[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
SHIFTING SANDS: POLITICAL TRANSITIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST, PART 2
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
THE MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 5, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-28
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-173 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California BRAD SHERMAN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
RON PAUL, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
CONNIE MACK, Florida GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas DENNIS CARDOZA, California
TED POE, Texas BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
DAVID RIVERA, Florida FREDERICA WILSON, Florida
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania KAREN BASS, California
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York
RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina
VACANT
Yleem D.S. Poblete, Staff Director
Richard J. Kessler, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Chairman
MIKE PENCE, Indiana GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York DENNIS CARDOZA, California
RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
DANA ROHRABACHER, California BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
CONNIE MACK, Florida CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
The Honorable Michael H. Posner, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State... 5
Ms. Tamara Wittes, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Near
Eastern Affairs, U.S. Department of State...................... 7
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Michael H. Posner and Ms. Tamara Wittes: Prepared
statement...................................................... 9
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 32
Hearing minutes.................................................. 33
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement.......... 35
SHIFTING SANDS: POLITICAL TRANSITIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST, PART 2
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 5, 2011
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Middle East
and South Asia,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:14 p.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steve Chabot
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Chabot. The subcommittee will come to order.
I apologize for the delay here. We had our last vote prior
to this hearing, and Members of Congress traditionally head out
like scalded dogs, quite frankly, after last votes. The votes
were supposed to be after this hearing when it was originally
set up, so I apologize for the few members on both sides. But
we appreciate the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Chandler, for
being here so that we can get started. We have to have two
members present before you can start a meeting, so that is what
I was waiting for. I would have started right away.
The subcommittee, as I say, has now come to order. I want
to wish everyone a good afternoon. I also want to welcome Mr.
Chandler especially for being here this afternoon for this
hearing.
This is the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East
and South Asia. This hearing was called to assess the current
trajectory of the political transitions in the Middle East and
to examine U.S. policy toward the region as it stands today.
For the past 4 months, the world has witnessed
unprecedented changes throughout the Middle East and North
Africa. The peaceful protests that began at the end of last
year continue to shake the region to its core. The power
structures that have defined the region for decades continue to
crumble as protesters take to the streets by the thousands.
Unlike in the past, however, they were not protesting against
the United States nor were they protesting against Israel.
Instead, they were protesting for their own God-given human and
universal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.
This unrest, however, has not been without its challenges.
Across the region, from Libya to Yemen, entrenched regimes have
sought to maintain their stranglehold on power by any means
necessary. In Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh supported and then
rejected an agreement to step down from power. In Syria, Bashar
al-Assad's ongoing and ruthless murder of peaceful protesters
has already claimed the lives of hundreds of Syrian citizens.
In Bahrain, the government's targeted crackdown has resulted in
the indiscriminate imprisonment of swaths of the country's
Shiite population. Most recently, a Bahraini military court in
a closed-door trial sentenced four protesters to be executed.
Syria is particularly a cause for concern. To date, the
Obama administration's response to the brutal crackdown in
Syria has been, in many people's view, tepid and disappointing.
The few messages that have been sent have been mixed at best,
and it does not appear that the administration has any Syria
policy beyond engagement. The administration has implemented
symbolic but largely ineffective sanctions, including against
several members of the regime, not including Bashar al-Assad
himself. Indeed, the best description the administration has
proposed to date was actually made by one of President Obama's
advisors who said of Libya that the President is ``leading from
behind.''
It is unclear why the administration has not taken a
stronger stance against a regime that, if it were to fall,
could significantly alter the strategic landscape of the
region. Although many questions remain about what government
would follow the Assad regime were it to fall, there are many
steps that the U.S. could be taking at this time to influence
that outcome. The half-committed approach that the
administration has taken to date, however, does not make sense
in any circumstance and risks squandering a huge strategic
opportunity for the U.S., not to mention helping to end the
bloodshed that intensifies every day.
Another recent development should give all of us reason for
concern. I returned earlier this week from a visit to Israel,
Jordan, and Egypt and, while in Israel, the news broke that
Hamas had signed a reconciliation deal with Fatah. I was, in
fact, discussing with Palestinian Prime Minister Fayyad his
tremendously important state-building efforts when the deal was
likely signed. Shortly thereafter, I had the opportunity to
meet with Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu who expressed grave
concern both for Israel's security as well as for the prospects
for peace. How, he asked us, could the Palestinians be serious
partners for peace if they welcomed into their ranks vicious
terrorists who continue to deny the very right of the State of
Israel to exist? His concern is more than justified.
I was deeply disturbed to learn just this morning that at a
meeting in Rome on the situation in Libya, Secretary Clinton
did not rule out the prospect of negotiations with an entity
which may include Hamas. I find this shocking, especially in
light of what she said on the same subject as a Senator, and I
quote:
``We are withholding money from the Hamas government,
which I think is absolutely appropriate, and we are
trying to ensure that no country gives any funding to
Hamas government unless and until they renounce
violence and accept Israel's right to exist.''
I sincerely hope that the Obama administration is not even
considering negotiating with Hamas or with any government in
which it is a partner until or unless it meets the principles
laid out by the Quartet in 2006. We must insist that it meet
these principles before their role, however small, is
legitimized. I look forward to hearing the witnesses clarify
U.S. policy toward Palestinian reconciliation.
While the details of the Hamas Fatah agreement have yet to
emerge, I hope that, in contrast to what I fear, the
Palestinian leadership will proceed on a path to responsible
state building and forgo the tired path of rejectionism.
And that concludes my statement.
Since the ranking member is in New York today with the
President and therefore unavailable to be here, I don't know if
the gentlelady might like to make a statement or not. I don't
want to put you on the spot.
Ms. Schwartz. That is fine.
I just want to say that, having run into the hotel and we
were both in Israel--we were in Jerusalem. Obviously, both of
us have keen interests in the future security and safety of the
State of Israel and were there at a particularly interesting
moment when the Palestinian Authority, Fatah did reach this
agreement, again without much detail, with Hamas; and we then
were able to meet with both the Israeli leadership and some of
the Palestinian leadership.
