[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
AXIS OF ABUSE: U.S. HUMAN RIGHTS POLICY TOWARD IRAN AND SYRIA, PART 1
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
THE MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 27, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-61
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
67-602 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California BRAD SHERMAN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
RON PAUL, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
CONNIE MACK, Florida GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas DENNIS CARDOZA, California
TED POE, Texas BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
DAVID RIVERA, Florida FREDERICA WILSON, Florida
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania KAREN BASS, California
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York
RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina
VACANT
Yleem D.S. Poblete, Staff Director
Richard J. Kessler, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Chairman
MIKE PENCE, Indiana GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York DENNIS CARDOZA, California
RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
DANA ROHRABACHER, California BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
CONNIE MACK, Florida CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
The Honorable Jeffrey D. Feltman, Assistant Secretary of State,
Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, U.S. Department of State....... 7
The Honorable Michael H. Posner, Assistant Secretary of State,
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department
of State....................................................... 8
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Jeffrey D. Feltman and the Honorable Michael H.
Posner: Prepared statement..................................... 10
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 44
Hearing minutes.................................................. 45
AXIS OF ABUSE: U.S. HUMAN RIGHTS POLICY TOWARD IRAN AND SYRIA, PART 1
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 2011
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Middle East
and South Asia,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o'clock p.m.,
in room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steve Chabot
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Chabot. The subcommittee will come to order. I want to
first apologize for running a little bit late here. We just had
a series of votes on the floor so that's why we are not
starting on time. This committee kind of prides itself in
trying to start on time as often as possible, so my apologies.
I want to wish you all a good afternoon, and I want to
welcome all of my colleagues and we will have more coming in,
of course, to this hearing of the Subcommittee on the Middle
East and South Asia.
Since taking office, the Obama administration's policy
toward Iran and Syria has been characterized chiefly by its
engagement with the ruling regimes. Whether or not that was the
right policy at the time, the situation we face today with
respect to these two countries is vastly different than it was
in January.
Just over 2 years ago, the regime in Tehran perpetuated one
of the most blatant incidents of electoral fraud in recent
history. This sparked widespread pro-democracy protests, and
the people of Iran took to the streets by the thousands to
demand that their most basic rights be respected.
What followed made very clear, however, that this regime is
not interested in the rights or wellbeing of its citizens. The
world watched as the Iranian regime beat, tortured, raped and
murdered its way through these protests.
It is perhaps even more horrifying to consider that many of
these abuses are still occurring nearly 2 years later. The
Iranian regime has been carrying out what former U.S.
Ambassador to the U.N. Mark Wallace has called ``One of the
great human rights tragedies of the modern era.''
Most notable is the incredible number of executions, which
by some estimates now exceed 140 people, including children, a
violation of international law. That this regime continues to
claim legitimacy under the auspices of democratic elections is
an insult, not only to the people of Iran, but to all those
true democracies around the world whose governments actually do
reflect the will of their peoples.
Just over 6 months ago Syria, the Iranian regime's closest
ally in the region, joined Tehran in its ruthlessly repression
of pro-democracy protests. As protests intensified, the Assad
regime initiated a brutal crackdown that continues even as we
speak. It is now estimated that over 1,800 Syrians have been
killed, over 10,000 have been jailed. Approximately 30,000 have
been internally displaced, and nearly 12,000 fled to
neighboring Turkey, where over 8,500 remain.
Reports coming out of Syria speak of unconscionably heinous
human rights abuses, snipers targeting protesters, residents,
including children and the elderly being rounded up, beatings,
the use of electric shock to the genitals and torture of
children, to name just several of the witnessed actions by the
Assad regime.
I want to condemn in the strongest possible terms both the
actions of these regimes as well as the regimes themselves.
These regimes together form an axis of abuse whose wanton
disrespect for even the most basic human rights is undeniable.
Today's hearing, however, was called to examine U.S.
policy. My concern lays not so much with what the
administration has done as with what it has not done. The Obama
administration's human rights policies toward Iran and Syria
have been both feeble and late. Rather than seizing the
historic opportunity presented to it, the administration
dithers by slowly inching toward challenging the legitimacy of
these regimes in any meaningful way.
This begs the question of how many people have to be
tortured or die before the administration is willing to call
these regimes what they are, not only illegitimate but
depraved. That the administration continues to issue calling
for a transition to a democratic government in Tehran is
evidence of one of two possibilities.
Either it still believes that a grand bargain on the
illicit nuclear program is possible, or it is concerned that to
do so, like in Libya, create a situation in which it must then
ensure that the regime actually falls.
The fine line that the administration is walking by
condemning but not seriously challenging puts it in an
untenable position and from the outside appears to be hedging
rather than leading. And although the administration may think
that to do so puts itself in a strategically advantageous
position, it seriously underestimates the impact its actions,
or lack thereof, have on actual outcomes.
Indeed, the perception that calling for a democratic
transition requires U.S. military operations to forcibly depose
those in power is an excuse to avoid making a more permanent
break with the regimes in Tehran and Damascus.
Words, like many things, have a currency, and that currency
is action. To highlight human rights abuses and then sanction
fewer than a dozen individuals in each country respectively, is
unacceptable. To vacillate between condemning these regimes and
then later offering a lifeline should they reform, pits us
against the people of those countries.
The administration must realize two things. First, making
no decision is in fact a decision in and of itself. And second,
no matter who ultimately prevails, the U.S. can no longer do
business with these regimes. They are beyond salvation.
And I will now recognize the gentleman from New York, the
ranking member Mr. Ackerman, for 5 minutes to make an opening
statement.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank the chairman. I keep in my office a
black and white photo of a place called Serock, Poland. It's
where my mom and her family come from. Following the Nazi
invasion in 1939, the Jews in Serock were rounded up, sent to
the Warsaw ghetto and liquidated. Except for the desecrated
cemetery, there are no Jews in Serock today.
There was no help for them. The free world claimed not to
know, and even if it had it probably still would not have
helped. In 1939 the troubles of Polish Jews were nobody's
problem but their own.
Knowing that is part of me. It's one of the reasons I have
always felt that serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee is
important. Not because I expect another Holocaust, though the
Iranian regime seems intent on preparing one, and it must be
stopped, but because there will always be a grave concern that
the cry of people in distress or danger of being slaughtered
will go unheeded.
We said, ``Never again.'' But it happened again. It
happened in Cambodia. It happened in Bosnia. It happened in
Rwanda, Congo, Sudan. It's happening today in Syria. And in
each case governments, including ours, like guilty children
look down at their shoes and say to no one in particular,
``There's nothing we could have done.''
But that wasn't really true then, and it isn't true now.
Even the weakest nation can bear witness. The least powerful
country can still report the truth to the world. The most
isolated state can, with no authority but its own, impose
political and economic sanctions. And we are far from weak or
powerless or isolated. But with regard to Syria, we have
nonetheless failed to act.
I have tried to explain our policy to Syrian Americans who
were almost trembling with anxiety for their relatives, and I
have failed, principally I think because our policy is so
completely incoherent.
Somehow it manages to combine colossal moral failure and
unimaginable strategic imbecility with the overpowering stench
of hypocrisy, thanks to our feckless intervention in Libya.
Congratulations, gentlemen, you have hit the policy failure
trifecta.
History will record not only how we mostly ignored the
people of Syria in their hour of need, but worse, how we
overlooked our own blindingly obvious national interests in the
demise of the Assad regime. Virtually every single interest
that we have in the Middle East, whether it is aiding Israel's
search for peace and security, protecting Lebanon's
sovereignty, preventing Iranian hegemony, undercutting
Hezbollah and Hamas, nurturing Iraq's development, sustaining
our partnership with Turkey, or just promoting democracy and
human rights is dramatically, even exponentially, furthered by
the Syrian people getting rid of the Assad regime.
And to be very clear, I am not calling for U.S. military
intervention in Syria. It is both unwise and unnecessary. But
there is considerably more that we can and must do. First and
above all, the President must call for Bashar al-Assad, that
blood-soaked dictator, to step down. Trifling with the lives of
the people of Syria with nuanced lawyerly phrases like
``President Assad must understand he is not indispensible,'' is
shameful.
Noting that Assad has lost legitimacy without calling for
his immediate departure from power trivializes the deaths of
thousands of Syrians killed by Assad's thugs. And most
importantly between the Syrian Accountability Act and the
International Economic Emergency Powers Act, the President has
at his disposal massive economic and political powers of
coercion and punishment. The Obama administration has barely
scratched even the surface of their utility in aiding the
people of Syria in throwing off this regime of murders and
thieves and torturers of children.
All bilateral trade with Syria should end immediately. All
Syrian banks should be barred from the U.S. financial system
immediately. All Syrian regime assets in the United States
should be frozen immediately. All official Syrian travel to the
United States should cease immediately. We must act.
I look forward with no joy to hearing from our witnesses'
efforts to defend the indefensible and to explain the
inexplicable.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
Any other members who would like to make opening statements
will have 1 minute, and I believe the gentleman from New York,
Mr. Higgins, was--you are next Mr. Higgins. You are recognized
for 1 minute.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this hearing today. A fundamental principle of democracy is the
right of self determination and freedom of expression. The
people of both Syria and Iran this right has been denied. They
have been denied freedom of speech and freedom of expression by
oppressive regimes clinging to power however they can.
This is an important time in our nation's history. This is
not only a regional conflict. It's one of global consequence as
well. The whole world is watching, civilian populations as well
as authoritarian regimes, to see what the response of the
United States will be.
We have a moral obligation to continue efforts to undermine
Assad, to encourage his departure as quickly as possible, and I
look forward to the expert testimony of our panel here today.
Thank you.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, and the gentleman yields back. And
the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Murphy, is recognized for 1
minute.
Mr. Murphy. I look forward to the gentlemen's testimony. I
will waive my opening statement.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Conolly, is recognized.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward
very much to the testimony. I must say I respect you a lot, Mr.
