[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
EASTERN EUROPE:
THE STATE OF DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE AND EURASIA
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 26, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-80
__________
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
67-599PDF 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 Europe and Eurasia
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
ELTON GALLEGLY, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
TED POE, Texas
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Mr. Thomas O. Melia, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State... 8
Nadia Diuk, Ph.D., vice president, programs, National Endowment
for Democracy.................................................. 33
Mr. Stephen Nix, regional director, Eurasia, International
Republican Institute........................................... 43
The Honorable David Kramer, president, Freedom House............. 65
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Dan Burton, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana, and chairman, Subcommittee on Europe and
Eurasia: Prepared statement.................................... 3
Mr. Thomas O. Melia: Prepared statement.......................... 12
Nadia Diuk, Ph.D.: Prepared statement............................ 37
Mr. Stephen Nix: Prepared statement.............................. 45
The Honorable David Kramer: Prepared statement................... 68
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 86
Hearing minutes.................................................. 87
EASTERN EUROPE: THE STATE OF DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 26, 2011
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Burton. The Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia of the
Foreign Affairs Committee will come to order.
Good afternoon. Thank you all for being so patient. We had
a whole bunch of votes on the floor and in addition to that, we
had to take a picture. You know how important that is for
Congressmen and Congresswomen. If you don't, now you do.
Anyhow, I appreciate your being here. It's been 20 years
since the fall of the Soviet Union. In that time, the countries
of the former Soviet Union and her Iron Curtain satellites have
strived to adopt democratic governments and free market
economies. For some, the transition was swift and complete. For
others, the transition is still ongoing and for a tragic few,
freedom and prosperity remain elusive.
I believe much of the credit for this progress is due to
the courageous leadership of many democratic-minded people in
the region, but these brave patriots could not have succeeded
without the dedication of people like former President Ronald
Reagan, and others in the United States and elsewhere, who
invested in the future of these countries by helping to plant
the seeds of democracy and nurturing them over time. Countries
such as Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia which have adopted
strong democratic institutions, electoral systems
representative of the people and economies which have the
opportunity to flourish should be applauded for their efforts.
However, as we have seen in countries such as Georgia,
Serbia, Albania, and Moldova who have struggled in their
transition, democracy, although still holding on, is not
without it's challenges. While the people of Georgia, Serbia,
Albania, and Moldova have steadfastly maintained their
commitment to achieving the democratic standards that ``Western
countries enjoy,'' there's a real risk that people could start
to grow tired of the struggle to reform of malintented actors
suddenly swept into power seemingly overnight. We must not
allow such things to happen. The United States and the European
Union must continue to encourage and support those who strive
for better and stronger democracies and we just unequivocally
let them know that the United States is unwavering in our
commitment to their success.
Similarly, we must be equally unwavering in pressuring the
leaders of those countries who have not adopted democratic
ideals such as Belarus and Russia to make the necessary reforms
to allow democracy to take root and to end corruptive and
repressive practices. The United States, without a doubt, must
let the leaders of such nations know that the status quo will
not be tolerated and that the only way to fully join the
international community is to embrace true democracy that
enables freedom and rights which are obtainable by all of their
citizens.
Recently, I along with six other Members of Congress took
part in the Community of Democracies Forum in Vilnius,
Lithuania. It was encouraging to see so many nations from
around the globe take part in an open forum to speak out in
support of democracy and against those who destabilize
democracy for their own corrupt purposes. Also encouraging was
to see established democracies such as the United States and
Germany attending the conference to support the goal of
promoting democratic rule as well as strengthening democratic
norms and institutions around the world.
Forums such as the Community of Democracies enable
cooperation to take place and we in the United States must
support such efforts. To that end today, we're going to examine
the current status of democracy and freedom in Eastern Europe,
not only for former Soviet States, but also for all countries
in the region. The good fight is for democracy and we must
encourage its existence and nurture it so that it flourishes.
Without our strong support and the support of European Union
friends we would doom millions of people to repression that
inhibits personal growth and stifles freedoms such as the right
to assembly, the right to freely practice religion, the right
to a free press and media, and the right to be in control of
your own future. We must not let that happen.
I am glad that the U.S. Department of State is providing
testimony and I'm thrilled that Freedom House, the
International Republican Institute, and the National Endowment
for Democracy are here represented today. Thank you, and I look
forward to learning how we can better support democracy and
freedom in Eastern Europe. And I might add that we're going to
be going over in Europe on a number of codels to meet with
officials in those countries and talk to them about a myriad of
problems and questions that exist, not the least of which is
the financial stability of the entire region.
With that, I will yield to my ranking member, Mr. Meeks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burton follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Meeks. I want to thank you, Chairman Burton, for
calling this hearing and providing an opportunity to review the
state of freedom and democracy in Eastern Europe and Eurasia
and to consider how best to engage with countries of the region
to support the stiffening of democratic rights and liberties in
the region.
This large swath of the world includes some of Western
civilizations oldest democracies and of course, some of its
newest. Compared to some, the United States is a newcomer on
the block. Others, however, are carved crudely out of failed
empires or attained statehood with the fall of the Iron Curtain
and the collapse of the Soviet rule have defined their borders
in the past two decades. These are truly young democracies with
legacies of authoritarian regimes that are difficult to
relinquish.
Democracies are works in progress, even in countries with a
solid foundation and a long history of freedom and democratic
institutions, like the United States. Even in Greece, the
country that we credit as being the birthplace of democracy
thousands of years ago, even Greece still tweaks the format.
Just last year, Greece enacted a law allowing legal immigrants
to vote in municipal elections.
As we conduct this review, we must turn the prism of
scrutiny on ourselves while we consider the imperfect rule of
law in Russia, the discrimination against minorities throughout
much of the region, and the identity laws that deny citizenship
and voting rights to Roma, we remember our own flawed democracy
that once defined a person or a man in such a way as to
disenfranchise and even dehumanize women and minorities for
centuries. And we observe that our democracy continues to
struggle with and in some cases ignores the question of whether
one's sexual preference is cause to deny an individual the
rights of association, inheritance, insurance, marriage, and
other rights and privileges that the majority population
enjoys.
Democracy is not a perfect system. It's greatest strength--
that it relies on the will of the majority--can be a great
vulnerability. Leaders and representatives may fail to make
difficult and necessary decisions like raising taxes for fear
of alienating voters with the power to vote them out of office.
As we will likely hear today, voters may choose governments
we do not like. We shall hear that some European Governments
have flip-flopped from left to right and back again. Rather
than concluding that a given country is backsliding, we should
conclude that voters are exercising their right to change
course, peacefully and democratically. The system is working
when that happens.
I expect that we shall also hear today about challenges to
countries in Eastern Europe and Eurasia. It is important to
approach this information constructively and remember that our
work today is not to sanction countries for failing. We, too,
have failed. Rather, our purpose should be to lead by example
and to offer our assistance where we can make a difference.
Engagement also dictates that we expand our economic and trade
relationship with Russia, while encouraging them to address the
challenges of democracy. And it is gratifying that the full
committee authorized this policy during our recent markup for
the Foreign Affairs Reauthorization Bill.
With respect to this, I urge my colleagues to scrutinize
the votes of last week's State Authorization Markup. I fear
that the bill that emerged from that session may have
jeopardized some important democracy assistance in the
vulnerable spots of the region.
I am delighted to learn that our European friends are
considering the United States National Endowment for Democracy
as a model for undertaking of foreign policy--the Polish
Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski and EU High Representative
for External Relations Catherine Ashton who are pushing for the
creation of the European Endowment for Democracy, a flexible,
funding mechanism for supporting democratic transition
processes in neighboring countries.
I hope our witnesses will also touch on this and other
interesting regional cooperations planned that are underway.
And I know that Mr. Chairman and Mr. Marino and Mr. Deutch
recently participated in a Community of Democracies
Parliamentarian Forum and that the NGOs that will be testifying
today were also present there. And I look forward to hearing
about this and their testimony and the organization's
potential.
Since the end of the Cold War, Europe and the United States
have worked together successfully to advance freedom and
democracy in the newly independent states. For most of these
new partners, the goal has been economic and political
stability and membership in one or more premiere trans-Atlantic
organizations. That is NATO, the European Union and OSCE. This
work is not over as the Balkan nations strive to pass through
reform to prepare themselves for membership. But Belarus,
Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, if expansion of these organizations
is finite, what goal or incentive will inspire these countries
to take on the challenges of reform? I hope our witnesses will
speak to this issue as well.
Finally, the protracted, frozen conflicts in Moldova and
the southern Caucasus are reminders that we can not expect
forward motion on freedom and democracy if we, the United
States and the EU, disengage or embrace isolationism. In
Belarus, or on the EU's borders, Europe's last dictator has
orchestrated an electoral fraud and violent crackdowns on
peaceful dissent. Close coordination between the United States
and European Union is important in addressing this situation,
but most importantly Belarus' democratic neighbors have a vital
role to play by backing civil society and independent media
with material assistance and political support.
Central and Eastern Europe have shown a strong willingness
to assume leadership in the EU and NATO and I think this is a
real opportunity to assume a leadership role. If the Arab
Spring has taught us anything it is that democracy is still
relevant and that the people who are oppressed seek freedom and
seek the power to change their governments, the promises of
democracy.
I commend the work of IRI, Freedom House, the National
Endowment for Democracy, and others who have implemented the
U.S. vision of strengthening democracy worldwide. And I'm eager
to hear the testimony from our witnesses and I again thank the
chairman for calling this hearing and having an agenda where we
will be traveling and seeing for ourselves what's happening on
the ground because I think that's how we learn more by going
there and visiting and interacting with people and I look
forward to traveling with you in the future.
Mr. Burton. Toward that end, I hope your wife is feeling
much better. She had a little back trouble. And I want to say
that I'm very happy that I was able to co-sponsor the Russia
amendment with you, even though we still have some problems
over there.
The gentlelady from Ohio, would you have an opening
statement?