But, of course, we are very interested to see how this
plays out and are interested in your comments and background as
you see it today, which we know could change tomorrow. But our
understanding is that we heard when we were there is that we
might get Hamas--the Palestinian Authority thought they would
get Hamas to agree on some level of nonviolence but not on
recognition of Israel, not on any of the other principles of
the Quartet. So that seems to us inadequate, in spite of the
fact that so many Israelis live every day with the fear of
violence, of rockets, and suicide bombers. So I look forward to
the comments.
My expectation is that there will be other hearings as we
follow this through. But know that our relationships with
Israel are strong, and we are determined for a two-state
solution that actually does create real safety and security in
what, if anything, has gotten to be a more volatile part of the
world.
So I look forward to your comments and will stay as long as
I am able to. Sorry, the afternoon probably got away from the
chairman here in how many members are attending. But I look
forward to your comments.
Mr. Chabot. Would the gentlelady yield for just a moment?
Ms. Schwartz. Sure.
Mr. Chabot. On what you had said about some level of
nonviolence, just to clarify, you said I think you thought it
would be inadequate, correct?
Ms. Schwartz. I don't have any information about the
specifics. What we did hear is that there would be some
understanding about whether--about incitement or whether
actually commitment to nonviolence. Now what that means, I said
I am suggesting that, without any details, we don't know what
that really means and whether there is a commitment.
Mr. Chabot. I didn't know if you said adequate or
inadequate, and I was trying to clarify that.
Ms. Schwartz. I said probably not adequate. I am suggesting
that it is not adequate.
And, honestly, my own feeling is that, unless there is an
agreement to at least at some point recognize the State of
Israel, the whole deal is inadequate. But that is not for us to
decide, except for the point of view of aid, but it is
certainly--those are decisions to make. But the point of view,
it is going to have to be Israel's decision to whether they
consider that worthy of any kind of further discussion.
I think my feeling when I was there was that this did not
help enhance the opportunity for negotiations and settlement
talks.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
The gentleman from Virginia is recognized to make a short
opening statement, if he would like to.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a prepared opening statement, and I would ask
without objection to be entered into the record.
Mr. Chabot. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Connolly. And I simply want to note--and thank you for
holding this hearing--we are looking at a transformative
moment, obviously, in the region; and it remains to be seen
where this all leads. I have to admit I am troubled by the
recent reconciliation agreement between Hamas and the
Palestinian Authority because of its implications both for our
concern about terrorism in the region, for the recognition of
the State of Israel, and for the peace process itself; and it
remains to be seen whether this is really a workable agreement
in terms of logistics on the ground.
So I am very interested, obviously, in that set of
questions but also on the post-bin Laden world with the
events--dramatic events of this last week. What does that mean
as we move forward? And what is the long-term staying power of
any kind of indigenous democratic movement in North Africa and
in the Middle East that certainly has started with a lot of
hope? And we have to stay vigilant in terms of where it all
leads, Mr. Chairman. So I think this is a timely hearing, and I
am certainly interested in the views of our two witnesses, and
I want to thank you for holding it.
And, with that, I yield back.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
I would like to introduce our two distinguished witnesses
here this afternoon. I will begin with Mr. Michael H. Posner.
Mr. Posner was sworn in as Assistant Secretary of State for
the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor on September
23, 2009. Prior to joining the State Department, Mr. Posner was
the Executive Director and then President of Human Rights
First. He played a key role in proposing and campaigning for
the first U.S. law providing for political asylum which became
part of the Refugee Act of 1980 and was a member of the White
House Apparel Industry Partnership Task Force.
Before joining Human Rights First, Mr. Posner was a lawyer
in Chicago. He received his J.D. From the University of
California Berkley Law School and a B.A. With distinction and
honors in history from the University of Michigan.
And we welcome you here this afternoon, Mr. Posner. I will
go ahead and make the other introduction first, and we will
hear from you.
Ms. Tamara Wittes was sworn in as a Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs on November 9, 2009. She
coordinates democracy and human rights policy for the Bureau
and supervises the Middle East Partnership Initiative and the
broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative.
Before joining the State Department, Wittes was a Senior
Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the
Brookings Institution. Before that, she served as Middle East
Specialist at the U.S. Institute of Peace and previously as the
Director of Programs at the Middle East Institute in
Washington. She also taught at Georgetown University and was
one of the first recipients of the Rabin-Peres Peace Award
established by President Bill Clinton in 1997.
She holds a B.A. in Judaic and Near Eastern studies from
Oberlin College and an M.A. and Ph.D. in government from
Georgetown University, and we welcome you here this afternoon
as well.
As I am sure the witnesses know, we operate under the 5-
minute rule, and we ask that you please try to keep your
testimony to that 5 minutes, and your entire statements can be
entered in for the record. So, even if you have more than 5
minutes we will definitely get that.
So, without further ado, Mr. Posner, you are recognized for
5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL H. POSNER, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Posner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing. We have a longer written statement which
we will submit for the record.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Without objection.
Mr. Posner. I want to, first of all, thank you for inviting
us to testify on this important subject at this important
moment. You rightly recognize that this is a pivotal moment in
the Middle East and North Africa.
President Obama has said often that the future of the
Middle East will be written by its own people, not a foreign
power. But we have a huge stake in the outcome. So this
administration is playing a critical role in supporting the
forces of democratic reform, and we are standing with those in
the region who are calling for a peaceful democratic transition
for tolerance, for pluralism. As you said, Mr. Chairman, people
in the region are demanding life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.
Our policy is pragmatic, and it is in keeping with American
principles, values, and interests. We believe that when people
talk about a conflict between our democratic values and our
desire for stability, that is a false dichotomy. The United
States has a profound interest in regional stability, including
the well-being of Israel, which several of you have mentioned
and which remains our close critical ally; and we believe that
respect for human rights and principles of accountability are
actually key components in long-term stability.
My colleague, Tamara, is going to talk more about some of
the U.S. interests, but our strategy is one of empowerment. We
support and empower those in the region who are committed, as
we are, to peaceful and democratic transitions.