Chairman, but I don't necessarily subscribe to your critique of
the administration with respect to policy in Iran. I actually
think we have been yielding some results in coordinating with
allies and in enforcing the sanctions in a way that heretofore
were not.
With respect to my colleague's and my friend's critique of
the Syria policy, it is powerful and needs to be heeded, but a
word of caution. This is not a unidimensional situation. It's a
multi-dimensional situation and we have to not only worry about
regime change, we have to worry about what takes its place.
And so that's a challenge for American diplomacy, and I
think we need to respect that while at the same time expressing
our frustration with pace and tone and the words being used
that my colleague rightfully criticizes. With that I yield
back.
Mr. Chabot. Okay. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutsch is recognized.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
witnesses for appearing today. I have long been concerned about
the egregious human rights abuses taking place daily in Iran.
Several months ago I introduced bipartisan legislation that
would require mandatory investigations and impose sanctions on
those who aided in the brutal crackdown following the June 2009
election.
The regime has made it clear that it will not hesitate to
use violence and intimidation to suppress any threats to its
iron-fisted rule. The number of executions in Iran has been
steadily rising, with 39 just in the month of March.
The United States must show that we are serious in our
commitment to fighting human rights abuses and to giving
opposition the necessary tools to speak out and stand up to
this brutal regime. I look forward to the witnesses' testimony
on U.S. policy and the efforts being made to document and
publicize cases of abuse in Iran and providing platforms for
the opposition moving forward.
And I thank the chairman and I yield back.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman yields back. Thank you. The
gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Keating is recognized if--or
did he walk out? Okay.
And then last but not least, I would ask unanimous consent
that the gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman, who is a
member of the full committee but not this subcommittee be
entitled to all the privileges of the members of this
subcommittee, except that he go last. So the gentleman is
recognized for the purpose of making an opening statement for 1
minute.
Mr. Sherman. Happy to go last. Glad to see Assistant
Secretary Posner, who's doing an outstanding job at DRL, and I
thank the chairman for holding these hearings. I hope the
Assistant Secretary would go back and talk to others at the
State Department who are planning to issue a license to General
Electric to repair the supposedly civilian aircraft of the
Iranian airlines.
These aircraft have been used and will be used to ferry
weapons to Iran and then ferry them on to Syria, where Iranian
weapons deliveries have already resulted in the deaths of
hundreds of brave Syrian people.
And I want to talk about the humanitarian crisis faced in
Camp Ashraf. I want to commend to the Assistant Secretary's
reading and to my colleagues for possible co-sponsorship, House
Resolution 231. It was introduced by the chairman of the--
chairwoman of the full committee and myself. And it urges that
the United States do everything possible to ensure the physical
security and protection of Camp Ashraf residents, noting that
as recently as April 8th Iraqi forces initiated force against
the residents of that camp. And apparently that some 34 people
died, 300 were wounded.
And I would also point out that the Iraqi Ambassador in
trying to disclaim any responsibility for this, points that the
MEK happens to be listed on the terrorist list. We need to
protect the people of Camp Ashraf.
I yield back and I thank the chairman.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman yields back. Thank you very much,
and the chair would like to note the presence of quite a number
of people here relative to the Camp Ashraf issue. And I would
just commend those people and their associates for their
dedication and relentless commitment to their cause.
And it has certainly been noted by many members of the
Foreign Affairs Committee over the past weeks and months. And
so we would just like to note that for the record, that they
have been in attendance time after time after time, and it is
duly noted for the record.
At this time I would like to recognize the two members of
the panel who will be testifying this afternoon and introduce
them.
We first have Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman who was sworn in
as Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs on
August 18, 2009. A career member of the Foreign Service since
January 1986, he has served in Iraq, Israel, Tunisia and
Lebanon, and was the Ambassador on the Ground in Lebanon during
the Cedar Revolution in 2005.
Ambassador Feltman served as Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs from February
2008 to his present assignment, serving concurrently as Acting
Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau since December 18,
2008. He received his Bachelor's degree in history and fine
arts from Ball State University in 1981 and his Master's degree
in law and diplomacy from the Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy at Tufts University in 1983. And we welcome you here
this afternoon.
And our other witness here this afternoon is Michael H.
Posner, who was sworn in as Assistant Secretary of State for
the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor on September
23, 2009. Prior to joining State Department, Mr. Posner was the
executive director and then president of Human Rights First. He
played a key role in proposing and campaigning for the first
U.S. law providing for political asylum, which became part of
the Refugee Act of 1980, and was a member of the White House
Apparel Industry Partnership task force.
Before joining Human Rights First, Mr. Posner was a lawyer
in Chicago. He received his J.D. from the University of
California, Berkeley School of Law, and a B.A. with
distinctions and honors in history from the University of
Michigan. And we welcome you here as well, Mr. Posner.
And as I'm sure both very witnesses are very familiar with,
we have the 5-minute rule and you will both be recognized for 5
minutes. We have a lighting system. The yellow light will come
on to let you know you have got 1 minute to wrap up and we
would ask you to keep within that time if at all possible.
And Ambassador Feltman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ambassador Feltman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Ackerman, members of the committee, Assistant Secretary Posner
and I appreciate this opportunity and we ask that our full
written statement be included in the record.
Mr. Chabot. Without objection, so ordered.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JEFFREY D. FELTMAN, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF STATE, BUREAU OF NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ambassador Feltman. This hearing is really important. It's
very timely. In our view it is absolutely critical that
audiences in the Middle East see that the United States has not
and will not ignore those who are struggling for their rights.
And the fact that you have placed Syria and Iran together
in the same hearing shines a spotlight on two governments that
share shameful records on abusing their own citizens and on
playing destructive and destabilizing roles in the region.
Mr. Chairman, you were right. The actions that these
countries are practicing are depraved.
It is no accident that Iran is Bashar al-Assad's best
friend and that Syria is Iran's best friend and that neither
have any other true allies in the region.
First, a few words on Syria. As Arab demonstrators demanded
their rights, first in Tunisia and then in Egypt, Bashar al-
Assad insisted to the world that he was different, that he was
a reformer, that he was in touch with his people. Well, after
months of protests and brutal crackdowns, the reality is clear.
Bashar al-Assad is not a reformer but someone whose rule relies
on terror, theft and torture.
The regime's violent response to protests has crystallized
the protestor's demands around freedom and the dismantling of
the security apparatus. None of Assad's reforms, so-called
reforms, has resulted in the changes the Syrians want to see on
the ground.
The Syrian people now refuse to be subject to house-to-
house raids, indiscriminate arrests, torture, shooting,
behavior that Assad and his brutal security thugs seem
incapable of unlearning. Demonstrators seek freedom, and the
Assad regime responds with bullets and billy clubs.
To consolidate his monopoly on power, Assad foments
violence of an intentionally factional nature, seeking to hide
the nature of his regime by exploiting the Syrian public's
latent fear of communal strife. As a direct consequence of
Bashar's approach, deadly violence has at times taken on a
sectarian shade, such as the recent tragedy in the city of
Homs.
But change is coming to Syria. Bashar al-Assad can try to
obstruct it. He can try to delay it, but he cannot stop it. The
opposition is not waiting. They are organizing themselves. They
are beginning to articulate an agenda for Syria's future, one
in which all citizens regardless of faith or ethnicity are
equal participants.
For our part, we have articulated clearly that the United
States has nothing invested in the Bashar al-Assad regime and
that we want to see a Syria that is united, where tolerance,
respect for human rights and equality are the norms. This is
the message that Ambassador Ford is delivering to the Syrian
leadership and the Syrian people.
I will turn in a minute to Syria's best friends, Iran.
Iranian leaders are shameless, dangerous hypocrites. They claim
to be on the sides of Arab demonstrators in some countries,
while sending advisors and material to Syria to aid brutality
there.
And they use a merciless iron fist against their own
citizens who attempt to exercise their rights to demonstrate
and to speak openly. We are not passive chroniclers of the
horrors the Syrian Government is inflicting on its people or of
Iran's brutality.
Our written statement details our promotion of political
and human rights and what we are doing to push back against
these abuses of protestors in both countries.
We hope today's hearing will serve as further evidence that
the American people and our Government stand united in
admiration and support for those who have boldly assumed the
duty and made the sacrifices to advance their rights. For this
opportunity we thank the committee again.
But finally, I must conclude by expressing our deep and
continuing concern for the safety and the wellbeing of all
American citizens currently detained in Iran. In particular, we
urge the Iranian Government to release at once Shane Bauer and
Josh Fattal so that they may return to their families. We also
ask Iran again to provide all information on missing American
citizen Robert Levinson and to cooperate in reuniting Mr.
Levinson with his family. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, very much.
Mr. Posner, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL H. POSNER, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF STATE, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND
LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Posner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and member of the
committee for having us. I want to echo Jeff's appreciation for
giving us an opportunity to speak to these issues which we feel
so deeply about. These are two countries, Iran and Syria, that
are violating every important international human rights
standard.
The things that you on the panel describe, the various
abuses, are things that we see, we agree with, and the question
is now how to move forward.
I want to just take a minute and highlight one aspect of
the situation in Syria, and that's the treatment of young
people, of children. This set of demonstrations began in March
in the southern city of Dara'a when security forces fired upon
those calling for the release of children who had been detained
for weeks simply for writing political graffiti on the walls.
The regime responded with its usual methods, using gunfire,
arrest, torture, abuse to kill and intimidate the protestors.
Again, in the past several weeks we have seen the attacks
against children continuing, including a 13-year-old named
Hamza al-Khateeb, who was tortured and mutilated and his body
was returned by Syrian security forces. A 10-year-old boy, a 4-
year-old girl were killed during raids on several towns around
Homs. And on July 15th a 12-year-old, Tallha Dalal, was shot in
the head by police officers in Damascus.
Horrific images of these bodies and those of other children
have been smuggled out. Those responsible for these and other
atrocities must be held accountable for their crimes.
We have gone into lots of detail in the written testimony.