Ms. Schmidt. Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief. I just want to
say that this is a very important topic and while I might be
new to this panel, I am not new to the International Republican
Institute or the National Endowment for Democracy, because some
15, 16 years ago I was sent by the IRI to Russia to work with
both the IRI and the NED to help in their election processes
and to train candidates. And back then we were working toward
democracy in Russia and we're still working through it today
and I look forward to the testimony and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Burton. I thank the gentlelady. And we'll now recognize
Mr. Sires from New Jersey.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
important hearing today to examine democracy and the human
rights development in Eastern Europe. While human rights
conditions are not perfect across Europe, I think we can agree
that the situation in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as in
the South Caucasus, has greatly improved since the days of the
Cold War and the wars in the Balkans.
Much of the success can be credited to the integration of
Europe and the desire of many of these countries to join NATO
and the European Union. I think it can be concluded that the EU
has had a great impact on the progress of human rights in the
region. The human rights situation is generally better among EU
member states than EU member candidates.
I have personally seen firsthand the progress made on
democracy and freedom in the region when I travel to both
Poland the Czechoslovakia. While great improvements have been
made, there are still shortcomings in human rights and
democracy in such countries as Belarus, Ukraine, and even the
EU member Hungary. It is my hope that today's hearing will help
us assess how we can balance the need to continue to help new
democracies in the region emerge without letting other
democracies regress.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today. And I
thank you, Chairman, for holding this meeting.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Poe of Texas, do you have an opening
statement?
Mr. Poe. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Poe.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today's hearing focuses
on democracy, freedom, and respect for human rights in Eastern
Europe. One item of human rights that I am particularly
concerned about, not only Eastern Europe but worldwide is the
dastardly deed of human trafficking that occurs in Eastern
Europe and other places in the world. Thankfully, the
Trafficking of Persons Report established by the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act and produced by the Department of State
sheds light on the disturbing issue occurring in the world and
in our own country where human beings, mainly females, are
bought and sold for sex and for labor. It is a form of modern-
day slavery.
Many countries, in my opinion, aren't doing enough to
address this issue. We need to do all that we can to pressure
all countries that do not meet the minimum standards in
combating traffic and to change course and focus on this issue.
Significant numbers of Eastern European countries have poor
human trafficking records. The 2011 Trafficking of Persons
Report places Russia, the Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Estonia all
on the Tier 2 watch list with many other Eastern European
countries on Tier 2. Tier 2 watch list countries have a
significant number of trafficking victims and have not provided
evidence that they are increasing their efforts from the
previous year to combat this horrible crime.
While Tier 2 countries are making efforts to come into
compliance, they still don't meet the minimum standards
established in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Both
Tier 2 and Tier 2 Watch List countries are considered to be
making significant efforts to bring themselves into compliance
and with the standards of the Trafficking and Victims
Protection Act, it is necessary for the United States to
continue to put pressure on these countries to make real
changes.
The United States claims to be and is the leader in human
rights throughout the world and it is important that we take
the lead worldwide in making sure that human trafficking,
modern day slavery, comes to an end.
Mr. Chairman, I'll submit the rest of my comments for the
record.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Poe. Mr. Melia, we really
appreciate you being here today. Let me introduce our guests.
Mr. Melia is Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau
of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. He's responsible for
DRL's work in Europe and in Russia and the countries of Central
and South Asia as well as workers' rights and issues worldwide.
He came to DRL in 2010 from Freedom House where he was
deputy executive director for 5 years. And for more than 12
years, Mr. Melia held senior posts at the Democratic National
Institute. I really appreciate you being here today. We
normally swear witnesses in, so if you wouldn't mind, I'm sure
you're very truthful. Will you rise so we can swear you in?
Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
Mr. Melia. I do.
Mr. Burton. You can proceed with an opening statement if
you have one. Can you turn on the microphone?
STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS O. MELIA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF STATE
Mr. Melia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Meeks and
the other members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the
opportunity to speak to you today about the state of human
rights and democracy in Eastern Europe. I ask that my full
written testimony be submitted for the record.
Mr. Burton. Without objection.
Mr. Melia. I apologize for its length. To paraphrase a
great American, if I had taken more time, I would have made it
a bit shorter, but in the interagency clearance process, more
things get added to these kinds of documents than get taken
out. Assistant Secretary Michael Posner asked me to send his
regards specifically to the members of this subcommittee to
emphasize his desire and that of all my colleagues in the
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor to work closely
with this subcommittee to address the challenges and
opportunities in this important region.
I want to commend you also, Mr. Chairman, for the selection
of the non-governmental panel that is to follow and that I
intend to stay and listen to. Nadia Diuk, Steve Nix, and David
Kramer are among the very best analysts of the democracy
challenges in this region and they are also activists of the
first order, leaders of important NGO efforts to assist local
efforts in these countries to promote the cause of freedom. So
I'm proud to be at the hearing today with them.
This is a timely moment to discuss democracy in Eastern
Europe. Lithuania, one of the brighter stars of democratic
consolidation to have emerged from the collapse of the Soviet
Union just concluded a very successful term as chair of the
Community of Democracies--as you saw when you were in Vilnius 3
weeks ago. Moldova, too, has moved forward in recent months
with orderly elections and is deepening its democratic habits
on several fronts. Turkey and Hungary are in the midst of major
constitutional reforms that have raised some concerns and
anxieties because of the very large majorities that those
governments have in their Parliaments. In the past few weeks,
more happily, Belarusians have recently found creative new ways
to protect their government's harsh repression, demonstrating
the resiliency of the human spirit in Belarus.
I want to start with two broad points. First, even among
our allies in Europe, we have a continuing interest in the fair
treatment of minorities. Roma, Europe's largest minority,
continue to experience violence, segregation and other
discrimination. Anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim incidents are too
common and not going away. And individuals with disabilities
struggle to participate fully in governance due to limited
accessibility. Moreover, members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender communities face discrimination and even
violence in many parts of Europe. These issues are important in
their own right and because the U.S. and democratic Europe can
send important messages by our own examples of what tolerance
and inclusion, what equal citizenship for all can look like.
Second, I want to add a caveat about the enduring project
of trans-Atlantic integration. The promise of EU and NATO
membership has been highly effective in promoting reform and
democracy. Ten former Communist countries from the former
Yugoslavia and the Warsaw Pact have now joined the EU and
today's news is that Croatia has been told it may join by the
turn of the year. In every case to date, however, the Democracy
Index scores from Freedom House in its Nations in Transit
Report declined the year after each of these countries'
admission to the EU, demonstrating that membership in the EU is
not the end of history, does not mean that democratic
development is over or concluded.
We're concerned, for instance, these days about Hungary's
current democratic trajectory since the Fidesz-led government
there won two-thirds of the seats in Parliament last year. The
government has taken several major steps to limit checks and
balances and otherwise solidify the power of the government
party. As Secretary Clinton said during her visit to Budapest
last month, ``We call for real commitment to the independence
of the judiciary, a free press, and governmental
transparency.''
We also have a great interest in developments in Turkey,
concerned about media freedom. We've urged that an
investigation into prosecutions of journalists proceed in a
transparent manner, and with due process. And while the
government there has taken some positive steps in expanding
religious freedom, we continue to urge that the Halki Seminary
be reopened and the other issues relating to the status of the
Orthodox patriarch.
Ukraine is an important partner and we have major concerns
about the directions things have gone since the Presidential
elections last year. I visited Ukraine the second week in July
for the third time in 9 months and met with government
officials, civil society, and opposition leaders. As you know,
former government officials including Prime Minister Tymoshenko
are facing prosecution on charges that seem puzzling at best
and mischievous more likely. At the same time, there is
positive momentum in some areas. We urge the government to
reach for a genuine consensus on the rules of the game as it
develops a new election law and we take note of the concerns
raised by partners like NDI and IRI. The Yanukovych government
needs to deepen its engagement on election reform with other
parts of society.
On Belarus, the Obama administration has continued the
long-standing bipartisan policy centered on consistent advocacy
for democracy and human rights. I myself went to Minsk in mid-
January, shortly after the crackdown on December 19th, to
demonstrate the U.S. Government solidarity with the families of
political prisons. I met also with human rights lawyers,
journalists and civic leaders. In tandem with the EU, we
imposed sanctions and asset freezes on individuals responsible
for the crackdown and we have increased our support for
democratic actors by 30 percent this year to aid those facing
repression.
Mr. Chairman, perhaps the most complex challenge to
democratic reform in Europe lies in Russia. In a 6-day visit
there in March I traveled beyond Moscow to Perm and
Ekaterinburg where I acquired a better sense of the diversity
of opinion of the Russian people and the challenges they face
in advancing democracy. Two weeks ago, Secretary Clinton and
Foreign Minister Lavrov met in Washington. In addition to
working together to address shared interests like confronting
Iran's nuclear threat and priorities such as Afghanistan and
missile defense, they announced several important partnership
initiatives. It's within this context a partnership of great
breadth and strategic importance that we continue to support a
democratic, modern Russia governed by the rule of law.
Unfortunately, continued restrictions on fundamental
freedoms hinder Russian development and its prospects for
deeper partnership with us. We've expressed our concerns that
parliamentary elections in December may fall short of
international standards and though an assessment team from
OSCE's ODIHR office is arriving soon, it's important that
Russia follow up with a formal unrestricted invitation for
ODIHR election observers.
We continue in our engagement throughout the year to raise
concerns about the assaults on freedom of the press and freedom
of expression, particularly the numerous, unsolved cases of
murdered activists like Natalya Estemirova, the rampant
corruption and impunity exemplified by the case of Sergei
Magnitsky and restrictions on freedom of assembly for members
of groups like Strategy 31, the Khimki Forest Defenders, and
various LBGT groups.
U.S. programs in Russia, including those funded by DRL, my
bureau, focused on developing an independent media bolstering
local human rights defenders capacity and of course, we
continue to speak out publicly and privately against human
rights abuses on a consistent basis.
We're grateful for the partnership with the Congress in
this effort. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity
to appear here today and I look forward to your questions and
our discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Melia follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Burton. Thank you very much. I appreciate your opening
statement. One of the--I have a few questions here that I think
are extremely important and you addressed one of them in your
opening statement regarding Hungary. They passed a religious
repression law just recently. Have we had any contact with that
government protesting that move, restricting religious freedom
to just a few religions in particular?
