[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN:
TRANSITION AND THE WAY FORWARD
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 27, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-83
__________
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
70-949 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the
GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
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
ROBERT TURNER, New YorkAs
of October 5, 2011 deg.
Yleem D.S. Poblete, Staff Director
Richard J. Kessler, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, U.S.
Department of State............................................ 7
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton: Prepared statement......... 10
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 46
Hearing minutes.................................................. 47
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement.......... 49
The Honorable Ann Marie Buerkle, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New York: Prepared statement................. 51
Written responses from the Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton to
questions submitted for the record by:
The Honorable Ann Marie Buerkle................................ 52
The Honorable Karen Bass, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California.......................................... 63
AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN: TRANSITION AND THE WAY FORWARD
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2011
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o'clock a.m.
in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. The committee will come to order.
After recognizing myself and the ranking member, Mr.
Berman, for 7 minutes each for our opening statements, I will
recognize the chairman and the ranking member of the Middle
East and South Asia Subcommittee for 3 minutes each for their
statements.
We will then hear from our witness, the distinguished
Secretary of State--welcome home and happy belated birthday--
who will summarize her prepared statement before we move to the
questions and answers with members under the 5-minute rule.
Without objection, the witness' prepared statement will be
made a part of the record. Members may have 5 days to insert
statements and questions for the record subject to the length
limitation in the rules. And we are getting started right away
because we will have votes and we like to be interrupted
because of the democratic process.
Madam Secretary, welcome to our committee. We are pleased
to have you here to assess U.S. policy and progress in
Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In 2009, President Obama initiated a surge in Afghanistan,
resulting in approximately 90,000 U.S. troops there now. The
President underscored the fundamental connection between our
war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in
Pakistan and defined the goals as disrupting, dismantling, and
defeating al-Qaeda and its extremist allies.
In the 2010 review, the President noted that, ultimately,
it is the Afghans who must secure their country and it is
Afghans who must build their nation. It will take time to
ultimately defeat al-Qaeda, and it remains a ruthless and
resilient enemy bent on attacking our country. But make no
mistake, we are going to remain relentless in disrupting and
dismantling that terrorist organization.
However, President Obama announced the withdrawal of 10,000
U.S. troops from Afghanistan by this year's end, with another
23,000 to be withdrawn by the rather curious date of September,
2012. Therefore, Madam Secretary, we must ask, where are we in
achieving the strategic objectives outlined by the President?
Progress in the fight is undeniable, but our gains remain
fragile. On the one hand, the U.S. is negotiating with the
Haqqani network; and yet, on the other, we are attempting to
destroy the Haqqani network.
There have been some unwelcome developments since the
President's announcement 4 months ago, such as the multiple
high-profile assassination of major leaders in Afghanistan.
Turnover to the Afghan national security forces remains a
significant challenge in some of the key contested areas. And
on the counternarcotics front the United Nation's Office on
Drugs and Crime reported a 7 percent increase in opium poppy
crop cultivation, citing the link between insecurity and opium
cultivation.
This leads us to the broader question: What are the
priorities for advancing our national security interests in
Afghanistan and Pakistan?
I remain troubled by Iran's threatening and unhelpful role
in Afghanistan. So I ask, what additional pressure are we
bringing to bear to offset the Iranian influence in
Afghanistan?
The most important long-term aspect of the American
relationship with Afghanistan today is the strategic
partnership declaration under negotiation with Kabul. During
the negotiations over the strategic framework agreement and the
status of forces agreement with Iraq, the previous
administration extensively engaged and consulted the Congress
in a bipartisan manner. We are disappointed that a similar
level of outreach, engagement, consultation, transparency on
this critical issue has been decidedly absent on the current
Afghanistan negotiations.
So I am capitalizing on your appearance today, Madam
Secretary, to secure information on the agreement being
negotiated. What are our priority components of this? What are
the primary components of this negotiation? Do you anticipate a
total withdrawal like we are about to do in Iraq, or will we
remain until we train and perhaps have a modest
counterterrorism presence?
How will it address critical weaknesses within the
political system such as too much power concentrated in the
presidency and overdependence on foreign aid. What reforms are
we requesting to fix these flaws? Are we insisting on the right
to pursue insurgents who threaten us and our interests? Are we
preserving our tactical and operational flexibility?
The Afghan Government must be pushed to make the necessary
steps to become a reliable partner for the U.S. over the long
term, and I know that you know that as well. Too much American
blood and treasure have been invested in Afghanistan for us to
walk away or to have a government that threatens American
interests.
And turning to Pakistan, our relations continue to suffer
from a cascading series of crises.
First, there was the bitter Raymond Davis affair involving
the U.S. Embassy worker who shot and killed two Pakistani men
he believed was robbing him. Davis was correctly released to
U.S. custody. The ultimate disgrace was the discovery of Osama
bin Laden inside Pakistan and living adjacent to a Pakistani
military facility. And now we see the brazen attacks by
Islamabad's armed proxies against the U.S. Embassy and other
U.S. targets in Afghanistan.
Our two countries are at a crossroads. We cannot sustain a
partnership with Islamabad if it pursues policies that are
hostile to U.S. interests and jeopardize American lives.
Legislation developed in our committee and carried by the
Appropriations Committee puts tough conditions on U.S.
assistance to Pakistan funded through State Department
accounts. The Pakistan security establishment must work more
closely with us to eliminate al-Qaeda and its affiliates, while
cooperating more fully with our goals to help stabilize
Afghanistan.
Can the relationship be salvaged? Can our strategic
objectives in Afghanistan and Pakistan be brought into better
alignment? It is hard to be optimistic. All of the options on
the table appear deeply unappetizing. All run the risk of being
ineffectual, counterproductive, or both.
Madam Secretary, we look to you to help clarify for us the
strategic choices that we, Pakistan, and Afghanistan face at
this profoundly challenging time for the future of peace and
stability in South Asia. We are especially interested in
hearing about your very recent trip to the region.
I thank you for appearing before our committee today. I
look forward to working with you to advance our critical
national security interests in this increasingly pivotal
region.
I yield back the balance of my time; and I am pleased to
yield to my friend, Mr. Berman, the ranking member, for his
opening statement.
Mr. Berman. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Before I start on my opening statement, I would like to
just let the committee know that our former colleague, Howard
Wolpe, passed away on Tuesday. He served seven terms in
Congress. Most of that time, he chaired the Africa Subcommittee
of this committee, and we will remember his dedication to
Africa. He authored the sanctions legislation against South
Africa's apartheid government, led the effort to override
President Reagan's veto of that legislation.
He retired from Congress in 1992, but, as we all know, he
stayed deeply engaged in African affairs, serving as President
Clinton's Special Envoy to Africa's Great Lakes Region and
President Obama's special advisor for that region as well. We
have not only lost a man who made a difference in public policy
but a friend with a profound mind and an engaging and charming
wit. So thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank you, also, Madam Chairman, for calling this important
hearing on the administration's strategy for Afghanistan and
Pakistan.
I would like to begin by commending Secretary Clinton for
the leadership that she and the President exhibited on Libya.
As a result of your efforts, we were able to prevent a
humanitarian catastrophe of unimaginable proportions and
ultimately create the conditions for the Libyan people to oust
one of the world's most brutal dictators.
Secretary Clinton, you have just returned from a trip to
Afghanistan and Pakistan, so this is a particularly good time
to explore what remains one of the most important and complex
foreign policy challenges of our time.
In 2009, when the Obama administration took office, I was
very encouraged by the President's commitment to providing
sufficient resources to our military forces, diplomats, and aid
workers in Afghanistan and to renewing our partnership with the
civilian leadership of Pakistan. However, as I have
communicated to you in recent months, I am deeply concerned
about our rapidly deteriorating relationship with Islamabad and
how that impacts our efforts in Afghanistan.
Soon after the bin Laden raid, news reports indicated that
Pakistani intelligence tipped off militants operating IED
factories on Pakistani soil, factories that are making bombs to
kill U.S. troops. More recently, Admiral Mullen asserted that
the Haqqani network, a group believed to be responsible for the
September 10 truck bomb that wounded 77 American soldiers and
the September 13 attack against the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, is a
``veritable arm of Pakistan's ISI.'' These events raise very
serious questions about Pakistan's commitment to work with us
to defeat the terrorists that threaten Pakistan and the U.S.
and coalition forces in Afghanistan. This behavior must stop.
In 1957, President Eisenhower remarked that the United
States was ``doing practically nothing for Pakistan except in
the form of military aid.'' He voiced concern that the
``American commitment to Pakistan's military was perhaps the
worst kind of plan and decision we could have made. It was a
terrible error, but we now seem hopelessly involved in it.''
Sadly, these words remain true today.
Given the current climate, I support the administration's
decision to pause security assistance to Islamabad until
Pakistan shows real progress in combating terrorist groups. I
believe we should reevaluate all military aid to Islamabad to
ensure that it is meeting its intended purpose. But, at the
same time, I think it would be a terrible mistake to slash our
economic assistance to Pakistan. It is in our long-term
interest to support the continued development of Pakistan's
civil society and nascent democratic institutions. These are
the critical building blocks of a peaceful and prosperous
Pakistan and, ultimately, a stable Afghanistan and South Asia.
We must continue to find ways to partner with the people of
Pakistan, who have become a casualty of misguided policies
pursued by Pakistan's military and by civilian leaders
seemingly unwilling to lead. Pakistanis are reminded of these
failings every day by constant energy shortages, a never-ending
financial crisis, political turmoil, and rising extremism.
The United States can't solve all of Pakistan's many
problems, but we can make a difference. The recently completed
renovation of the Tarbela Dam funded by the United States means
that 1 million more Pakistanis will have access to electricity.
We should also take steps to strengthen Pakistan's private
sector by creating an American-Pakistan enterprise fund which
won't cost the American taxpayers a single dime. Madam
Secretary, I know you have expressed support for this concept.
In these difficult economic times, it is critical that any
assistance that we provide be sustainable and completely
transparent both to the Pakistanis and to the American people
who pay for it. This is true not just in Pakistan but with all
of our international programs. To those who suggest that
foreign assistance is a luxury we can no longer afford, I say
America cannot afford a course of isolation and retreat. Rather
than making indiscriminate cuts, we need to modernize and
reform our assistance to make it more efficient, more
effective, and better at serving our national interests.
Let me just touch briefly on transition and reconciliation
in Afghanistan.
I support the President's decision to withdraw all combat
troops by 2014, but we must ensure that the gains made after 10
years of fighting will not be lost. The strategic partnership
declaration, which I look forward to learning more about, will
serve as an important symbol of our long-term commitment to the
Government and people of Afghanistan, and it is critical to
regional security and to a successful transition.
