of programs that NED and its
grantees are supporting that seek to remove fear as a decisive
factor in casting one's vote. And I believe these programs will
make a difference.
I would like to just thank you once again for demonstrating
the commitment that you have and I look forward to taking your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Howard follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you very much.
And last but not least, Ms. Aideen Gilmore. I am going to
recognize you for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MS. AIDEEN GILMORE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, COMMITTEE ON
THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Ms. Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. Chair, distinguished members of
the committee. Let me begin by thanking you for the opportunity
and privilege of testifying before you today.
As has been pointed out, America has played an extremely
important and influential role in the peace process in Northern
Ireland, and that support has been greatly appreciated and
invaluable. Today I would like to present a brief summary of my
written testimony which I would also like entered into the
record. The Good Friday Agreement puts human rights and
equality center stage in peace-building efforts. And in many
ways Northern Ireland provides a role model for elsewhere on
how a deeply divided society and seemingly intractable conflict
can be moved forward when human rights and equality are put at
its heart. Much has been achieved in Northern Ireland in our
peace process, and Northern Ireland is now a very different
place.
Recently, however, we have made the international headlines
again for the wrong reasons. This summer we have seen renewed
violence and public disorder on the streets. Bomb alerts are
now almost a daily occurrence in Northern Ireland. At best,
these result in disruption and inconvenience; at worst, they
have led to injury, including of young children. There have
also been targeted injuries to and killings of police officers
and army personnel in recent years.
Therefore, while a lot of progress has undoubtedly been
made, CAJ would caution against the rhetoric of recent times
that the devolution of policing and justice is the final peace
of the jigsaw in terms of the implementation of our peace
agreement, thus implying that the peace process is now
complete.
I seek to highlight in this short briefing that this is not
necessarily the case, and urge continued vigilance and support
for the protection of human rights and equality in Northern
Ireland as a means of embedding and sustaining the peace.
There are three key issues in particular I believe that
need to be addressed.
The first is ongoing inequalities and socioeconomic
disadvantage in some of those areas that were most impacted by
the conflict. The peace process has seen much investment and
development, much of it coming from the United States. However,
recent figures show that the historically poorest areas in
Northern Ireland are in many cases no better off, and, in some
cases, are relatively worse off than they were during the
conflict.
Inequality and deprivation is also apparent, with Catholic
areas featuring disproportionately. Also of note is the extent
to which the deprivation is concentrated in areas that bore the
brunt of the conflict in terms of highest number of deaths and
injuries.
These statistics tell us two worrying things. The first is
that the prosperity that has been experienced in Northern
Ireland from the late 1990s has bypassed these poorest sections
in our society. The second is that if the areas which
experienced the worst levels of violence are not feeling the
benefits of the peace process, at least in social and economic
terms, this is not a recipe for long-term stability.
Opportunities exist to do something about this. There has been
much focus in recent times on economic investment in Northern
Ireland. What has been missing and what is needed is
accompanying analysis on how that investment can best be used
to target social need. If the people in those disadvantaged
communities do not feel the economic benefit of the peace
process, they will feel left behind, and CAJ fears what the
cost of that isolation could be.
The second issue is the need to develop a mechanism to deal
with our past. The publication of the Bloody Sunday report and
the subsequent debate have made it clear that Northern
Ireland's past remains to be addressed. It has become clear
that a line cannot be drawn under the past. Too many people
have been affected by it and too many have unanswered
questions.
The approach taken to the past to date has been piecemeal
and unsatisfactory, leaving many victims of the conflict from
right across the community feeling left behind. Some mechanism
will have to be developed to deal with our past if its horrors
are not to undermine our future. The debate simply cannot be
abandoned. Leadership is required by government, by political
parties and by all of us in Northern Ireland to grasp the
nettle of the past if we are truly to build a shared future.
Your support in encouraging this leadership would be
invaluable.
The third and final issue is delivery on a specific Bill of
Rights for Northern Ireland. The protection of human rights and
the commitment to a Bill of Rights to reflect the particular
circumstances of Northern Ireland were fundamental parts of the
agreement and central to efforts of building a shared and
peaceful future in Northern Ireland. Regular polling shows
consistently high levels of support from the two main
communities for a strong and inclusive Bill of Rights.
In the history of our divided society, rarely have there
been such high levels of agreement right across the community,
and this is an opportunity that needs to be seized. The new
U.K. Government has said that they will not legislate for a
specific Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland, as required by
the agreement; rather, they will consider incorporating
additional rights for Northern Ireland within a section of a
wider British Bill of Rights.
We believe this approach is deeply problematic for two
reasons. Firstly, it disregards the unique context of the Bill
of Rights debate in Northern Ireland and instead wants to
append it to a very different debate on a U.K.-wide Bill of
Rights. Secondly, the agreement was directly concerned with
protecting rights to reflect the principles of mutual respect
for the identity and ethos of both main communities and parity
of esteem. However, the U.K. Government approach of developing
rights in a British context directly undermines this. It also
ignores the fact that the very issue of nationality and
identity is and always has been an issue of division and
inequality in Northern Ireland.
The Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs has clearly stated
that the Irish Government is strongly of the view that a
specific and substantial Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland is
a central and crucial element of the agreement. Overall, the
approach to be taken is seen by many as a retrograde step that
risks undermining existing and hard-fought human rights and
equality protections from our peace agreement.
In closing, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
Northern Ireland is a very different place and that so much has
been achieved cannot be questioned. The support and
encouragement of America has been a crucial factor in getting
us to where we are today. My plea to you today is to maintain
your support to ensure that peace is maintained and sustained.
In particular, ensure that investment is used in a way that
will help address the deep-rooted inequality and deprivation in
those communities still bearing the scars of the conflict.
Encourage leadership from the political parties in Northern
Ireland and the U.K. and Irish Governments to develop a
holistic process to help us deal with our past; and to help
move on from the past and build a shared and peaceful future
highlight to the U.K. Government the importance of delivering
on the agreement and embedding a strong and inclusive specific
Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I look
forward to taking your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gilmore follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Ms. Gilmore.
And I want to first inquire of Mr. Volker about your time.
Mr. Volker. I think if I leave by 10:30 or 10:35 I should
be fine.
Mr. Carnahan. Okay. I think we will maybe start with some
questions for you to accommodate your time. And again thank you
for squeezing this in this morning.
Mr. Volker. Thank you for your consideration.
Mr. Carnahan. I thought your overview in comparison to some
of the similarities and differences were very well done. And I
guess I wanted to really focus on your last point about the
U.S. role, because I think it has been a concern, particularly
with regard to Bosnia, that, as you described, there have been
times when we have been all in and other times when it seems
like that has been on the back burner, and how you think,
especially at the end of these elections in October, you know,
how we can reengage in a strong way from our perspective, but
also with regard to the EU, and, really, regardless of how the
elections turn out.
Mr. Volker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I began working on
Bosnia in 1993, as I said. That was in the early days of the
war. Beginning in the Clinton administration, we had a major
effort to engage in the negotiating process. We didn't back it
up with force. We signed an agreement May 1st of 1993. Bosnian
Serbs disregarded it, acted without it, the Parliament rejected
it, and we did nothing. Two years later we had the massacre in
Srebrenica and then we finally got in for real.
And that is the kind of lesson that I took about U.S.
engagement. You have to get in and you have to be steady. And I
think that is a lesson, even looking ahead. We are not in that
same situation now. It is not good in Bosnia, but I don't see
conflict on the horizon immediately. But in order to prevent
that, we need to be engaging proactively.