Mr. Melia. The law you're referring to requires the re-
registration of religions in Hungary and thereby disadvantages
a number of them.
Mr. Burton. Tell me a little bit about that. I mean they
can't register as a legitimate religion, but can they assemble
or what kind of restrictions have been put on them by the
Hungarian Government?
Mr. Melia. The law has just been passed so in terms of
whether it will lead to any actual restrictions in the day-to-
day operations of faith communities remains to be seen. The
Hungarian Government has told us that it won't. But I can tell
you that Assistant Secretary Posner and I raised this issue
last week in a meeting in our office with a visiting minister
from the Hungarian Government. We said this looks very
troubling and looks like it's moving in exactly the direction
you suggest. We asked them to revisit that.
Our Embassy in Budapest raises this, among other issues,
with the Hungarian Government. They are in the midst of passing
a lot of laws these days in Hungary. They are passing more
fundamental laws in the wake of the constitutional reform that
was just enacted a few weeks ago. They are going through a
series of I think it's almost two dozen cardinal laws which are
fundamental laws framing major parts of Hungarian society. And
they're doing it without adequate consultation with political
opposition and civil society and frankly, without heeding much
of the advice they're getting from the international community.
Hungary is a partner of ours. It's a NATO ally. It's a
member of the EU. It just concluded its turn as President of
the EU. We're engaged on a very vigorous basis with Hungary and
trying to get their attention on some of these measures.
Mr. Burton. I think since they are a member of the EU and
they are an ally, a NATO ally, I think it's incumbent upon us
since we stand for freedom, democracy, and human rights and
religious freedom, that we send a formal letter, if not
criticism, but a formal letter of protest because that flies in
the face of what we stand for as well as our NATO allies and I
believe the European Union. So I don't know if anybody from the
Hungarian press is here, but we think this was a mistake and we
hope that they'll rectify that.
You mentioned Turkey. Can you restate real quickly the
concern that you had about Turkey that was in your opening
statement?
Mr. Melia. Well, I can refer to the fuller statement where
it's discussed at greater length.
Mr. Burton. You don't need to go into great detail, but you
mentioned something that eludes me at the moment.
Mr. Melia. I mentioned the importance of the Halki
Seminary, the Greek Orthodox Seminary that's been closed since
the mid-1970s due to a law that was passed by a previous
government that restricted the ability of any faith community
to operate educational establishments.
Mr. Burton. The Patriarch of the Orthodox Church is in
Turkey.
Mr. Melia. That is right.
Mr. Burton. And we passed an amendment in the authorization
bill which we passed last week that addresses that and urges
Turkey to make some changes that would allow for the
reconstruction and the expansion of religious freedom over
there, especially since one of the leaders of one of the
biggest churches in the world actually resides and is
headquartered in Turkey.
Mr. Melia. 300 million Greek Orthodox.
Mr. Burton. 300 million.
Mr. Melia. That's right.
Mr. Burton. And my wife happens to be one of them so I have
to be absolutely sure I bring that up.
Mr. Melia. And we bring it up frequently with the
Government of Turkey. And in the aftermath of their recent
elections in which the Erdogan government was reconfirmed in
office, we have taken it up again and there have been some
measures taken to accommodate the ecumenical Patriarchy there.
They're making it easier for others to gain Turkish citizenship
so that they can become part of the operation of the Patriarchy
in Istanbul. That's part of normalizing the succession
prospects of others to take over as Patriarch. So they're doing
some minor things that are accommodating the community there,
but they haven't yet found a way to reopen the seminary which
continues to have a high school that operates and it continues
to operate as a library and a resource center. The facility, I
understand, is maintained in good stead. They're just not
allowed to train seminarians for the priesthood at a college-
equivalent level. And that's something that we've been pressing
them about on a regular basis.
Mr. Burton. Turkey is a NATO ally and a good friend, but I
think just mentioning this to the government would be a
profitable thing.
Mr. Melia. We will continue to do so.
Mr. Burton. Let me just make one more comment and ask a
question. There are two cases and I think you mentioned one,
Sergei Magnitsky.
Mr. Melia. Yes.
Mr. Burton. And Mikhail Khodorovsky. I had the same problem
you did with some of these Russian names. Can you give me an
update on that situation? I know you mentioned it briefly in
your opening statement.
Mr. Melia. Well, Sergei Magnitsky, you recall, was the
lawyer for an American firm that uncovered some fraud, a $230
million fraud against his company and reported it to Russian
authorities and was promptly accused of having undertaken the
fraud himself and was imprisoned and held for about a year
without charge or trial. And during his imprisonment, he became
ill and he died through neglect which most observers think was
malicious and intentional.
We have called on numerous occasions for the prosecution of
those responsible, that there should be no impunity for those
responsible for his tragic death. It is a major human rights
violation of this innocent, 37-year-old lawyer when he died
last year. So that continues to be one of our engagement
points.
In response, legislation that Senator Cardin introduced,
and has also been introduced in the House by several of your
colleagues, would call for visa bans on some people identified
as being responsible for Magnitsky's death. I think there has
been some action taken recently. You'll note that just in the
last 2 weeks, two prison officials had charges opened against
them and prosecutions are beginning about his death. So that is
an item that we continue to press the Russians on and we'll
continue to do so. It's become a kind of emblematic case in
Russia. A lot of Russians are as outraged about it as we are.
Mr. Burton. They should be. Khodorovsky, he evidently was
responsible for U.S. investors losing $12 billion. Can you give
us any update real quickly on that?
Mr. Melia. I'm not familiar with the aspect that you just
mentioned. Mikhail Khodorovsky was one of the wealthiest men,
maybe the richest man in Russia 10 years ago when he became a
supporter of opposition political movements and most observers
believe that for his involvement and support of alternative
political operations in Russia, he was tried and convicted of
fraudulent activities. He was recently resentenced a few months
ago and his term was extended. He was to have gotten out of
jail later this year.
Mr. Burton. One of the things I hope you'll check on,
because evidently U.S. investors were bilked out of or lost $12
billion, and since he's been incarcerated I wonder if we could
find out what happened to those assets and if there's any way
that there could be some repayment for the money that U.S.
investors lost as a result of this.
Mr. Melia. You may be referring to the fact that his
company, Yukos Energy, which was an oil exploration company was
taken over by----
Mr. Burton. Expropriated by the government.
Mr. Melia. By the state and that included a lot of American
ownership as well. So that was part of what was done to
Khodorovsky. That's right.
Mr. Burton. Are we making any protest about that to try to
get some of those funds back and if not, will we? Sorry to take
so much time.
Mr. Melia. That's all. You know, we've mostly addressed
taking to the Russia Government our concerns about the
prosecution of his case and his imprisonment and the extension.
I would have to get back to you. I'll take that question and
explore what we've done in terms of the assets themselves.
Mr. Burton. Well, we'd really appreciate that. I mean
obviously if he was incarcerated illegally, it's great to
protest that, but I'm sure these American business people who
were bilked out of $12 billion because of government
expropriation would like to protest as well.
Mr. Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I'll just pick
right up since you ended with Russia, let me just ask some
questions about Russia. One of the things that I've been
looking to move forward with is Russia's accession to the WTO,
because that will then force them into some rules and
regulations and that might be good. But my question about
Russia lies with the President's reset policy and from the way
I understand it, it's expanding engagement in areas of mutual
interests that will not only improve an important relationship,
but open markets. But the question is, and also the hope is,
sometimes my viewpoint is when you engage with countries in
this regard, you also can have a significant impact on human
rights, on workers' rights, in democratic principles. And I
know there's a lot--I'm trying to figure out how do we improve
the situation because Russia is key in the area.
Can you talk a little bit about the President's reset
policy as well as maybe make a comment on the U.S.-Russia
Bilateral Presidential Commission and whether that's working
successfully or not.
Mr. Melia. Sure. Thank you for that, Mr. Meeks. When the
President came to office 2\1/2\ years ago, we set upon a course
that's been frequently referred to as the reset with Russia in
order to repair a relationship that had broken down to the
point where there was almost no communication between the two
governments. And over the last 2\1/2\ years, we have found a
way to engage with Russia on a range of things that are
important to our national security and our prosperity and that
includes working with the Russians on shrinking our nuclear
arsenals, working with them to corral Iran and its nuclear
ambitions. And they've provided access for supplies to our
service members to get in and out of Afghanistan over Russian
territory.
They abstained on the key vote on the Libya action at the
U.N. Security Council in order to let it go forward. So there
are a number of ways in which we are doing normal business with
Russia that we were not able to do before the start of this
reset policy.
Our hope has been that this engagement will give us more
influence and more leverage with the Russians to move further
in the direction of respect for human rights and opening up the
political system to respect democratic norms. It's been less
successful on that front.
We continue to engage with them on a regular basis. As I
said, we call them out on individual cases as they occur, on
recurring strategic problems like the freedom of assembly,
curtailment of freedom of expression. There is generally what I
call an ``information deficit disorder'' in Russia in that the
authorities make it difficult for alternative points of view to
get reflected in the official media and even in private media.
There are definitely efforts to curtail freedom of expression
in a broad, systematic way. And we try to address that in a
couple of ways. One is by pressuring the government to relent.
The other is by supporting independent media through grants and
through our work in the OSCE and other ways.
We can't make other countries do what we want most of the
time. What we can do is try to engage with them and pressure
them and persuade them and cajole them and also support through
material means and in our solidarity efforts, other voices to
be heard. So we're doing that in Russia. We'd like it to be
more successful and we'll continue to work at that.
In terms of public statements, we speak out publicly about
our concerns in Russia at least as often and probably more
often than we do with any other country in the world. So the
engagement that we have in terms of cooperation on things that
are important to our national security interest does not keep
us from speaking the truth in public to the Russian Government.