While I appreciate the progress being made to cement our
relationship with Kabul, I continue to have reservations about
efforts to reconcile with the Taliban and al-Qaeda-affiliated
groups such as the Haqqani network. As much as we all want the
war to end and to bring our troops home, I am concerned that
allowing these extremist groups to assume leadership positions
in the government would threaten the gains we have made on
counterterrorism, women's rights, and counternarcotics. Even if
these groups were sincere in their desire to reconcile--and I
am skeptical that they are--Pakistan remains the spoiler.
Islamabad may share our general goal of a stable and secure
Afghanistan, but I think we have very different definitions of
stability. Ultimately, we will not be successful in
Afghanistan, militarily or politically, unless Pakistan plays a
constructive role in allowing Afghans to determine the future
of Afghanistan for themselves. Madam Secretary, how will we
ever succeed in Afghanistan as long as Pakistan provides
sanctuary for Afghan insurgents?
Once again, I thank you for being here today and I look
forward to your testimony. And I do, just in closing, have to
say that, because a bill of mine is in a Transportation and
Infrastructure Aviation Subcommittee roundtable today, there
will be times when I may have to leave, but I will certainly
come back and read your testimony as well.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. I thank the gentleman for his
opening statement.
Mr. Chabot is recognized for 3 minutes. He is the chair of
the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Madam Chair, for calling this
important hearing; and we welcome you here, Ms. Secretary of
State.
Although it is not the expressed topic of our hearing, I
would like to say a word on Iraq.
I am very concerned by the President's recent announcement
of a complete withdrawal by the end of the year. Fulfilling a
campaign promise at the expense of American national security
interests is, at best, strategic neglect and, at worst,
downright irresponsible. It seems painfully clear to me and to
many analysts that the Iraqi Army is not yet prepared to defend
Iraq from the threat posed by its nefarious neighbor to the
east.
The administration's current policy appears to focus on
normalizing our relationship with Iraq, but the situation in
Iraq is not normal. Indeed, I fear that our objective is no
longer to ensure Iraq is stable but merely to withdraw our
forces by the end of this year in order to meet a political
time line.
Saying that Iraq is secure, stable, and self-reliant, as
Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough recently did,
does not make it so. And to borrow a quote from you, Madam
Secretary, when you were serving in the other body, it requires
``the willing suspension of disbelief'' to accept that
withdrawing our forces from Iraq at a time when Iranian agents
seek to harm at every turn our country and its allies advances
our strategic interest.
Although I understand that Iraq is a sovereign country, I
believe that there is much more that this administration could
have done to secure a more realistic troop presence beyond the
end of this year.
Accordingly, I would like to echo Senator Lieberman's
recent call to reopen negotiations with the Iraqis. It would be
a failure of colossal proportions to withdraw our forces before
Iraq is ready to stand on its own.
This decision also offers a disturbing insight into the
administration's definition of ``conditions-based withdrawal''
which is, of course, its policy in Afghanistan. When asked
recently whether not leaving a residual force in Iraq endangers
hard-fought gains, he responded, and I quote, ``I think that
they should have raised those issues when President Bush agreed
to the agreement to withdraw troops by the end of this year.''
Is this what we should expect of an Obama administration in
2014 if conditions in Afghanistan do not justify withdrawal?
I hope you will address exactly what conditions we would
like to see before we withdraw and what contingency planning
the administration is conducting should indeed we get to 2014
and discover the conditions in Afghanistan have not progressed
as quickly as we had hoped that we would.
As one reporter recently observed, it used to be that
American withdrawal was conditioned on success. Now it seems
withdrawal has become the definition of success. If that is the
case, success in Afghanistan will feel a lot like failure.
I yield back.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chabot.
We will now welcome our witness. It is an honor to welcome
the Secretary to the committee today.
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton has served as the 67th
Secretary of State for the United States since January 21,
2009, the latest chapter in her four-decade career in public
service. She has served previously, as all of us know, as a
United States Senator from the State of New York, as First Lady
of the United States and of the State of Arkansas, and as an
attorney and law professor.
Madam Secretary, without objection, your full statement
will be made a part of the record. If you could be so kind as
to summarize your written remarks, we can then move directly to
the question-and-answer discussion under the 5-minute rule in
hopes that we can get as many members as possible before you
have to depart.
Madam Secretary, welcome back; and the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, SECRETARY OF
STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman;
and to Ranking Member Berman and to the members of the
committee, I appreciate this opportunity once again to appear
before you.
I want to start by recognizing the concerns that many of
you have about Afghanistan and Pakistan policy. You and the
American people are right to ask questions. But I think it is
also important, as the chairwoman alluded to in her opening
statement, to recognize the significant results that our policy
has already produced.
Osama bin Laden and many of his top lieutenants are dead.
The threat remains real and urgent, especially from al-Qaeda's
affiliates, but the group's senior leadership has been
devastated and its ability to conduct operations greatly
diminished. Many of our successes against al-Qaeda would not
have been possible without our presence in Afghanistan and
close cooperation with Pakistan.
Now, in Afghanistan, we still face a difficult fight, but
coalition and Afghan forces have reversed the Taliban momentum
in key areas. Afghan security forces have a long way to go, but
they are taking more responsibility every day. And while the
country still faces enormous challenges from poverty and
corruption, our development efforts have bolstered the economy
and improved lives.
You know the statistics. Ten years ago, fewer than 1
million students enrolled in Afghan schools, all of them boys.
Now more than 7 million, nearly 40 percent of them girls.
Afghans are better positioned to chart their own future.
I offer these very brief examples as a reminder that, as
President Obama has said, we are meeting our commitments and we
are making progress toward our goals and we cannot let up. We
should build on our momentum, not undercut our progress.
Now, I will be the first to admit that working with our
Afghan and Pakistani partners is not always easy, but these
relationships are advancing America's national security
interests and walking away from them would undermine those
interests.
With that as context, let me report I have just completed a
productive visit to both countries. In Kabul and Islamabad, I
emphasized our three-track strategy of fight, talk, and build,
pursuing all three tracks at once as they are mutually
reinforcing, and the chance of success for all three are
greatly increased by strong cooperation from the Afghan and
Pakistani Governments. Let me briefly discuss each track.
First, the fight. Coalition and Afghan forces have
increased pressure on the Taliban, the Haqqani network, and
other insurgents, including with a new operation in eastern
Afghanistan launched within recent days. But our commanders on
the ground are increasingly concerned, as they have been for
some time, that we have to go after the safe havens across the
border in Pakistan.
Now, I will be quick to add that the Pakistanis also have
reason to be concerned about attacks coming at them from across
the border in Afghanistan. So, in Islamabad last week, General
Dempsey, Director Patraeus, and I delivered a single, unified
message. Pakistan's civilian and military leadership must join
us in squeezing the Haqqani network from both sides of the
border and in closing save havens.
We underscored to our Pakistani counterparts the urgency of
the task at hand, and we had detailed and frank conversations
about the concrete steps both sides need to a take. I explained
that trying to distinguish between so-called good terrorists
and bad terrorists is ultimately self-defeating and dangerous.
No one who targets innocent civilians of any nationality should
be tolerated or protected.
Now, we are not suggesting that Pakistan sacrifice its own
security. Quite the opposite. We respect the sacrifices that
Pakistan has already made, and it is important for Americans to
be reminded over the past decade more than 5,000 Pakistani
soldiers have been lost and tens of thousands Pakistani
citizens have been killed or injured. That is why we are
pursuing a vision of shared security that benefits us all.
The second track is talking. And here, too, we are taking
concrete steps with our partners. So in both Kabul and
Islamabad I reaffirmed America's strong support for an
inclusive Afghan-led peace process. And we have been very clear
about the necessary outcomes of any negotiation. Insurgents
must renounce violence, abandon al-Qaeda, and abide by the laws
and constitution of Afghanistan, including its protections for
women and minorities. If insurgents cannot or will not meet
those red lines, they will face continued and unrelenting
assault.
And I want to stress, as I did in Kabul, that the hard-won
rights of women and all Afghans cannot be rolled back and the
growth of civil society must not be quashed.
Now, there is no doubt that the murder of former President
Rabani was a setback. But the Afghans strongly believe
reconciliation is still possible, and we support that as the
best hope for peace and stability in the region.
Pakistan has a critical role to play and a big stake in the
outcome. So we look to Pakistan to encourage the Taliban and
other insurgents to participate in an Afghan peace process in
good faith both through unequivocal public statements and by
closing off the safe havens.
We are working with the Afghan Government to help them
secure commitments from all of their neighbors to respect
Afghan sovereignty and territorial integrity and to support
Afghan reconciliation. This will be a key focus when I go to
Istanbul next week to meet with regional Foreign Ministers.
For our part, the United States is working with the Afghan
Government to conclude a new strategic partnership.
And let me add, in response to the chairwoman's question,
in 2011, we had three Washington-led rounds of discussions with
the State Department leading an interagency team, including
DOD, USAID, and the NSC. These discussions resulted in a text
that is about 90 percent agreed to, including strong
commitments on economic social development, democratic
institution building, human rights, anti-corruption, and other
important long-term reforms.
Among other things, we envision establishing an
Afghanistan-United States bilateral commission and associated
implementation mechanisms to help our focus remain on what
needs to be done during the transition process.
Ambassador Crocker and General Allen are still working
through some of these security cooperation issues with
President Karzai. The negotiation is ongoing, but I want to
assure the Congress that, although we do not expect this to
take the form of a treaty or to require advice and consent of
the Senate, we will consult with you on where we are in this
process and I will ensure that any one who wishes to get a full
briefing will get one and we will very much welcome your views.
And in response to Congressman Chabot's point, we
anticipate having a transition that does include security
components, not only from the United States but also from NATO,
commitments that were made at the Lisbon Summit. And, again, we
look forward to consulting with you on that.
And, finally, the third track is building. Building what?
Building capacity and opportunity in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and
across the region. Now, this is part of a clear-eyed strategy
rooted in a lesson we have learned over and over again around
the world. Lasting stability and security go hand in hand with
greater economic opportunity. People need a realistic hope for
a better life, for a job, for a chance to provide for their
families. So it is critical to our broader effort that civilian
assistance continue in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. And I
thank Congressman Berman for raising that.
Yet I will also be very clear that we have had to move
rapidly and deeply to strengthen oversight and improve
effectiveness, and I will be happy to answer questions about
that.
Early next week, I will be sending you a comprehensive
status update on our civilian assistance, detailing our plans
to shift from short-term stabilization to long-term
development.
Now, as the transition proceeds and coalition combat forces
leave Afghanistan, there need to be realistic hopes for
development. So we are working to achieve greater agricultural
productivity, greater exploitation in a way that benefits the
Afghan people of natural resources, increasing exports, and
strengthening the financial sector.
I really want to underscore the point that Congressman
Berman made, which is really that we want to move from aid to
trade. We cannot do that if we don't get reconstruction
opportunity zone legislation which will lower tariffs on
Pakistani and Afghan products and the enterprise fund, which
will not require taxpayer dollars. This is what we did in
Central and Eastern Europe, and it was a big help in convincing
people that the free market was the way to go.