You can read that. But we have no doubt, as you say, that at
least 1,600 Syrians have been killed, over 10,000 are now
jailed. Security forces continue to hold people hostage to a
widening crack down.
And yet incredibly the people of Syria have lost their
fear. The demonstrations are continuing. They are expanding.
And as we have said repeatedly, President Assad has lost
legitimacy, and he needs and will be held accountable for his
actions.
With respect to Iran, as my colleague, Assistant Secretary
Feltman spelled out, we also are regularly reviewing the record
of the government. We know how outrageous they have been and
continue to be. They carry out, as Chairman Chabot, you pointed
out, we think 190 executions this year, which is more than any
country in the world except for China.
The government also continues to impose draconian
restrictions on speech. Journalists and bloggers are targeted
as are teachers, trade unionists and others. The list of abuse
goes on and on.
Now, particularly troubling to us is the deep persecution
of religious minorities. On May 1st the Revolutionary Court in
the northern city of Bandar-e Anzali tried 11 Christians who
were members of the Church of Iran, including the pastor of
that church. We have seen this persecution not only against
Christians but Sufis and the Baha'i. And I want to single out
the Baha'i because they have been attacked repeatedly
throughout the years.
The United States has imposed sanctions against both of
these governments. But we start from the premise, and I think
this may be where our approach is not understood as well as it
should be. We start from the premise that in both of these
countries there is a courageous populous, a courageous group of
people who are challenging these repressive governments, and
our support needs to be rooted in the assumption that change
will occur from within both of these countries.
And we are doing a range of things both to support their
ability to communicate among themselves and the world. We have
extensive Internet freedom program. We have translated our
materials into Arabic and Farsi. We are working to support non-
governmental organizations who in both countries are severely
persecuted. We are providing training to people. We are
providing ability for them to organize and meet among
themselves.
Our belief is that these two governments, these two regimes
cannot stand the test of time because their own people are
going to be ultimately successful in bringing about sustainable
democracy and human rights.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Feltman and Mr.
Posner follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. We appreciate your
testimony, and we will now begin our questioning, and I
recognize myself for 5 minutes for that purpose.
As I am sure we can agree the numbers that were mentioned
in both your testimonies are astonishing. What is more, just
this morning the death count continues to rise. According to
news reports, Syrian tanks surrounded a town near Damascus,
killing 11 and arresting 300 in one what one human rights
activist called an ``act of vengeance.''
Still even as Israel now stands up and says Assad must go,
as it did yesterday, unfortunately we continue to vacillate.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came close when she said
that ``from our perspective, he has lost legitimacy.'' But the
very next day President Obama walked back from this position by
suggesting that Assad had not in fact lost legitimacy but was
losing it in the eyes of his people.
As I read stories like this I found myself asking what I
had said in my opening statement, you know, how many more
people have to die before we have the courage to stand up and
say that Assad is illegitimate and he must go? He must leave.
Additionally, I don't see why we are willing to stand up
and call Gaddafi what he is, a ruthless murderer, but we don't
do the same for Assad. When asked about this very issue, White
House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that Libya was a ``unique
situation.'' We had a Gaddafi regime that was ``moving against
its own people in a coordinated military fashion and was about
to assault a very large city on the promise that the regime
would show that city and its residents no mercy.'' That was his
quote.
Is this not what is happening right now in Syria? President
Obama himself said of Syria that ``We are not anywhere near the
kind of situation that drew all the international support for
Libya.'' Although the situation has intensified since the
President said that, our policy doesm't seem to have changed
accordingly.
People are still tying and we still have not called for
Assad's departure. It is not enough to say that we are not
committed to him and then to condemn his actions. It is time
for us to say that Assad must go. Why does the administration
still refuse to do this?
Also, why did we call Gaddafi illegitimate but not Assad?
What makes the two of them different? How are they different
than the regime in Tehran for that matter? And I will leave it
there at this point.
And I would recognize either gentleman.
Ambassador Feltman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I mean first, let us be clear. We all agree what is
happening in Syria is absolutely deplorable. It is appalling.
It is unacceptable. Democracy is Syria's future. Bashar al-
Assad is Syria's past, and the sooner that we get to that past,
the sooner that he is relegated completely to the past the
better. I think we all agree.
You know, when I look across the region that falls into the
Bureau that I head, NEA, from Morocco through Iran, I see a lot
of common elements, but I also see a lot of differences. And
there is basically no one size fits all solution in the region
that I oversee.
We are looking for the best tools to support the people on
the ground. What is the best way to promote democracy in Egypt,
in Tunisia, in Libya, in Syria? It is different. And the main
thing is, again, what helps those people on the ground at the,
you know, right time? When is the right time for us to make a
statement like that?
It may be that we are going to make a statement such as you
suggest, such as you would like to see us now. But we have the
drama of that once and when is the right time? When will we
make sure that the story remains about the Syrian people and
not about us? You want to
Mr. Posner. I would just add to that. You know, I am very
focused having worked 30 years in the human rights movement. I
know the importance of our working with civil society, with
human rights activists, the people that are standing on the
street and risking their lives every day. And preparing for the
moment when the transition does come, does occur and allowing
us to go forward to create,to help support a democratic
transition, that is the focus for us.
We are listening to people on the ground. Ambassador Ford 2
weeks ago or 3 weeks ago when he went to Hama was greeted as a
hero because we were standing in solidarity with the people on
the street. When he went back to his Embassy, our Embassy in
Damascus, government supported thugs attacked the Embassy.
That tells you--that gives me a sense that we are doing the
right thing and we are going about this in a way that
reinforces those who are on the front line. That is what this
is about. There is no doubt for the people standing in the
streets in many now Syrian cities, that we are on their side.
Mr. Chabot. Well, actually I don't have time to ask another
question at this time. I appreciate your responses, however, I
think that many of us do believe that we ought to be very clear
that Assad has to go now as we made that pretty clear with
Gaddafi.
I wouldn't say that our actions ultimately met that
statement sufficiently because he's obviously still there. But
we are going to have a second round. My time has expired.
I recognize the gentleman from New York Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Ackerman. I thank the chairman.
This shouldn't be that hard. You know, we didn't get
involved in World War II because of the Holocaust. We didn't
get involved when 1 million Jews were killed or 2 million or 3
million or 4 million or 1 million who weren't Jewish killed or
2 million or 3 million or 4 million or 5 million.
We got involved because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor,
and shame on us for waiting.
We can't just be sitting here while these people are being
slaughtered and maimed, where children are being killed because
we think it is better to observe the diplomatic niceties in our
approach. Tell that to people whose kids or kids whose families
and parents are being killed. It is unfair. It is inhumane. It
is unworthy of us as a society.
I can understand we are waiting for the appropriate time,
but for other people the time is too late. It is in our every
foreign policy interest for this guy to go.
I know what you are waiting for. You are waiting for, just
like we waited on all the others, for the guy to be everything
but out the door before we say you should go out the door, to
be able to go ``whew'' and blow him off the edge of the cliff
so that there is no risk. He is already really out. Who is
going to appreciate that? People appreciate you coming to their
aid when they are at their most vulnerable.
We are kind of risk averse here. But you know, this has to
be done. You know what the outcome is going to be, and it is
not the romantic in me that says in the end democracy is going
to win and the streets will win out. It is the mathematician in
me that tells me that.
And as somebody, and I think we all are, people who believe
in the values that we espouse, and that you have articulated so
well here today, so what's the result of all of that reasoning
and thinking and hemorrhaging from our hearts? What are we
waiting for? Who does it hurt?
Are you worried about--are we worried about hurting his
feelings? We are hedging our bet here just in the odd chance
that he is going to be able to hang on so that we can continue
to do business with a murderer. Push him. Say it. Do it. He may
not leave when you say it, and it is no embarrassment to us if
not. The embarrassment is if we don't say it. Can we say it,
question mark?
Mr. Posner. Congressman, I share your sense of urgency and
outrage. I don't think it is right or fair to say that we are
standing still and hedging our bets. If we want to hedge our
bets with a government we don't call them barbaric. We don't
constantly on a daily basis talk about the reprehensible----
Mr. Ackerman. And names will never harm me.
Mr. Posner. Well, thereis more than names. This is a--we
are extremely focused. I am focused. Jeff is----
Mr. Ackerman. What is the down--Yes, I understand but
what's the downside to saying to him get out?
Mr. Posner. What we are saying is----
Mr. Ackerman. Are we going to be embarrassed if he doesn't
listen?
Mr. Posner. No. We are saying at this moment that we are
standing behind the Syrian people and their demand for
political change. This is about them. It is not about us.
Mr. Ackerman. Send them a Hallmark card.
Mr. Posner. No, it is not because it is backed by action.
And the action is an American Ambassador who takes the risk of
going out and standing in the street in Hama.
Mr. Ackerman. That was important and courageous.
Mr. Posner. And appreciated by the people who were standing
there. It is our activity, supporting the ability of the
opposition to meet, to meet in Turkey, to meet inside the
country. It is our effort to try to give them the tools to be
ready for the day when change will occur. And it will occur.
Mr. Ackerman. I'm saying----
Mr. Posner. All of those things are part of a strategy and
the strategy, not unlike what you are saying, is the
expectation, the realization that President Assad has lost----
Mr. Ackerman. Why not lay down your cards----
Mr. Posner [continuing]. His legitimacy.
Mr. Ackerman [continuing]. And go through all the rest of
it anyway? Tell him to get out and then continue with what you
are doing? But let people know where we stand and not be
unambiguous as we have been.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman's time has expired but if either
of the gentlemen would like respond they can.
Ambassador Feltman. Congressman Ackerman, the Syrian people
know where we stand. That is why Robert Ford had his vehicle
pelted with flowers as he was going through Hama. People know
where we stand in Syria. They see what we are doing. And also
this idea that we are hedging our bets, I don't know how you
calculate it but I calculate that, you know, it is not going
Bashar's way.
He cracks down more he is going to enrage the people more.