Mr. Meeks. And on that same, you know, note, you talked
about our activities in helping strengthen civil society,
etcetera, can help promote democracy, move things around. Now
given the fiscal crisis that we're having in the United States
and other problems, it seems as though funding for assistance
to Europe and Central Asia has plummeted and continues to
plummet. The good news about that is that the EU is taking a
greater role in this regard and I'm convinced that the United
States' role is not obsolete. We're not just going to--just,
compete with the EU.
In fact, there has often been the case where U.S. funding
assistance has initiated innovative programs that the EU has
subsequently taken over which is a testament to American
innovation which I think is a good thing. But I'm always
concerned when traveling with the United States' reputation and
with the dwindling amount of money that we're going to be
having to fund various programs that are there, some of it
because of what we have, but I want to make sure that we're not
cutting off our nose to spite our face.
What kind of goodwill do you think that we can continue to
build in Eastern Europe and Eurasia if the funding levels keep
going steadily down? And how will this impact, for example, the
Northern Distribution Network or the future of the Manas Base
in Kyrgystan, in particular, the impact of cutting funds to
them?
Mr. Melia. That's either one big question or a lot of small
questions. They're all important. I think the main question you
asked is about whether our influence and our prestige in the
world will be diminished if we shrink our ability to be present
in grants and activities around the world. I think you're
right. To the extent that we are not able to be providing
support to democratic activists in countries throughout Eastern
Europe and beyond into Central Asia, that is the extent that
our light will be fading in the eyes of people who are looking
for our help.
We are engaged on the security front across Central Asia
and around the world, but even there, there are pressures on
the budget, obviously, and that's part of the debate that's
going on in this town this week.
We are finding smarter ways to use the resources we have to
make it available to support the work of democratic activists
in various places. We're doing that through virtual programs,
enabling international networks to get together online and to
support each other in ways I think have come to fruition in
Belarus in recent weeks, for instance. We'll continue to do
that.
If there's a dramatic cut in resources, then there will be
a dramatic cut in the ability of America to be present on the
front lines where people want us to be. I've traveled in the 11
months that I've been in this job, I've been to 10 of the
former Soviet Republics and I have found that people look to
America, first and foremost for our example, the kind of
democracy that they know we are and are becoming, as we
struggle to improve our democracy all the time. And they want
us to be speaking out that we know what's going on in other
countries, that we have a preference for the democrats, small D
democrats. And we're going to put our influence and our weight
and our resources behind them.
There are republicans, too, in some of these places, but
I'm talking more generally about democrats. So I think you're
right. The more that we're able to be present in the world, the
more we're able to help people that ask for our assistance.
Mr. Meeks. The last question I have, do you think we'll
have--because my concern is about the Northern Distribution
Network and the future of Manas, especially with the
cooperation that we've been having with Kyrgyzstan. Do you
think it's going to have any effect there?
Mr. Melia. Kyrgystan is the best hope for a democratic
breakthrough in Central Asia. They've had competitive elections
a few months ago and five parties are in Parliament. President
Roza Otunbayeva, the woman who came in as interim President,
she's going to stand down when they hold a Presidential
election later this year. That is the country that has the best
chance to consolidate a democratic system. It happens to be the
place where the Manas Air Base is and where we have access to
Afghanistan.
I think we need to demonstrate that we're interested in
Kyrgystan not just because of their strategic location, but
because we care about the people of Kyrgystan and the policy of
this administration is to do so. And so we are emphasizing our
support for trying to consolidate this democratic opportunity
in Kyrgystan right now. That's the largest recipient of our
democracy and governance assistance and the place where we can
be the most helpful I think.
Mr. Burton. Incidentally, we're planning to take the codel
over there some time either late this year or early next year.
Ms. Schmidt of Ohio.
Ms. Schmidt. Thank you. First, a quick comment on Russia
and then I want to focus on Romania. It was 16 years ago, I
think it was 16 years ago, that I actually went over to
Voronezh, Russia to help them establish a way to win elections
in a democratic fashion. And it's ironic that this many years
later, they're still struggling for democracy in Russia. But
having said that, focusing on Romania, what target date has the
administration given the Romanian Government for restoring the
remaining 5,000 properties belonging to religious communities
illegally confiscated under communism? And is the State
Department aware that the Romania Restitution Committee has met
only twice in 2 years and for the past 9 years has handled only
one third of all religious property claims?
Mr. Melia. You have gotten outside my briefing. I don't
know the answer to that, Congresswoman. I will take that
question and get back to you in the next few days, either in
person or with a written response to you on that. I just don't
know the answer to that.
Ms. Schmidt. Thank you. You probably can't answer the other
two with Romania. I will just say, in closing, on my Romania
question that I do have some folks back home that have
interests in Romania and one of the things that they struggle
with is the level of corruption that is there and it makes it
very difficult for American companies to do business when
corruption still is commonplace in many parts of the former
Soviet Union.
Well, maybe you can answer the last question that I have.
Is our Embassy in Bucharest prepared to send an observer to the
trial of Attila Marko, which is set to begin on September 6th
in Brasov? As you probably know, Mr. Marko is the only
Hungarian member of the Romania Restitution Committee who has
been scapegoated and falsely indicted for abuse of power
because he approved the restitution of specific property in
2001. If you don't know that, you can get back to me on that.
Mr. Melia. I will include that in my response to you.
Ms. Schmidt. Okay, and you mentioned that the Organization
for Security Cooperation in Europe, whose mission has
drastically changed since its founding, its operations during
the Cold War and 20 years of post-Soviet Union democracy
building. What role do you see the OSCE taking in the next 20
years?
Mr. Melia. Well, the OSCE is an important mechanism for a
number of reasons. Twenty years ago in 1990, at the end of the
Soviet Union, it transformed from an occasional meeting of
foreign ministers into a permanent organization with a
Secretariat and a number of missions. An important part of that
mission has been the Office for Democratic Initiatives and
Human Rights based in Warsaw and they have been able to put
missions on the ground in various countries and provided
advisory and technical assistance and political momentum to
accelerate certain reform initiatives. They provide a lot of
assistance in monitoring of election processes across the OSCE
space.
I was with the Secretary in Astana last December when the
OSCE summit took place. And the Astana Declaration reaffirmed
all of the 56 member states' commitments to the human rights
catechism that has been built up over the years in OSCE,
including the proposition that human rights in any individual
country is the responsibility of all the members, that it is
not an intrusion on the internal affairs of another state to
take an interest in human rights situations elsewhere. And so,
all of the countries agreed to that.
That's particularly important in the case of Central Asia
because the five countries of Central Asia don't belong to any
other framework organization that provides a discussion on
human rights and democratic fundamentals in the way that other
parts of the former Soviet Union or parts of the Council of
Europe or nowadays, the European Union. So the OSCE is
especially important in Central Asia. It's also important as a
reference point in places like Ukraine and Russia and in the
Caucasus. So it will continue to be a way that we can gather
together governments who otherwise may go their separate ways.
The monitoring missions and the peacekeeping efforts in the
so-called frozen conflicts in Moldova, between Armenia and
Azerbaijan, along Georgia's northern border, OSCE provides an
important way to get these governments together from time to
time to try to address these security issues, as well as the
human rights issues that are attached to them. So we think that
it will remain an important mechanism going forward.
Ms. Schmidt. Thank you. I yield back my time.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Sires?
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. I had to
go to my office.
Mr. Burton. That's okay.
Mr. Sires. Thank you very much for your testimony. I'm
sorry I missed most of it. You know, a couple of years ago we
traveled to Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary and also we
went to Russia. One of the things that one of our colleagues
asked the Russians when we were there is that the BBC did
polling in Russia and they said about two thirds of the
Russians do not like us or distrust us. Is that still the case?
I mean this was about 3 years ago.
The other question I have is I just want to know how much--
one of the other things that came out during the conversation
is the influence of Russia on Hungary which used to be a lot
more than in Poland and Czechoslovakia. I was just wondering if
you can comment on that.
Mr. Melia. I mentioned earlier the information deficit
disorder that we see in Russia where discussion of a lot of
public issues and political options and political opportunities
is curtailed due to restrictions on the broadcast media in
particular. The information space is flooded by anti-American--
I guess propaganda is not too harsh a word to use. There's a
campaign to feed suspicion and paranoia about the West, about
the United States, and about democracy. That's the information
environment that we're competing in through Voice of America
and through our information programs, exchange programs, things
like that.
It's a contested space and right now the dominant view is
that the United States and other Western governments do not
want Russia to succeed as an independent state. Now that is
exactly wrong. Right? We know that the United States wants
Russia to stand on its feet and be a self-sufficient, law-
abiding democratic state that can be part of the international
community. We want Russia to succeed. But there is this
campaign abroad in the land that says exactly the opposite,
that somehow we're trying to weaken Russia and make it
something other than a success. So public opinion is inclined
in the way you say. That's right.
Mr. Sires. In terms of Hungary?
Mr. Melia. Hungary on the other hand has to this point had
a very open, vibrant media environment. It has a history of
being part of the Warsaw Pact, being dominated by the Soviet
Union. There's a lot of hostility toward Russia and the Soviet
legacy. That was underscored, I think in recent days. They
dedicated a statute to Ronald Reagan in Budapest last month to
commemorate the fall of communism.
Mr. Sires. We have to go there, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Melia. So I would say well, there are obviously
business connections between Hungarian businesses and Russian
counterparts. The Hungarian Government is part of the Trans-
Atlantic Alliance. The OSCE has all these connections to
Russia. I don't think I would be as concerned about Russia
somehow suborning Hungary. That was sort of the inference in
your question.
Mr. Sires. Right.
Mr. Melia. I think Hungarians are aware enough of their
surroundings and they can make up their own minds. There have
been six elections in Hungary since the fall of communism. Five
times they've thrown out the incumbents and put in an
alternative government. So Hungarians are pretty good at being
able to make decisions and say no when they want to. So I'm
confident that Hungary will retain its well-deserved and long-
fought for independence from Russian and other kinds of foreign
influence.
Mr. Sires. Thank you very much.
Mr. Burton. Thank you very much. Where did you come up with
this information deficit disorder? That's a term that I've not
heard before. Is that something that you made up?