Secretary Clinton has spoken a number of times about the
need to build sustainable democracies; and some of the elements
are rule of law, transparency, accountability, the existence of
civil society, representative political parties, women's
empowerment, and a healthy relationship between government and
the private sector. These are essential building blocks. In
places like Egypt and Tunisia, we are hard at work in trying to
help people in those countries build those essential
ingredients.
We also believe that Internet freedom is an essential
ingredient; and we are actively involved at the State
Department in both diplomatically advancing notions of an open
Internet platform--it played such an important role both in
Tunisia and Egypt. We are also spending money that Congress has
appropriated to develop both new technologies to circumvent
firewalls but also to protect activists. We have trained 5,000
democracy activists in the Middle East and all regions of the
world, and we are about to allocate new funds for that.
We also believe that there is a relationship between
building institutions of democracy that are accountable and
supporting economic policies that deliver growth.
And, finally, when violations occur, as they have in Syria
and other places, we are committed to and are speaking out
about the human rights abuses as we see them.
You mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the situation in Syria; and I
want to just take a few sentences and say something about that.
President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and many of us have
spoken out about the killing, torture, detention, and abuse of
peaceful protesters in Syria. The situation in that country has
gone from bad to worse, and we are committed to challenging
that in every way that we can.
We led an effort 10 days ago at the United Nations to have
a special session called and have a resolution condemning the
violations of human rights in Syria--first time that has ever
happened--and there is now a U.N. investigation and report of
what is happening. We have unilaterally issued an executive
order with specific targeting of individuals and entities
responsible for human rights violations, and we continue to
monitor the situation, which is increasingly unstable. Our
Ambassador there, Robert Ford, has conveyed our grave concerns
to the Syrian Government at the highest levels virtually on a
daily basis.
So we share your concern. We are very mindful of the
severity of the situation. Peaceful protesters, people who are
challenging the government there, are being gunned down; and
that is totally unacceptable. We have said that. We will
continue to say it, and we will continue to find allies in
Europe and elsewhere to help reinforce that message.
Thank you.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, and we will now hear from
Ms. Wittes for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MS. TAMARA WITTES, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
BUREAU OF NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ms. Wittes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also want to express my appreciation for the invitation
to testify on this crucial subject.
Secretary Clinton has noted that when there is a gap
between a government and the needs and the aspirations of its
people that state will become more brittle rather than more
stable. And in the Middle East that gap has been widening in
many places for some time. The Arab Spring, therefore, carries
the potential for citizens in the region to build societies on
a more stable foundation, more democratic, more economically
dynamic, and more capable of tackling their own challenges.
The task of achieving that brighter future rests in the
hands of the people and leaders of the region, but the United
States has a strategic interest in their success, and we can
play a key role.
Now, the United States remains steadfast in our commitment
to advancing our core interests in the region and defending the
security of our allies. Those interests, including countering
violent extremism and achieving a negotiated Middle East peace,
are widely shared by citizens across the region seeking peace,
prosperity, and freedom.
Regional stability, of course, has always been a key factor
in our ability to pursue those goals, and today it is crystal
clear that stability in this region demands democratic reform.
The changes under way in the region were driven by a rising
generation unwilling to accept a status quo that denied them
the opportunities they deserved and a status quo that they knew
was unsustainable. That is a situation characterized by
corruption, inequality, unemployment, resource depletion, and
political marginalization.
The success of these new movements for greater democracy,
opportunity, dignity, and accountability will be a sine qua non
for the region's ability to overcome its longstanding
political, economic, and social challenges; and in this way the
outcome of the Arab Spring will have a powerful and lasting
impact on regional stability for years to come.
But events in the region today also present a tremendous
strategic opportunity for the United States and all those who
advance a positive agenda for the future of this region. The
peaceful, homegrown movements that put Egypt and Tunisia on the
path to democratic transition offer a powerful repudiation of
the extremists' false narrative that violence and conflict are
the only ways to effect change. And since we wholeheartedly
embrace the positive potential of this region, we likewise
embrace those who seek to realize that potential through
peaceful democratic reform.
Our response to the upheaval in the region is rooted in a
consistent set of principles, as my colleague said. We oppose
the use of violence against peaceful protesters and support the
universal rights of free expression, assembly, and association.
We strongly condemn killing, torture, and abuse of peaceful
protesters; and we make clear our view that people's legitimate
demands and aspirations must be met by positive engagement from
governments in the form of meaningful political and economic
reform.
Certainly there will be great challenges ahead in countries
undergoing democratic transition. We are encouraged to see
governments elsewhere in the region taking affirmative steps to
address their citizens' concerns, but there are more
challenging scenarios where calls for democratic reform are
held back or met with violence and there is the risk of
backsliding or the derailment of progress.
And, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned Palestinian
reconciliation. Let me be very clear. We certainly understand
the concerns you have raised. There has been a deal signed, but
there are many steps left to implement that agreement, and we
are monitoring it closely. But, from our perspective, it is
absolutely clear that, in order to play any constructive role
in achieving peace, any Palestinian Government must accept the
Quartet principles. They must reject violence, accept Israel's
right to exist, and agree to abide by previous agreements.
We will continue to stand up firmly for our principles and
our interests in this region. As citizens and leaders in the
Middle East move toward democratic change, we will support
their efforts. We believe in their potential, and we look
forward to a day when all the citizens of the region are able
to have their voices heard, their rights respected, and their
aspirations met. We believe that that will be a brighter future
and a more stable future, one that works for them and for us.
We look forward to continuing to work with this committee and
with the Congress to make that future a reality.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Posner and Ms. Wittes
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
It is my understanding that the gentlelady from New York
has a codel to catch, and so I am going to defer my questions
so she can get them in before she has to leave.
So the gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman; and thank
you for holding this very relevant hearing today and thank you
to our guests.
My question--and I will get right to the point--is with
regard to the Muslim Brotherhood. I would like you to please
explain to me what you see their role is in the Middle East. We
are hearing concerns from Egypt, from Israel, and from Jordan
as to they are gaining power. And I would like to hear what the
administration, what your thoughts are about the Muslim
Brotherhood.
Ms. Wittes. Well, thank you, for the question. I think it
is a very important issue to raise, and it is one that we are
follow closely.