The EU is trying to reduce its presence in the near term.
They have about 700 peacekeeping forces. They want to reduce
that. They want to see the Office of the High Representative
brought down and replace that with an EU High Representative.
I think that we need to see more progress in Bosnia before
we pull back. I think that the problem--I even thought that the
S4 handover to the EU was premature. We shouldn't have done it
when we did.
We need to see a stronger civil society, as everyone here
has mentioned. We need to see greater responsibility by the
leading political parties for their own political framework. We
need to see constitutional change so that we have an effective
form of governance.
So I would suggest that I think the United States and EU
need to join together in the wake of elections to then put
these things on the table and try to urge, encourage, press the
parties to make progress in a number of areas so that we can
get to the point where it doesn't depend as much on the
international community. But I am afraid that if we slide into
just reducing our activities and our engagement, including the
EU, without that kind of progress we are going to face greater
dangers in the future that could be prevented.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you. And then just one follow-up with
regard to Northern Ireland.
With regard to the debate about the Bill of Rights and what
the new British Government is doing, to Ms. Gilmore's point
about the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland and how to
recognize that going forward.
Mr. Volker. You know, in our country of course we have a
Bill of Rights and we cherish it. It provides a clear statement
of the rights of all individuals. I think two things are
essential when you apply this idea of a Bill of Rights outside
the United States in a territory like Northern Ireland. One of
them is it needs to be clear that it is reinforcing equality
and protections for all people in the province. If it is not
seen that way, then it is not doing it is job. So I think we
need to make sure that it is getting that sense of confidence.
The second thing is that it needs to fit into a political
context of what else has been going on. I mean, this is not the
first step in a peace process in Northern Ireland. There has
been a lot going on already. So we need to make sure that it is
reinforcing what is there as well.
And if I could add a third point, and I do believe this is
what the British Government has tried to do, is to be as
transparent and patient in the process as possible, so that you
put proposals out, you allow for comments, you discuss them,
you don't rush them. And if it is not going to produce the
desired results, then you don't rush ahead, but you try to
actually build that sense of confidence and protection in the
communities that can help the province advance.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you very much. And I am going to
recognize our ranking member, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And then we will go for a second round
with the rest of the witnesses.
Do we have military forces? We still have them in Kosovo,
but are there U.S. military forces still active in Bosnia?
Mr. Volker. There is a very small number. The EU has a lead
military presence which is about 700. NATO has a headquarters
in Bosnia and Herzegovina. And I spoke with someone yesterday;
they said it was about 160. A fraction of that is U.S., so it
is really very, very small.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Do we actually have people carrying guns
in somewhat combat operation?
Mr. Volker. No combat operations. The principal functions
of the NATO headquarters are to provide assistance with defense
reform for the Bosnian Government and also to provide
protection of documents and materials that are useful for the
ICTY evidence. That is being digitized, and a demand for a
protection of those documents will diminish over time.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And what about how much is this--how much
has Bosnia, this operation now, we have one witness who
suggests it is $15 billion. Do you have a guesstimate as to
from then--from start to now?
Mr. Volker. I don't. I know the USAID figure is about $1
billion in assistance. But of course military operations are
vastly more expensive, and I don't have a figure to offer for
that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Do we know how much the operation in terms
of the limited military presence that you just described is
costing the American people?
Mr. Volker. I don't have a figure on that either. But if
you are--as a guesstimate, you are looking at about 40 people
with some logistical support that is coordinated through NATO.
I can't see that that is going to be costing very much,
especially considering that they be deployed in Europe anyway.
Mr. Rohrabacher. My guess, not very much is still in the
millions.
Mr. Volker. It may be, but it may also be millions that we
would be spending somewhere else. It may not be incrementally
above.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I can assure you with this Congress today,
if it wasn't being spent there, it would be spent somewhere
else, but it doesn't necessarily justify it. There seems to be
a change in attitude in Serbia from being, in the worst days,
perpetrators of horrendous crimes, especially in the Bosnia
area, to now being--Serbia being led by people who really would
like to have a peaceful democracy. And they have recently, I
understand, their government has permitted the indictment of
Serbian leaders who participated in crimes during that time
period.
How do you assess Serbia's role at this point?
Mr. Volker. I agree with you. I think that the recent
arrests of paramilitary personnel who carried out atrocities in
Kosovo is a very encouraging step. I think the Serbian
Government has shown much greater interest in integration with
Europe and coming to terms at least with the ethnic cleansing
and the wars of the past, if not the issue of Kosovo
independence. So I think that is very encouraging, and I think
that is something that we should be supporting and encouraging
to move ahead.
If I may address two other thoughts. One of them is what
you highlighted in your earlier question, was the military
presence of the United States. And I don't believe the military
presence is the important factor right now. There is no
conflict going on, and I think it is unlikely that new conflict
will arise in any short order.
What is necessary are the kinds of things that I think the
other panelists and I discussed of support for civil society,
constitutional reform, and getting the parties to take more of
a lead in organizing better governance in Bosnia. The second
thing----
Mr. Rohrabacher. And how much does that cost?
Mr. Volker. That is diplomat engagement. It may provide
some additional assistance. We had CDAC. I don't have a figure
to offer you as to what we are doing and where we need to go,
but I think in the tens of millions of dollars is probably
about what I would expect.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And what is the population of Bosnia?
Mr. Volker. The population of Bosnia.
Ms. Howard. There hasn't been an official census since
1991, but the estimate is about 4.5 million. The previous
population was 4.4. And it is very difficult to estimate at
this point because the issue of census is very contentious.
Mr. Volker. And if I could just add a final point. One of
the things that has made the most difference in Central and
Eastern Europe and the Balkans over the past two decades has
been the vision of a Europe that is democratic, market-
economic, and secure and integrated. That has helped Poland,
Hungary, Czech Republic and so on. That vision still applies
but has never been realized in the Balkans.
And I think the European Union has become much more passive
about this, and I think we have been passive about encouraging
the European Union, NATO, others, to keep pressing that. I
think that vision remains very powerful and is ultimately the
way to see a prosperous region that doesn't depend on external
support.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me ask finally, my time is about up
now as well, just one last question. The vision of having an
envelopment by the European Union of this unsolved situation
then becoming solved, how does the possibility of that compare
to perhaps a vision that the peoples of the former Yugoslavia
perhaps could find some sort of reconciliation and become part
of an entity again of their own, rather than having to think of
this as a greater European, you know, involvement to end that,
but instead perhaps--because I understand the Croatians, for
example, are in a very good relationship with the Serbians
right now.
And I remember years ago when I went to Croatia, when there
was people slaughtering one another, and I couldn't figure out
how they could tell the difference what a Croatian was and what
a Serbian was. How do you know who to aim your gun at? And I
guess that is sort of true in Northern Ireland as well.
But right now I understand that the Serbians and the
Croatians are working together, and perhaps a vision of a
greater cooperation--and of course we have noted the change of
a--the wonderful change that we have seen in Serbia--what about
the idea of a vision of these states working together as a
solution, as compared to going to the EU?
Mr. Volker. Sir, if I may, a great American poet wrote,
``Good fences make good neighbors.'' And I think that is what
we are seeing. As long as they are independent and confident,
then they can work together. And I don't see any prospect of
regional-only cooperation. I see the prospect of growing
cooperation within the framework of being part of a mainstream
of Europe. And I think that they do go hand in hand.