Mr. Melia. Well, it emerged from some conversations in my
office. I have some very able colleagues in the Democracy and
Human Rights Bureau, and that's a phrase that we came up with
to describe what we see as one of the central challenges in the
democratization of Russia which is this public discourse space.
Mr. Burton. You don't need to explain, I just thought it
was kind of cute.
Mr. Melia. You can quote me on it.
Mr. Burton. Now Mr. Meeks had one more question.
Mr. Meeks. Let me ask this question which is something of
an issue that really concerns me. I look at my own history and
Dr. Martin Luther King once said, ``Injustice anywhere is a
threat to justice everywhere.'' And when I look at the
situation of the Roma throughout Europe and Eurasia, it's
deplorable. Roma communities are on the fringe of society.
They're largely unemployed and uneducated. They're living under
bridges and in shanties and garbage dumps and children are
subject to servitude and trafficking.
So I was wondering if you could address what is being done
to help fight and help them with human and civil rights of Roma
and to address statelessness in general, if you could?
Mr. Melia. The Roma community is the largest minority
across Europe and is present in various proportions in many
countries in Europe, East and West. In our diplomacy, in our
Embassies in those countries, we do a lot of outreach to Roma
communities. We provide grants to organizations that advocate
for Roma rights. We in DRL have several programs along those
lines trying to strengthen the advocacy for Roma interests and
rights in a number of the new democracies in Central and
Eastern Europe.
The Hungarian Government, we keep circling back to Hungary,
in their recently concluded presidency of the EU, they made the
elevation of the plight of the Roma the signature issue of
their presidency and that's to the credit of the Hungarian
Government. And we hope that there will be more follow through
across the EU institutions to try to bolster the situation of
Roma so they can enjoy their citizenship and participate in
political and economic life.
Mr. Burton. Mr. Melia, thank you very much. Your testimony
was very thorough and we really appreciate you answering the
questions so well and thank you for the new terminology. We
really appreciate that.
Mr. Melia. Thank you for the opportunity.
Mr. Burton. If you can send us the answer to some of the
questions that you weren't prepared for, we'd appreciate it.
Mr. Melia. Will do.
Mr. Meeks. He'll give you the credit the first time for
your statement. The second time it will belong to him.
Mr. Burton. That's absolutely right.
Mr. Melia. I'm willing to share.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, sir. Our next panel we'd like to
welcome to the table. David Kramer, he is the--David, where are
you? David Kramer, do we have the--there we go. He's the
president of Freedom House, which he joined in October 2010.
Prior to joining Freedom House, Kramer was a senior trans-
Atlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United
States which is a good organization. He was an adjunct
professor at the Elliott School for International Affairs at
the George Washington University and before joining GMF, Kramer
served as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human
Rights, and Labor from March 2008 to January 2009. Thank you
very much and welcome.
Steve Nix joined IRI in October 2000, as regional director
for Eurasia. In that position, he oversees programs in
Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic
and Moldova, Russia and the Ukraine. Nix joined the IRI after
serving for 2 years as Senior Democracy Specialist at the U.S.
Agency for International Development. He's a specialist in
political party development and judicial and legal reform in
the former Soviet Union. Welcome. Thank you, Mr. Nix.
Nadia Diuk, did I get that right?
Ms. Diuk. It's pronounced Diuk.
Mr. Burton. Diuk. I'm sorry. They wrote this down wrong. It
wasn't the way I read it. I would have said that. She serves as
vice president of programs for Europe and Eurasia, Africa,
Latin America and the Caribbean at the National Endowment for
Democracy, a private nonprofit organization funded by the U.S.
Congress to strengthen democratic institutions around the world
through nongovernment efforts. She has worked in Eastern Europe
for nearly 20 years. You're too young for that, but for 20
years, at NED. I want to thank you all for being here today,
and just because we have a practice of doing this, I'd like for
you to be sworn in.
Do you swear to tell the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Thank you. Let's start with Dr. Diuk. Did I get that right
that time? Thank you, Doctor.
STATEMENT OF NADIA DIUK, PH.D., VICE PRESIDENT, PROGRAMS,
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY
Ms. Diuk. Chairman Burton, Ranking Member Meeks, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to join
in today's very timely hearing on a region that continues to
hold tremendous importance for freedom and democracy around the
world.
For the record, I would like to note that the National
Endowment for Democracy does not take policy positions, so all
the recommendations I offer today come as a result of my own
assessments.
As you know, this year marks the 20th anniversary of the
dissolution of the Soviet Union and just over 20 years since
the lifting of the Iron Curtain when the countries we
previously called Eastern Europe cast out the Communist systems
that kept them as ``Captive Nations'' and shackled them to the
Soviet Union. This is a good time to rethink the terminology.
These states are fully integrated into Europe whose
institutions have proven to be one of the main guarantors of
freedom and democracy, an aim that we should support for
countries still on the outside.
For this reason, I'm pleased to see that the title of this
hearing refers to Eastern Europe. We should view Moldova,
Ukraine, Belarus, and even Russia as the new Eastern Europe and
consider the inclusion of Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia
which are, after all, already members of the Council of Europe.
This brief review of the state of freedom and democracy has
been informed by reports, discussions, and feedback from the
many nongovernmental groups NED works with in the region.
Overall, although there have been some gains, the general trend
has been a slow backsliding and in some cases dramatic
reversal. I have presented details and examples in my written
remarks.
In four of the western Balkan states, Serbia, Kosovo,
Albania, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, the prospects of EU
membership in the interest of EU officials have provided a
sobering and positive effect on democratic backsliding.
Moving to the East, the deteriorating state of democracy
and freedom in the Southern Caucasus is of continuing concern.
In Azerbaijan, the overall trend is a slow and painful decline
of political pluralism and civil society. Constitutional
amendments have removed Presidential term limits. The recent
parliamentary elections were considered the worst ever. Freedom
of association is nonexistent and an attempt to introduce an
extremely restrictive NGO law in 2009 was diverted only as a
result of international pressure.
The prospects of democracy and freedom look more hopeful in
Armenia where protest rallies of up to 15,000 people have taken
place recently and the political prisoners who were held after
the 2008 protests have been released. Despite the real gains
achieved by Georgia in the past few years, there is cause for
concern about creeping authoritarian tendencies that could mar
its record as a leader for democracy and freedom in the region.
Moving back into the heart of the new Eastern Europe,
Moldova is the one bright spot where trends toward democracy
are positive. However, the authoritarian regime in the
breakaway region of Transistria remains a problem. The
situation in Belarus remains dire as the crackdown, begun after
the Presidential election on December 19th, continues. I think
you have very full details from all three of us on that, so I
won't dwell on that which I know my colleagues will talk more
about.
Mr. Chairman, I have left Ukraine and Russia until last in
order to underscore their importance. The relationship between
the two and the direction each takes will determine the future
of freedom and democracy not only in their own country, but in
the region as a whole. The trend lines in Russia have been
unremittingly negative. Human rights defenders and independent
journalists have been killed. We have witnessed the grizzly
death in detention of the lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky. And civic
activists have been routinely harassed, especially those who
work on the North Caucasus.
By creating an array of government-controlled commissions,
public chambers, and councils which have essentially replaced
the role of political parties, and aggregating and expressing
the interests of the people and by refusing the registration of
truly independent political parties, the Kremlin has
effectively created two classes in Russia, those who wield
political power and control of all the public and private
assets and those who have limited access to justice and no
genuine representation of their interests.
Despite the growing frustration within society and the
increasing number of street protests such as the 31 Movement,
it is ironic that the current regime will likely use the
upcoming elections with the inevitable falsifications and
manipulations to claim the continued legitimacy of its rule.
In 2004, when the rulers in the Kremlin saw their Ukrainian
neighbors to the south bring down their authoritarian
government, they responded by strengthening control over civil
society groups and further curbing the independent media. Many
authoritarian rulers around the world have followed Russia's
lead to conduct their own backlash against democracy. Always
the source of innovation when it comes to anti-democratic
strategies, the Kremlin has also taken proactive measures to
promote support for the government through sponsorship of youth
groups such as Nashi, which means ``ours,'' whose jingoistic
ideology challenges and erodes the fragile democratic values
that civic and human rights activists in Russia struggle to
advance.
This brings me to Ukraine where I met last week with both
government officials and civic leaders. Just a few years ago,
Ukraine played a pivotal role as a champion of democracy and
freedom in the region. Indeed, one prominent Russian pro-
democracy commentator declared that the best way to promote
democracy in Russia was to make sure it succeeded in Ukraine.
Since the election of President Viktor Yanukovych in February
2010, however, the prospects for freedom and democracy have
taken a sharp downturn. The constitution has been amended to
recentralize power with the presidency. The judicial system has
been manipulated to launch criminal proceedings and selective
prosecutions against former officials. Last year's local
elections were considered to have been manipulated in favor of
the ruling power. Independent media have come under pressure.
The security services have started to monitor civic
organizations. There has been a concerted effort by the
authorities to coopt advisory councils of civic organizations.
As in Russia, there have also been efforts to undermine
freedom of religion.
Despite these negative trends, civil society in Ukraine
remains strong and motivated. Ukraine's significance for the
region's democracy activists cannot be underestimated: They
come to Ukraine to hold conferences, conduct training seminars,
exchange experiences and generally to ``breathe the air of
freedom'' which is not available in their own countries.
Russian journalists, Belarusian human rights defenders, and
civic leaders from the South Caucasus have all come to Ukraine
to work and meet. Ukraine's crucial role as the democratic
anchor for civic activists in the region should not be
overlooked despite the backsliding of its own democracy.
Mr. Burton. Dr. Diuk, could you summarize, please? We try
to keep it close to 5 minutes, if possible.
Ms. Diuk. Yes. You will see that my recommendations are
actually in my written remarks, but if there is one that I
would like to highlight, it is to support the increased
participation of women in politics which is a problem in all
authoritarian states. I haven't singled that out because it is
a widespread problem and particularly since it has been proven
that the presence of women usually reduces the level of
corruption and has a tendency to break up the opaque and
corrupt relationships maintained by male-dominated
authoritarian political aides.