The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt abandoned violence in the
1970s. Since then, they have played a role in politics, but
their views have not always been clear. And what we are looking
to see emerge in Egypt is a diverse political marketplace where
people will face a real choice and where organizations like the
Brotherhood and other political parties are challenged to make
their views clear, including on core democratic principles:
Rejection of violence, the embrace of democratic values and
rules, both before and after the election, and a commitment to
equality for all under the law, including women and minorities.
Those are the requisites to play a constructive role in the
democratic process.
Ms. Buerkle. As a follow-up to that, does the
administration--are they opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood,
their power, and them expanding their power in Jordan?
Ms. Wittes. Well, in Jordan, the Muslim Brotherhood is not
itself politically competitive. There is a political party, the
Islamic Action Front, which has some links to the Brotherhood
which is a recognized political party and competes in Jordanian
elections. They have been a part of the political scene there
for some time.
Ms. Buerkle. And I think, as a follow-up, we have heard
from many of their concerns regarding the Muslim Brotherhood,
and I would like to know if the administration sees them as a
moderate group or as a group that is really a threat as what we
have heard from--testimony we have heard from folks from Israel
and the like.
Ms. Wittes. I think from our perspective what is important
is that we see a diversity of views and voices and that we see
all of those who want to participate in the democratic process
embracing democratic principles. It is a concern for the
process and a concern for the integrity of the democratic
process. It is not for us to choose the winners of those
political competitions. That, obviously, is for the people in
the region to make that choice, but we want to see them make
that choice within a free and fair and competitive context.
Ms. Buerkle. So as a follow-up to that, do you see the
Muslim Brotherhood as an organization that would allow that
process to play out or what be a threat to the freedom, to the
very thing that these people are fighting for?
Well, I will let you comment on that, and I will follow up.
Ms. Wittes. Thank you. I think as the situation in Egypt
continues to evolve and as the Egyptian people start to prepare
for their elections, there are already a number of new
political parties forming and organizing, there are a lot of
debates swirling around the role of religion and politics, and
I think that we are already seeing the Egyptian people engage
robustly in this discussion. So that process is going to
continue to play itself out; and, of course, we will be
watching it closely. But, ultimately, it is up to the Egyptian
people to determine their future.
Ms. Buerkle. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chabot. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentlelady, Ms. Schwartz, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Schwartz. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity for
questions.
I wonder if you could speak a little bit more following up
on the previous questions about the situation in Egypt, and I
would say a couple questions, if I may. One is on how prepared
they are for elections in September. There is some sense that
some of the points you are making in terms of new and emerging
parties, how quickly can they be organized, how substantial
they can be, how competitive they can be?
Of course, I agree with you this is up to the people of
Egypt to make these decisions for their future, but, as we
encourage democratic reforms, we don't want them to be
unprepared for those reforms. We know that that is not going to
bode well for good decision making for them, and so I don't
want us to push too hard to lead in that direction.
And, secondly, the word is to--we originally had heard that
Egypt was going on abide by previous treaties. Have you heard
otherwise? There is obviously deep concern in Israel about the
border with Gaza, whether, in fact, that will be open, whether
that would then lead to weapons, munitions, other supplies
coming into Gaza that would potentially enhance the opportunity
for violence and destruction?
So let me start there, and then if there is an opportunity
for a follow-up I would be pleased to be able to.
Mr. Posner. Thank you. Let me answer the first set of
questions first.
I think what we have seen over at least 30 years in Egypt
is an ossification of all institutions, including political
institutions. And so as transition now is under way, one of the
challenges Egyptians face, particularly young people and others
who took to the streets, is that they don't have experience
with political parties. They don't--they haven't had the
ability to do political polling or to organize to do
electioneering. And so we are very much involved. Congress has
and we have made available as part of our bilateral funds to
Egypt to go to groups like NDI and IRI to begin that building
process, building the foundation for sustainable democracy in
Egypt. It is not going to happen overnight, but it is
critically important.
There is an important segment of Egyptian society, secular,
reform-minded, democratic, concerned about the future of their
own country; and they want and are eager to build the skills to
play a vital role in a political process that will lead to a
democratic Egypt.
Ms. Schwartz. Will that happen in 6 months?
Mr. Posner. I think it is going to be a real challenge. I
think we are in a transitional phase. I think realistically to
have elections in 6 months, both for Parliament and the
President, strains a system that is in a very embryonic state.
And so I think we need to be quick and resolute in trying to
help right now, but we also need to be mindful that, over time,
we have got to stay the course and this is going to happen over
a period of years.
I am optimistic in the long term we can get there, but I
think we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that it is
going to look like the United States or Western Europe in a
matter of months. And so I think we are committed to helping
those Egyptians that share our democratic aspirations, and we
know that it is going to be a process for them to learn, to
build their capacity, to build their constituencies, and over
time to have the role they deserve in Egypt.
Ms. Schwartz. Just related to those points, do you have
some sense of how much Iran is trying to play into influencing
parties that could evolve, that would be more sympathetic to
their position and anti-West and anti-democratic, ultimately?
Mr. Posner. We are always mindful and wary of the
intentions of Iranian Government.
Ms. Schwartz. As we should be.
Mr. Posner. And that is certainly an aspect, it is a
feature in many of these countries.
I think our primary focus, though, right now, is the need
to be in building that capacity, that democratic capacity that
Egyptians themselves want. They want the same kinds of
opportunities people have in this country, economic and
political opportunities. We can help reinforce their own
aspirations and desires.
Ms. Schwartz. I have 1 minute left, but maybe we could
answer the question about the treaties, the treaty with Israel
and the border on Gaza.
Ms. Wittes. Absolutely. Thank you. This, obviously, is an
issue of core concern for us as well as for our Israeli allies.
The interim government announced almost immediately that
they would continue to respect their international commitments.
That was an announcement that we welcome, and we expect them to
hold to, and I think that is going to be an important element
for us to see in any future Egyptian Government as well.
During this interim period, we have seen the Government of
Egypt continue to uphold those commitments, engage with Israel
on important issues, including security, and also continue to
work to stop arms smuggling through Egyptian territory.
Ms. Schwartz. Thank you. I believe my time is up. I yield
back.