The European Union has the ability to push for reforms and
for progress, which the people and governments of the region
may find difficult but be willing to do if they can be assured
of access to that greater European family. That has always been
the tradeoff. If it is just the countries in the region alone,
they are going to act very independently because the worst
atrocities in Europe since World War II took place there just
15 years ago, and that level of confidence isn't going to be
there without the European Union.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Ambassador. And I am going to
excuse you and honor your time, and again thank you.
Mr. Volker. Mr. Chairman, thank you for having me. Ranking
Member, thank you.
Mr. Carnahan. I want to turn next to Ms. Gilmore and follow
up and say I really think you hit the nail on the head in
describing some of these very complicated issues in the span of
5 minutes. That is remarkable in itself. But I really want to
get into some more detail about the issue of people feeling
left behind, whether it is the disadvantaged communities,
whether it is victims, and what are the most concrete steps
that you think can be taken in order to address that. Because
to me, when people don't feel the benefits of that peace
process clearly, it can lead to despair, to violence, and
undoing so much of the good work that has come about.
But I think we are missing the boat if we can't focus and
address the needs of some of those communities that are being
left behind. So if you could address that, please.
Ms. Gilmore. The life of socioeconomic deprivation in those
communities that bore the brunt of the conflict and in which we
are seeing renewed violence, in my mind could be quite easily
addressed by implementing some of the measures either that we
have in place or that were promised as part of the agreement.
And even looking at it in sort of economic terms, the levels of
investment that are coming into Northern Ireland need to be
targeted. We have an antipoverty strategy, we have a statutory
equality duty which requires all government policy to be
assessed for its impact across a range of grounds. And in terms
of the resources that are coming into Northern Ireland, or even
the resources that we currently have, if those analyses were
being properly carried out and properly targeted, then we
should start to see some impact in these deprived communities.
So we need to look at how we break the cycle of long-term
unemployment, for example, and if new businesses and new job
opportunities are coming into Belfast or coming into other
parts of Northern Ireland, how we can start to offer employment
opportunities in those areas where long-term unemployment is a
problem.
Likewise we need to just invest more in the social aspect
of those communities. Many of them are sort of the very
communities that experienced the brunt of the conflict and they
haven't seen the same level of regeneration and investment. We
have a number of regeneration initiatives that have been
proposed and master plans for redevelopment of some of these
areas, and it is important that the communities themselves
participate in discussions about what they want their
communities to look like.
The point has been raised about the importance of civil
society and a strong civil society. And in Northern Ireland we
actually do have a very strong civil society, but it is
bringing a civil society voice and bringing those people into
the room by giving them a say in how to improve their
communities that is important.
Mr. Carnahan. And what does that engagement look like now?
Because I guess even if you have great engagement, if you don't
have follow-on results, I think that even adds to the despair.
So how do you judge that level of engagement now in terms of
what is going on?
Ms. Gilmore. I think it has been problematic to some
extent, because we have a model or method of consultation where
communities are consulted about the kinds of change they would
like to see in their areas. But you don't see the results of
that consultation coming through. There's no follow-through. I
think what is needed more is a model of participation, if you
like, active community participation in decisions because, as
you have sort of hinted at, the risk is that you build people's
expectations up, so you tell them they have a voice in their
community. But if they don't then see the follow-through, that
results in even more disillusionment among those communities.
Mr. Carnahan. Okay. Thank you.
I am going to yield to Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So how much have we spent in Northern
Ireland?
Ms. Gilmore. I think, Mr. Chair mentioned that it was $500
million.
Mr. Rohrabacher. $500 million over a 10-year period. You
know, I remember the frustration over the years with what was
going on in Ireland, and I spent a lot of time and a lot of
focus on it. As many Americans, I have a sort of a natural
attachment to Ireland and the people of Ireland. My middle name
is Tyrone. However, it is not from County Tyrone, I am afraid.
I am afraid my mother named me after Dana Andrews and Tyrone
Powers, who were the movie stars of the year that I was born.
But I do enjoy the Irish culture and have studied the Irish
culture.
What I noted was the greatest--and correct me if I am
wrong--really, the greatest strides toward peace happened when
women in Ireland put their foot down and worked together to try
to create a peace there, and I believe that was back in the
1970s. Can we really make a difference from this level, or does
it really have to come from within? And as I say, I believe
these two women received Nobel Peace Prizes back in 1976, which
they rightly deserved.
Ms. Gilmore. I think both levels are needed. Both
approaches are needed. It is very important to have the
grassroots movement and participation in building
constitutional reform, for example, in building peace. And I
think, without question, the strong and vibrant civil society
that existed in Northern Ireland, the likes of the women's
movements, human rights organizations, strong community
associations really helped to maintain some sense of normality
in a very violent conflict, and then were absolutely
instrumental in helping to build the peace and help then
maintain the peace.
And in things like constitutional reform then and
development of bills of rights and things, I think it is very
important that you have that grassroots investment. But it is
clear as well that you need the higher level of political
intervention. I think that is very much the lesson in Northern
Ireland in relation to, for example, specifically, the
relationship with the United States, I think, the support that
was given to the British and Irish Governments in their efforts
to drive forward a peace process by the American administration
and Congress was essential.
But also, it was the influence that was exerted on our
local political parties as well, and it is the support in
driving them forward and making them aware that this wasn't
just about them, that there were people around the world who
were interested in seeing peace delivered and peace sustained.
So I think it has to be a combination of political leadership
and fundamentally grassroots participation.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me ask a you specific question about,
because we just had this Bloody Sunday report, et cetera,
during the time of conflict, there has been really criminal
behavior on the part of two parties, not just one. I mean, the
British Government certainly stepped over the boundary, and
there is no doubt about that. But there is also no doubt that
the British Government was facing a group of people who were
also stepping over the bounds of acceptable resistance. They
were murdering innocent people in pubs and elsewhere with
bombs, et cetera.
Do you believe that we should be, now, the position should
be, we finally put an end to this, and we should just have,
forget the past, we should just, at this point, not forget the
past, but just a general amnesty for people who are on both
sides of this rotten conflict where people were doing bad
things to innocent people?
Ms. Gilmore. I think that was the hope when our agreement
was reached and it is arguable that perhaps, it wouldn't have
been possible to reach agreement on how to deal with our past
at the time our peace agreement was reached, and maybe that is
why it wasn't addressed. So the agreement sought to draw that
line and say, the past has been terrible, let's move on, build
our future.
But Northern Ireland has a very, very small society: 1.7
million people, very small, local close-knit communities, and
lost over 3,500 lives with tens of thousands injured. And in
such a small geographic location with such small close-knit
communities, everybody felt the impact of the conflict in some
way, physically and mentally and emotionally. And for those
people, the past is very much present, and the trauma that they
went through is still very much part of their lives.
And you can't turn around to victims of conflict and say,
you must forget about what has happened to you and move on to
the future. People have questions that they want answered
across all sides in terms of what happened to their loved ones
and what happened to their families. And I think we are
increasingly seeing the need to provide some answers to
questions to give some people closure, because they are not
going to invest in the future if they haven't been able to deal
with the past.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I think answering questions and bringing
closure to people's consciousness about their loved ones who
are no longer with them is really an important factor.