Mr. Chairman, I think Eastern Europe has a great deal to
offer. As we focus on the democratic breakthroughs in the
Middle East and as we look forward to a period of austerity, we
should be mindful that a strategic and concerted effort
conducted through diplomatic and nongovernmental actors is the
most cost-effective way to achieve our goals.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Duik. follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Burton. Thank you very much for that testimony and we
here in the United States try to make absolutely sure, in fact,
the women in Congress make absolutely sure that there's no
discrimination.
Mr. Nix, you're recognized.
STATEMENT OF MR. STEPHEN NIX, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EURASIA,
INTERNATIONAL REPUBLICAN INSTITUTE
Mr. Nix. Chairman Burton, Ranking Member Meeks, thank you
very much for this opportunity to testify about a very
important part of the world. We know the focus is sometimes
elsewhere, the Middle East, North Africa, however, Eurasia
remains a very, very important area for the strategic interests
of the United States, so thank you for this opportunity and I
ask that my remarks be entered into the record.
Mr. Chairman, since the breakup of the Soviet Union, the
former Soviet Republics have moved at various speeds and paces
in terms of democratic reform, processes, and values. Some are
on the right trajectory, others are not. Today, my testimony
will focus on two areas that we think are very much in the
wrong trajectory, those are Belarus and Ukraine and two that we
think generally are on the right track, Moldova and Georgia.
In Belarus since 1994, Alexander Lukashenka, the last
dictator in Europe, has ruled Belarus with an iron fist, using
tactics common under Soviet rule, a large state security
apparatus, harassment, arrests, beatings, and in some case,
murder. The fraudulent December 2010 Presidential election, the
brutal crackdown initiated after it, against those who dared to
oppose the regime, and the unfair post-election trials follow
the pattern of repression that has characterized Lukashenka's
17 years of rule.
Lukashenka's post-election plan was to further discourage
the opposition by holding trials and to continue to incarcerate
oppositionists. This plan is not succeeding. During the month
of June, people have gathered in what are now known as silent
protests. People gather and clapping has become a popular way
of expressing discontent and a desire for change. Soon the
authorities began arresting anyone who clapped. So it's
becoming increasingly clear to the authorities that they can no
longer control the silent protests which are expanding
throughout the country.
The question remains, what is the U.S. position with regard
to the regime and toward the opposition? The U.S. House has
passed the Belarus Democracy Act. The U.S. Government has
extended economic sanctions on Belarus for another year.
However, Mr. Chairman, we don't feel that that's enough. U.S.
assistance should be directed toward increasing the
effectiveness and capacity of democratic political parties and
activists inside the country. They are the ones who constitute
the alternative to Lukashenka's regime. They are the ones in a
position to provide economic and social reform. The political
opposition needs increased technical and commodities
assistance.
In Ukraine, many international organizations have
criticized Ukraine's current trajectory on democratization. In
the year since Yanukovych became President, Freedom House has
downgraded Ukraine from being free to partly free. The Ukraine
Government has begun to closely monitor NGOs and their
activities including the IRI. A cabinet of ministers' decree
makes it easier to deregister civil society organizations. IRI
has received a written request from Parliament demanding
information on IRI's activities in Ukraine since 1991. The
request is unprecedented in nature and scope for the IRI's long
history in Ukraine.
In spite of numerous European and U.S. Government
statements of concern about the application of selective
justice, the Ukrainian Government continues to prosecute and
incarcerate leading opposition figures. The U.S. has
consistently supported Ukraine's Euro-Atlantic aspirations. The
U.S. must be very direct with its Ukrainian colleagues. It
should tell the Ukrainian authorities frankly when their
actions, whether involving elections, civil society, rule of
law, or media are in contradiction with Western standards.
In Georgia, Mr. Chairman, the government continues to build
democratic institutions and in the past several years, we feel
there's been areas of notable progress. The position of Tbilisi
Mayor has become an elected position. Georgia has undertaken
constitutional reform, is now working on a new election code in
an attempt to ensure that elections scheduled for 2012 and 2013
meet international standards. The U.S. has consistently
supported Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity and
should continue to do so. In the meantime, the U.S. should
continue to support Georgia's efforts to build democratic
institutions.
And finally, in Moldova, after years of political
stagnation since achieving independence from the Soviet Union,
Moldova has reached a historic and transformative point in its
democratic development. In 2009, voters ended 8 years of
Communist Party rule and elected a coalition of reform-minded
pro-Western deputies. Since then, the government has made
impressive progress in implementing democratic reforms, showing
greater respect for human rights and moving toward its ultimate
goal of European integration.
Moldova's economy would substantially benefit from greater
access to global markets including the U.S. The Moldovan
Government is committed to expanding the international markets
for its country's products. The Jackson-Vanik amendment hinders
the government's ability to do so.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me close with an observation.
The Assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia Act which
was formerly known as the Freedom Support Act and the Support
for Eastern European Democracy, or SEED Act, and the programs
that these pieces of legislation created have provided
essential support for those struggling to promote democracy
throughout Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. It's
important that support continue from the United States to help
those countries which are seeking to consolidate democratic
institutions and practices such as Georgia and Moldova as well
as those continuing to struggle in places like Belarus and
Ukraine to finally establish a path to a democratic future.
Again, thank you for this opportunity and I would like to
commend you on a personal note, Mr. Chairman, for coming to
Vilnius and seeing with your own eyes what the Community of
Democracy's Parliamentarian Forum is trying to do. And you
should know that they're having a follow-up event in Washington
which I hope you'll be able to attend. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nix follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Burton. Thank you very much, Mr. Nix. I really
appreciate that comment. I will be at that conference. And the
thing that was unusual about the conference in Vilnius is their
legislative branch was in session and they left me in charge of
the whole conference. And I didn't know what was going on.
Mr. Nix. I was in the audience and I thought you did an
outstanding job.
Mr. Burton. Would you call my wife? She doesn't appreciate
me and I'd like for her to know that.
Mr. Kramer.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAVID KRAMER, PRESIDENT, FREEDOM
HOUSE
Mr. Kramer. Chairman Burton, Member Meeks, members of the
subcommittee, it's an honor to appear before you here today and
also an honor to be on this panel with my friends, Steve Nix
and Nadia Diuk, and also my friend and former Freedom House
colleague, Tom Melia. I also want to commend you on the timing
of today's hearing, Mr. Chairman, because it allows me to
shamelessly plug two publications from my organization, Freedom
House: Nations in Transit 2011, which describes trends in East
and Central Europe and Eurasia, and Sounding the Alarm:
Protecting Democracy in Ukraine. I recommend both.
Mr. Burton. Can we get copies of those?
Mr. Kramer. With pleasure, sir. Thank you very much.
Mr. Burton. Thank you.
Mr. Kramer. Mr. Chairman, the state of democracy and
freedom in East and Central Europe is fairly strong and
resilient albeit with some exceptions, but in Eurasia I would
argue the picture is much more bleak. The countries closest to
the European Union, and by the extension to the trans-Atlantic
community, are at a pivotal point in their development.
Belarus, as Steve and Nadia have explained, is pushing the
limits of repression as Europe's last dictatorship, even if a
breakthrough there in Lukashenka's demise may come about before
too long.
Ukraine, arguably the most strategically important country
along the EU's borders, is also moving in the wrong direction
when we look at things in a democratic perspective. And trends
there, if left unchecked, threaten to steer Ukraine in a
direction of greater centralization and consolidation of power,
even authoritarianism and kleptocracy.
As we look at the Caucasus, only Georgia has really shown
signs of progress, whereas in Azerbaijan, there has been
backsliding. Moldova, as Steve has indicated, is in contrast to
these other countries, moving in the right direction and
earning the greatest net improvement in our scores in the
Nations in Transit Report. We hope that that progress will
continue.
For the West and its interest in seeing these countries
become more democratic, policy should involve deeper engagement
with these countries, not less. And pushback on abuses, not
silence. This will not be easy given competing demands
elsewhere in the world, but if the majority of countries in
Eurasia continue to veer off the democratic path, the challenge
for the West will only grow.
There are some common features as we look at the countries
in Eurasia in particular, and that's where I want to focus, Mr.
Chairman. A number of these consolidated authoritarian systems
do not permit real political competition and instead hold
stage-managed elections in a desperate bid for legitimacy.
Governments in the region, just as those in the Middle East,
systematically deny space for moderate, political expression
and alternative viewpoints, driving these viewpoints into
greater extremist directions.
Rampant corruption and lawlessness hobble economic
opportunity and reform, and in many cases, the opaque regimes
in the region tend to treat the national wealth as their own
wealth. This is part of the broader pattern of narrow regime
interest taking precedence over public good.
None of the consolidated authoritarian regimes in question
have signaled a willingness or capacity to undertake genuine
reforms. Instead, the prevailing strategy seems to be just as
it was with regimes in the Middle East, to tighten the screws
and hope for the best. That is not a wise or effective
strategy.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues have covered a number of
countries in the region. Some of them are covered in our
reports. I want to cover Russia in my remaining time. And let
me cut right to the chase by saying that Russia's leaders show
no respect for human rights, accountability, or independent
institutions and refuse to allow a viable opposition to take
root. This disrespect for human rights and lack of
accountability extends to past abuses as well. Lithuania has
sought cooperation from Russian legal authorities in its
pursuit of accountability and justice for the killings of 14
people on January 13, 1991. This is included in the Lithuanian
authority's requests for the extradition of Mikhail Golovatov,
commander of the Alpha KBG Unit at that time, who had briefly
been detained in Austria but has been inexplicably released.
Looking ahead with Presidential elections coming up in
Russia, I don't see a reason to be optimistic or hopeful about
the situation there. Prime Minister Putin continues to out poll
President Medvedev, although not by huge margins, and the
support for both leaders has been declining. A return by Putin
as President, I think, would be a depressing blow for those
hoping for an end to the authoritarian rut that Russia has been
in for the past decade.
Sovereign democracy, the term that has been used to try to
pretend that Russia is pursuing a democratic path in its own
way, is something that I think none of us want to see extended
for 6 more years at least, should Putin return, and the
Presidential term has been extended from 4 to 6 years.