Mr. Chabot. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Manzullo, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you.
The President and the rest of the people in the State
Department in various positions wasted no time in condemning
Mubarak, asking him to step down. The same with Qadhafi, made
statements hinting at the peaceful removal of the leader of
Yemen, and yet the Arab country that suffered perhaps the most
casualties, at least recorded, is Syria. And aside from
condemning the violence, which is easy, because no one likes
violence, the President has made no overtures to ask Bashar to
step down.
Only a couple days ago, the Obama administration issued an
executive order freezing the assets of three top Syrian
officials, most notably Maher al-Assad, who is President
Assad's brother. I realize in this crazy world you have to pick
and choose your friends. But I am a little bit miffed as to why
the United States is apparently not taking harsher action or
asking Bashar to leave office.
Do either of you two have any comments on that?
Mr. Posner. Congressman, one of the things that the
President said--I want to quote his words. He said, ``This
outrageous use of violence to quell protest must come to an end
now. We strongly oppose the Syrian Government's treatment of
its citizens. We continue to oppose its continuing
destabilizing behavior more generally, including support for
terrorism and terrorist groups.''
Those are statements that aren't made lightly or easily.
Mr. Manzullo. I understand that. But he didn't ask him to
step down.
Mr. Posner. Well, what we have done, as you indicated, is
to impose now unilateral sanctions. We also led an effort at
the United Nations to have Syria condemned by the international
community for the first time, and that happened in the last 2
weeks.
Mr. Manzullo. I understand that. But why doesn't the
administration ask him to step down?
Mr. Posner. I think we are at a point now where we are
constantly reevaluating the policy. As the violence escalates,
we are going to explore options; and we are going to also take
our lead from what is happening in the country and what people
there are saying and doing. We have made it very clear that we
are utterly condemnatory of the violence.
Mr. Manzullo. I understand that. I read the words and
quoted them myself. I just think it is inconsistent.
Mubarak left and who is left but the Muslim Brotherhood?
You have to sometimes wonder what you ask for. And the Middle
East is ablaze right now. But I don't see that much pressure on
Syria. I don't see the President asking for his removal, asking
for him to step down, when he was not reticent to do that with
regard to the other leaders I mentioned.
Mr. Posner. Well, I would take exception to two things you
just said. One is, I don't think the only thing that is an
alternative in Egypt is the Muslim Brothers. There is a
significant democratic movement in Egypt that we are supporting
and need to support which seeks to have a peaceful, democratic,
rights-respecting----
Mr. Manzullo. I understand. I want to return to Syria.
Mr. Posner. Yeah. But with respect to Syria, we are very
mindful of the severity of the situation.
Mr. Manzullo. I understand that. I am trying to get an
answer as to why the President is not as forceful with Syria as
he has been with other Arab countries.
Ms. Wittes, do you have a response to that?
Ms. Wittes. Congressman, thank you.
I think it is important to note that, in addition to the
steps that we have taken on our own, we have been working to
mobilize the international community on this issue as well.
And, as you know, Syria has relationships that are in some ways
more multifaceted with other international partners. So it is
very important for us to work together with them.
With our own action, with the executive order on Friday,
our hope is to galvanize the European Union as well.
Mr. Manzullo. I understand that. Here is a guy that has got
snipers shooting innocent people. A bullet went through the eye
of a little 4-year-old. I think the message is, there is any
message at all, it is very inconsistent, that America is giving
Bashar a pass. And you can have all the diplomatic language you
want, you can have all the--so he is a bigger shot than the
other people. Apparently, he is acceptable.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman's time has expired. Does the
gentleman seek additional time?
Mr. Manzullo. I do.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman gets another minute.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you.
Can somebody give me a better response--not a better, a
more complete response? Does the United States want him out,
Bashar out?
Ms. Wittes. Congressman, I think it is important that as
this situation across the region has evolved, and it has
evolved very quickly, that we look at each country and each
environment on its own terms. The environment in Syria has been
deteriorating significantly over the last couple of weeks; and
I think as you look at the range of actions that we have
taken--I see us escalating our activity----
Mr. Manzullo. But how many more people have to die before
the President acts? I think more people have died now in Syria
than died in Libya before the President acted.
Ms. Wittes. I think what we saw in Libya was a situation in
which there was the real threat of mass violence.
Mr. Manzullo. So there is no threat of mass violence with
over close to 600 people being killed in Syria?
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman's time has once again expired.
Would the lady like to answer the question? Or you have
already answered it? Thank you.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And let me pick up where my friend from Illinois just left
off, though, Ms. Wittes. How do we square the apparent
inconsistency in our policy, U.S. policy, with respect to Egypt
on the one hand and Libya and Syria on the other?
I think we have got some explaining to do to the American
public. I mean, if the differences are self-evident to you and
the administration, they are not to us or the public.
Ms. Wittes. Thank you, Congressman. I think it is an
important and valuable question.
I think that in our response across the region, we have
been rooted in a consistent set of principles: Number one, that
peaceful protesters have to be dealt with peacefully and cannot
be met with violence; that people have to enjoy their
fundamental human rights to free expression, free assembly,
free association, and to have a right to have a say in how they
are governed; and, number three, that these aspirations, these
demands that are being expressed by citizens across the region
have to be met by governments in the region with meaningful
political and economic reform that is done through a peaceful
political process, a process of dialogue, a process of
inclusion. That has been our consistent approach across the
region. Now----
Mr. Connolly. Let me ask you a question, because my time--I
know the chairman is going to give me 1 extra minute, but still
we are going to run out of time, unfortunately, and I really
would love to continue this. But has the administration called
for regime change in Damascus?
Ms. Wittes. No, we have not.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you. And I think that is really Mr.
Manzullo's point, that there seems to be a discrepancy between
our approach--we even called for Hosni Mubarak to step down,
and it is passingly strange that we have not done the same in
Damascus.
Mr. Manzullo. Or Bahrain.
Mr. Connolly. Let's make a footnote we have got to revisit
that issue at some point.
Mr. Posner, you made some talks about the atrophying of
institutions that intrigued me. Because one of the things that
struck me about Egypt when it was sort of hot and heavy was the
eerie resemblances to Iran in this respect; that U.S. policy
seemed to have been complicit or acquiesced in the lack of any
political space being created in the opposition--let alone it
being viable sufficient to actually govern.