I think that necessarily establishing a concept of justice
may or may not be. You know, in the Civil War of the United
States, we had tremendous slaughter on both sides. And yet, I
think President Lincoln's, one of his most famous words were
``charity for all and malice toward none.'' Is that the right
quote? And I think that is the way you end conflicts, is that
eventually people understand that bad things are done on both
sides. This isn't necessarily a case like, in Bosnia, for
example, where you actually had leaders deciding that they are
going to systematically go out and slaughter people in order to
terrorize the whole population.
I think that--and you can correct me if I am wrong--that in
the Northern Ireland situation, it was basically where you had
people who are out of control and both in the constabulary area
and both in the, I say private sector for lack of a better
term, for what was going on among the IRA, so perhaps people
need to be held accountable for what they do officially, and
are--but perhaps people should be forgiven if they have lost
control and the crimes are committed during conflicts.
Ms. Gilmore. I think there are three key elements that any
process to deal with the past should comprise. I think it has
to be a mixture of truth, justice and then forgiveness and
reconciliation.
Not everybody in Northern Ireland wants justice. Some of
them just want the truth about what happened. And you know, the
reality is so much time has passed now. Key witnesses will be
dying, and information is gone. So I think people realize that
actually the reality of prosecutions is getting further and
further away the further we get from our conflict.
But I think the important thing is that you take a victim-
centered approach so that whoever is engaging with the process
to deal with the past, if they are a family who want justice,
that they at least have an option of pursuing that route. If
they are a family who just wants truth, that they have the
option of pursuing that route if they want forgiveness, too. So
it is providing the options and focusing on the people who have
actually been impacted by the conflict.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Truth and justice. That is interesting.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
And I wanted to turn to our other witnesses, Mr. Serwer,
and wanted to see if you would elaborate on actions that can
and should be taken in Bosnia after the elections. You
mentioned a bottom-up approach that the EU and the U.S. could
help facilitate. Describe what you think that would look like
in an ideal situation and how that would work well. And then I
want to follow up with Ms. Howard on that as well.
Mr. Serwer. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I hope you won't mind if I go back to two formalities I may
have skipped when I first spoke. One is that I should have said
these are my personal views, and the other is that I have a
full text that I hope I can submit for the record.
Mr. Carnahan. Without objection.
Mr. Serwer. Thank you. I think when it comes to
constitutional reform, the two efforts that have been
undertaken, one led by the U.S. Institute of Peace and another
led by the State Department, have been entirely top-down. The
people of Bosnia have been completely left out of the picture.
My view is that the U.S. and EU should take relatively
small amounts of money and sponsor throughout Bosnia town
meetings for discussion of constitutional reform. In the
meanwhile, the EU should lay out the criteria that the Bosnian
constitution is going to have to meet. I don't think we should
lay out specific amendments to that Constitution as we have
done twice in the past and failed twice in the past.
The EU can tell the Bosnians, your Constitution is going to
have to do this, it is going to have to do that. The court has
already told them they have to get rid of the discriminatory
provisions. That would be an adequate basis for town hall
meetings all over Bosnia, and an effort to generate a truly
grassroots discussion and grassroots pressure for
constitutional reform, which has been completely lacking,
except really in the Bosniak community and sometimes in the
Croat community--where the grassroots effort is for a third
entity, which in my view would not be the right direction.
We do this kind of thing, in the U.S. all the time. It
shouldn't be hard to picture what kind of discussion we could
generate in Bosnia.
But I wanted to also comment, if you will allow me, on a
couple of things Kurt said because I might differ a little bit.
I am not completely encouraged by Belgrade's current attitude,
either on Bosnia or, in particular, on Kosovo.
On Bosnia, the official position is a strong ``one Bosnia''
position. But, frankly, Belgrade is doing everything it can to
support the efforts of Republika Srpska to continue to
establish de facto autonomy and even independence.
A second point I would like to disagree on a little bit.
Kurt suggested that conflict was very unlikely. I think it is
not imminent, but I think we would be making a grave mistake to
ignore the possibility of resurgent conflict in Bosnia. In
particular, the calling of a referendum on the High Rep powers
or on the independence for Republika Srpska, in my view, would
be viewed by the Bosniaks, and many Croats and Serbs who were
loyal to the Sarajevo Government as well, as a casus belli. And
I think we need to be sure that we can prevent the holding of
the referendum in Republika Srpska alone, which is a territory
ethnically cleansed and with a population that does not
represent the views of those who lived there before the war.
Finally, I would like to make the point that I think what
we need is not so much U.S. re-engagement. I think the embassy
thinks it has been engaged the whole time. The people in the
High Rep's Office think they have been engaged the whole time.
But we have been engaged across too broad a front of issues,
and you lose your focus when you engage on too many issues.
Our embassy in Sarajevo has 9 political officers. This is a
very large political section in an embassy of a country of 4.5
million people. I have proposed specifically that a third of
those political officers be given over to the EU Special
Representative if, in fact, we can have a super EUSR, one with
real powers at his or her disposal.
I also think that Europeans should start cutting their
bilateral embassies there. There is a cacophony of
international voices in Sarajevo. We need a unity of
international voices in Sarajevo. And that doesn't mean
disengaging. That means unifying and sharpening our focus.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
Ms. Howard, to my question that I presented to Mr. Serwer,
in terms of how, what he described in terms of that bottom-up
engagement, how you think that, as a practical matter, would
work, and what kind of impact you think that would have
compared to prior reform efforts.
Ms. Howard. Speaking of unity of voices, it is always great
to see someone who agrees so much with you, but then there is
not much for me to add. But I will try definitely.
I absolutely can agree that this has to be a bottom-up
approach. I even said that in my testimony last year to the
U.S. Helsinki Commission, that it has to be a domestically
driven process.
Previous processes, I think one of the reasons that have
contributed to their failure has been that they have really
been top-down and that they were only discussed with a handful
of politicians, which not only then made them vulnerable to
manipulation in public, because to this day quite a few
Bosnians, citizens, don't even know what is contained in those
packages that were proposed to Bosnian political leaders to
adopt this constitution. And so this is one problem.
And the second problem is that often in these processes,
the emphasis is placed on reaching a political deal and
basically negotiating it down to the point of least common
denominator and not so much focusing on what will make the
country truly functional, a truly functional democracy, because
to obtain long-term stability and prosperity, this it what we
need to have, is a functional country.
So, in terms of how does this look in the future, I mean, I
can't provide a recipe that would work because I think that
really then maybe I wouldn't be sitting here if this were so
easily obtainable and possible.
But I will agree with Mr. Serwer that the role of the
international community should be in providing incentives,
first of all, by tying some of these reform processes through
the prospect, which has to be a tangible and achievable
prospect, of EU and NATO membership. That is one.
And second is to provide expertise, because, and this is
the extent to which the international community should get
involved, because to provide ready-made solutions is, like Mr.
Serwer said, is really not desirable.
I think that civil society has a great role to play in this
process immediately following elections. I am certain that
there will be an opportunity created and momentum for change. I
am not talking about necessarily political change and the
outcome of elections. I am just saying about an opportunity to
change the way that the current system is working or actually
not working.
I can say specifically, for example, in the case of the
National Endowment for Democracy, that we are working with some
of the civil society organizations to open up this process, and
something that very much looks like what Mr. Serwer is
proposing, and that is a series of town hall meetings,
consultations with civil society and the media and getting
everybody involved and getting this to be an all-inclusive
process, in which people can, not only be fully aware of what
these packages contain and what these processes contain, but
can also contribute to it, because after all, this is the only
way that this new system, if it were to be devised, can have a
popular legitimacy, which it doesn't have currently because the
international document fashioned in Dayton is, not only was it
never subject to ratification by the Bosnian Parliament, but it
remains to be only an English language original. It has never
been translated into the languages spoken in the region.