Many Western observers favor Medvedev over Putin, viewing
the former as a more liberal, Western-oriented reform leader.
But even if Medvedev remains President, I frankly don't see
many signs or much reason to be hopeful that Russia will move
in a more democratic direction despite Medvedev's lofty
rhetoric about modernization and rooting out legal nihilism.
Russia, after more than 3 years under his presidency, has
really shown no improvement on democracy and human rights
issues, and in many respects it is as bad as it was under the 8
years with Vladimir Putin as President.
Opposition forces continue to be harassed and excluded from
the political process. Journalists and bloggers are beaten or
investigated for their reporting and their activities. Critics
like Mikhail Khodorkovsky, as you asked Tom Melia before, Mr.
Chairman, suffer the punishment of authorities because they
step out of line and are victims of the judicial system as
Russian leaders choose to use it. The North Caucasus, while
less violent than it was a decade or a decade and a half ago,
continues to remain a mess when it comes to human rights, and
Chechen leader Kadyrov is pointed at as responsible for many
abuses himself.
Overall, the lack of accountability for human rights abuses
and the grossly politicized legal system create an environment
wherein such abuses are not only condoned but expected, almost
as a demonstration of loyalty to the regime.
Mr. Chairman, there are a number of activists, lawyers, and
journalists who have been killed over the years in Russia with
no resolution to their cases: Natalya Estemirova, Aleksandr
Litvinenko, Anna Politkovskaya, Paul Klebnikov, and Sergei
Magnitsky, just to name a few. In the Magnitsky case you had
asked Tom Melia about before, I would strongly encourage, Mr.
Chairman, and I know I'm over my time, support by the U.S.
House of Representatives, along with the U.S. Senate for the
Justice for Sergei Magnitsky Bill in the interest of trying to
hold Russian officials accountable for gross human rights
violations, not only in the case of Magnitsky and his murder--
and I do call it a murder since he was denied medical treatment
and allowed to die in prison--but for other similar gross human
rights abuses. I would strongly urge the subcommittee and the
full committee and the chamber itself to get behind this bill.
This bill, I would argue, Mr. Chairman, is what has moved
Russian officials to do anything. In the past, before
legislation was being considered by U.S. or European
parliamentarians, the Russians not only ignored this case, but
they rewarded and promoted officials who were involved in the
Magnitsky case. That has come to an end and I hope, Mr.
Chairman, that this subcommittee will get behind this
legislation. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kramer follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Burton. Thank you very much. I just mentioned to my
right hand here that we'll take a hard look at that and see if
we can get on that bill.
One of the things that you mentioned about Belarus was
Lukashenka and his iron fist and iron hand over there. They're
building a nuclear facility very close to the border near
Vilnius in Lithuania.
Do any of you have any comment about that or any
suggestions on how we can--I'm not sure we can--dissuade Russia
from going ahead with that or Belarus? And let me also just
expand that and say, how strong is the control or influence
that Russia has over Belarus?
Mr. Kramer. Mr. Chairman, the relationship, I would argue,
between Russia and Belarus is quite strained. I don't think
it's a secret to say that Prime Minister Putin and President
Medvedev cannot stand President Lukashenka. They seem to be
enjoying the current plight that Lukashenka is in and want to
try to exploit it so that Russia can buy up assets inside
Belarus. Belarus is being squeezed from all sides. Lukashenka,
I should say, is being squeezed from all sides. And I think
that's a good thing because he deserves to be for the gross
human rights abuses he's committed.
Mr. Burton. It's surprising that Russia is building that
nuclear power plant. They're so close to Vilnius.
Mr. Kramer. Commercial interests, Mr. Chairman, sometimes
strongly outweigh other interests that we see in the region,
including safety and security for those living along the
border.
Mr. Burton. We were in Moscow just a couple of weeks ago
and we met with the opposition. And we share your concern about
the lack of I guess chance that they have of having any kind of
an impact on the upcoming elections. And I believe that if I
were a betting man that whoever Putin decides is going to be
the next President, whether it's Medvedev or himself will be
the President because of the conversations we've had with
business and political leaders over there.
Let me see what else I had here I wanted to ask you about.
Georgia. We were in Georgia and one of the things that you
neglected to mention was the invasion of Georgia by Russia and
the occupation and the building of barracks and actually small
town, if you will, right on the border there between Georgia
and Russia. Do any of you have any prospects or thoughts on--or
any evaluation on what can be done to get Russia to relent and
move out of that area?
Mr. Nix. I would just say this, Mr. Chairman. The Georgian
concern is that on the other side of the border, the
unrecognized border, Russian forces continue to build up there
and there's a great concern and the Georgian Government is
looking to purchase defensive weapons to defend itself and that
is a very, very important issue to the Georgian Government.
Mr. Burton. We went down to a city that they're building
which is in close proximity to the occupation. We went down
there with the President of Georgia. And they're doing that to
show the positive impact that the free society is having in
that area to try to dissuade the kind of things you're talking
about. I was not aware until just now. You say they're building
up forces on the Russian side for potential invasion further
into Georgia?
Mr. Nix. I don't want to speculate the aims, but according
to the Georgian Government, there is a build up on the border
area, yes.
Mr. Burton. I wasn't aware of that when I was there just a
few short weeks ago. I was aware of the occupation, but not of
any additional military.
Mr. Nix. I think it's more of a construction in nature than
anything else.
Mr. Burton. I think you're right there. They're permanently
building structures for their troops and their families. You
mentioned Moldova and Jackson-Vanik. You think we ought to
change our attitude on Jackson-Vanik with Moldova?
Mr. Kramer. Mr. Chairman, on Moldova, I think absolutely.
On Jackson-Vanik, to be perfectly honest, Mr. Chairman, I think
Jackson-Vanik should be lifted for Moldova, for Russia as well.
Jackson-Vanik was a piece of legislation that served its
purpose very effectively. It came about in the 1970s and the
emigration of Soviet Jews is obviously no longer an issue in
light of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
In the case of Moldova, I would lift Jackson-Vanik without
any additional steps. In the case of Russia, I would lift
Jackson-Vanik and then substitute it for a Magnitsky kind of
bill so that there is legislation in place that applies to
Russia's abuses today, rather than abuses that the Soviet Union
committed in the past.
Mr. Burton. Do you think a Jackson-Vanik repeal would be
something that would convince the Russians to take a different
track on issues like that?
Mr. Kramer. No, I don't. But my interest----
Mr. Burton. I think so.
Mr. Kramer. My interest, Mr. Chairman, is Jackson-Vanik
really doesn't play.
Mr. Burton. It's outlived its usefulness.
Mr. Kramer. And moreover, if we were to graduate Russia
from Jackson-Vanik, we would disarm them from one of the
political weapons they like to use against us and hit us over
the head: You still have this old piece of legislation that you
hold against us.
Mr. Burton. I think you make a very valid point.
Mr. Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. Just on that, following the chairman, what about
Russia's interest in entering into the WTO? Do you think that
will cause them to at least do some more--abide by some of the
rules and regulations there?
Mr. Kramer. Mr. Meeks, in an ideal world, I would say yes,
but I am not convinced that Russia really wants to join the
WTO. Just in the past 10 days, we've seen Prime Minister Putin
talk about the automobile industry in Russia and making sure
that WTO membership would not adversely affect that in Russia.
President Medvedev just the other day talked about
maintaining agricultural subsidies in Russia. There are
indications that there are splits within the Russian leadership
on joining WTO. My hunch is that Russia would prefer to point
the finger and blame Georgia for blocking Russia's joining the
WTO than it actually would joining WTO itself. And so we have
to be careful not to want WTO membership for Russia more than
Russia does. And I fear that that's where we've wound up.
Mr. Meeks. Let me go back to what we were talking about
earlier and thank you for that. It seemed to me that one of the
driving attractions for some of the developing nations like
Moldova, for example, and then to a degree the other extreme
would be the Ukraine, is entrance into the EU and now that the
EU seems to be saying that they're not going to expand any
more, the question is what--do you think there's any other
motivations that one will have to inspire progress in
strengthening those democracies? Moldova is on the right path
from what I'm hearing from everyone. But they know if the EU is
not going to open up, do they continue? Do they go back? Would
it be an incentive for the Ukrainians if they thought they did
the right thing, they could get access into the EU?
Give me your thoughts, Dr. Diuk?
Ms. Diuk. Ukraine's foreign policy in the first few months
of Yanukovych actually was veering a little toward Russia, so
they weren't too interested in the EU, but it seems to have
veered back again now and there are some active talks taking
place on association status for Ukraine.
Ukraine is very sensitive about its international image and
even if EU membership itself may be a little way off, I think
the current government does like to put itself forward as a
European state and they have made claims that, ``Oh, we will
make sure that all of the European standards are adhered to
within our country, even if we are not admitted to the actual
union in the very near future.''
However, we should look at these statements with a little
bit of skepticism, but I think the EU is a very disciplining
element and we should keep up with making sure that the EU does
look at this positively.
Mr. Meeks. Mr. Nix?
Mr. Nix. Yes, Mr. Meeks, with regard to Moldova, I would
say that Moldova has taken great steps in terms of reform and
they are dedicated to European integration. In fact, the
alliance, AEI stands for the Alliance for European Integration.
And first and foremost, they're all about becoming part of the
Euro-Atlantic Alliance and taking great steps, as I said, to do
so.
In turn, the European Union is negotiating a free trade
agreement and other agreements, instruments with Moldova. And I
think the two sides are moving together. I think also our
polling data indicates that the Moldovan people, although
they're supportive of EU membership, know that it will take
some time for that to actually take place. So I think the level
of expectation is not that great in terms of the number of
years it might take for Moldova to integrate.
Mr. Meeks. I wanted to mention the fact that the EU has
concluded its trade agreement with Moldova, but yet here in the
United States we don't even have a PMTR with Moldova. Do you
think that that's something we should begin to institute
working with Moldova in short order?