And the problem is, in an autocratic regime, inevitably it
will crumble, and if there has been no political space created
for some kind of viable opposition into that vacuum, others can
exploit opportunities. It happened in Russia in 1917. It
certainly happened in the Iranian Revolution after the fall of
the Shah.
I just wonder if you, given your unique portfolio, what
your observation is about that moving forward? What have we
learned about that as a country in terms of our diplomacy?
Mr. Posner. Thank you, Congressman.
I think one of the things--I went to Egypt 1 year ago
January to look at some of the programs that our office is
supporting and some programs that the MEFI office that Tamara
oversees, is supporting. We have over the years been, in fact,
quite eager to support exactly those independent voices that
you are describing.
And one of the reasons why, in the long term, I am
optimistic about Egypt is that there is a very vital society
there, a very vital civil society. There are a range of groups
working on women's issues, working on human rights issues,
working for children, working on environment, a range of other
things; and the United States Government has been in contact
with those people and supportive of their continuity.
It hasn't been an easy process, and now we are in a
different place where those groups have more opportunity to
grow and to thrive. And, in addition, there is really the
ability now to build political parties in a proper democratic
space.
So I think that is--I think we--could we have done more? We
could have. But I think we have done a lot. We are now very
focused on what needs to be done going forward, and I think
there are a number of Egyptians who I met 6 weeks ago there who
are eager to work with us and to benefit from our assistance
and our experience.
Mr. Connolly. I guess I would add one more thing to your
list; and that is the military. Big difference between the--
even though we had close relationships with the Iranian
military as well. In Egypt, in a sense, it was a force for
stability but also played a cushion between uprisings or
demonstrators and the police. It actually protected the
civilian population.
Mr. Chairman, I would request the extra minute.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman without objection is granted an
additional minute.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair.
Back to you, Ms. Wittes. Just real quickly, does the United
States support the agreement between Hamas and the PA that was
hammered out in Cairo?
Ms. Wittes. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
I think our clear position is that any Palestinian
Government, if it wants to play a constructive role in the
peace process, needs to accept the Quartet principles. We have
yet to see what government may emerge out of this agreement,
whether this agreement sticks, but it is clear what we are
looking for, which is for the members of that government to
agree to reject violence, accept Israel's right to exist, and
embrace peace agreements.
Mr. Connolly. Yes. And the Israeli Government in the form
of its prime minister made it very clear that they see this as
disastrous for the peace process and for Israel moving forward.
Do we share that view?
Ms. Wittes. We share the concerns, and we are going to be
monitoring this very closely.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman yields back, and I now recognize
myself for 5 minutes for questions. I might note--or 6.
And I would note, following up on the gentleman from
Virginia's question, that clearly I agree with the Israeli
Prime Minister. I think it is disastrous for the peace process,
personally. But I will get into that later, potentially, if we
have a second round.
But, as I mentioned in my opening statement, I returned
earlier this week from a visit to the Middle East. While in
Israel, I had an opportunity to travel to Jericho and the West
Bank and toured the Joint Operations Center under the command
of the U.S. Security Coordinator, General Michael Moeller. The
USSC is charged with working with the Palestinian Authority to
train locals to provide security in their own West Bank
community.
I must say that I was very much impressed with both the
leadership of General Moeller and his team and the
professionalism shown by Palestinian officials at the Center.
It is very encouraging to observe the building of fundamental
institutions of a state that we hope will one day soon be able
to live side by side with Israel in peace. Although, as I just
stated, I am very skeptical about this reconciliation with
Hamas involved.
It was only a day earlier, however, that I was meeting with
Daniel Ayalon, Israel Deputy Foreign Minister, when we received
news of this Hamas-Fatah reconciliation. The Palestinian Anti-
Terrorism Act of 2006 explicitly forbids U.S. funding of a
Palestinian Authority Government which includes Hamas members
unless or until it fulfills numerous obligations, including the
three Quartet principles, as has been mentioned here already:
Recognizing Israel's right to exist, renunciation of violence,
and acceptance of past agreements.
In short, until Hamas ceases to be Hamas, the United States
is legally barred from assisting any entity which contains it.
It would be extremely unfortunate if this reconciliation
rendered the Palestinian Authority's state-building effort
moribund, and yet it appears it would do just that.
Throughout all of this, however, the administration has
been notably quiet. I know we have talked some today, but,
other than that, quite quiet, with the exception of Secretary
Clinton's unfortunate remark, with I mentioned in my opening
statement.
What is the administration's policy toward this
reconciliation? And we have been talking about that. Is it, as
I hope, working to ensure that Hamas has no role in both the
Palestinian Government as well as in the PLO? It is not, I
hope, considering negotiation or asking that Israel negotiate
with any bodies which include Hamas members. How can we ask
Israel to make peace with an organization that continues to
target its civilians with indiscriminate rocket fire?
The situation in Syria continues to spiral out of control,
and we have been talking about that as well. Bashar al-Assad,
far from the reformer some of us once considered him, has shown
himself to be a ruthless despot willing to murder his own
people in order to continue to repress them. Despite this, the
administration I believe continues to take only piecemeal steps
that hardly tell Assad or the broader region that they cannot
mow down their own citizens who are merely peacefully
protesting for their universal rights.
Just the opposite. Our, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, I believe tepid response--and I think we are hearing
that from both sides here today, that there are concerns about
this--that response sends a signal to the world's despots that
we will only respond to brutal crackdowns with symbolic but
ineffective measures.
Beyond the moral dimension, Syria has for decades shown
itself to be one of the most malign actors in the region. It
continues to closely align with Iran, who is assisting it in
its crackdown. It facilitates a free flow of weapons across its
borders to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, and for years it
ushered across the Iraqi border jihadis who killed countless
Iraqis and our own servicemen and women.
Damascus also hosts the headquarters of a number of
international terrorist organizations, including Hamas.
Although many questions remain about what government would
follow Assad should the regime fall, there are many steps that
the U.S. could be taking at this time to influence that
outcome.