Demonstrations pop up all over the country in new places. They
come closer and closer to the center of Damascus. He pulls back
as he should and stops the torture and stops the torture and
the shooting and the killing and the arrests. Then you have
enormous momentum like you have in Hama.
He is losing, but that doesn't mean that he is losing
because of our words. He is losing because of what he is doing
and because of the fact that the Syrian people are at last
waking up from the political coma he has tried to keep them in
for 40 years. And they have transcended their fear and they are
standing up for a better future for them. He is the past.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair would just note that I would like to say this is
one of those rare occasions when the Republican chair and the
Democratic ranking member agree but actually we actually agree
quite often on this committee and I share the ranking member's
frustration here relative to this matter.
And I would at this time recognize the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Poe, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for----
Mr. Chabot. Excuse me. Prior to that I--if the gentleman
would yield. The gentleman is in the same position as the
gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman, a member of the full
committee and not a member of this subcommittee so I would ask
unanimous consent that he also have the privileges of a member
of this subcommittee. Although he went last and since he's last
on this side at this time, the gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing me
to join this hearing. My questions will be to you, Mr. Feltman.
This is the third time you and I have talked. We talked once in
November. We talked second in March and now here we are again.
Those previous times, in my opinion, I didn't get a
straight answer. I think really you were just trying to kill
the 5 minutes and not give me an answer at all. There are still
loudspeakers in Camp Ashraf. What has the State Department
done, if anything, to remove the loudspeakers that are blaring
into Camp Ashraf?
Ambassador Feltman. We are trying to move Camp Ashraf.
Mr. Poe. Tell me about the loudspeakers. I don't want to
hear about that yet, about being moved.
Ambassador Feltman. What we are trying to do is to address
a very real human rights situation in Ashraf that affects 3,400
individuals and that could get a heck of a lot worse by the end
of the year. You have a state within a state that----
Mr. Poe. Has the State Department--just answer the
question. Has the State Department done anything in opposition
or protesting the loudspeakers blaring into Camp Ashraf? It is
either a yes or it is a no.
Ambassador Feltman. Well, I'm sorry that that's the litmus
test for whether we care about human rights in the Camp Ashraf
or not.
Mr. Poe. It's either a yes or a no. I will get to the human
rights.
Ambassador Feltman. I'm not aware. I'm not aware of
anything because we are focused on----
Mr. Poe. So the State Department hasn't--I will reclaim my
time.
Ambassador Feltman [continuing]. The larger human rights.
We are----
Mr. Poe. Thank--I will reclaim my time, Mr. Ambassador. The
State Department hasn't done anything about the loudspeakers.
Thank you. Finally an answer that I first asked in November.
Since we last talked, the Iraqi Government has invaded Camp
Ashraf and murdered 34 people and injured more than 70. My
opinion is one of the reasons they use for an excuse is the
fact that the State Department continues to list the MEK as a
foreign terrorist organization. When is the State Department
going to make a decision as to whether to remove them from the
list or not?
Ambassador Feltman. Congressman, I would like to separate
the FTO designation from Camp Ashraf. We have a pending
potential crisis, catastrophe in Camp Ashraf.
Mr. Poe. Just answer the question that I asked, not--don't
answer one that I didn't ask.
Ambassador Feltman. It's still--the lawyers are still
working on it. There were documents that were recently
declassified to give to the lawyers of the MEK so the process
is still ongoing. It's taking a while because the
declassification process, the need to make sure that both sides
have full documentation. It's an ongoing process.
In the meantime, as you know----
Mr. Poe. When do you think it will take place was my
question?
Ambassador Feltman. I'm not a lawyer. I don't know,
Congressman. But as you know, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals
did keep the FTO designation in place while the review goes on.
But the review is ongoing. Documents are being declassified,
passeC to the lawyers of the MEK to make sure they have the
information as well.
Mr. Poe. The residents of Camp Ashraf don't want to be
removed, and I'm sure that you are aware that the full
committee of the Foreign Affairs Committee passed my amendment
by unanimous voice vote, that the House of Representatives
through the Foreign Affairs Committee does not want Camp Ashraf
moved somewhere else.
This will pass. It will be legislation. But the State
Department, your position is the State Department wants them
moved. But of course, Iraq wants them moved and so do the folks
in Iran. Is it still the State Department's position to move
the Camp somewhere else in Iraq?
Ambassador Feltman. We are trying to do a two-part program,
Congressman, where the residents of Camp Ashraf will ultimately
be relocated to a third country, which is what they have told
us they would like.
Mr. Poe. Wouldn't it be true--would it be correct that if
the designation was removed, the Foreign Terrorist Organization
designation, against the residents of Camp Ashraf, the MEK, it
would be easier for them to disperse and go throughout the
world? Many of them are citizens in other countries. Wouldn't
that be easier for them to do it?
Ambassador Feltman. Our FTO designation has no impact on
Europe, for example. So it has nothing to do with the European
willingness to take in the residents of Camp Ashraf or not. And
it----
Mr. Poe. Reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time. When I
went and visited with Mr. Maliki and for almost 2 hours with
other members of this committee and wanted to go see the
residents at Camp Ashraf and get their side of the story, we
were, of course, denied that. We didn't want to--he didn't want
us to hear the other side, possibly the truth.
He said one reason that the people in Camp Ashraf are
treated the way they are treated by Iraq is because the State
Department continues to designate them as a Foreign Terrorist
Organization. Now, that is what he says. Do you agree with that
statement?
Ambassador Feltman. You know, the situation is complicated
to talk about in 9 seconds, but they have no status in Iraq. We
are trying to come up with something by which 3,400 people are
protected, that they participate in the discussions about how
they can be protected, where they stay with their leaders which
is what they have said they wanted to do, not to be dispersed.
Where they stay as a group.
We are trying to find a way, Congressman, believe me, by
which we avoid a real problem that could happen at the end of
the year because Iraq is sovereign now. So we are trying to
come up with a way by which--and I hope that the friends of
those in Camp Ashraf will talk to their leaders about our plan
isn't that bad. Our plan is
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Once again, I didn't get an answer. We will meet
again and we will ask the questions again.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from New York, Mr. Higgins, is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Higgins. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The
communication coming from the panel indicates that the civilian
population of Syria is comfortable and supportive of the United
States' position relative to Assad. Is that an accurate
assessment?
Mr. Posner. You know, realistically, the opposition in
Syria is a very multiple--multifaceted group. They don't have
one opinion. I think it is overwhelmingly the case, though,
that people that are risking their lives, who are out on the
streets, recognize that we are trying to amplify their voices.
We are trying to provide protection.
Ambassador Ford is every day talking to relatives, talking
to people who are on the receiving end of violence and trying
to advocate on their behalf. They understand this litany of
things that we have said suggest--don't just suggest. They say
very strongly this government has lost legitimacy. We are
standing with the people that are in the street.
Mr. Higgins. Got it. You know, Assad is a bad guy. He lacks
legitimacy. He murders his own people. His father destroyed
Hama in 1982, some 10,000 people were killed. Streets were
plowed down. It would seem to me that a strong declarative
statement by the United States with respect to Assad stepping
down would sent the appropriate message to the international
community and authoritarian regimes throughout the world about
what is going to be tolerated and what is not.
Is there not a concern, a public policy concern within the
State Department about not taking that decisive step and
calling explicitly for his removal?
Mr. Posner. Congressman, I spend a good part of my day in
internal debates and discussions within the State Department
about the use of language in public statements. When we say not
only that he has lost, President Assad has lost legitimacy, is
not indispensible, when we say that he has placed himself and
his regime on the wrong side of history, when we call him
barbaric, when we say his conduct is reprehensible, in the
world in which I live that is about as strong language as I
get. And it is the language that says we have absolutely lost
faith in this government.
We are moving in a very deliberate way to support the will
of the Syrian people who are out on the street. I am very
comfortable with the fact that at this moment that the United
States Government is doing what it can and should, positioning
ourselves to help a democratic transition in Syria. That is the
message we are conveying here. And I think it is the message
the people of Syria understand full well, and they are
appreciative of it.
Mr. Poe. All right.
Ambassador Feltman. I certainly support what my colleague
and friend Mike Posner just said, and I go back to what I said
before. There is no one-size-fits-all solutions to the
transitions taking place in the Middle East. We had a 30-year
strategic partnership with President Mubarak of Egypt. When
President Obama said essentially that it is time for Mubarak to
step aside, we knew that those words would mean a lot to
President Mubarak because of the long relationship with him.
And we knew they would have the impact that they should
have coming from the President, coming from the White House. We
don't have the same sort of relationship with Bashar al-Assad,
but I don't think that he is under any illusion of where we
stand when it comes to him. And certainly as we have said, the
people on the street in Syria know where we stand.
Mr. Poe. I will yield back.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. I think
the gentleman from Virginia Mr. Connolly was next and is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Posner, I take
your point that the fine art of diplomacy sometimes involves
the parsing of sentences and the careful perception of precise
words or sometimes deliberately ambiguous words.
But surely you can appreciate that there are many audiences
when the State Department speaks, and as you have heard from
this dais, there are one audience, Members of Congress who hear
in that language hedging, unwillingness to call out, you know,
violent murderous acts by a government against its own people
for what it is, and a clarion call for regime change. How would
you respond?
Mr. Posner. Well, to go back to what I said earlier, I
don't think there is any ambiguity about the extent to which we
have condemned the violence. We have condemned it in broad
strokes, barbaric, reprehensible. And we have condemned it in
detail. We have condemned it at the level of the President and
the Secretary of State, and we have condemned it throughout our
Government. So there is no doubt about the facts and our
understanding of those facts.
Mr. Connolly. So it is your position that there is absolute
clarity about U.S. policy and U.S. intent with respect to the
Assad regime?
Mr. Posner. I think if you are standing on the streets of
Hama there is no doubt that the United States Government has
been on the side of the people helping both amplify their
voices, protecting them. That is what Ambassador Ford was
doing. He was protecting people who were facing down guns and
who were likely on that Friday to be shot at. His presence
there made a difference.