Just to one point, I don't know if this has answered your
questions or if I should elaborate more, but I would also touch
on this issue of security. It is in my written testimony. I
haven't had a chance to mention it. I would also be very
careful in dismissing a possibility of violence and conflict. I
am certain that if it were to happen, which I am not predicting
that it will, but if it were to happen, it would not be at the
scale that we have seen in the early 1990s.
But we cannot just estimate that this is not a possibility
or yes a possibility, because there has not really been a
systematic attempt to assess what is the true security threat
in Bosnia. There have been several major incidents of violence,
not necessarily interethnic violence, but they could have had a
potential to spread out.
One of the most recent ones I would like to point out is
the June 2010 bombing of the police station in Bugojno, in
which one police officer died and six were wounded. And this
was the most serious and the largest security threat Bosnia has
faced since the 1990s. It could very well spiral out of
control. And as Ambassador Volker has pointed out, there are
very few soldiers on the ground that would be able to contain
this type of violence.
Mr. Carnahan. One other thing I wanted to follow up on is
the work reaching out to young people in Bosnia. I had a chance
on my last visit to go to one of the local universities and
talk with a very diverse group of students there. And they
seemed very progressive and, you know, very concerned about
their future. And I would just be really interested in your
comments about where you think young people are to the extent
of their involvement in these elections and to the extent you
think they would be involved and engaged in some kind of a
bottom-up process on reform.
Ms. Howard. I have to say I am very optimistic but also
very pessimistic.
The reason for pessimism, let me start with bad news first,
is something that also Mr. Serwer has touched upon, and that is
the educational system, which is deeply divided, deeply
segregated. And what it is producing is new generations of
people who do not know each other. They don't understand each
other. They are taught to hate each other in some cases, or
simply do not understand.
I think it is unacceptable to have something as we have in
Bosnia, well over 50 schools which are considered to be two
schools under one roof, or as Mr. Serwer has mentioned,
separate but equal type of system in which children of
different ethnic backgrounds are being taught separately and
are attending classes separately. I think, in the long term,
this is going to produce generations that might not be able to
live together.
However, at the same time, I do have a lot of hope and
optimism about the generations that are now coming of voting
age and are university students, like you mentioned yourself,
those that in some ways were touched by the war but, on the
other hand, did not, perhaps, were not indoctrinated by some of
this, the educational system that I have just described.
Civil society has, many observers have said this, has
engaged in pre-election processes to the extent it has never
done before. I find it is very encouraging to see how
innovative civil society, especially youth organizations, have
been to try to emphasize accountability of politicians and try
to basically stop them from hiding behind the curtain of
territorial issues and ethnic issues, as they have done in
2006.
For example, I would just point out, you may find it
interesting, that they have even borrowed from the United
States' experiences and have developed a Bosnian version of a
Politifact Web site in which they are looking at the statements
made by politicians back in 2006 and basically fact-checking
them for consistency, for the level of--it has been a highly
contested Web site among the parties, as is to be expected,
which do not like to be so deeply scrutinized. But I do really
believe that this is going to contribute to--as I mentioned in
my testimony, NED has supported quite a few efforts to get out
the vote.
As in most countries in the region, youth apathy is at a
very high level. Very few youth vote. We, of course, believe
always that it is the youth that brings the voice of
moderation, as you yourself said, and that increasing youth
voter turnout would actually contribute in creating a more
moderate political climate in Bosnia. And I am really hopeful
about that.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you. I apologize. I am over my time.
But I want to recognize the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. Ellison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And good morning. Thank you all for your very insightful
and informative presentations. I had some lengthy conversation
with members of my Bosnian community in Minnesota and then even
in New York. I happened to be in New York, and they sat me down
and talked for quite a long time. I took a lot of notes.
Obviously, the questions that they asked me to ask you are
going to be informed by their own experiences, but I did
promise them that I would ask the experts. So, here are some of
the questions they asked me to ask you, and I am just going to
read them as they came to me.
I recently met with a group of--well, that is my
statement--i recently met with a group of Bosnian Americans.
According to them, there were recent elections in which Bosnian
Muslims won the elections but were later ruled invalid. Is
there any truth to this statement, and can you tell me any more
about it? Do you know anything about this?
Ms. Howard. I can't think of what this could be referring
to because the latest election--Bosnia had a general election.
Presidential and parliamentary were in 2006, and the local
elections were in October 2008. I was in Bosnia at the time of
the local elections, held now almost 2 years ago, and to my
knowledge, I don't remember them being contested. They have
been ruled free and fair. The 2006 elections have been ruled
free and fair by the OSCE with some small irregularities.
The local elections were not observed by the internationals
but have also been deemed to be free and fair. And I don't know
if there is something that I am missing, but to my knowledge,
this seems to not be----
Mr. Ellison. I appreciate you telling me that. That is the
feedback I will share with them. But they also talked,
described at length a situation where they had some parties
that were contesting in the election, and that somehow the
election authority invalidated one particular party that ended
up with more votes. And this was, I think this was around the
area of Sandzak. Are you familiar with this area?
Ms. Howard. I can address that. I think I do--they were the
elections for the National Minority Councils in Serbia which
were held on June 6. And indeed, yes, those elections were
contested. There were three, so to say, players or groups that
were participating in these elections in the Sandzak area.
Sandzak area is basically a part of southwest Serbia that is
largely inhabited by a Bosniak community. And the group that
has won the most seats in these elections has not been able to
constitute the Minority Council as they were supposed to.
There are various versions of why this happened, and it is
a highly contested issue indeed. And I think in that case, I
think the only thing that I would point out, it is an area in
the Balkans right now that we should be closely watching, that
an area for which we should encourage the Government of Serbia
to approach a bit more constructively and provide the kind of
support that the leaders and the civil society need over there.
And in addition, I would also expect and hope that the
religious leaders, especially the Islamic leaders in the
region, would be encouraged to provide voices of moderation to
those in Sandzak in order to resolve this issue and avoid any
escalation of it.
Mr. Ellison. Is there anything the United States should or
should not do? I mean, maybe we should just stay out of it. But
do you have any advice for how we might approach it?
Ms. Howard. Well, at this point, I think, just in terms of
encouraging the voices of moderation and encouraging the
Government of Serbia to approach this issue in a constructive
manner and to basically negotiate with all the parties involved
to make sure that this does not escalate to the point at which
we do need to get involved in a way in which I think you mean.
But at this point, I think only in diplomatic means, just
encourage these.
Mr. Ellison. Okay. Thank you. That is very helpful. I
appreciate your perspective.
Another question they asked me is whether you all can share
your views about the educational system. You have already
touched on it quite a bit. Some of the people who I met with
who are Bosniaks said that they were not allowed to learn about
their heritage, their legacy. Could you address this issue?
Mr. Serwer. Yes, there are parts of Bosnia in which that
might well be true. There are other parts of Bosnia in which
Serbs wouldn't be able to learn about their heritage. This is a
very difficult subject. It is not easy to fix a school system
after war.
But what many Bosnian children are being taught today is
encouraging ethnic tension and strife. And what we really need
to do is work for schools in which all Bosnians, of whatever
ethnicity, will feel comfortable.
USIP, my institute, has in fact sponsored a good deal of
work on the history of recent developments in the Balkans. That
work has been supported also by National Endowment for
Democracy and The Balkan Trust.