And, finally, we are pursuing a broader long-term vision
for regional economic integration that we call the New Silk
Road. It is not just an economic plan. It talks about how we
can get these countries that have so many problems with each
other to begin cooperating. And to that end, I am very pleased
by the progress that both India and Pakistan are making on the
commercial front and the progress in implementing the transit
trade agreement between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
So those are our three tracks: Fight, talk, and build; and
we are on all of them simultaneously. We believe this is the
best place that we can be in moving forward, and I look forward
to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Clinton 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]
----------
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Madam Secretary.
I will yield myself the time for the question.
First to say that, Madam Secretary, I am gravely concerned
about the safety of the residents of Camp Ashraf in Iraq. Many
members, including the ranking member and I, have sought the
administration's commitment to securing their protection, given
the Iraqi Government's repeated failure to comply with its
international human rights obligations to the Camp Ashraf
residents. And in light of President Obama's announcements of
the final withdrawal of American troops from Iraq we need to be
confident that our administration is engaged with the
Government of Iraq, the U.N. High Commission of Refugees, and
others to ensure the welfare of Camp Ashraf residents and to
resolve their long-term security goals.
And my question, Madam Secretary, deals with my native
homeland of Cuba, although in recent weeks I feel the need to
carry my papers with me to find out when it is that I actually
got to the United States.
But, Madam Secretary, your administration has remained in
opposition to many of the world's tyrants, to your credit, yet
the U.S. continues to engage the Cuban regime. In March, you
stated that Qadhafi should leave power. In June, you said that
Salay should move out of the way. In July, you stated that
Assad is not indispensable and we have absolutely nothing
invested in him remaining in power.
Yet, in stark contrast, this administration continues to
engage the Cuban regime and provide the Castro brothers
economic lifelines in the form of allowing increased travel
opportunities, supporting their offshore oil drilling
aspirations.
Two weeks ago, in front of our committee, Under Secretary
Wendy Sherman confirmed that the Department had recently met
with Cuban regime officials to discuss the sad case of Alan
Gross. Media reports have stated that State Department
officials were willing to offer concessions such as allowing
convicted Cuban spies to return to Cuba or taking Cuba off the
state sponsor of terrorism list in order to obtain the release
of Mr. Gross. The United States should not be negotiating with
a state sponsor of terrorism. So I ask you, Madam Secretary,
why is there a double standard with the Castro regime?
Thank you.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you so much for those two
questions. Let me start on Cuba, and then I will go back to
Camp Ashraf and our concerns about it.
You know, our position has been the same for more than 50
years. We think Fidel Castro should go. I mean, that is the
unfortunate commitment that we have put forth over many years.
Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
We do worry greatly about the activities of the Cuban
Government, and we have strongly supported the desire of the
Cuban people to freely determine their own future, and it is
our view that we should help those who are trying to work
toward positive change. So we do support a wide variety of
activities on the island. We interact with a broad cross-
section of individuals and groups in Cuban society; and we
provide humanitarian assistance, including food, over-the-
counter medicines, and so much more.
We think that that is a necessary kind of double approach.
We want democracy for Cuba. We have always supported democracy
for Cuba. We have tried to encourage changes and reform, but,
at the same time, we are going to keep working with
individuals.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Have we met with U.S. officials
about Alan Gross or the convicted spy?
Secretary Clinton. U.S. officials regularly meet with their
Cuban counterparts, as I know you're aware, because we have a
lot of areas of mutual concern. We have drug trafficking, we
have immigration, we have all kinds of issues. And our main
objective for the last 2 years has been to ensure Alan Gross'
unconditional release. So at no point has the U.S. Government
been willing to give unilateral concessions to the Castro
regime or to ease sanctions as a means to secure Mr. Gross'
release.
But I will underscore we think it is a gross violation of
his human rights and a humanitarian abuse that he has not been
returned to his family, and we would like to see that happen as
soon as possible.
With respect to Camp Ashraf, which we are deeply concerned
about, we know that there is an ongoing and very legitimate
expression of concern. We have elicited written assurances from
the Government of Iraq that it will treat Ashraf residents
humanely, that it will not transfer residents to a country that
they may have reason to fear, and we are pushing very hard to
get the United Nations High Commission on Refugees to work with
the residents of Camp Ashraf to get them into a safe place.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. We appreciate that.
Mr. Payne is recognized, ranking member on Africa, Global
Health, and Human Rights.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Let me commend you, Madam Secretary, for the outstanding
job that you are doing. The recent five-country trip--they only
talk about two, but I know you touched down in three others--is
amazing. Your trip to Libya where the President had really
asked the Europeans and NATO to lead and that we would come in
and help out I think was a very successful strategy. I
certainly commend the administration for living up to the
agreement that President Bush made when he said that our troops
should be out of Iraq at the end of this year, and I
congratulate our Government for living up to that promise to
have our troops back in America by the holidays. The Iraqi
people want them out, the American people want them out, and I
think they should be out.
I certainly support what the administration has done in
south Sudan. I happened to be in Juba at the celebration of the
new country. But I would hope that we will give them all the
support with President Salva Kiir and the south Sudanese
people, and that we continue to watch Darfur and continue to
support the TFG government in Somalia. We need to make that
work and also to urge the Kenyans to assist, as they are doing
now, to try to eradicate terrorists who are coming into Kenya
and destabilizing the area.
I also commend the President for the 100 troops that are
going to the Central African Republic and to Uganda to train
the Ugandans in trying to finally eliminate Joseph Kony who
this House passed bipartisan legislation saying that he should
go out. Many of my colleagues on the other side have been just
as passionate about the fact that Joseph Kony needs to be
eliminated, needs to be captured or taken out. For 25 years he
has wreaked havoc on people. The horrendous acts that he has
done are just unconscionable. Time is past that he should be
taken off the face of this Earth.
Let me just quickly get to what you are here about,
Afghanistan and Pakistan. I almost forgot that.
The U.S. strategy in Afghanistan has been based on the
belief that developing Afghanistan's economy and institutions
will win over the population to support the Afghan Government
even after international forces draw down. Some analysts are
concerned that the Afghan economy may enter a steep depression
as international military involvement in Afghanistan winds down
over the next 3 years. What steps has the U.S. taken to ensure
that this depression does not happen? And I know you did
mention the New Silk Road, the new Central Asia-South Asia
trading hub that we are trying to create in Afghanistan. Will
there be job training programs and community development so
that that can overtake the military action?
Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much, Congressman; and
thanks, as always, for highlighting the important issues and
security concerns coming out of Africa. I thank you for that.
And I join with Congressman Berman in saluting the life of
former Congressman Howard Wolpe, who I also had the privilege
of working with both in the 1990s and as Secretary of State.
With respect to the sustainability of the Afghan economy,
you are right to raise the issue that when this enormous amount
of international money that has been used inside Afghanistan
begins to diminish that raises questions about sustainability.
There are three quick answers I would give you.
One, we are working to strengthen the capacity of the
Afghan Government itself at both the national and the local
level, because we think it is important to try to help them
understand fundamentals like planning and budgeting. USAID is
currently developing a set of measurements about sustainability
and applying them to all of our programs.
And, secondly, we are working on necessary reforms right
now. I will give you a quick example. The Afghan power company,
they have to learn to effectively collect revenue. They have to
learn how to cover the costs of their operations.
And we are also working with the Ministry of Public Works
on the roads authority. Because the international community has
built roads, but they have to learn how to maintain them, and
that means collecting tolls or other tariffs.
We are also working to make sure that we are coordinating
with other donors. There are many big donations that come for
infrastructure and training, and we are going to make sure that
we are all on the same page.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Madam Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Payne.
Mr. Burton, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe and
Eurasia.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Let me start by making a little statement.
There are a lot of congressmen and congresswoman who are
very concerned about unilateral action being taken by the
administration in military fashion. Nobody mourns Qadhafi's
leaving the scene, but we believe that Congress should be
involved in the decision making process before we go to war.
And that was of long duration. It cost $3 billion of taxpayer
money. And I think the administration ought to be aware that
there is a lot of concern among Democrats and Republicans that
unilateral action is being taken without any consultation with
Congress.
Now, let me just talk about a couple of things and ask a
question.
In 1979, we supported, either tacitly or directly, the
removal of the Shah, and the Ayatollah Khomeini came back and
imposed Sharia law. He lined up 3,000 political prisoners at a
wall and shot them and killed them, and 20,000 people who were
sympathetic to the West were lined up against a wall and shot
and killed. That is Sharia law.
Now Tunisia has said they are going to have Sharia law. The
interim Government of Libya has indicated they are going to
have Sharia law. Under Sharia law, one of the things that
really bothers a lot of people is, if you are an enemy
combatant and you are defeated, your wife can be raped and it
is all right. And I understand there are women who are being
raped right now by the people that won the war because the
people who supported Qadhafi had wives and they thought that
was proper punishment. Sharia law is something that is anathema
to most Americans.
We have in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood that is taking on a
larger and larger responsibility, and some believe they are
going to end up running that country. The entire northern tier
of Africa may very well be under Sharia law, as well as Iran.
And I am concerned and I hope my colleagues are concerned that
we could be facing another Iran not only in Iran, but also in
Libya, in Tunisia, in Egypt, and who knows about Syria.
So I would like to know what the administration plans to do
to make sure that we don't have a radical government taking
over those places. I know you were just there in Libya. I
watched on television your remarks, and I understand the
position of the administration.
But I will tell you. It really worries me not only from a
security standpoint. We still get almost a third of our energy
from that part of the world. And if we don't make sure that we
don't have radical Islamist governments in that region, we
could have a big, big problem like we have with Iran.
And, with that, I will be happy to hear your comments.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, I think that you have
raised many different aspects of a question that is yet to be
answered; and that is, what does democracy mean? What is the
likely outcome of these changes?
And we know from our very long history, far back beyond
1979, that revolutions are unpredictable phenomena. Sometimes
it works out well, as it did for us. Many times, it goes
through really messy transitions, as it did for France, for
example. And sometimes it ends up in a place that we certainly
don't think reflects democracy as we define it.
The United States is deeply engaged in and committed to
working with these new leaders, many of whom have never been
involved in politics before, to make it absolutely clear that
there must be a renouncing of violence and military capacity if
you are to be part of a democratically elected government, that
there needs to be a respect for human rights, for women's
rights, for the fundamental freedoms of speech and religion and
all of the rest that we hold so dear.
Sitting here today, I think a lot of the leaders are saying
the right things, and some are saying things that do give pause
to us. But I will assure you we are going to do all that we can
within our power to basically try to influence outcomes.
But the historic winds sweeping the Middle East and North
Africa were not of our making. They were, in many instances,
not even predicted. But they are going to have consequences,
first and foremost, for the people of those countries and then
for the rest of the world.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Burton.