It is also noteworthy that the administration has not yet
spoken of withdrawing its recently appointed Ambassador in
Damascus, Robert Ford, or of kicking out the Damascus
Ambassador in Washington.
So, again, just following some of the questions of some of
my colleagues, I hope the administration will take back there
is considerable concern here, at least in this committee, about
much tougher action with respect to Syria.
And I welcome any comment from either.
Mr. Posner. If I can, just one comment on your last point.
I don't think there is any difference between us in terms of
the severity of the situation. We are mindful, we are watching
it, we are monitoring it, we are reporting on it every hour of
every day.
Ambassador Ford has been for us a vehicle, an individual
who can reach out both to the Syrian Government at the highest
levels but also to reach out to people who are on the receiving
end of this violence.
I worked for many years, as you indicated in the outset, in
the nongovernmental world. And one of the worst things that can
happen in a situation where thousands of people are being
arrested, where they are being shot, where they are
disappearing, where there are all these violations going on,
people want to know that governments like the United States are
there, meeting with them, aware of what they are facing, and
trying to help them in a day-to-day way. Ambassador Ford, that
is what he is doing every day. He is spending long hours
helping families, meeting with victims, meeting with human
rights advocates, meeting with journalists, trying to mitigate
what is a terrible situation.
So we can have a broader debate about the overall policy,
but this aspect of it, I think it is right for us to have a
presence there, it is right for us to have a senior diplomat
whose role it is really to be our advocate-in-chief in Damascus
and in Syria fighting for the very principles of human rights
that you and I are talking about.
Mr. Chabot. My time has expired; and I recognize the
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutch, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Posner, I would like to follow up on the chairman's
question and your response. Can you lay out in a little greater
detail how this process works? Ambassador Ford, you said, can
reach out to those who are on the receiving end of the violence
and that he has the opportunity to try to mitigate this
violence. Can you just describe how that works? When having
these meetings and learning of--and meeting directly with the
families and hearing directly of the ramifications of these
actions taken by the Syrian Government and this regime, how
does that then--how does he then communicate with the regime?
What does he communicate with the regime? And, ultimately, what
message are we sending?
Mr. Posner. We received a report from one of the human
rights organizations yesterday or today that perhaps as many as
1,000 people have been arrested since Monday in half a dozens
cities in Syria. We gather that information. The Ambassador
takes that information. He meets with these organizations but
also family members of the people who have been detained. He
and others in the Embassy then approach the government. It is a
constant process of both trying to figure out where people are,
how families can get access, how they can get a lawyer, and how
they can get released.
Now, do we succeed in every case in resolving the
differences? No, we don't. But it is enormously helpful to the
people who are feeling under horrible strain because they don't
know where their loved ones are that an Ambassador from the
United States is there, mindful of their story, ready to meet
with them, ready to go in and talk to senior officials and say
we are concerned about this.
We do this all over the world. It is not unique to Syria. I
was in China last week. We have an Embassy. They are very
dedicated, doing exactly the same thing. We do it in lots of
countries around the world.
It is very important to people that are feeling they have
no authority, no power, no ability to challenge or ask
questions of their own government that there are influential
diplomats, especially from the United States, ready to play
their role.
Mr. Deutch. And just changing direction for a second, in
your testimony, you talked about the human rights abuses
occurring at the hands of the Iranian regime. And I would
suggest that the wave of democracy sweeping the Middle East
really began after the 2009 disputed elections in Iran. Yet, in
more recent times, the opposition movement within Iran has not
galvanized the same momentum as in other countries throughout
the region. Can you discuss the state of the democracy movement
in Iran and what this country is doing and what we ought to be
doing to empower the opposition?
Mr. Posner. I think your analysis is correct. Since May
2009, the Government of Iran brutally has cracked down against
the opposition. And it has been--I think the hypocrisy of the
Iranian Government has become all the more clear in the last
few months as they are cheering on people in other societies
who are challenging authority while basically brutally cracking
down on their own dissenting voices.
We do things both directly and indirectly to try to lend
support and solidarity to people in the opposition and people
in the human rights movement, democracy movement in Iran. We
led an effort at the U.N. in March to have, for the first time,
a special rapporteur, a special expert on Iran. The government
fought us like crazy on that. We were really in the lead, and
we got the U.N. to do that.
We worked with Iranian dissidents both inside and outside
the country, hugely dangerous for some of them. We don't
broadcast all of those associations. But we are trying to
figure out, for example, how they can get better access to
information through the Internet. Congress passed the VOICE
Act, which gives us some resources to begin to open up access
to information and allow Iranian dissidents to speak among
themselves.
There is still a vital movement in Iran, many of them young
people who are desperate and frustrated beyond belief at what
they see is a totally autocratic, despotic government. They
will continue to push, and we will continue to help them.
Mr. Deutch. To that end, Mr. Posner, we yesterday
introduced bipartisan legislation to impose sanctions on those
who aid in the abuses of the opposition movement and further
human rights abuses within Iran. I would invite you take a
look. I think it is consistent with the efforts that you have
just described; and, ultimately, we would be looking to you for
some additional guidance as well.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman yields back. We are going to go
into a second round, so the gentleman will get another bite at
the apple, if he would like.
So I recognize myself for another 5 minutes, and I am going
to give a couple of quick questions first.
First of all, after the Assad regime has killed hundreds of
Syrians, does the administration believe that the Assad regime
holds any legitimacy? Yes or no. Or a sentence, if you need a
sentence, after the yes or no.
Ms. Wittes. Mr. Chairman, I think the Syrian people are
looking at the actions of this regime and drawing their own
conclusions, and I think you see the effect of that in the
street.
Mr. Chabot. I didn't hear a yes or no. And I am talking
about the administration, not what they think. Does the
administration believe that the Assad regime holds any
legitimacy.
Ms. Wittes. Mr. Chairman, I think it is the Syrian's people
judgment here that is important, and I think they will draw
their conclusions based on his behavior.
Mr. Chabot. So the administration isn't taking a position
at this point, at least from what you are saying?
Ms. Wittes. We are being guided--as Assistant Secretary
Posner said earlier, we are being guided by the events we see
on the ground, and we are reevaluating on a daily basis.