When the families of victims, families of people who have
disappeared, families of people who are being tortured come
into the Embassy, they understand that the United States
Government is trying to help alleviate their pain and their
suffering.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Posner.
Mr. Posner. That is really what this is about.
Mr. Connolly. No, it isn't. No, it is not. Foreign policy
isn't just about an audience in Hama. Foreign policy is also
about the domestic audience here that supports or doesn't
support our foreign policy. What you have heard from this dais
is Members of Congress have trouble understanding what you just
said. So it may be clear in Hama. It is not so clear in the
halls of Congress, and that is your responsibility as well as
ours. That is my point.
You have many audiences. That is an important one and I
respect it. But you need to, you, collectively, need to respect
this one. Otherwise you are going to erode confidence in what
you are trying to do.
And so I would commend to you, you know, parse those
sentences and select carefully those words for precision or
deliberate ambiguity with this audience in mind as well.
Mr. Posner. You know, and I appreciate that.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Mr. Posner. And we appreciate the fact that you are having
this hearing. I think it serves the interests that we both
share, which is a move for change.
Mr. Connolly. Ambassador Feltman, what is our goal in
Syria, understanding that peace and goodwill to mankind is not
a foreign policy?
Ambassador Feltman. Our goal would be to see a different
sort of government, a government that was not playing a
destabilizing role in the region but a positive role in the
region, that was not funding Hezbollah and trying to dominate
Lebanon, that was not shipping terrorists to Iraq. That was not
abusing its own people.
A government that is accountable to its own people, that
represents the rich diversity of Syria at peace with its
neighbors, respectful of human rights. That is the Syria that
the opposition has been saying they want to see. That is the
Syria we want to support. And that is the Syria that is coming.
Mr. Connolly. So Mr. Ambassador, therefore, implicitly we
should conclude logically we favor a regime change because this
regime can't do anything else.
Ambassador Feltman. No, you are absolutely right. This
regime has been a strategic enemy of the United States and has
abused its own people. And a different sort of Syria can play a
much better role bilaterally with us and in the region, as well
as in protecting its own people.
Mr. Connolly. And I have got 34 seconds, but are we
concerned that with the best of intentions in calling for that
regime change we need to be concerned about what takes its
place?
Ambassador Feltman. Well, we certainly have our views about
what should take its place. The opposition is becoming
increasingly organized, articulate a positive vision going
forward, the sort of Syria that we have discussed that we would
like to see. We have no crystal ball that can guarantee an
outcome, but we certainly can try to help shape that outcome.
I mean, as we have said multiple times, change is coming.
And the current situation where you have Syria with Hezbollah,
Syria exporting terror to Iraq, Syria abusing its own people,
it is not a friend of the United States.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you. My time is up.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, thank you very much. Pardon me for
being late. I, as you know, run in and out of different
meetings at the same time. And I know that some questions have
already been raised, but I would like to be a little more
specific on first of all the massacre that took place in Camp
Ashraf in April.
What have you done to--I mean you are human rights here.
You are the guy at the State Department who is supposed to be
concerned about human rights. What have we done to prevent
another massacre since then? Whoever?
Ambassador Feltman. Congressman, thank you. It is we have
condemned what happened in April. Obviously you certainly saw
the condemnation, but what we are trying to do now is to
prevent more such incidents.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So what have we done to prevent another
massacre?
Ambassador Feltman. Well, what we are doing now is we are
trying to negotiate with the leadership and the residents of
Camp Ashraf about security arrangements that would protect the
34 individuals that are there, abide by their demand that they
not be separated from their leadership, and provide safety
going forward.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Security arrangements? What security
arrangements?
Ambassador Feltman. I mean we have--I think you are aware,
Congressman.
Mr. Rohrabacher. What specifically? What security
arrangements are you talking about?
Ambassador Feltman. What we are trying to do is to find a
way by which we can allow the Iraqis to exercise the
sovereignty that is their right on, you know, sovereign Iraqi
territory.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Correct.
Ambassador Feltman. While protecting the rights, the human
rights of 3,400 people who are at Camp Ashraf who don't have
any status inside of Iraq.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Ambassador Feltman. And by working with the residents and
the leadership of the Camp, the ICRC, the Iraqi Government, to
come up with a way by which the residents and leaders of Camp
Ashraf themselves are participating in decisions that affect
their future. Right now they are sitting there waiting and who
knows? We don't want to see another massacre happen, but
something could happen. So we are trying to work with them to
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, right, well okay.
Ambassador Feltman. relocate them as a preliminary step for
the relocation effort.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Got it, got it, so we are talking.
We are talking. We are talking and we haven't reached a
decision yet. There was a massacre of 35 people who were
intentionally killed by Iraqi troops. This is not an unknown
bomber. This is an act of a sovereign government deciding that
it will kill unarmed civilians in order to achieve an
objective.
We are now working with them or talking with them. We have,
what, 50,000 troops still in Iraq?
Ambassador Feltman. It is a little lower than that, 40 some
now.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. And up until this time, up until the
time before the massacre we had made a pledge to the people of
Camp Ashraf that we were going to protect them from such things
as massacres from the Iraqis. Is that correct?
Ambassador Feltman. Well, Congressman, the fact is that
from January 1, 2009 the Iraqi Government itself has been
responsible for security inside of Iraq. We are no longer there
providing security inside of Iraq.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes. But we have 50,000 troops in Iraq,
and if there is--and I would hope that this isn't like the
Dutch did down in the Balkans when--well, you know, this really
isn't our jurisdiction so we are going to let these guys come
in and massacre unarmed people right in front of us.
Ambassador Feltman. But Congressman, what we are really
trying to do is we are looking at the calendar. We have a
security agreement with which we will comply. Our troops will
be out under the terms of that security agreement by the end of
December. At the end of December we will no longer be there the
way we are now, so----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, well, okay----
Ambassador Feltman [continuing]. We are trying to find a
solution now.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay, one of the--look. One of the
options, of course, is taking the people of Camp Ashraf to a
third country. That is one option that we need to talk to them
about. But no third country is going to take them as long as we
designate this group as a terrorist organization. And the State
Department has been dragging its feet for years on
redesignating this group.
We have designated them a terrorist organization in order
to curry favor with the Mullah dictatorship in Iran and it has
resulted in a massacre of 35 innocent people who were unarmed
and the wounding of hundreds of others. At the very least the
State Department should be working overnight and tomorrow to
issue the fact that they are no longer on the terrorist list
because that is the problem.
Ambassador Feltman. Congressman, I respectfully disagree.
We have talked to the European governments about this. They
don't take into account our FTO designation at all. They take
in----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, are the European governments the
only ones that have options of where we might be able to take
these people?
Ambassador Feltman. No. The FTO designation applies to the
United States.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Ambassador Feltman. But for Camp Ashraf it is a number of
things, such as they don't----
Mr. Rohrabacher. It applies for a lot of other countries
when the United States designates a group as terrorists, on a
terrorist list, and we are asking them to take people into
their country who are on a terrorist list. Now, if you want to
do your duty in terms of responsible overseeing of a human
rights standard, we should start with taking actions like this
that would be easy to take that action which would prevent
future massacres.
And I am watching and I don't see that for whatever reason
it is. It is still this politics of leaving these people on the
terrorist list that is keeping them at risk of another major
disaster where maybe this time hundreds will be killed rather
than just 35.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. The gentleman from Florida Mr.
Deutch is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Feltman, I would like to join you in calling for
the immediate release of Robert Levinson. Robert Levinson and
his wife Christine are constituents of mine. It has been now
more than 4 years since he disappeared in Iran. They are
awaiting word. I will ask you here to share whatever
information you can with us. If it is more appropriate to share
that privately I would ask that you come to my office and
provide the most detail possible.
Ambassador Feltman. I would prefer coming to your office
and talk about Robert Levinson, Congressman Deutch. Thank you.
Mr. Deutch. We will arrange that. Secretary Posner, what is
the status of the opposition movement in Iran at the moment?
Mr. Posner. As in many countries where there has been a
lack of political space to operate, the status of the
opposition is fragmented and diffuse. There are very few
opportunities for them to exercise their political muscles. But
they are, I would say, increasingly frustrated. Obviously
frustrated by a government that is repressive in every way, a
government that allows them little space to speak freely, to
get out into the streets, to meet privately even to discuss
political issues.
Mr. Deutch. What are we doing to support them?
Mr. Posner. Well, we are doing several things. I mean one
of the things that I am very involved in, and Congress has been
very supportive of this, to build capacity for people using the
new tools of technology, the Internet and social media to
communicate with each. Again, in a place where you are not
allowed to go to the street and where government has security
forces at every corner, it is very important for people to be
able to communicate.
We have got a very aggressive Internet freedom program that
includes wide translation of materials into Farsi, training of
activists both on how to use the technology, but also how to
protect themselves from a government that spends a lot of time
and money trying to disrupt their ability to communicate and
makes it dangerous.
We are working also constantly to try to allow Iranian
groups to communicate in and out of the country, to meet, to
gather, to begin to think about what is Iran going to look like
after this nightmare ends? And we are very, very focused.
Mr. Deutch. At the same time, I think there is more that we
could do to crack down on the human rights abusers. Part of the
new legislation, around the legislation, is bipartisan
legislation that I had introduced that will do just that. I
look forward to working with you on that.
I want to switch back to Syria for a second. Secretary
Feltman, there were some reports, published reports earlier in
the month that Syrian mission personnel under the Syrian
Ambassador were conducting video and photographic surveillance
of people participating in peaceful demonstrations in the
United States. They were effectively, according to these
reports, watching. They were effectively spying on American
citizens.
The Ambassador was called into the State Department by one
of your colleagues, and I have been unable to determine what
happened as a result. And what the status of the State
Department's investigation of these very serious charges is?
Ambassador Feltman. Congressman Deutch, thanks for the
question, because they are serious charges. They are extremely
serious charges. And the colleague that called him in was
Assistant Secretary of State Eric Boswell who heads up our
diplomatic security bureau, but also oversees the Office of
Foreign Missions, which deals with Embassies that are located
here which is why he was the counterpart.