There are common narratives that can be taught. And if
there aren't common narratives, sometimes there are parallel
narratives that can be taught. It is important to learn your
own narrative and important to learn somebody else's narrative.
We can't get at this problem bilaterally as the United
States. The OSCE is responsible for the international efforts
for education in Bosnia, and I think we should reactivate the
OSCE and provide it with strong support to eliminate ``separate
but equal'' and the teaching of narratives that can only
encourage future conflict.
Mr. Ellison. Forgive my ignorance. I don't know what OSCE
stands for.
Mr. Serwer. I am sorry. OSCE is the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe. It is the Helsinki
Agreement organization, to speak in Cold War terms about it.
Mr. Ellison. Okay. That is fine.
Ms. Howard.
Ms. Howard. I would only add, because civil society was
mentioned several times, that civil society is really trying
very hard to provide, to supplement and address these
deficiencies in the educational system by providing some other
innovative methods. One of them is this approach to historic
reconciliation by teaching common narratives or even providing
multi perspective historic lessons. Another one is by, for
example, using documentary films about human rights in schools.
One NED grantee, for example, has used animation to devise a
digital interactive map about what happened in Srebrenica day
by day, which is now widely available online and in digital
form to citizens not only in Bosnia but also Serbia. And this
organization, Youth Initiative Human Rights, who is also
grantee, I believe, of USIP, is now going around schools in
Bosnia and Serbia as well to educate their peers on what
happened.
So, until there is a better educational system in place,
formal educational system, civil society is really trying to do
the best that they can to address some of these deficiencies.
Mr. Ellison. Mr. Chair, I have got two more questions. Do I
have time to ask those?
Mr. Carnahan. I think we are good on time. Go ahead. We
missed you on some earlier rounds, so we will give you some
extra.
Mr. Ellison. So, is there the political wherewithal to help
supplement these better educational approaches that you all are
proposing? Because my question is, I love your ideas, and I
think they are good. But I guess my question is, they do
require somebody to implement them, and do the people who have
the power, are they willing to support these kinds of
approaches?
Mr. Serwer. Mr. Ellison, I am afraid the short answer to
your question today is not the people currently in power. They
have not been willing and have, in fact, built a system of
separate but equal quite intentionally. I have some hope that
the early October elections, October 3, will bring to power a
government that has different attitudes on the constitutional
and educational issues.
I think a great deal depends on how the EU and the US treat
these issues and what expectations we lay down for the
Bosnians. If we are clear that separate but equal is not a way
you get into the European Union; if we are clear that the
entity veto process in the Bosnian constitution is not
acceptable for a member of the European Union, the Bosnians
will adjust to those expectations.
In addition, frankly, there are some political parties more
open to that adjustment than others. I hope to see more of them
in power and fewer of those who have become really stalwart
defenders of separation.
Mr. Ellison. Some of the people I talked to demonstrated a
lot of confidence in the political party connected to Mr.
Djindjic. Are you familiar with this? They felt that that
political party was more open. Are they viable? I mean, do you
agree with that assessment?
Mr. Serwer. Mr. Djindjic's party is a party in Serbia, not
in Bosnia, and it has no clear equivalent in Bosnia.
I think it is fair to say the Bosnian Serb population is
right now heavily dominated by ethno-nationalist parties, which
do not share the commitment to the EU and to democracy that Mr.
Djindjic demonstrated. Even his own party in Serbia today, I
would say, does not share entirely his vision, in particular on
the subject of Kosovo.
Mr. Ellison. Okay. And my last question is, for these
folks, and I, again, I talked to them in Minnesota and in New
York, and as you know, there is a large Bosnian community in
St. Louis and also in Chicago, and actually Bosnian Americans
are really getting to be quite a political entity on their own.
What role do you see for Bosnian Americans, or maybe the
Bosnian diaspora, writ large, in helping to facilitate and
improve quality of life in Bosnia? Because a lot of them have
expressed interest; I mean, many of them, you know, their feet
might be in New York, but their hearts are back there. So do
you have any recommendation on what Bosnian community members,
how they might make a positive contribution?
Ms. Howard. Well, several. One is very simple, and if I can
just say it so simply, send money. Because I will agree with
Ms. Gilmore is that the economy is very important in bringing
peace and stability. And at this point, in a so dysfunctional
and divided country, it is very difficult to attract foreign
direct investment. And Bosnia has really suffered economically
because of its unstable political situation. So remittances
for--from their families living abroad.
And I would only just mention one large other community
that we shouldn't forget, and that is Atlanta, which I think
also has a sizeable community there.
But I do think that this is definitely one way of helping.
The other way, and this is where things can be a bit sensitive
sometimes with the diaspora, and they can play a very
constructive role, but again, also play a very dangerous role
in their rhetoric and these messages that are being sent back
to their families and either supporting reconciliation, but
also not necessarily providing a very constructive voice
because we have, as we know, I think, in many diasporas, this
is the case, diasporas can be a bit more radical sometimes than
their counterparts living in the country and actually being
directly touched by the situation.
So, in that sense, the community here should remain
engaged, both, like I said, financially, but also they should
really continue to care, to encourage their representatives
here in the United States to remain engaged and I think just be
constructive and recognize that it is a very fragile situation
there, and that their voices can contribute and should not,
definitely, try to add to the fires of this nationalist
rhetoric.
Mr. Ellison. I will let them know.
And Ms. Gilmore, forgive me for not asking you many
questions. I didn't talk to my northern Irish community much in
preparation for this meeting. But I learned a lot from what you
shared with us and I thank you for it.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
And I am going to use your question though to give to Ms.
Gilmore later. But we may have another member joining us we
will try to get in.
We expect some votes on the floor coming up. But we are
going to try to go to Mr. Rohrabacher next, and we may be
hearing some bells going off soon, but we still have a few more
minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. What language do they speak in Bosnia, and
is it different than is spoken in Serbia and Croatia? Do the
Bosnian Serbs and the other Bosnians speak a different
language?
Ms. Howard. It is a very tough question to answer. I have
to say, before the falling apart of Yugoslavia, the language
was called Serbo-Croatian, and these languages are considered
to be dialects.
But I think that today the most, how would I say it,
broadly accepted answer to this question would be that there is
a Bosnian Croatian and Serbian language. And the differences
between these languages I always like to say are the same as
differences between Irish English, British English, and
American English. But I think that it is to understand if you
understand the nuances and the historical background of what
happened, it is fully understandable that each of the self-
defining groups likes to have language as part of their
identity. And regardless of what one might think of what the
true differences between these languages are, we should really
respect that desire by ethnic groups to have their own
language.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Correct me if I am wrong. But it is really
hard to tell someone from Northern Ireland and from southern
Ireland by their accent. At least it is hard for me. I am down
at the pub, and I can't really tell who I should be telling
what joke to on either side of me because I can't tell which
one's from Northern Ireland and which one's from southern
Ireland. Isn't that the case as well? I mean, there is not
really much a difference there.
Ms. Howard. Well, you can tell by dialect whether someone
is from Serbia or Croatia. In Bosnia, it is much more difficult
to say. There are some slight differences and nuances, but
people have--it all depends on where one went to school, for
example.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, my guess is there is probably less
distinction between those people than there is, in terms of
their language, than there is between someone who comes from
Mississippi and New York. And that is just a thought. And of
course, I think the people of Mississippi did have a fight with
the people of New York one time about 150 years ago, and it was
pretty bad, and it was pretty tough.