Mr. Faleomavaega is recognized.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I certainly want to personally welcome
you, Madam Secretary, and want to commend you for the
outstanding leadership that you have demonstrated not only in
your capacity as the President's chief negotiator in just about
anything and everything that goes on in the world but to
certainly thank you for the services that you have given to our
country. I deeply appreciate the opportunities that I have had
in dialoguing with you one some of the issues that are
important for the needs of our country.
Just one question, Madam Secretary. Maybe I am being
simplistic in trying to unravel--to understand a little further
about the challenges that are before us as far as Pakistan and
Afghanistan is concerned.
There are 12 million Pashtuns living in Afghanistan, a
couple of million Uzbeks, a couple of million Tajeks. It seems
to me there is really no such thing as an Afghan, because there
are so many different tribes that make up the country in
Afghanistan.
And right on the borderline of Pakistan there are 27
million Pashtuns. And within those confines we end up with some
27,000 Talibans that we are going after, hopefully, and trying
to get them to straighten out in their ways and hopefully by
the current process of trying to negotiate with them. We have
got 100,000 troops right now in Afghanistan, I guess, with the
purpose of going after the 27,000 Talibans and costing us about
$120 billion a year. Are we still committed to 2014, Madam
Secretary, for withdrawal from Afghanistan, given the
tremendous amount of resource and problems that we are faced
with in dealing with this?
Secretary Clinton. Yes, Congressman, that is the
commitment. It is a mutually agreed upon commitment by NATO
ISAF and the Afghan Government and, of course, the United
States. So that is our commitment.
And, as you know, we have begun to transition security
responsibility to the Afghan forces in a number of areas. There
will be more announced shortly by the Afghan Government. And we
have a plan that our military leadership is implementing to
continue to advise and support as Afghans take the lead but to
move away from any kind of ongoing combat responsibility by
American or NATO ISAF troops.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
The second question, like my colleague, our chairwoman, I
am deeply concerned about the recent events that transpired in
West Papua and Indonesia whereby the Indonesian military and
police forces have arrested hundreds of unarmed and harmless
civilians who apparently had a meeting in Jayapura. The Papuan
People's Congress said that they met.
And among those arrested is a dear friend, a traditional
leader by the name of Forkorus Yoboisembut. This gentleman,
Madam Secretary, wouldn't even hurt a fly. He's a traditional
leader.
Out of sheer frustration, 2.2 million West Papuans have
been waiting with the Indonesian Government for well over 10
years and was supposed to be given the special autonomy status,
and the Indonesian Government hasn't done anything really to
pursue and promote this. And I suspect out of frustration the
West Papuans simply wanted to declare independence, and for
this now the Indonesia Government is now accusing Mr. Forkorus
of treason.
And I met the gentleman. He is an elderly person, a
traditional leader, wouldn't even hurt a fly; and I would
really appreciate, Madam Secretary, that the administration
would pursue this earnestly with the Indonesian Government.
I realize always the answer has been this is an internal
matter within the province of the Indonesian Government, but it
does have a lot of serious international implications in terms
of the military forces and how the Indonesian Government is
pursuing this; and I just wanted to ask for your assistance and
if we could work together in making sure that this traditional
leader and others who have been arrested are properly given
their due process in law.
Secretary Clinton. Congressman, we will certainly follow up
on that and consult with you about it.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Turner is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Secretary.
I recently returned from Afghanistan and met with military
and State people. There is a contrast between the optimism, at
least that the military expressed, in achieving their goal in
the next 30 months, which I think minimally is to thwart a base
of operations. The State Department seemed less optimistic in
establishing a legal system and a rule of law; and I would be
interested in hearing what you think of this, whether the
cultural divide between what we expect from the Afghanis and
what is really practical that can be closed within at least a
reasonable period of time. Certainly 30 months is going to be
very difficult.
Thank you.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you very much, Congressman. And
thank you for going on that trip, because I think it is
important, and I hope you agree to see the situations first
hand and meet and talk with people, and so we appreciate your
trip.
I think that the civilian presence in Afghanistan, which
has been tripled in the last 2 years in response to what were
clear deficiencies of attention in the prior years, has made a
lot of progress. But it is a complicated undertaking, and I
think that those with whom you spoke were being very candid
with you, that it is something that is quite challenging.
As I said in the beginning, we have made a lot of progress.
We think that progress has made a difference. But you have got
to remember that Afghans had a lot of experience fighting but
not a lot of experience in putting together what we would
consider a modern government and certainly very little
experience in what we are hoping to see them move toward, which
is a sustainable democratic government.
So the progress is challenging, but it is continuing, and
that is why it is important that we negotiate the strategic
partnership documents so that we have an ongoing relationship.
You know, there is no sensible way to compare any two
nations, because they are each unique. But we do have some
experience. You know, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the
people living in those totalitarian states had little or no
experience, unless they were quite elderly, in what a
functioning democratic government even looked like, what a
trade union looked like, what kinds of human rights should be
respected. And I think it is quite an accomplishment for the
people of those countries over the last 20-plus years to have
made the progress that they have made.
Well, we are starting on a very different level in
Afghanistan. There is no real experience. They went from a
monarchy that was a very loosely governing presence in much of
the country to a succession of, first, invasion by the Soviet
Union and the installation of a puppet regime, to the war
lordism, the rise of the Taliban, in part as a reaction against
what was not happening the people in the country thought was in
their interest. This is a country that has been through so
much.
And I would add that, yes, even though there are different
ethnic groups or different tribal and clan groups, they do
consider themselves Afghans. They don't have any doubt in their
minds about that. But how they work out the modes of
cooperation are still to be determined.
So we are entering this with I think the right dose of
humility. I think in the beginning maybe we didn't have enough
of that. We didn't know how difficult it would be to make that
transition. But we are making progress, and we are going to
stay with it. And on the civilian side will be with it after
2014.
Mr. Turner. Thank you.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Well played, Mr. Turner. The junior
man on the totem pole stuck around and got to ask the Secretary
a question.
Mr. Berman, the old guy, is recognized.
Mr. Berman. Young at heart.
Madam Secretary, the administration has made it clear that
the war in Afghanistan can only end through a political
settlement. You have been quite candid that you will not
support any agreement that gives up the hard-won rights of the
Afghan people. The redlines you have previously mentioned
aside, given the Taliban's brutal history and that the movement
is so ideologically driven what makes you think, for example,
they would agree to change course on ideology? How do we get
them to change the way they see the world.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, I am not sure that
all of them would, and I am very realistic about that. We have
had somewhere in the order of 2,500 fighters officially
reintegrate. In other words, we have registration of them, we
know that they have done it. Of those, there seems to be both a
weariness with fighting and a recognition that the path that
the Taliban had been on was not the right path.
So this is part of the testing process that we have to be
engaged in. And I think that the hard reality is that until we
really put it to them in some kind of Afghan-led negotiations,
nobody will be able to gauge that. We have followed some
intelligence threads which suggest that there is a debate going
on within the Quetta Shura about, for example, about letting
girls go to school which is something that would seem to be to
be absolutely a condition.
So I think you are asking the right question, I am just not
yet at the stage of how this is unfolding to be able to tell
you are our chances 50/50, are they 40/60. We just don't know
yet, Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. Well, I understand. I want to get into an issue
that has concerned me. It is a sensitive issue. And I had to
miss your testimony because, all politics is local, and there
is an issue in the Aviation Subcommittee of Transportation and
Infrastructure. But last March, in accordance with Section 203
of the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act, you certified
that Pakistan was continuing to cooperate with the United
States in efforts to dismantle supplier networks, that it has
demonstrated a sustained commitment and is making significant
efforts toward combating terrorist groups.
Given Admiral Mullen's recent statement, the discovery of
Bin Laden in Pakistan, recent reports in the Indian press that
the mastermind of the Mumbai attacks remains a key player in
the affairs of LeT, despite being in custody for over 2 years.
I am wondering do you have any regrets about making that
certification. And is there anything on your recent trip, or
anything else that has gone on in the last few weeks that makes
you feel optimistic that the purposes we were trying to achieve
in that certification requirement we can move forward on.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, the certification
that I signed with regard to Pakistan's role in combating
terrorist groups, as you know, was mandated by legislation from
the preceding fiscal year. And at the time I made the
certification, I closely considered the requirements set forth
in the statute, and I determined that on balance, Pakistan met
the legal threshold. Now, one of the challenges is that there
are a number of factors here. There was no doubt that Pakistan
had entered the fight against terrorists and had made
sacrifices for that fight. There was certainly a continuing
intelligence cooperation particularly focused on the al-Qaeda
operative that was proving to be helpful.
Mr. Berman. Could I ask unanimous consent that the
Secretary have an additional minute just to finish the answer
to this question?
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. No, I am sorry. All animals are
equal.
Secretary Clinton. I would be happy to provide additional
written material about that, Mr. Berman, because I know what a
serious question it is, and I have to do this on an annual
basis. And I also would point out that in the last 6 months
from the operation in Abbottabad, we have had great success in
taking out al-Qaeda leadership, and we have to weigh all of
these factors.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Mr.
Smith is recognized. He is the Subcommittee on Africa, Global
Health, and Human Rights chairman.
Mr. Smith. I thank my distinguished chairman for
recognizing me. Welcome, Madam Secretary. Let me ask a couple
of questions. Ten years after the Taliban, not a single public
Christian church remains in Afghanistan. As you know, two
Christian Afghan citizens most certainly would have lost their
lives had there not been a huge intervention. And we were part
of that. You, I know, were part of that. But my question would
be what are we doing to ensure that Christians and other
minority religions are not subjected to increased repression?
The U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom said
that the situation for Christians ``worsened in the past
year.''
In like manner, we are seeing the same thing in Pakistan.
We all know that Pakistan's Minister for Minority Affairs
Shahbaz Bhatti was assassinated. A terrible, terrible loss. He
was opposing the blasphemy laws in Pakistan. And we know about
other faiths, including the Hindus, it has been reported by the
Human Rights Commission of Pakistan that 20 to 25 Hindu girls
are abducted and converted to Islam every month. I just chaired
a hearing about Coptic Christian girls, a 3-hour hearing, and
the distinguished chairwoman was at that hearing. It was
riveting that we now see in Egypt that young girls who happen
to be Coptic Christians are abducted in their teenage years,
12, 13, 14 years old, and then they are forced into Islam and
then they are sold or given in marriage at age 18 to an Islamic
man.
There is even a very pathetic expression that they are
Islamacizing the womb. In other words, they get a woman and
they get any children she subsequently bears to be a member of
the Islamic faith, all by coercion, all by kidnapping. And I
haven't heard anything, frankly, from the administration on
that, but that is Egypt, and perhaps you want to speak to that.
But this deteriorating situation on religious freedom, that as
we all know a fundamental tenet of human rights, is getting
worse.