And he called him in because of the seriousness of these
charges and made it clear that this is not behavior, these
allegations demonstrate behavior that is not behooving of
diplomatic status here. It was to the charge, by the way----
Mr. Deutch. Yes, excuse me.
Ambassador Feltman. It was the charge not--it was not the
Ambassador.
Mr. Deutch. Excuse me 1 second. Excuse me for 1 second. It
is--it goes well beyond----
Ambassador Feltman. It's not----
Mr. Deutch [continuing]. This is not becoming of diplomatic
behavior.
Ambassador Feltman. No, it is not consistent with his
diplomatic mission is for sure. There is another----
Mr. Deutch. But the accusation is that they have been
spying on American citizens.
Ambassador Feltman. There is another investigation that is
under way that we would have to talk about in a different
setting.
Mr. Deutch. Okay, well, and I look forward to that. But I'm
simply asking----
Ambassador Feltman. Well, it is----
Mr. Deutch [continuing]. When the Ambassador was called
in----
Ambassador Feltman. It was the charge d'affaires. The
Ambassador wasn't there.
Mr. Deutch. Well, by all reports including the report
coming from the State Department, it was the Ambassador who was
called in.
Ambassador Feltman. Perhaps you are right, Congressman
Deutch. I believe it was the charge d'affaires, though.
Mr. Deutch. If I--Mr. Chairman----
Ambassador Feltman. The Ambassador has been--the Ambassador
was on--was out of the country at the time I believe.
Mr. Deutch. So the--I am going to--I am going to claim a
few extra seconds to continue.
Ambassador Feltman. No.
Mr. Chabot. Yes, go ahead. Without objection, the gentleman
is recognized for 1 additional minute. Thank you.
Mr. Deutch. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, thank you. The
statement that came out of the State Department said that the
Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Eric Boswell called
Syrian Ambassador Imad Moustapha into the State Department on
Wednesday, July 6th to express a number of our concerns with
reported actions of certain Syrian Embassy staff in the U.S.
Ambassador Feltman. Yes.
Mr. Deutch. Are you--you are telling me that that----
Ambassador Feltman. No, that must be--I'm sorry. I am
sorry, Congressman Deutch. I will stand corrected by the State
Department statement. Let me just--I can just go there--we
share your concern about this. This is--these allegations, if
proven true, demonstrate outrageous abuse of diplomatic status
in this country.
So we share your concern about this. There is an
investigation under way.
Mr. Deutch. And we can speak further--and we can speak
further about the investigation. I am asking if you are not at
liberty to discuss the status of that investigation here we can
do that in my office. What I am asking about is since there
were reports, including a statement from the State Department
publicizing this meeting that took place, I am simply asking
what transpired in that meeting since we have not seen any
reports of that that have come out since? And can you confirm
the Ambassador was at that meeting or not?
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman's time has expired, but if you
can answer the question go ahead.
Ambassador Feltman. No, you know, I am sorry--I am sorry
for being wrong about who he met with. I have obviously got the
meeting confused, but there has been an ongoing investigation.
It is under way into the allegations. We are not aware of new
allegations since the time of the meeting. We haven't--new
allegations of events like that that have taken place since
then we are not aware of any.
The Ambassador himself, who was the subject of some of
these allegations, is currently out of the country, scheduled
to come back some time in August, but the investigation is
under way.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman's time has expired. We are going
to go through a second round here and I recognize myself for 5
minutes.
I would like to first talk about Iran. What actually is our
policy on Iran at the moment? Are we trying to negotiate a deal
with the regime? Are we trying to undermine it or both? If we
are trying to negotiate a deal with it, at what point would the
administration conclude that this regime is beyond salvation?
And I would ask your answer to that. Are we at that point yet
that it is beyond salvation?
Ambassador Feltman. I am not quite sure even if we conclude
that because if you look at their--if you look at their
repugnant behavior in the region, how they have defied the
international community and all sorts of things from human
rights to international nuclear regulations and law. The
defiance of the Security Council regulations.
If we declare that they are--if we have decided that they
are beyond--that they have gone beyond acceptable behavior
which they clearly have, well then what? We still have to deal
with the reality that Iran is playing a destabilizing,
destructive role in the region and how best do we confront it?
We have to confront it through security alliances in the
region.
Mr. Chabot. No, let me come at it a little different way.
Again, Iran, in the aftermath of the June 2009 election,
protestors in Iran coalesced into a broad-based pro-democracy
opposition. The administration, however, offered no
significant, tangible or moral support really at the time. And
current support I would argue is half-hearted at best.
Indeed, some analysts believe that the administration has
written off the Iranian opposition, believing that it is dead.
Has the administration indeed determined that the Iranian
opposition movement is dead? And what is the administration
actually doing beyond increasing programming and social media
activity to assist the Iranian opposition movement?
Are we providing technical, monetary or other such tangible
assistance similar to what we did with Solidarity in Poland?
And if not, why not? And what needs to happen before the
administration would consider throwing meaningful support, and
I mean meaningful support, behind the Iranian opposition
movement? And I would yield.
Mr. Posner. Let me answer that. I think there are three
aspects to what we are doing. One, we are providing support,
both through the new social media but also support to civil
society activists. We don't, you know, put lists on the
rooftop, but we are certainly mindful of the variety of
democrats, democratic forces in Iran. And we are supporting
them in a range of ways.
Secondly, we are extremely outspoken, and this includes the
President and the Secretary of State. I think we have made more
public statements about Iran than any other country. And those
statements continue including with this hearing, and again, we
appreciate that.
The third aspect which we haven't talked about is that we
have really ramped up our efforts not only to impose sanctions,
which we have done against key leaders, but against--but also
to bring others along. And we are starting to succeed at that.
We led an effort at the U.N. Human Rights Council to have a
special expert, a rapporteur appointed several months ago. The
United States is taking a lead in a range of diplomatic fora
and we will continue to do so to isolate Iran and to make clear
that not only we but our allies need to be part of this effort.
So it is a combination of support for the activists, public
commentary and work at the United Nations.
Mr. Chabot. Okay. I have only got 1 more minute, so let me
just--one other issue relative to Iran, the three American
hikers who were detained by the Iranian Government back on July
31, 2009, nearly 2 years ago to the day. That is longer than
the 444 days of the original Iranian hostage crisis.
They are being held on trumped up espionage charges and are
awaiting trial before what will, without a doubt, be a kangaroo
court. What is the administration doing to secure their
release? What consequences will the Iranian regime face should
it not release them? And what consequences has the Iranian
regime faced to date as a result of this outrageous behavior?
And I will yield.
Ambassador Feltman. Chairman, thanks for the question
because that is one of the reasons why I closed my own opening
statement with mentioning these, the two hikers, was to
reinforce the point that we are working every day to try to
secure the release of these two hikers. There is a lot of
diplomatic activity that is going on about these two hikers. Of
course, one was released. One of the three was released thanks
to some of our friends in the region and beyond.
The Swiss currently represent our interests in Iran and
they are very active with this portfolio in looking for ways to
persuade the Iranians to release them. We also are in touch
with the international partners who have relations with Iran,
those that go to Iran. I travel a lot in the region, for
example, and this is near the top of my agenda list when I see
people who I know are going to Iran is you need to make it
absolutely clear to the Iranians that this is essential for us
that these two hikers get home.
Mr. Chabot. Okay. I thank you, and my time has expired. I
recognize the ranking member Mr. Ackerman for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have tried to get
you to say regime change, something that you would not be
unhappy with from the tone of your explicit remarks. And the
administration doesn't want to get too far forward in its skis,
and despite the fact that we have tried everything short of
waterboarding and we may want to try that later.
Mr. Chabot. We agree once again.
Mr. Ackerman. Come to our office.
Mr. Chabot. That was just Tweeted, Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Ackerman. I will move off of that, but getting it done,
you don't have to say the words I supposed to get it done. In
my opening statement I referenced a list of things that I
thought we should be doing now that would more than ratchet up
the pressure. It would be hopefully to deal a more crushing
blow to the regime, encouraging its abdication.
What is wrong with those suggestions and why haven't we
done that? I know we have had some sanctions on some
individuals from within the Syrian leadership, but why aren't
we ending all bilateral trade? Why aren't we barring all the
Syrian banks from our U.S. financial system? And why aren't we
freezing the assets of Syria, all of the assets of Syria? And
why aren't we imposing a travel ban on all of their government
officials?
You can do them one at a time if you like. And wouldn't
that be helpful in getting the thing done without us saying the
unthinkable?
Ambassador Feltman. Congressman Ackerman, thanks for the
question. Part of what we are--because we are looking at
exactly these things you are looking at. I mean we start from
the reality that Syria is one of the most sanctioned countries
in the world when it comes to trade and relations with the
United States. Trade between the United States is quite low. It
consists of only five areas, food, medicine, medical supplies,
some civil aviation safety parts and communications equipment.
The communications
Mr. Ackerman. Let's go straight to oil imports.
Ambassador Feltman. Okay. Good question. We had a long
discussion today
Mr. Ackerman. And financial institutions.
Ambassador Feltman. We had a long discussion today with our
European colleagues because what we are trying to do is to move
together with our European colleagues. You know, if we do oil
and gas sanctions ourselves we don't have oil and gas trade
with the Syrians it is not going to amount to a whole lot.
There are, you know, questions about how much it hurts the
Syrian people versus hurts the Syrian regime is an ongoing
discussion, but we are--what we are trying to do it to work
multilaterally so that we and some of our other--and some of
our other partners in Europe and elsewhere are taking the same
steps in tandem because we will have a much greater impact to
do this together.
It goes back to the fact that Syria has very few friends
left, so other countries are looking at doing some of the same
things that we are doing now.
Mr. Ackerman. When can we--when can we see a recommendation
to freeze all the assets? Or would you prefer that we send that
over to you?