So, but when people speak the same language, it seems to me
that opens up doors, especially with the Internet. And you were
discussing how the Internet may be playing a positive role. If
you have people speaking the same language who can confront
each other over the Internet and confront ideas and also, not
only confronting ideas, but view alternatives through the
Internet that they couldn't necessarily talk out among
themselves, that offers some hope there.
I am going to ask you some specific questions from my
knowledge base here. Now, in Srebrenica, Bosnia, that is an
area of Bosnia that this ethnic cleansing took place. That is
correct?
Ms. Howard. Srebrenica?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Right. Srebrenica. Got it. I am
getting the pronunciations here. In Srebrenica, what is the
population of Srebrenica?
Ms. Howard. I really don't know at this point, I have to
say, and it is also difficult to say what it was pre-war
because what we have to understand is that Srebrenica was a
protected enclave where refugees and displaced persons from
other areas have all converged.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I remember the history, yes.
Ms. Howard. So it is very difficult. I don't know what the
current population is.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, we know that thousands of people
were slaughtered there, and that----
Ms. Howard. Close to 8,000.
Mr. Rohrabacher. One of the great crimes against humanity
happened there.
But today, it is basically a Serbian area, but you
mentioned this other area in Serbia that is Bosnian. What is
the population of that area?
Ms. Howard. I really would have----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Is there some reason why the people
who are Bosnians who want to be part of Bosnia but live in
Serbia can't be part of Bosnia, and the Serbians who want to be
part of Serbia can't be part of Serbia, rather than simply
trying to create everybody who happens to live within a certain
boundary has an education that eliminates their ethnic
identification?
Ms. Howard. Well, it is a very, of course, complicated
issue.
And I think one of the first things that comes to mind is
that these areas are not ethnically pure. Even when we have a
majority in a certain area, and this is an issue that I think
in any discussion on territorial swap between Serbia and Kosovo
always is brought up, is that these areas that would be
attached or detached are simply not ethnically pure. And then
there is the question of what happens to those who are not of
the majority.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, the only question is whether or not
the overwhelming number of people in a given area want to be or
do not want to be part of a government.
Now I will have to admit that what I am talking about is a
theory of bringing peace that is not in vogue. And in fact,
what is in vogue is more of the centralized approach; let's get
everybody in the EU. Let's try to get--instead of having
recognition of these ethnic differences, let's try to go in to
centralization rather than decentralization as a solution.
And because, in Kosovo and in Serbia, there is also a
situation where you have got a lot of people on the northern
side of the river are all Serbs, but they have got to live in
Kosovo, and there is a valley in Serbia that is made up almost
all of Kosovars who would rather be in Kosovo.
And why aren't we pursuing the possibility of eliminating
conflict by actually having trades in what you call sovereignty
of a given territory because the people there don't want to be
part of that country?
Mr. Serwer. Mr. Rohrabacher, maybe I can try an answer to
this question.
Mr. Carnahan. Excuse me, if I may, I am going to ask you to
make your answer as short as you can because we are short on
time, and we want to have some time for Mr. Crowley.
Mr. Serwer. Okay. The short answer is, you end up having to
move very large numbers of people at very high expense and
probably having to force people to move.
And it would really be catastrophic for the region as a
whole. If this process starts in one place, it will spread and
unquestionably lead to violence.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, if you are not moving, you are part
of a country you don't want to be part of, as compared to
trying to say that the vast majority of people of an area want
to be part of another country. I mean, this is like, and I will
have to tell you, when I have Indian representatives here, and
I respect the Government of India, and I think the Indians
should be our best friends. And I recognize the challenge that
they have had in keeping their country together. But there is
the people of Kashmir may not want to be part of India.
And I would think the solution to a lot of these problems
that we have been talking about is actually giving people in an
area who represent the vast majority of opinion of a given
area, give them a referendum and let them decide. And then that
seems to be a way that you are going to calm people down,
rather than you are saying it is going to make--it is going to
create such a disruption of the status quo that violence will
be more likely. I think it may be a disruption to the status
quo that makes reconciliation and peaceful living much more
likely.
So we will see. I mean, that is just an idea to explore
that I don't think that people have actually looked at.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
And next, I want to----
Mr. Rohrabacher. By the way, Mr. Chairman, one last
thought. That may go for Northern Ireland, too. It may say that
there are counties in Northern Ireland that would like to be
part of greater Ireland rather than part of Great Britain.
Perhaps if there is a county there that votes that way, maybe
they should be permitted to go in that direction, too. Just a
thought.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
I want to recognize a member of our full committee for
joining us on the subcommittee today, Joe Crowley from New
York, who is also co-chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on Irish
Affairs.
Welcome.
Mr. Crowley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me thank you from the outset for holding this hearing
today, both yourself and Mr. Rohrabacher, both friends of mine,
and I am very pleased that they are both giving this attention
that I think it deserves on all fronts, but particularly as it
pertains to the North of Ireland and the progress of peace
there.
I am thrilled that we are having this hearing today on the
peace process that was established earlier this year or
furthered earlier this year through the Hillsborough Castle
Agreement.
It is no secret that the devolution of policing and justice
was one of the most challenging pieces of the puzzle that has
yet to be fully completed. And it is a tribute to all those who
were involved, including, I believe, Secretary Clinton, that
the agreement came to fruition.
Most importantly, devolution of policing and justice
represents a victory for all those who support the peace
struggle for change and reconciliation in the north.
I believe that an essential next step forward is to
establish a strong and binding bill of rights for the North of
Ireland as envisioned in the Good Friday Agreement and advanced
by the Saint Andrew Agreement, a bill of rights particular to
the circumstances of the north, and I would like to go into a
little bit more of that, would help build on the peace process
and ensure that a serious return to the past can be avoided.
I wrote to then Prime Minister Gordon Brown earlier this
year suggesting exactly this course of action. I believe that
if leaders backtrack on the Good Friday Agreement's promise of
a bill of rights for the north, it will send the wrong signal
to those who have worked so hard to bring an end to violence
and create a future of peace.
At the same time, we have more work to continue to do here
in the U.S. It is essential for the United States to continue
its commitment to the peace process, and I believe one aspect
of that is by continued support for the International Fund for
Ireland. This small targeted investment has been extremely
helpful in creating on-the-ground conditions for peace, and I
am glad that the Congress continues to stand by that fund.
There has been a tendency in some quarters to believe that
the conflict in the North of Ireland is over. And one only
needs to look at the violence of this past summer to give pause
to that belief. We must not waiver in our commitment toward a
lasting peace for all the people of the North of Ireland.
With that, I would just direct to Ms. Gilmore, this
December 10th will mark the second anniversary of the date that
the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission gave its
recommendations for a bill of rights for the north. This move
was consistent with the Good Friday Agreement, as I mentioned
before, and then proposed that the bill of rights for the north
should include rights particular to the circumstances of the
North of Ireland.
Can you explain to us what those circumstances are and how
having enumerated rights enshrined into a bill of rights
addresses those concerns? If you can also enlighten us with
what you believe are the reasons that the new British
Government appears to be backtracking on the commitment to
establishment of a bill of rights, and if that is so. And what
role do you see the U.S. playing in this process? And what do
you believe would be the result of not creating a specific bill
of rights in the north? And is there strong support for that
within a broad sector of the society of the North of Ireland?