And finally, to piggyback, I want to associate my remarks
about the dual standard, or double standard, with regards to
Cuba. You know, Fidel Castro is really given, I think, a large
pass for his egregious human rights abuses in a way that is
similar to what happens with Hu Jintao. Hu Jintao got a state
dinner. Nobody has repressed human rights more than the
President of China, Hu Jintao, and yet he was feted and treated
with great honors where he should have been held to account for
his egregious violations.
I would ask, before yielding to your answer, please pick up
the phone and call the Foreign Minister of China, and ask:
``Where is Chen Guangcheng?'' Next Wednesday, I am chairing an
emergency hearing of the China Commission. There have been
rumors, reports, we don't know they are true, that he may have
been beaten to death. As you recall, he is the blind activist
lawyer, I know you know all about him, who has stood up for
women who were being coerced into forced abortions and forced
sterilizations in Linyi province.
He took on their case and has come against the full fist,
the iron fist of the Chinese dictatorship and has ever since,
spent years in prison and house arrest. Now we hear he may even
have been beaten to death. We don't know. But please call the
Foreign Minister on that if you would, Madam Secretary.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, I share not only your
concerns, but your outrage over what we are seeing happening.
We will follow up on your request to China. And specifically on
the question of persecution, obviously what we are seeing is
deeply distressing. And it is not only against Christians or
against Hindus, it is also against different sects of Muslims.
I mean, there are Islamic sects in Afghanistan and Pakistan and
elsewhere that are also discriminated against, persecuted and
their adherence brutally treated.
This is one of our biggest problems in the world right now,
is there needs to be a greater acceptance of religious
tolerance, and in so many places, there is no history of
religious tolerance. And I am searching for ways to be
effective. You know, one of the things that we tried very hard
to do is to work with a number of countries, including Muslim
majority countries, the Organization of Islamic Conference, to
begin to change the dialogue from something they wanted to call
religious defamation, which would be a legal rationale for
persecuting people who spoke out about their own religion or
criticized someone else's to a broad acceptance that there
needs to be an equation between freedom of speech and freedom
of religion.
I mean, we are trying many different approaches and will
continue to do so.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Madam Secretary. And I
thank Mr. Smith. Mr. Sherman is recognized.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for coming before
us. I hear you have a busy schedule. And I missed your opening
statement for the same reason as the ranking member, all
politics is local, and our districts are co-located. My first
questioner matter relates to the Sindh province of Pakistan.
You may just want to respond for the record because that isn't
one of the hot issues. But the Sindhis have been influenced by
the Sufi strain of Islam, they have moderate values harmonious
with American ideals.
And I would hope that we would do all we could for rural
Sindh that is suffering from this year's floods, which are on
top of last year's floods, and that you would speak to the
Pakistanis. You have so many issues to cover with them. But one
is the disappearances of Sindhi activists in southern Pakistan.
In this committee room, we dealt with the authorization bill.
It may never become law, but it does reflect whatever wisdom
there is on this side of the room. And we took a look at the
Voice of America which has a budget of $750 million.
And I believe it was unanimous to direct the Voice of
America to spend at least 1.5 million of that, and we are
talking about a small amount of money, broadcasting in the
Sindhi language. Further research indicates that the best way
to reach the people of Sindh would be on AM or medium wave
broadcast originating from the UAE.
Now, we already broadcast in Urdu into Pakistan, but the
Sindhi language is spoken by far more people than the Urdu
language. And while the Urdu language may be the language of
preference by Islamabad, the language spoken in the homes in
southern Pakistan is Sindhi. So I don't know if you have a
comment on that or would just want to take that under
advisement.
Secretary Clinton. No, I think that is a very useful
suggestion, and I will get back to you for the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Sherman. I appreciate that. I think we, or many of us
saw this ad about Camp Ashraf featuring a 14-year-old girl who
fears extermination. We face a tough circumstance in that we
are withdrawing from Iraq. In the past, there have been, some
would say, massacres, at least terrible instances in which tens
of people have been killed.
And there are press reports that the Iraqi officials say,
well, don't worry about it too much, after all, these folks are
on the U.S. terrorist list. What are we doing to assure that
when we leave Iraq we will not see the massacre of 3,400 people
at Camp Ashraf and how is it going on the court ordered review
of whether the MEK should be on the terrorist list.
Secretary Clinton. On those points in particular,
Congressman, in accordance with the D.C. Circuit's 2010 ruling,
the State Department is reviewing the designation. There will
be a decision. It has to be done expeditiously but thoroughly,
and we hope to have such a decision in the future. I would add
that the current designation does not pose a bar to the
resettlement of Ashraf residents in Europe. And the
humanitarian situation at Ashraf, in our opinion, is also not
related to the MEK's designation.
And I think it is also important to recognize that we need
to do as much as we can to move as many people out of the camp
before the end of the year, and we are trying to do that. We
are working primarily through the United Nations, and certainly
with both the residents of Ashraf and the Government of Iraq to
try to put in place a very rapid assessment of individuals. And
we have urged the EU and other countries to favorably consider
the resettling of any Ashraf resident granted refugee status
because we want to shrink the numbers as best we can.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank
you, Mr. Sherman. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. Welcome, Madam
Secretary. And let me just note for the record that the
chairwoman is not the only person who is deeply concerned about
the Castro regime and the brutality and the horrible
repercussions that we have suffered because we have prevented
this gangster to ally himself with all the hostile elements of
the world and the hemisphere, so we shouldn't take that
lightly, and don't think of it just as the chairman's cause,
but our cause.
Second of all, you stated that we are going to do as much
as we can in terms of Camp Ashraf. You are not doing as much as
you can. It has been 500 days since the court ordered us to
reconsider this terrorist designation, and that should be
plenty of time to understand what the issues are. And other
people around the world now have determined that they don't put
them on the terrorist list, so we are not doing as much as we
can, and I would hope that you take that up and do as much as
you can to ensure there is not another massacre of people there
that we could have prevented.
Let us note that we have officially requested the State
Department for information about the Camp Ashraf massacre. Do
you intend to comply with that request as we have been told the
State Department will, or are you backtracking from that
commitment?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, we will provide what
information we can to you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Oh-oh. ``We can'' sounds like the
operative words of how to get out of answering a question. You
obviously have the records of your own department; are you
going to provide them? You have a request from Congress, you
have agreed to do it, and will you comply with that request?
Secretary Clinton. We certainly will comply with the
request.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Thank you.
Secretary Clinton. But I cannot tell you what will be in
the reply. So that is the qualification of my answer.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. There are Libyan funds that are
frozen in the United States right now. How much did we spend to
help the Libyans defeat their tyrant? I don't think it would be
at all inappropriate for us to, at this time of economic crisis
in the United States, to free some of those funds, or some of
those funds that are frozen, put our request in to be repaid
for what we did to help the Libyans win their freedom. Are we
planning anything like that?
Secretary Clinton. Well, I think, Congressman, the latest
figures that I had is about $1 billion was spent. And I am sure
the Defense Department would, that is really their money, so I
will wait to see what their final figures are. But we--you
know, we are in discussions with the Libyans about a number of
issues that they have requested help from us. And it is a
little challenging until they get a government, which, as you
know, they don't officially have. And we are going to look to
see how we can best coordinate and organize any kind of
reimbursement for certain functions that we have performed. But
there have been no decisions because there is no government yet
to negotiate with.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me suggest that it would be, I think,
a very defendable policy, if not an admirable policy in terms
of what the people of the United States might think, for us to
ask for compensation at a time when we are borrowing money,
$1.5 trillion a year, it is not right for us to borrow money
from somebody else in order to help a group of people free
themselves and put our people in debt for that. We should, if
possible, the Libyans have enormous assets, require people like
this to be able to repay us if we expect the American people to
continue to support the cause of freedom throughout the world.
With that said, let me just note, and I know there has been
a lot of talk about this lately, I do not blame the President
at all, and I am not here to talk about the job you are doing
in terms of trying to pull them back from the missions in Iraq
and Afghanistan. The call for extending our deployment in Iraq
I do not believe reflects the desires of the American people,
who are war weary right now. We cannot expend resources we
don't have and we cannot keep sending our troops over to do the
fighting for somebody else, when it is up to them at a certain
point to defend themselves. Thank you very much, Madam
Secretary.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank
you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you, Madam
Secretary. It is a great pleasure to have you before our
committee. And thank you for the spectacular work you are doing
on behalf of our country. I think, like many Members of
Congress, am very concerned about the capability and the
capacity and really the corruption, and those two things have
been cited as really major obstacles to improving the rule of
law in Afghanistan.
So my question really is how do we ensure that the billions
of dollars of U.S. taxpayer funds that are being spent in this
country are being used for the intended purpose and used
effectively when corruption and a lack of governmental capacity
and capability remain two big obstacles? I am interested to
know what your thoughts on how long it will take before these
factors are no longer a major obstacle. And just to use an
example, in the State Department CBO justification there is a
call for $4.35 billion in funding, which includes a request of
$1.1 billion for economic support funds. I mean, you take that
investment and economic development in Afghanistan and compare
it to our own: Sort of the two largest loan programs
administered by the United States Small Business
Administration, which total about $574 million, which is
roughly one-third of the amount we are sending to Afghanistan
for economic support, it is a very hard thing for my
constituents to understand in this difficult economy that we
are investing those kinds of resources to rebuild the economy
in Afghanistan when we have such urgent needs here.
And in the context of this lack of capacity and this
pervasive corruption, it makes it even more difficult for
people to understand. So I would love to know how you think we
are proceeding on those fronts and when we can expect the
Afghan people to have the ability to do this work on their own
so that we can direct those resources back here to our own
country and to the urgent needs facing our constituents in
Rhode Island and in my district?
Secretary Clinton. Well, thank you very much, Congressman.
And I certainly understand and sympathize with the legitimate
questions of your constituents and of Americans everywhere. I
think that the drawdown of troops in Iraq represents a very
large net savings to the American taxpayers. The withdrawal on
a very measured basis from Afghanistan similarly provides,
because our civilian assistance is frankly such a small
percentage of the overall money that is spent, the vast
majority of which comes from our DOD security forces.
So I think that we are aware of that. We think we are on
the right track. But specifically with respect to capacity and
corruption, corruption remains a fundamental challenge, not
only in Afghanistan, but frankly, around the world. And I find
it one of our biggest problems. It is a cancer in so many
countries whose leaders care more about enriching themselves
and their families and their associates as opposed to making
investments that will provide a better future for their own
people.
And so the key is to build institutional capacity, create
systems. And that is exactly what we are doing in Afghanistan.
We are taking an integrated civilian military approach, because
again, the largest sums of money that people have worried about
feeding corruption have come from the enormous amount of money
coming in associated with our military activity. So both State
and DOD, and of course USAID, are absolutely committed. We are
promoting the enforcement of anticorruption laws and
regulations; we are doing ethics trainings; we are including
civil servants and judiciary personnel in that; we support the
Major Crimes Task Force, which is intended to prosecute cases
in the Afghan justice system; the FBI, Department of Justice
and others are working with their counterpart agencies; we
continue to go after the poppy trade and the corruption that
comes from drug trafficking; we have improved our
accountability by increasing vetting for those people who have
anything to do with American funding; we have worked with our
partners to do the same.