Mr. Chabot. Okay. Next question. Does the administration
still believe that Abu Mazen is committed to peace, given the
fact that he just publicly embraced the leader of Hamas and
said Hamas did not have to recognize Israel's right to exist?
Ms. Wittes. Mr. Chairman, I think Abu Mazen--President
Abbas has over the course of his career exercised a lot of
leadership on this issue as somebody who is committed to a
negotiated solution with Israel. This reconciliation agreement
is something that has yet to play out. We are going to be
looking at it very closely; and, as I said, we are going to be
looking for some very specific things before we can make any
assessment as to what the impact will be on our policy. But I
think President Abbas' personal commitments that he has made in
office have been supportive of the process.
Mr. Chabot. Let me go down a different road here.
I had a former Arab head of state in my office just
yesterday, and we talked for a good hour about a whole range of
issues. He was in the Middle East, although it was in my
office. And he kept coming--he must have six different times
come back to the, well, if we can just solve the Israeli-
Palestinian problem, everything else falls into line. And he
said it over and over again. And I disputed that, and I think
that has been used as an excuse for the corrupt governments
that many of the Arab governments have had in the Middle East
for years, but I would like to see what the administration
believes about that.
Mr. Posner. I agree with what you say. There have been a
number of actions at the U.N. and elsewhere where the Israeli-
Palestinian dispute has become the centerpiece and in some ways
to the exclusion of so many other problems in the region. And
what is interesting about events of the last several months is
that people who took to Tahrir Square in Egypt or to the
streets in Tunisia and all these other countries are so focused
on their own future. It is striking how much the focus is on
how to democratize, how to open up, how to create greater
opportunities in Syria, in Egypt, in all of these other
countries.
So I think we are seeing a change in the region. It is a
welcome change. There is now on the merits a discussion about
what governance and what democracy and what the future holds
throughout the Middle East, and I think we ought to be
supportive of that.
Mr. Chabot. Let me conclude--I have only got a short period
of time left here--on a couple of points, just to wrap this up.
On both sides I think it is pretty clear that there is
considerable concern with the administration's lack of greater
emphasis on Syria, more action there, more affirmative things
done, when you have the regime that essentially has killed
hundreds of their own people and probably much worse than that
over the years. So that is something I would strongly urge the
administration to look at very closely. I know that they have
spent time on Libya, considerable time and effort there, but I
think Syria warrants it.
Secondly, relative to this reconciliation, I have great
skepticism. The way it was explained to me by the foreign
minister of Egypt, who is very excited about this, much more so
than Prime Minister Netanyahu, obviously, was that you have
Hamas and you have the Palestinian Authority, and they come
together and have elections and form some independent entity of
some sort, and then that is the independent entity that Israel
is going to negotiate.
Well, as far as I am concerned, it is a nonstarter. Because
everybody knows that Hamas is right behind this independent
entity, and they still haven't met the Quartet's requirements,
principles, as we know. So, whereas I always hope that peace
will break out there, I don't really believe it is real.
And then, finally, relative to Egypt, we met with a lot of
the young leaders, the people that were on Tahrir Square, we
met with the generals, we met with a whole range of people, and
one of the things of considerable concern to me is, first of
all, Israel's role--or, excuse me, Egypt's role in this
reconciliation and that they bought into it, but even more so
their change in engagement with Iran. They seem to be much more
willing to engage Iran.
And we all know that Ahmadinejad has essentially said that
his intention is to wipe Israel off the map. And we also know
that he seems to be bound and determined to move forward on
this nuclear program, despite the fact that our allies and the
United States have been attempting to do this non-militarily
through sanctions through years now.
But Iran and Egypt's sidling up to them is of considerable
concern, I believe. Could you comment on that element, Egypt
getting closer to Iran and what the administration's attitude
would be toward that and what we ought to do about it?
Ms. Wittes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that is a
crucial question, and it is one that we are spending a lot of
time focusing on ourselves.
We remain deeply concerned about Iran's role in the region,
its sponsorship of terrorism, its illicit nuclear program, and
its failure to comply with its own international obligations in
that regard. And what we see is that, as these events have
taken place across the region, the Iranians have been seeking
to exploit them in order to distract from that regional agenda.
But they have been doing that in a way that I would say has
exposed their tremendous hypocrisy in claiming to support
popular movements elsewhere in the region that they think will
work to their advantage while engaging in brutal repression at
home and now, as we see, are complicit in Syrian repression as
well.
So, from our perspective, the developments in the region
and the work that we can do to support democratic transition in
this region will work to Iran's disadvantage. This is part of
the strategic opportunity that we are presented with here, and
it is one that we want to pursue.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
Just let me conclude with one other thing I just want to
mention on Iran. One of the mistakes I think that the United
States made was when there was at least a chance it looked like
the people were rising up that we didn't give them additional
support. And I know that there was the thinking that if the
United States gets in they will use the United States and say,
well, these people are all just--it is the U.S., it is the
great Satan, it is Israel and all that kind--they are going to
say that stuff anyway, and they said it then.
But I think we should have been much more engaged probably
behind the scenes. But I think we should have given more
encouragement to those people.
But the information that we gather is that there is a
significant, essentially, wiping out of all of the leaders.
They had cameras, and they are killing people on a regular
basis over there, and that is something I think we need to do,
and I know it is somewhat limited what we can do.
But these people are out there trying to speak out and
trying to enjoy the same freedoms, maybe not the United States
to this level, but at least free from this type of regime that
they have been under for decades now, and the people are one
after another being wiped out. And that is one of the reasons
that I think we haven't seen, you know, sweep and fear. If
there is any country in that region you would like to see this
happen, it would be Iran. I think they were ahead of everybody
else, unfortunately; and maybe if it had happened now, maybe it
would have been different.
But anyway, you don't have to respond, but to the extent
that the administration can think about that, I would, as chair
of this committee, appreciate it.
And without anything else coming before the committee,
members will have 5 days to supplement their statements or
questions.
If there is nothing further to come before the committee,
we are adjourned. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 3:23 p.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]
Mi
nutes deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Co
nnolly
statement deg.
__________
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