Mr. Nix. I really do. One of the basic concerns of Moldova
is that it receives scant attention and for a country which is
the same size as all the Baltic States, it receives very little
attention. To be able to come together and unite the political
opposition as they did in the 2009 election and defeat the last
popularly elected Communist government in Europe was an
outstanding feat that largely went unnoticed. So it struggles
for attention. One of my recommendations in my written
testimony is that, Mr. Chairman, you and the members of the
subcommittee travel to Moldova and see exactly what this
government is trying to achieve. See the reforms that they're
instituting. They are young, reform-minded, Western-oriented
leaders and it would be critical, I think, for you to go.
I applaud Vice President Biden who went in the past year
and our chairman, Senator McCain also visited. I would really
encourage the subcommittee to go out and see for yourselves.
Mr. Kramer. Mr. Meeks, if I could just very quickly, I
would add to that I think there really is no reason not to
grant PNTR to Moldova and graduate it from Jackson-Vanik. The
challenge has always been finding the legislative vehicle by
which to do it, and if there could be more focus on that, I
think that would be a very significant move. Thank you.
Mr. Meeks. Let me ask this question because in light of the
Arab Spring and the connection to the Internet and people
fighting for democracy, I was wondering in Russia the
effectiveness of groups like the Blue Bucketeers or what is it,
the Khimki Forest people or the now Article Sanction 31
protest, whether or not any one of you could talk about the
influence of these groups who are trying to utilize the
Internet as a light on government corruption and some of the
things that are taking place now, trying to stand up. Are they
starting to take hold? Is it something that can mushroom or
what's your viewpoint? What are your thoughts?
Ms. Diuk. One of the things that we've noticed,
particularly with information coming from our partners in
Russia, is that these protests are increasing now, whether it's
the Khimki Forest, whether it's the 31 Protest or protesting
against the restrictions on freedom of association. However,
the difficulty for all of these protests are that they are out
on the street. They find it very difficult with the other
restrictions in terms of political organization to channel
those ideas and demands into any sort of institution in Russia
that will pay any attention.
You mentioned the Internet. Yes, of course, it has been a
very useful tool for informing people. There is a whole sort of
virtual independent Russia out there on the Internet, but I
would like to mention also that the Russian authorities are
very aware of this and they have also flooded the Internet with
their own sort of pro-government and anti-democratic Web sites
that are manipulated very effectively by the Russian
Government.
I don't see for the future how these protest movements can
actually feed into the political system.
Mr. Kramer. Mr. Meeks, I think to the extent that these
movements exist, they're very nascent, and they are driven
largely by frustration with corruption as we saw in the removal
of the governor of Kaliningrad. Even the Blue Bucket movement
was driven by abuse of blue lights by officials who weren't
entitled to use such blue lights on their cars and caused a
number of fatal accidents.
In some cases they are fed by economic reasons, as we saw
out in the Far East when there were protests over the decision
to impose duties on the imports of foreign cars. We haven't
really seen a movement driven by resentment, frustration, or
unhappiness with the anti-democratic direction that the Russian
leadership has taken the country over the past 10-plus years.
I'm not saying it is impossible to happen, but there aren't
very strong roots yet in Russia for it to take shape.
Mr. Meeks. If I may, last question. Everybody is getting
frustrated and I try to figure out with what's going on in
Belarus and with the fact that, and you know, how do we
increase freedom and democracy there given who we have there,
and the fact that the United States Government, the EU, or I
don't believe any of your NGOs are allowed to operate freely in
Belarus.
So I'm just hoping, I'm just trying to figure this out.
What strategies can we utilize to try to increase freedom and
democracy in Belarus?
Mr. Nix. Yes, sir. I'd like to answer that directly. As I
stated in my testimony, we feel that now is the time to really
add pressure to the regime which is under pressure. As David
pointed out, Lukashenka is under tremendous economic pressure,
social pressure. Now is the time for change. There was a
movement in the past 2 years on both of the--on the part of the
EU and the United States to try to do some sort of
rapprochement with this regime. And so there was an attempt to
do soft projects, education, environment, business development
that they thought would bring Belarus closer into Europe.
The events of December 19th, the brutal crackdown
demonstrated that there's no more gray areas. It's only black
and white and these types of projects don't work. The only
thing that we think works is the hard projects where you are
actually training people to be politically active, civil
society to be active, and to try to promote change from within
the country.
As you correctly point out, those of us who are in the
business of doing more of the hard projects are prohibited from
entering. My people just applied and we were rejected for visas
and just simply can't get into the country. We operate from
Vilnius, Lithuania. Our colleagues at NDI operate from Kiev,
Ukraine, and we think that that's the most appropriate way for
our organizations to work in the country, to do it offshore and
that's what we'd like to continue to do.
Ms. Diuk. I'd just like to add to that. At the National
Endowment for Democracy because we work with small amounts of
funding, we have provided considerable amounts of funding to
Belarus and independent activists and they accept this funding
and work with this funding at huge risk to themselves, but it
is possible to do. We've been doing it for many years now and
also assisting both IRI and NDI to convert their programs in
the country and we would hope for further support to be able to
do that.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Sires?
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I listen to your
comments, are we--I'm talking about America--too distracted in
not devoting sufficient attention to this area with all of the
things that we have going on in this country? Are we too
distracted? I mean, you know----
Mr. Nix. I would just say this, Congressman, that we
understand why there is focus on other parts of the world right
now. But it's my opinion and I think my two colleagues join me
in this and Mr. Melia as well, what happens in this region has
tremendous impact far beyond the region. And so this region
remains of critical strategic interest to the United States. So
additional focus is necessary. It may be difficult for all
that's going on, as you pointed out, but again, we think that
attention, assistance, involvement, engagement is critical in
Eurasia.
Mr. Sires. I just wonder how you feel.
Mr. Kramer. Congressman, it has been a several decades long
goal to see a Europe whole, free, and at peace. And that vision
has not yet been realized. There is a lot of work still to be
done. There are challenges in the region. In the case of
Russia, not only is it not moving in a democratic direction
internally, but it even poses a challenge to other countries
that look to move in a more democratic direction to try to
block those countries' integration into Euro-Atlantic
institutions.
As Steve said, and I agree with him, it is completely
understandable that a lot of attention on the part of the U.S.
Government and European Governments is on the Middle East and
events happening there. But we cannot take our eye off the ball
in Eastern Europe and Eurasia. It is critically important what
happens there. We do want to see that vision come true of
Europe, whole, free, and at peace.
Ms. Diuk. I might as well add my bit here, too. I echo
everything that my two colleagues have said and I can
understand why there's been a lot of excitement about the
events in the Middle East, but we have to remember that there
was similar excitement 20 years ago about this region of the
world and we still haven't managed to get it right in that
region yet. So I think that all goes for greater attention,
possibly more attention than is being given right now. And as
well, not just to single out one country, but to look at the
region as a whole and see how inter-connected it is, how these
civic activists work on a regional basis. We should be helping
them on a regional basis and not to just work with one country
and possibly downplay some others because of budgetary or other
attention deficit issues that we might have.
Mr. Sires. You know, as a follow up of my colleague's
questions, one of the tactics that we could use would probably
be to block loans, IMF loans, to some of these countries and
other international loans. Have we ever applied that tactic
against Lukashenka?
Mr. Kramer. Congressman Sires, the IMF extended a loan to
Lukashenka after he released the political prisoners in 2008
and extended that loan in 2009. Lukashenka broke his promise to
the IMF by grossly inflating state spending by increasing
salaries to state employees right before last December's
Presidential election, obviously designed to buy votes, quite
literally.
So there are very good economic reasons not to move forward
with any additional International Financial Institution support
to Lukashenka. There are also political reasons not to do so,
and I know the IMF does not like to get involved in politics,
but I would argue in the current circumstances, as long as
there are some 40 plus political prisoners languishing in
Belarusian jail cells, there should be absolutely no
consideration given to an IMF loan. In fact, if the IMF won't
announce it, it won't even consider an IMF loan, a Belarus
working group that some of us are involved in has recommended
that Secretary Geithner and EU finance ministers come out and
state very clearly that the U.S. and EU will not support any
IMF loans to Belarus.
Lukashenka is holding out for the hope that the IMF will
bail him out. And not only should the IMF not bail him out, we
need to send two signals. One to him that the IMF is not going
to come to his rescue, but we also need to send a signal to the
opposition and civil society in Belarus to let them know that
the IMF is not going to undercut their efforts to bring about
change there.
Mr. Nix. Again, I would just--yes, this is a critical
point. Lukashenka is desperate for cash. He cannot continue to
fund a state-run economy the way he has been. Russian pressure
has been placed on the economy. Subsidies on gas and oil have
been reduced. So he really is in a desperate spot. Now is the
time to really turn up the pressure on this regime, both
economically and politically.
Mr. Burton. If the gentleman would yield, I want to thank
the Assistant Secretary for sticking around. I guess he didn't
hear me. Thank you very much for staying around for the second
panel. I appreciate that very much. Thank you.
Go ahead.
Mr. Sires. I really have no other questions.
Mr. Burton. Let me just end by making a couple of comments.
First of all, you folks, as well as the State Department have
real insights into the problems facing Europe and Eurasia.
We're going to be going on our next codel to Turkey, Greece,
and Cyprus to try to address those issues. We may even stop by
Azerbaijan during that trip. But if there are things that you
think need immediate attention or attention in the not too
distant future for a congressional delegation to focus on,
we'll be glad to try to do that.
There are some parts that you talked about today where we
have not been with Moldova, as an example. And we want to make
sure we do whatever is necessary over the next couple of years
to make sure that we help as much as possible to stabilize that
entire region, especially in view of the fact that right now
they're having severe difficulties financially in the European
Union with Greece and Italy and Ireland and Portugal and Spain.
And so anything we can do to assist in that whole region, we'd
like to.
So you have the expertise. If you have any suggestions if
you would contact my ranking member, Mr. Meeks or myself, or
any member of the committee and we'll see if we can't work that
into our schedule in the future.
Do any of you have any last minute comments on things we
may have omitted? Any other comments? Thank you very much. We
really appreciate your testimony. We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:16 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