So we are very much committed to transparency and
accountability, to the rule of law, to monitoring and all of
the steps that we are taking toward those ends. But we know it
remains a problem as it does in so many of the other parts of
the world where we do business.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. Judge Poe is
recognized.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank you, Madam
Chair. I will try to make this to the point. Last time you and
I talked in this very room we talked about the safety of Camp
Ashraf. That was in March. And then later in April the Iraqi
soldiers came in and killed people in Camp Ashraf. People
disagree on how that occurred, but people did die. Right now,
the 31st United States is leaving. I am not discussing that.
But also in the 31st, Maliki has made it clear that the camp is
going to close. When we were in Iraq this summer, Chairman
Rohrabacher, myself and others on this committee, we met with
Maliki on the issue of Camp Ashraf. It got very heated. We
wanted to go see the Camp. He refused to let us see it. And
later we learned when we were flying around in a Black Hawk
that we had been invited to leave the country based upon that
discussion with him. But the number one thing he said about the
way Iraq treated Camp Ashraf was the U.S. designation of the
MEK. He spent all of his time saying this is the reason they
are treated the way they are, because you, United States, have
designated them as a foreign terrorist organization.
My concern, first of all, is the safety of the people in
Camp Ashraf when that 31st comes. They are in fear. 85 of those
people, some are Americans and the others of that 85 that are
there among the 2,000 are permanent residents of the U.S.
So my question is what are we doing through the U.N. to
make sure they extend the deadline so that people can do what
is necessary through the U.N. to get out of Iraq and go
somewhere in the world? And second, the long-term issue of the
MEK designation? I am encouraged by your words last night that
you made regarding that. So those are my two issues and my two
questions to you, Madam Secretary.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, I can assure you that
I am personally very focused on trying to make sure that we
protect the safety of the residents of the Camp. I and our
Department and our administration strongly condemned the
violence that led to the deaths. Regardless of how it happened,
the fact is, you are right, 36 residents died because of the
violence on April 8th. We are monitoring the situation as
closely as we can. We see no evidence suggesting that there is
any other attack, imminent attack on Ashraf, and we continue to
urge the Government of Iraq to show restraint.
As I said earlier, we do have written assurances from the
Government of Iraq to treat the Ashraf residents humanely, to
follow their international obligations which they have as long
as the residents remain in the country, not to transfer anyone
to any country where that person could be persecuted as a
result of their political or religious beliefs, and so we are
trying to nail down as much as we can to provide some
protective screen for the residents.
Now, we know that they have approached--that we have also
pushed the UNHCR to have even more of a presence, to do more,
to try to move as many of the status determinations as they
can. So this is an area of deep concern to us, and we are
moving on many fronts, and we are also going to move as
expeditiously as possible to a final resolution on the
designation.
Mr. Poe. And do we have any timeframe on the designation?
Secretary Clinton. I cannot be more specific than that,
Congressman. As expeditiously as possible.
Mr. Poe. Well, I will just want to re-urge you and the
administration to make sure that when December 31st comes, bad
things don't happen to those good folks in Camp Ashraf. And all
of the politics, we need to set it aside, fulfill our
obligation, since they put their weapons down as the MEK that
they get refugee and asylum status somewhere in the world, but
their safety is paramount. So I would just re-urge that, Madam
Secretary.
Secretary Clinton. I appreciate your urging, I appreciate
the concerns and I take them very seriously, sir.
Mr. Poe. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. And the Chair
will recognize herself because there is no other member right
now. Madam Secretary, if I could ask you to clarify the
comments that you made last week that the U.S. has met with the
Haqqani network, but also urge the Government of Pakistan to
get tough on that very same Haqqani network which has directly
killed scores of U.S. troops. And one of your senior officials
said in an authorized news conference last week we were asked
by ISI to give this a try. So which is it, Madam Secretary,
crackdown or negotiate with the Haqqani network or a little bit
of both?
Secretary Clinton. It is both.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. If you could elaborate.
Secretary Clinton. It is both, Madam Chair. As I said, we
want to fight, talk and build all at the same time. Part of the
reason for that is to test whether these organizations have any
willingness to negotiate in good faith. There is evidence going
both ways, to be clear. Sometimes we hear that they will, that
there are elements within each that wish to pursue that, and
then other times that it is off the table. So I think that with
respect to the Haqqani network, it illustrates this point.
There was a major military operation that was held in
Afghanistan just in the past week that rounded up and
eliminated more than 100 Haqqani network operatives. And we are
taking action to target the Haqqani leadership on both sides of
the border.
We are increasing our international efforts to squeeze them
operationally and financially. We are already working with the
Pakistanis to target those who are behind a lot of the attacks
against Afghans and Americans. And I made it very clear to the
Pakistanis that the attack on our Embassy was an outrage and
the attack on our forward operating base that injured 77 of our
soldiers was a similar outrage. And it was in both instances
terrible, but the fact is we avoided having dozens and dozens
of wounded or killed.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. And if I could ask a
question related to the statement that President Karzai made.
Just less than 48 hours after you and he held a press
conference, President Karzai said, God forbid if there ever is
a war between Pakistan and America then we will side with
Pakistan. I wanted to ask you, is this something that he told
you in your meetings? How do you interpret his comments? And a
broader question, are Afghanistan and Pakistan reliable allies?
Secretary Clinton. Well, first of all, President Karzai and
I had a very productive meeting when I was in Kabul last week.
We are making progress on a lot of issues and we are
coordinating closely on both fighting the insurgents and trying
to test out this Afghan-led reconciliation. So frankly, when I
heard about the comment we immediately asked Ambassador Crocker
to go in and figure out what it meant, you know, what the point
of it was. And Ambassador Crocker, who you know, is one of our
most distinguished experienced diplomats, reported back that he
really believed that what Karzai was talking about was the long
history of cooperation between Afghanistan and Pakistan, in
particular the refuge that Pakistan provided to millions of
Afghans who were crossing the border seeking safety during the
Soviet invasion, during the warlordism, during the Taliban
period, and not at all about a war that anybody was predicting,
and that it was both taken out of context and misunderstood. So
I think Ambassador Crocker is a pretty good guide to that.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. He sure is. Thank you very much,
Madam Secretary. Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Chair. I get the good
luck of being here for the second round. Madam Secretary, I
think going back to--I wasn't very clear when Mr. Berman had
raised a question again when the former chiefs or the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, Mullen, as well as Secretary Panetta, are
pretty scathing in terms of their attacks, I don't know if you
want to call it attack, but to say that our partnership with
Pakistan is something a lot to be said in terms of what had
happened here with Haqqani. Is that--and I realize too that the
Pakistan Government was very irritated by the comments it made.
Where are we now exactly with the charges made by Mr. Mullen as
well as Secretary Panetta in that regard?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, I think everyone
agrees that the Haqqani network has safe havens inside
Pakistan, that those safe havens give them a place to plan and
direct operations that kill Afghans and Americans. And we also
agree, however, with what Admiral Mullen also said, is that
there is no solution in the region without Pakistan and no
stable future in the region without a partnership. So if you
look at everything that Admiral Mullen said in his testimony he
raised serious questions which our Government has repeatedly
raised publicly and privately about the safe havens, but he
also said that the bilateral relationship was critical and
consequential and that we do have a lot of shared interests
particularly in the fight against terrorism. So it is important
to recognize that we are all balancing these two realities.
I mean, it would be great if we could get rid of one,
namely the safe havens or the difficulties that the Pakistanis
themselves feel they have in taking the fight to the terrorists
because they believe that they have already paid a grievous
price and worry about how they can sustain that, but we operate
on both those channels at one time.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I wanted to raise the question too that I
realize that for a good part of over 10 years now, it seems
that our countries seem to be bogged down, just these three
countries, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. That seems to be
our--our whole foreign policy seems to be centralized just on
these three countries. And I noticed with interest as Secretary
Panetta now in his recent visit to Asia, does there seem to be
a shift in paradigm in terms of what exactly are some of the
priorities on how we look at the situation? Why are we so
focused, or bogged down just on this one issue or dealing with
these three countries when we have the rest of the world to
deal with? Am I wrong in looking in terms of the recent
statements that Secretary Panetta has made about the fact that
our interests in Asia is just as critical and just as important
as we are in other regions of the world?
Secretary Clinton. No, you are absolutely right. As you
recall, I have made a number of trips to Asia, my first trip to
Asia. I just recently wrote an article for foreign policy
pointing out we are making a pivot toward Asia. We think that
it is very important to begin to focus on the challenges and
the opportunities that Asia presents. I had a wonderful visit,
as you recall, to one of our favorite Pacific islands. So this
administration certainly is focused on Asia. We are looking at
how we maintain our vigilance about terrorism, because we
cannot forget that it is from the border regions in Afghanistan
and Pakistan that we were attacked, and that was an immensely
costly event in our history in terms of lives lost and dollars
spent to recover from. So we did not choose where we had to
focus in the last 10 years. But now we are in a position to
begin to make that pivot. And there are many who believe, as I
do, that much of the future of the 21st century is going to be
written in Asia and the United States must be a resident power
militarily, politically and economically if we expect to
maintain our global leadership. So this is a very important
commitment that I hope is a bipartisan commitment because we
feel strongly it is in America's best interest.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. And darn it,
the gang is back. Mr. Royce is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Royce. Thank you. Welcome back, Madam Secretary.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you.
Mr. Royce. I have a question for you on the LeT, the
organization that carried out the attacks on Mumbai. My
terrorism subcommittee recently held a hearing on U.S.-India
counterterrorism cooperation and a recommendation that came out
of that hearing was that we should condition our assistance to
Pakistan on their inclusion of LeT in terms of their
engagement, in terms of their attempt to shut down this
organization. It has got a campus that continues to recruit. It
is an oddity because it has morphed from an organization
focused on Kashmir, but now it has got global aspirations. We
have made arrests here in the United States and so forth. So I
was going to ask you, would you consider making that a
condition in terms of that scorecard that reportedly we keep
with Pakistan?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, as you referenced in
the beginning of your remarks, we have had intensive
discussions with our Indian counterparts. On my last trip to
India, DNI Director Clapper went with me and had many in-depth
conversations. So I do not want to commit at this time to
taking such a path because I think it is important that there
be further consideration of all of the implications. Certainly,
every time we meet with the Pakistanis, we press them on LeT
about the continuing failure in our view to fulfill all of the
requirements necessary for prosecution related to the Mumbai
attacks, and we will continue to do so.