Ambassador Feltman. Well, I mean, we welcome all tools we
can have to try to put pressure on this regime, you know,
leaving some flexibility with--in the--leaving the flexibility
in the President's hand for foreign policy.
Mr. Ackerman. These are--these are tools that you have. I
mean you don't have to go ``Mother may I?''
Ambassador Feltman. No, we are--as I say, we start from the
fact that it is a heavily sanctioned country already so a lot
of the stuff that the Europeans are doing now we did years ago
because of the terrorist support.
Mr. Ackerman. Why----
Ambassador Feltman. There are a lot of----
Mr. Ackerman. Let's get precise.
Ambassador Feltman. We have----
Mr. Ackerman. Why don't we freeze all of the Syrian assets
in the United States tomorrow and all bilateral trade with
possibly the humanitarian stuff exempted? And why don't we ban
all travel?
Ambassador Feltman. And we are looking at a wide variety of
tools----
Mr. Ackerman. How long are we going to look?
Ambassador Feltman [continuing]. Congressman Ackerman. You
know, we are--we are rolling out different sanctions, different
designations all the time on Syria. But again, to the extent
that we do this in partnership with others, that we take
parallel steps it is going to have a far, far greater impact
because there is just not that much trade between the United
States and Syria. We shut it all off tomorrow, it will have----
Mr. Ackerman. Yes, but it will have--it will have some
impact.
Ambassador Feltman [continuing]. It won't make that much of
a difference.
Mr. Ackerman [continuing]. If we do it, whether we do it
together with them or not. And if we do it maybe they will do
it. Why not start?
Ambassador Feltman. Well, I think we have started. And the
fact that we have designated 27 individuals and entities since
this all started----
Mr. Ackerman. Are you going to freeze all the Syrian assets
in the United States any time soon?
Ambassador Feltman. You know, we are looking at the steps
to take, Congressman. That is all I can say. You know, we are
constantly looking at more and more designations as appropriate
tools to pressure----
Mr. Ackerman. You are viewing this as a peep show. You are
looking at this. You are looking at that, and people are dying.
Ambassador Feltman. Yes, I guess I would just respectfully
disagree with the fact that we are sounding inactive.
Mr. Ackerman. I am not saying you are inactive. I am saying
you are not as effective as you should be, or could be, or have
to be, or are morally obligated to be. We should be doing--if
you don't want to say the magic words I understand that. I
really don't, but I will say that I understand that. But I
don't understand why you are not using all the tools at your
disposal besides looking at them.
Mr. Chabot. And the gentleman's time has expired, but I
don't know if the gentleman want to answer the question or----
Mr. Posner. You know, Congressman, I listened carefully to
your list and we will go back and look at each of the things
you raise. And I will make a commitment that we are going have
the conversation about each of them and see if--what more we
can do. As Jeff said, as Assistant Secretary Feltman said, you
know, virtually every senior Syrian official has now subject to
sanctions and so you are suggesting there are other things we
can do. We will look at them and see if there are ways to
ratchet it up.
Mr. Chabot. The time has expired. The gentleman from
California Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, I would just like to note that I am
as frustrated by this interview as Mr. Ackerman. Let me just--I
am just hearing these words, ``We are looking and we are
talking.'' I just hear that repeated over and over again. ``We
are looking and we are talking.''
And let me note there is a difference between being
proactive and being reactive, and especially if reactive means
that you are looking and talking that doesn't come up with of
the kind of movement in the direction that I believe will make
this a peaceful and free world.
One thing, one note about our last discussion a few moments
ago, let me just state for the record that the representatives
of the United Nations High Commission on Refugees to the United
States, Vincent Cochetel was in my office 2 weeks ago and
specifically told me that the terrorist designation by the
United States of the people of Camp Ashraf was the major
stumbling block in getting these people relocated.
And so let me--that's on the record for you now and you can
try to go around it each way. You are sitting on a solution.
Now, I take it that neither one of you gentlemen have made the
decision, but whoever has made the decision that we are not
going to take them off the terrorist list and probably, as I
say, due to whoever that person is wanting to curry some kind
of favor with the mullah dictatorship, is playing with the
lives of unarmed people who have already gone through a
massacre.
And I hope you go back to the State Department and just let
them know if there is another massacre it is you guys who are
responsible for the death of these unarmed people because we
are not--something as easy as taking them off of the--I mean it
is easier to take them off the terrorist list than it is to
freeze all the assets of Syrians in the United States for
Pete's sakes.
This is something you can do and you are not doing it.
Unknown. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Posner, are you--do you believe in a
moral equivalency between the United States and, let's say,
Communist China?
Mr. Posner. My view is, and I am quite involved in a set of
conversations with the Chinese authorities about prison
conditions, about recent arrests that have happened since the
beginning of the year, about restrictions on religious freedom,
about a whole range of problems relating to treatment of
workers.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right. I found that during the Cold War
that when we were discussing the very things you are talking
about----
Mr. Posner. Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. That it undermined our
progress when we tried to find something that we could hold up
as an example of where we are actually just as bad over in this
area. And I have a quote from you in a briefing that says that
you have brought up the Arizona immigration law early and
often. You said it was brought up early and often with the
Chinese and that there was a troubling trend in our society
that it was an indication of discrimination and potential
discrimination.
Do you--by the way, do the Chinese just permit to come into
their society illegally and don't kick them out?
Mr. Posner. Let me respond to that. That was a year ago
when we----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Mr. Posner [continuing]. Did that bilateral discussion on
human rights. The issue of Arizona was raised not on the
merits. It was raised to say by a range of our Government
officials, including a Supreme Court judge, that when we have a
controversial issue like immigration, we debate it openly.
People file lawsuits. Lawyers aren't disbarred for that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, you designated it as a troubling
trend of our society and it deals with issues of discrimination
and potential discrimination. You think that trying to maintain
border controls and if we don't preventing people from pouring
into our country is a violation of their human rights?
Mr. Posner. No, it is a controversial issue but it is one
that I am very proud of the fact that we debate openly.
Newspapers report on it. Editorial writers speak their mind,
and people don't go to jail for that. And that we were making
the contrast with what happens in China where dissidents,
people who criticize the government, are punished for their
activities.
That was the point of that discussion. We never got into
the details or the merits of our internal debate about that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, it wasn't one discussion. Apparently
you suggested that you had brought it up ``early and often,''
so we are not talking about one discussion.
Mr. Posner. No. It was raised by several people. We did not
have a substantive discussion of that subject. I am a believe,
Congressman, that the United States is and has always been a
leader in the field of human rights.
Mr. Rohrabacher. that is correct.
Mr. Posner. We believe in universal human rights. We helped
to create the framework at the United Nations of the Universal
Declaration. We lead by example.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Mr. Posner. And so I am proud to represent this county. I
am proud to be part of a government that takes these things
seriously.
Mr. Rohrabacher. But that does not include----
Mr. Posner. And I will continue to do that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. But you weren't putting----
Mr. Chabot. And the gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I would ask for 1 additional minute?
Mr. Chabot. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Rohrabacher. In that and by the way, obviously I agree
with that statement and obviously that is something we all
agree on, but are you putting the right to go into another
country illegally and reside there and receive all the benefits
of the citizens of that country, is that a human right?
Mr. Posner. No, every country has the obligation and the
commitment to enforce its borders. How we treat people, how a
country treats immigrants is a subject that we could have a
whole hearing on. But I have no doubt that there is an
obligation of every country to have border control.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, yeah, we are not talking about
immigrants now. We are talking about illegal immigrants.
Mr. Posner. I understand.
Mr. Rohrabacher. That is a big difference. Thank you very
much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ackerman. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Certainly. I have 20 seconds--15.
Mr. Ackerman. Could we extend that to another minute?
Mr. Chabot. Well, the gentleman----
Mr. Rohrabacher. I request another 1 minute.
Mr. Chabot [continuing]. Receives another minute and he
yields to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I certainly do.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you. I wasn't sure which you were
referring to of illegal immigrants in a country. Was that the
Mexicans in Arizona or the Iranians in Iraq?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I would suggest that in both cases you
have a situation, and I recognize there is no disagreement that
I have with these gentlemen that Iraq has a right to control
their territory with people in it. They do not have a right to
shoot people down and we do--are not shooting people down.
And----
Mr. Ackerman. Amen.
Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. We do not prevent--designate
those people in our country with a specific designation that
permits them--prevents them from going home.
Mr. Ackerman. Let me try to--let me try to figure out our
position here. The Mujahidin I believe was declared--was listed
I think under the Clinton administration at the printed reports
say under the suggestion of the Iranians at the time who we
were trying to move into whatever position. The designation was
continued
Mr. Chabot. Without objection, the gentleman is granted
another minute if he----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, he----
Mr. Chabot. You can object.
Mr. Ackerman. I was going to say this will be the--the
chair would tend to not give an additional minute, but you have
got an additional minute.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you. The question is if they were
delisted on the--during the Obama administration, which I hear
you asking for, if they were delisted from the terrorist list
that would present the opportunity of absorbing them in other
countries.
Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. That would--that would
facilitate----
Mr. Ackerman [continuing]. Including our----
Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. That would facilitate them--
--
Mr. Ackerman. Would the gentleman----
Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. With a broader range of
places to go, yes.
Mr. Ackerman. Would the gentleman be willing to establish a
quota for a reasonable number to come to the United States?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes. Yes. Yes, I think that we have--that
we have in our history taken in people who are running from
tyranny and escaping injustice and that is different than
having a mass migration into our society
Mr. Ackerman. Let me--let me----
Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. For people who are coming
here for economic reasons.
Mr. Ackerman. The Secretaries, would these people be
considered refugees because they could not go back to Iran
because Iran was the one who considers them terrorists?
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman's has expired. If you can wrap it
up in 10 seconds that is fine. The gentleman from Nebraska is
waiting so you want to say something in 10 seconds?
Ambassador Feltman. it is a very complicated subject, but
right now our own Immigration and Naturalization Act, the INA,
would pose complications, even if there was no FTO designation
any longer because of people who have received paramilitary
training from what was considered a foreign terrorist
organization at the time. So it is a very complicated issue. I
am happy to talk more about it when we have time.