I also want to thank Father McManus as well as others who
were here today applauding the efforts of this subcommittee
today, and particularly yours, Mr. Carnahan, for having brought
this hearing up today. Making reference, though, to the fact
that there is so much embedded in the history between Ireland
and Great Britain and I think as it pertains to the North of
Ireland, we know the impact that the British Government had
when it took some acknowledgment of its past mistakes
pertaining to the Great Hunger. And I think that that was a
watershed in terms of opening up a real full discussion and
understanding of the problems. In that the Pope is now visiting
the UK, it is bringing back a lot of the issues that I think
fomented and really caused the divisions within Ireland.
There is still the critical piece known as the Active
Settlement of 1701, which really embedded within the British
constitution much of the hatred that exists within the north
today. And if you could address that. We are moving on one end,
without addressing some more substantial or embedded pieces of
the British constitution. If that is not addressed, is just
moving toward a bill of rights enough, or do we need to address
more issues within the British constitution itself?
Ms. Gilmore. Thank you, Congressman Crowley.
Thank you for your continued support and interest in
Northern Ireland. It has been greatly appreciated.
And to take each of your questions in turn quickly, the
particular circumstances of Northern Ireland one could look at
that very narrowly or one could look at it broadly. Narrowly,
one could try to identify the very, very specific issues that
divide us. Or one could look at it in terms of how the conflict
has impacted Northern Ireland? What are the circumstances of
Northern Ireland that could be related back to the conflict?
And one then starts to look at issues of inequality and
deprivation, of the huge impact on the mental health of the
population of Northern Ireland, with 20 percent of people in
Northern Ireland with a disability, many of whom acquired that
disability through getting caught up in trouble in the
conflict.
So we believe that to take a very narrow approach and limit
it to those very narrow things that would have divided people
is actually going to be more divisive than by drawing us to the
broader interpretation of the particular circumstances, and
looking at the things that then could potentially unite people,
where one would end up with a much more holistic bill of rights
that everybody can identify with.
In terms of the reasons why the United Kingdom is
suggesting that the particular bill of rights for Northern
Ireland, I would suggest that would be a very good question to
ask the United Kingdom Government. We are very clear that what
was required under the agreement was a particular bill of
rights for Northern Ireland, and indeed, the Irish Government
has made clear that a specific bill of rights for Northern
Ireland is required, and it is not appropriate to deal with it
within the UK context. I think that those are questions that
need to be asked.
The role of the U.S. now in terms of shoring up the support
for a bill of rights, I think, the political support that has
been shown by the U.S. over the years, both in supporting the
governments and encouraging the political parties, and this
links into your fifth question around support.
There isn't cross-party political support in Northern
Ireland for a bill of rights, but there is very deep and
widespread cross-community support. Polling shows upwards of 80
percent of people from right across communities in Northern
Ireland support a bill of rights for Northern Ireland.
It is so rare that we see such high levels of the
agreement. So the cross-party support really belies the depth
and breadth of discussions that have taken place across civil
society and public.
So I think, as has happened over the years, our political
parties need to be brought along and coaxed. And I think the
U.S. has played an extremely important role in doing that, and
again, in supporting the Irish Government and putting pressure
on the UK Government to deliver.
In relation to the British constitutional issues, the Good
Friday Agreement in some ways was Northern Ireland's
constitutional document, and it was our way of trying to deal
with some of those constitutional issues. And really, I suppose
that where things are going to go in relation to that matter is
not something I am particularly qualified to speak about. I
would say, though, that a Bill of Rights actually would play a
very important role in terms of trying to constitutionalize
some of the rights that would prevail whether one was part of
the United Kingdom or whether one was part of the Republic of
Ireland or whether one just sees oneself as Northern Irish,
that sets out rights that apply in terms of your humanity. I
think it is very important to protect those rights no matter
what the constitutional settlement may be. So I hope that
answers some of your questions.
Mr. Crowley. It does.
If I could, I know time is of the essence, but I think it
is also important to doubt note that the Scots-Irish tradition
here in the United States take great credit and rightfully so
for the establishment of the bill of rights in this country. So
it is no wonder to me that people, aside from party
affiliation, people themselves within Northern Ireland
understand the rights that they all have, divine rights as
embedded in their own constitution. It is no surprise to me.
So that is a very welcomed response to the question. I
appreciate that very much.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.
And I agree, there is a greater role that we must continue to
play, especially I believe hearing from the Scots-Irish
tradition here in this country who helped establish our own
bill of rights expressing that support for the people of
Northern Ireland as well. So thank you.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Congressman Crowley.
And I just want to wrap up real quickly a couple of things.
And I promised I would follow up on Mr. Ellison's question
about the role of the Irish Americans here in terms of
supporting the process, and obviously, they have been very
engaged in different organizations and speaking out.
And the other--I will hit these quickly--the response and
engagement of the younger generation of people in Northern
Ireland that may not have lived through some of the worst of
the conflict, how they have engaged in this. And finally,
really, the role of women that were so critical in bringing the
Good Friday Agreements together and their ongoing role in these
efforts.
Ms. Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Those are two very excellent questions.
When I was listening to the answer in relation to young
people in Bosnia, I was struck by some of the parallels
because, of course, many young people in Northern Ireland did
not live through our conflict. But what we are seeing with them
is the transgenerational impact of the conflict.
I think the government's own statistics show that one in
five young people will present with mental health problems by
the time they are 18, and those are young people who have grown
up in families that have been deeply impacted by the conflict.
So while these young people may not have lived through the
conflict, they are very much feeling it in their families and
in their communities. And yet mental health resources are not
targeted directly at those communities.
I think it is interesting to note that in the recent
violence and public disorder that we have seen, that many young
people have been involved in it, and indeed, many young people
have been injured. There were two young people quite seriously
injured by plastic bullets being shot by the police during
public disorder over the summer.
I would just link that back to my earlier point on the need
to invest in those communities and the need to invest
particularly in young people because if they are feeling left
behind and their communities are not addressed, one can see
then how they would be open for persuasion and manipulation,
for want of a better word, by those who would seek to stir up
discontent and disorder on the streets.
So I think if young people don't feel listened to and don't
feel included and don't feel part of the peace process, even
though they weren't part of the conflict, there is a danger
that they will go back to conflict. And I think that is
something we need to be very careful about.
In relation to the role of women, the women's sector is a
very vibrant sector in Northern Ireland. I think what is
probably most problematic in relation to women in Northern
Ireland is the lack or the serious under representation of
women in public life. And actually, our Good Friday Agreement
particularly stipulated the inclusion of women in public life.
And we, across the United Kingdom, have the lowest percentage
and the lowest statistics of involvement of women in, for
example, our local councils and in government. And in senior
positions in our civil service and in the administration, there
is a very serious under representation of women. So women are
still very involved at civil society level, but they haven't
got through to the sort of higher levels.
I believe the commitments that were made in the agreement
in relation to increasing the participation of women in public
life very much remain to be fulfilled. I think there is an onus
on our assembly and our executive and our elected politicians
to take more active steps to increase the participation of
women in society in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you all very much.
I am afraid I am going to have to wrap it up. We have about
3 minutes left on the clock, so I am going to have to walk
quickly across the street.
But just special thanks to our panel today. I think they
really gave us some very keen insights into how we can stay
focused and stay committed with the efforts and the progress
that has been made, but also I think a very realistic view on
some of the challenges that remain.
Thank you very much. We are going to stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:38 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]
__________
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Russ Carnahan, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri, and Chairman,
Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