Mr. Royce. Well, one of the concerns I have if we don't
elevate this issue, Madam Secretary, if we don't drive this
point home now, it seems to me that some of the ISI in their
assistance to the LeT in orchestrating these attacks are
setting in motion the types of policies that could lead to
conflict between India and Pakistan. And I almost wonder, when
you look at the Mumbai attacks, when you look at the attacks in
Delhi and then you find the connection to ISI or former ISI
officials who are involved in the operation; when you look at
some of the other operations where you find out ISI was
involved in the training, it leads you to question what is the
intention from an intelligence perspective of sending in a
force, allowing them sanctuary, allowing them to base on your
home territory and then carrying out civilian terrorist attacks
on a neighboring country.
It would seem to me that the potential for conflict created
by this type of tripwire is very, very great. And that is why I
think this has to be elevated in terms of the discussion with
Pakistan. I think it has to be conditional. It can't be the
case where Pakistan says, well, we are helping with any
terrorist organization that is targeting the leadership in
Pakistan, but we are going to allow ISI agents to assist other
terrorist organizations that are targeting neighboring states
or, as Admiral Mullen said, targeting U.S. troops, that they
get this kind of cooperation. It has to be broadened to
include, in my view, the LeT. And I would ask you, do you think
there is a potential for this to spin out of control in terms
of the types of attacks that have been carried out on the
capital and the major financial centers of India by the LeT?
Secretary Clinton. Well, of course, we worry about that
very, very much and we discuss it in great depth with our
Indian counterparts because it is, first and foremost, a
concern of theirs. It is obviously also concerning to us, but
we have designated them, we are certainly raising their
continuing presence and activities on a regular basis. But I
think that our policy has to be carefully coordinated with the
Indian concerns. As you know, India is trying to improve
relations with Pakistan right now, and there are actually some
very productive discussions going on.
Mr. Royce. But perhaps Admiral Mike Mullen's words will
allow us to carry this conversation on with Pakistan rather
than India. I yield back.
Mr. Burton [presiding]. The Chair will now recognize the
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Mr.
Engel of New York.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, since
you were my Senator for 8 years in New York, I know a lot of
things about you, so first of all, I want to wish you a happy
birthday.
Secretary Clinton. Thank you.
Mr. Engel. And second of all, I should ask you for your
comments on this article from Time Magazine, Hillary Rodham
Clinton and The Rise of Smart Power. So I don't know if you
have any comment on that, but I want to comment on it.
Secretary Clinton. I am speechless, Congressman.
Mr. Engel. I think the country realizes the wonderful job
you are doing and I really want to thank you. You know, we are
talking about Pakistan and Afghanistan and we focus on the
Middle East. I just want to throw in something about something
you and I have spoken about a great deal, and that is the
conflict between Israel and the Palestinians because it does
impact on other countries in the Middle East. The Israeli prime
minister has just said that he will negotiate with the
Palestinians any place, any time, anywhere, and he is even
talking about potential freezes on expansion of neighborhoods
and things like that. Meanwhile, the Palestinians refuse to
speak to the Israelis and instead still persistent going to the
United Nations trying to get a unilateral Declaration of
Independence instead of negotiating face-to-face. This Congress
is going to anticipate that we will have legislation cutting
off aid to the Palestinians if they are not serious about the
peace process. I am wondering if you could comment on that. And
then I have an Afghanistan question for you.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, as you know, we are
deeply focused on trying to move the parties to negotiations
that would result in resolution of issues and the eventual two-
state outcome that is American policy and which I know you and
I support. We have a quartet process that is currently
operating. There were meetings held yesterday. And now the
quartet envoys have met with both Israeli and Palestinian
representatives. There has certainly been an emphasis on trying
to get specific proposals made by both sides on territory and
security in line with President Obama's comments last May. And
we are pushing very hard for that to occur.
Now, you are right, that there remain difficulties in
getting the parties to sit down with each other, so we are
pursuing these goals through what are called proximity talks
which are not the preference, as you know. But we think that
keeping this moving, keeping it alive as a possibility is very
much in the interest of both, because one thing we have learned
over now 20, 30 years of these negotiations is that a vacuum is
not good for Israel, it is not good for the region, and so we
want to keep some momentum going.
With respect to aid for the Palestinians, I will certainly
underscore publicly again our strong preference that aid not be
cut, particularly aid for the security forces. And the
maintenance of security in the Palestinian territories is very
much in Israel's interest. Just last week, the Israeli general
in charge of West Bank security publicly said do not cut
resources to Palestinian security.
So I would hope as the Congress considers these issues that
we will consult closely and that there be a real recognition
that we don't want unintended consequences, and we certainly
don't want either a collapse of the Palestinian authority in a
vacuum that could then be filled by radicals like Hamas and we
don't want there to be a collapse of the security cooperation
between the Palestinians and Israel.
Mr. Engel. Thank you. Let me ask you a quick question about
Afghanistan. I know there has been some criticism from my
friends on the other side of the aisle about withdrawing from
Iraq at the end of the year. I think the President got that one
right. And I think my constituents are concerned that we don't
remain bogged down in a ground war in Afghanistan forever and
ever. We have been successful using drones and others to get at
terrorists. And there, it seems to me, can be more efficient
means in keeping us in Afghanistan forever and ever. I think we
should speed up our withdrawal from Afghanistan. I would like
to hear what your thoughts are.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, there has been an
agreement with our NATO allies that 2014 is the year.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank
you, Mr. Engel. Mr. Chabot is recognized.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Secretary, in a
recent interview when asked about negotiations with insurgents,
you spoke of universal redlines specifically renouncing
violence, renouncing ties to al-Qaeda and committing to abide
by the Afghan constitution. Are these redlines preconditions to
talks, and if so how is engaging with them in negotiations a
coherent strategy when they reject our redlines in principle.
And you mentioned in your opening statement and several times
during your testimony here today the importance of protecting
women's rights. And I happen to agree with you on that point.
But can these rights be reconciled with the potential
implementation of Sharia-based law, which is a stated objective
of the insurgents that you are potentially offering a place in
the Afghan Government.
Secretary Clinton. Well, first, Congressman, they are
outcomes that would have to be satisfied. You don't make peace
with your friends and you rarely sit down to negotiate any
peace with someone who has already agreed with you. It is
through the process of negotiation that you test and determine
whether the outcomes that you seek can be satisfied. So that is
our intention and it is certainly a long, is part of a long
line of how one negotiates to end conflicts like this.
Secondly, with respect to the constitution and the laws of
Afghanistan, which do protect the rights of ethnic minorities
and of women, there is an absolute condition that we have said
the outcome must be to meet that.
I know that there is a lot of discussion about Sharia law
and I think there is a lot of information about it and what it
means and how it is applied that is difficult to assume. There
are different countries with different kinds of applications of
what they consider to be Sharia which is the law that arises
out of the Koran in their interpretation. So I don't want to
prejudge, but I think the rule of law is our guide and the
constitution and the laws of Afghanistan, which do give respect
to, and in some cases, adherence to Islamic principles is what
we are demanding be respected.
So I think that it might be useful to take a look at all
the different meanings of that phrase and how it is applied
because from time to time, I think it is not clear what the
implications would be.
Mr. Chabot. That is one area I would suggest and encourage
the administration to take particular care in because the
presence of Sharia law, in any form, in any government, could
have potentially devastating effects on the rights of women,
and I am sure you are aware of that.
Madam Secretary, recent comments by Haqqani network leaders
have suggested that we have been attempting bilateral
negotiations with them in order to split them off from the
Quetta Shura Taliban. The Haqqani network, however, has said
that it will only negotiate with the Quetta Shura approval and
participation. Are we prepared to, in effect, negotiate with
Mullah Omar, and if so, under what circumstances and what would
our conditions be? What is your assessment of the Haqqani
network, and given the administration's intentions of
negotiating with it, what role might it have in a future
Afghanistan?
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, the negotiations that
would be part of any Afghan-led peace process would have to
include the Quetta Shura, and would have to include some
recognition by the Quetta Shura, which based on everything we
know is still led by Mullah Omar, that they wish to participate
in such a process. That is what I meant when I said you don't
make peace with your friends. We are pursuing every thread of
any kind of interest expressed. You might have been voting when
I said that the ISI asked us to meet with a representative of
the Haqqani network. There was such a meeting. There was
nothing, there was not a negotiation, there was no follow-up
meeting. This was done, in part, because I think the Pakistanis
hope to be able to move the Haqqani network toward some kind of
peace negotiation, and the answer was an attack on our Embassy.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen [presiding]. Thank you, Madam
Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chabot. Mr. Meeks is recognized.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Madam Secretary, let
me also congratulate you and the Obama administration for the
supreme work that you have been doing. And I think that the
article that is talking about smart power is talking about how
we are doing things differently. And it seems to me as we
travel now I feel that when I talk to other nations, other
countries, that they again feel included. And so that is
leadership, but not leadership where it is my way or the
highway, basic leadership where we are bringing the world back
together or closer together to work to resolve problems in the
world together.
We have seen that with the fact that when we have civilian
lives at risk, and that is what Libya was really all about,
that is what Tunisia is all about. And the President kept his
word and we worked it out and we saved hundreds of thousands of
lives, but we did it not just by ourselves, we did it in a
multilateral way, which is a very, very positive thing in my
estimation, and that is what I think smart power is all about.
Then talking about Afghanistan and Pakistan. So my first
question is though Turkey seems to be a little bit removed
geographically, but I know you are going to Turkey next week,
and Turkey, I understand, have asserted themselves as keepers
of the peace and they will be hosting this conference about
building blocks in the Afghan reconstruction process next week.
So my question to you, first, is has Turkey been otherwise
engaged in the region? Have they been helpful or not helpful?
Because that could be another partner that we could have in
helping us in this crucial area of the world.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, they have been both
involved and helpful. Of course, Turkish groups serve in NATO
ISAF. I remember my first trip to Afghanistan, Turkish troops
were responsible for the airport in Kabul, and I remember
meeting the Turkish general who was in charge. But Turkey also
has a great ability to communicate with a lot of the leaders in
Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere, because, of course, it is
a Muslim majority country. And it has a history of democracy
and now an Islamic-based party, the AKP, that is leading the
country. So Turkey has a great deal of credibility with a
number of the countries, and therefore, its involvement is a
very helpful assistance to us.
Mr. Meeks. Likewise, I think that we need to move into a
post Cold War conversation and dialogue with other countries.
Russia, we had a reset agreement. So I was just wondering
whether or not Russia has been involved in any of the
Afghanistan-Pakistan issues at all in that region?
Secretary Clinton. Well, for a long time Russia wasn't
particularly involved, nor was it welcome because of the
invasion by the Soviet Union and the many years of brutal
conflict that ensued. In recent years, however, and in part
because of our reset, Russia has been helpful. They have
cooperated with us on the northern distribution network, which
is our alternative route to get troops and equipment into
Afghanistan when the Pakistani route is either unavailable or
under pressure.