Mr. Chabot. And the gentleman's time has expired. The
gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Fortenberry, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Fortenberry. Mr. Ambassador, Mr. Secretary, thank you
for coming today. I am sorry I didn't have the benefit of your
earlier testimony. Let us go back to the Syria question. Is
there hesitancy on the part of the administration to further
pressure Syria? Are you out of options? The U.N. Security
Council you have proposed a condemnation there, but you have
run into obstacles.
Are you using leverage on those, particularly the Russians
and the Chinese to overcome those obstacles? That is my first
question if we can take a minute on that I will move to some
others.
Ambassador Feltman. First, Congressman Fortenberry, thanks
a lot of coming to Michael Corbin's swearing in the other day.
It was a real honor to have you there.
Mr. Fortenberry. It was a great privilege to be invited.
Thank you for welcoming me, yes.
Ambassador Feltman. There are a number of options that we
have taken. There are more options that we are looking at there
is a lot of diplomacy under way. The, you know, as I said, we
started off with Syria being one of the sanctioned countries on
the planet in terms of the United States so we started off with
a really high level of sanctions already in place, very little
bilateral trade, a lot of Syrian regime figures already
sanctioned for their outrageous interference in Lebanon for the
support of terrorism, et cetera.
What we have done since then is we passed executive orders
that have allowed us already to designate 27 different
individuals and entities. We are looking at more now. We will--
that list will expand. It is not exhaustive.
Included in that 27 it is really important are three
Iranian entities, Iranian entities who are helping Bashar al-
Assad kill, torture, arrest, maim his own people. And this
highlights for the world that, you know, what Iran is doing
inside Syria, holding Iran accountable for it as well, and it
has gotten a lot of notice.
We also have prevented Syria from taking a seat on the
Human Rights Council in Geneva. Syria should have never even
been considered given it record, but it was considered. We were
able to diplomatically prevent them from getting on the
Council. We were also able to get the Council to pass two
resolutions condemning Syrian behavior. And also calling for an
investigative mission into Syria which so far the Syrian regime
has not taken.
But these things all are noticed diplomatically. They are
noticed inside Syria. What we are doing is we are providing the
accountability that the Syrian people are demanding of their
own government that the Syrian Government is not doing. I
travel a lot and I am also in touch with all of Syria's
neighbors. I tell you, Syria really has no friends left, and
this is important.
It reinforces this analysis that basically Bashar is
losing.
Mr. Fortenberry. How deep is his trouble?
Ambassador Feltman. I think--I analyze that he can't win
this. He cracks down more he enrages the public more. He pulls
back, which is what--he should pull back and stop the killing
and then the momentum of the demonstrations grow. He pulls his
own friend that he can draw on is Iran. He pulls Iran in to
help him with technical support, with material, with advisors,
with financial support, that enrages the street.
There is an anti-Iranian, anti-Hezbollah flavor to these
demonstrations so his one tool makes, in fact, his problem
worse. He is left with only three friends, Hezbollah, a great
friend to have, Iran and then the crazy Lebanese politician
Michel Aoun who for some reason has allied himself with Bashar
al-Assad. That is not a whole lot of friends left to support
you.
Mr. Fortenberry. Let us turn--thank you. Let us turn
quickly to Iran. Could you assess the green movement's chances?
Ambassador Feltman. The Green Movement has been, you know,
suppressed brutally by the Iranian regime and it is still there
below the surface. It is a diffuse organization. It does not
have--it is two main symbolic leaders have been under house
arrest for months, but it is still there. And we are trying to
create the political space in which people can communicate with
each other, where they are able to get the tools to evade the
Internet censors in there.
They are not all--let us not kid ourselves. These people
are not all in love with the United States or United States
foreign policy, so we are not trying to back the Green Movement
per se. We are trying to back the accountability they demand
from the government, the political space they need to operate,
the communications tools they need to be effective.
Mr. Fortenberry. Well, if I could inject that, something
right there, it is clear that the Iranian people have been
throughout their history very attentive to the concept of
justice. And if we can ask for a more moderate form of
government that actually does justice for its people I think
that is in the interest of global stability and that may be the
best outcome we can hope for.
But at the same time is this in any way related to the
conflict or the potential conflict between the Supreme Leader
and Ahmadinejad that has arisen, at least in press reports, the
internal pressures, the internal dynamics of that?
Ambassador Feltman. the internal conflict is real. You
know, the press reports, you know, reflect what we understand
to be the situation. You know, we don't have an Embassy there
so we rely on a lot of different information to analyze, but
the internal conflict is there. But we don't think that the
internal conflict by itself poses any real threat to the regime
at this point.
Mr. Fortenberry. Is it related to the internal pressures
from the Green Movement and new political space potentially
developing or unrelated?
Ambassador Feltman. You know, there could be connections
but it is largely related to power between the----
Mr. Fortenberry. All right.
Ambassador Feltman [continuing]. Senior guys.
Mr. Fortenberry. Thank you.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman's time has expired, and the final
questioner probably unless somebody else shows up, is the
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Manzullo.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was in a financial
services hearing and was not able to come in order to listen to
your testimony. I would like to ask you a question that doesn't
deal with Syria or Iran but it is a vital part of Mid East and
just get your thoughts.
Saudi Arabia and UAE sent troops into Bahrain to buttress
the Sunni king, and reports of what is going on in Bahrain
haven't really reached us, but there is a very serious issue as
to the stability of Bahrain. And of course that is where the
Navy is, the U.S. 5th Fleet is anchored.
And I would just like your dialogue on where you think we
are going to go on Bahrain? And I know it is off the topic, but
I know that both of you are respected in the fields of the
entire Middle East.
Ambassador Feltman. Congressman, thanks for the question.
You raise a very important topic that is related to our
relationships in the Gulf more generally. I have been to
Bahrain eight times since February. My colleague, Assistant
Secretary Posner was there in I believe June? So we--and this
shows both the depth of the partnership we have with Bahrain
and the level of concern we have with some of the developments
that have taken place there.
We have stressed the need for the type of transparent steps
toward reconciliation that will allow Bahrainis to feel that,
you know, that the governing structures are reflecting, in
fact, their aspirations for their future.
There was, you know, a terrible situation in February and
March. I happened to be there, in fact, when the Saudi troops
that you mentioned came across the causeway from Saudi Arabia
into Bahrain. It was a terrible situation at the time where you
basically had the extremists on all sides setting the agenda,
extremists on the Sunni side, extremists on the opposition
side, hardliners in the government.
What is happening now is you are seeing the moderate voices
start to come out again, the moderate voices that represent the
center in Bahrain. There have been some important steps that
the king has taken in order to try to establish a positive
vision of Bahrain going forward. There has been a commission of
inquiry set up to look into what happened back in February and
March.
This has the sponsorship of the king. It has respected
international jurists. It has a broad mandate to look into what
happened. To the extent that this commission operates with
transparency and can bring some accountability, I think that
the Bahrainis themselves will feel assured about their future.
The Ministry of Labor is looking at and has been announcing
some job reinstatements of people that were determined to have
been wrongly dismissed from their jobs. We encourage these
sorts of steps going forward. So we are encouraging basically
the moderate voices to stand up, who represent the majority,
what we understand the majority of Bahrainis to take these
sorts of reconciliatory steps to put the events of February and
March behind us.
Mr. Manzullo. Are you satisfied with any progress that you
may be observing as a result of that?
Ambassador Feltman. Yes, I would say that in all honesty
that, you know, the record is mixed. That there have been
positive announcements, positive steps like the commission of
inquiry is extremely important. The transfer of court cases
from security courts to civilian courts is a very positive--is
a very positive move.
There have been people released from detention. There is
more that needs to be done. There was a national dialogue to
look at reform issues. We were disappointed that the major
opposition party pulled out of that national dialogue. We think
that all parties should be participating in a genuine dialogue
about Bahrain's future.
We have a strong partnership with Bahrain. We will continue
to be working with all parties involved----
Mr. Manzullo. Let me--let me interrupt you because I would
like to get Secretary Posner's take.
Ambassador Feltman. Yes.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you.
Mr. Posner. Thank you. I share Jeff's assessment. I do--I
am concerned about continued detentions, a number, perhaps
several hundred people are still detained without charge. We
continue to press on that. I am concerned about the dismissals,
but as Secretary Feltman said, they have begun to reintegrate
those people back to their jobs.
I think we are at a critical place right now and again, in
contrast to the countries we have been talking about, there is
a strong relationship with Bahrain. We do have a very open
dialogue, and I think it is important for us both to keep re-
emphasizing the strength of the partnership and at the same
time have an honest discussion about the need for general
reconciliation and for moving forward in a way that does really
allow all segments of that society to participate in the
political life of that country.
So this is a critical moment and I am glad that you are
paying attention to it.
Mr. Manzullo. Mr. Chairman, if I could have just another
minute?
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman, without objection, is recognized
for an additional minute.
Mr. Manzullo. I don't recall the response, if any, that the
U.S. Government gave when Saudi Arabia and UAE sent troops in.
Ambassador Feltman. Secretary Clinton was in Cairo at the
time when those troops went in. and as I said, I was actually
in Bahrain at the time and she made a very strong statement
that got the notice of the Saudis and the Emiratis. But there
is a real--as Secretary Posner said, there is a real
distinction here which is that not only do we have a strong
relationship with the government itself but we have a head of
state who is trying to take steps to heal the divisions, to
avoid a repetition of what happened in February and March.
We don't see the same thing happening in Syria and in Iran.
Mr. Chabot. Okay. the gentleman's time has expired. We want
to thank the panelists this afternoon for answering our
questions, sometimes to our satisfaction and sometimes not, but
that is not that unusual in this committee and many committees
around this place.
But obviously very important issues. Thank you for dealing
with them. And all members will have 5 days to submit reports
for the record, and if there is no further business to come
before the committee, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:03 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
\\ts\
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