Russia is also now participating in many of the discussions
about the path forward. Because remember, Afghanistan has been
a crossroads for conflict between and among all of its big
neighbors, Pakistan, Iran, India, China, Russia. And so Russia
very much wants to see a stable Afghanistan. It worries greatly
about the heroin trade that comes out of Afghanistan, and that
is a big domestic problem for Russia. So we are appreciative of
the role that they are now playing.
Mr. Meeks. Finally, Madam Secretary, as we pull out of
Iraq, and I know the agreement about 2014 is Afghanistan, I am
wondering what is the response of NATO and ISAF and the Euro-
Atlantic partnership Council, the Istanbul Initiative and the
contact countries? Do these organizations still remain as a
cohesive command, and what role will they be playing in the
region generally? I just thought staying together in that
regard is tremendously important.
Secretary Clinton. I think, Congressman, the commitment
that was made last year, or earlier this year, I guess, at the
Lisbon NATO Summit to remain involved to have an enduring
partnership with Afghanistan, was a very strong signal that
NATO countries understand that the stability of Afghanistan
affects their national security as well.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Mr.
Wilson is recognized.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank you for being
here today.
I was really very impressed by your visit to Pakistan. I
have had the privilege of visiting there, and I was so
impressed by their military. We were there to encourage the
Pakistani military and the U.S. Marines for their earthquake
recovery several years ago in Muzaffarabad. The organization
was professional, the military itself was very, very positive.
In particular, I was very pleased. There was a young U.S.
Marine who was of Pakistani-American heritage that had been
trained at Parris Island in South Carolina, and to see our
working together because we can and we should.
With that in mind, the foreign assistance programs that we
have in Pakistan that you have helped initiate, do you believe
they are making sufficient progress, and by what metrics are
you judging the level of progress.
Secretary Clinton. Congressman, first, thank you for
traveling there, and I share your very strong endorsement of
the positive work that was done between the Pakistani military
and United States military in earthquake relief, and it was a
real model and we are very proud of that.
With respect to the civilian assistance, we actually do
think that we are making a difference, but it sometimes gets
overwhelmed by all of the other activities that go on in our
relationship. We will be sending you the latest status report
on what we have done next week, I think. And we have built
roads, we have increased their energy production, we have the
world's largest Fulbright exchange. The assistance we give to
civil society.
I did a town hall meeting in Islamabad and several people,
both publicly and privately, thanked us for the programs that
had made a difference in their understanding of how to put
together voluntary organizations, how to engage with their
government.
None of this is easy and none of it, frankly, is without
challenge, but I really believe we have to stay the course on
this.
Mr. Wilson. Also I have been very encouraged that with
India, that Pakistan is developing a most favored nation trade
status with India. I have been the co-chairman twice of the
India caucus, and I have a deep interest and actually the
biggest beneficiary of a level of stability in Pakistan is
India. And why do you think this is moving at this time and
what can be done to promote a level of trade and positive
contact between India and Pakistan?
Secretary Clinton. Congressman, I agree with you that the
real game changer in the region is not so much our bilateral
relationship as the relationship between Pakistan and India.
And the more that there can be progress, the more likely there
can be even more progress.
So we have, in Pakistan today, a leadership, both civilian
and military, that wants to see progress with India, and we
have the same on the Indian side. There have been successful
visits just in the last several months at the Foreign Minister
level, the commerce minister level, announcements have been
made to try to streamline visas for businesses, do more to
accelerate movement across borders. And then the most favored
Nation status is a really important development.
So we encourage it. We try to tell both sides how much it
will change their relationship. And when I was in Chennai last
summer, I spoke about a new silk road where goods could go from
Chennai up to Kazakhstan and it would go through Pakistan, it
would go through Afghanistan.
I firmly believe greater regional economic integration
would revolutionize the economy in Pakistan. You know, India is
a huge market. And Pakistan produces things that India needs,
but they don't get into India in any direct and cost-effective
way. So the more we can do that, the better.
Mr. Wilson. I share your enthusiasm, and indeed all of
Central Asia could benefit so much even into western Siberia. I
appreciate your enthusiasm for that recognition of it,
promotion of it, and every effort to reduce and eliminate
cross-border terrorism which has been such a tragedy for the
people of India.
I yield the balance of my time.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson. Mr.
Carnahan is recognized.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you. Welcome back, Madam Secretary. I
want to try to get at least one comment in and a couple of
questions in here with my allotted time.
First, as you know with Chris Smith, my colleague and co-
chair of the Bosnian Caucus, so I am taking an opportunity to
make an off-topic comment like others have done today, and I
represent one of the largest populations of Bosnians in the
country in St. Louis. But as we all know, reforms are stalled,
progress is in question, and there is increasing risk to the
region from inaction.
My comment is that we need a solution, but first we really
need a vehicle that can bring together the Bosnian people,
their leaders, neighboring countries, the EU and of course U.S.
leadership is essential. So I would hope that we could work
with you and the appropriate folks in the Department to look
for such a vehicle to move that process forward so it doesn't
backslide and create what I think could be a big problem.
Back on topic here, as you know, I have long supported
active U.S. engagement around the world. I believe the Obama
administration has shifted, and certainly your leadership to a
policy of smart power and responsible participation in
international organizations has been in our great interest, our
security interest, our economic interest and our values around
the world. The United Nations assistance in Afghanistan has
been essential in developing that country, also engages 80
percent of the cost with our partners that are helping share
that burden.
My question is to ensure that UNAMA has the ability to take
on an even bigger role as the U.S. prepares to draw down its
troop presence in the future and also what effect would the
cuts proposed by this committee have on the U.N.'s ability to
pursue that important work?
Secretary Clinton. Congressman, first, we would be
delighted to work with you and Congressman Smith on Bosnia
because we share your concerns and we would love to consult
with you. So I will reach out and we will set up a time to do
that.
On UNAMA, I think their activities in Afghanistan are
essential to the safety and security of our troops, our
civilian employees and the success of the transition. And as I
wrote to the chair earlier this month, I am deeply concerned
that the proposed U.N. reform bill mandates actions which would
severely limit U.S. participation in the U.N., and therefore,
greatly harm our interests, put aside anybody else's interest.
I am focused first and foremost on ours.
The bill's requirement that the U.S. withhold 50 percent of
its contribution until the U.N. shifts to a voluntary funding
scheme for most of its programs would undermine our leadership
at a time when we really have to be at the very forefront, and
we are being asked now to do more with less anyway. We get a
lot for our investments out of UNAMA because as you say, the
bulk of the funding is carried by others. And they are an
absolutely critical partner in building Afghan civilian
capacity, monitoring human rights, supporting Afghan elections.
Everything we talked about today we partner closely on a
literally hour-by-hour basis with UNAMA. And if we can't depend
on UNAMA, we will have to pay for and invent some other entity
because we don't have another partner that has the credibility
or the reach that UNAMA has.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you. Finally, I want to get your brief
comment. You have been a great champion for including
minorities, and especially women in transition to Afghan
control. Just give us a brief synopsis on what the
administration is doing to prepare for the upcoming Bonn
Conference and beyond to ensure that that happens.
Secretary Clinton. Well, I thank you again, Congressman,
because you have been a great champion for the women of
Afghanistan as well.
We are requiring a lot of emphasis by the United States and
our partners on what is happening with women in Afghanistan. I
met with a group of women leaders when I was there. And we
expect there to be a process where women are involved at all
levels in the peace and reconciliation effort, which they then
can speak for themselves and have their own say about their own
rights.
And so I will give you further information about that. But
we have made specific requests to the Government of Afghanistan
that they be included.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
And before I recognize Mr. Mack, I would like to tell the
members of our committee that per a request from the Secretary
that Mr. Berman and I had agreed to, she would be departing
after Mr. Mack's questions because that will bring her to her
other duties.
Mr. Mack is recognized, the Subcommittee on Western
Hemisphere chair.
Mr. Mack. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is great to see you
again, Secretary Clinton.
I am going to switch gears a little bit as well. As you
know, I serve as the chair of the Western Hemisphere
Subcommittee, so there is a lot to talk about.
But I wanted to talk a little bit about Fast and Furious.
And specifically, at what point did the State Department learn
of Operation Fast and Furious?
Secretary Clinton. Congressman, I don't know the exact
time. I can tell you that based on our information from the
part of the State Department that would deal with this kind of
issue, we have no record of any request for coordination. We
have no record of any kind of notice or heads up. And my
recollection is that I learned about it from the press. That is
my recollection.
Mr. Mack. So I think then I know the answer to this
question but I will ask anyway. Did the State Department issue
the Justice Department a license or a written waiver in order
to allow for the transfer of thousands of weapons across the
U.S.-Mexico border?
Secretary Clinton. Congressman, this is the first time I
have been asked this, and I can tell you that based on the
record of any activity by the bureau that would have been
responsible, we see no evidence. But let me do a thorough
request to make sure that what I am telling you reflects
everything we know.
Mr. Mack. Thank you. That would be greatly appreciated. I
wrote a letter to you yesterday. I am sure you got it and you
have read it.
Secretary Clinton. I thought it was for my birthday.
Mr. Mack. Happy birthday.
Under the Arms Export Control Act, the Justice Department
was required to receive a written waiver from the State
Department to account for their intent to cause arms to be
exported to drug cartels in Mexico. If no such waiver was
received, Justice Department officials have violated the law
and you would agree with that, correct?
Secretary Clinton. I cannot offer an opinion. I don't know.
I mean, this is the first time I am being asked.
Mr. Mack. I am not asking you if there was such a written
request, but if they hadn't asked and received, by law, the
Justice Department would be violating U.S. law.
Secretary Clinton. I cannot offer you any opinion on that.
I don't have the information or any analysis. I can only tell
you the facts as we know them in the State Department.
Mr. Mack. I will submit then and say that if the law says
that they have to get a written, if the State Department is
required to give a written waiver for the cause of arms to be
exported to drug cartels in Mexico, and they didn't do that and
that didn't happen, then they are in violation of the law. So
the question here is, who do we hold responsible?
I think there is a lot of frustration, at least for myself,
that when we hear Mexico and President Calderon complain so
much about guns moving south across the border to learn that
our Government was involved in the delivery of those guns is
quite concerning, and I am sure that you feel the same way. But
we are looking for answers as to who knew what, when, and why
and how this happened.
So I look forward if you would get back to me and the
committee about the waiver and whether or not the State
Department issued that waiver.
Second, I wanted--do you agree with Ambassador Brownfield
that there is an insurgency in Mexico that are using terrorists
tactics in Mexico.
Secretary Clinton. Well, Congressman, I have expressed my
concern about that in the past. We are sensitive to the
characteristics that some of these drug traffickers have
adopted that certainly resemble terrorist activities. And we
are also aware of the concern by the Mexican Government that
we, in their view, not mix apples and oranges, so to speak.
Let's focus on criminality, let's not mix it with something
else. So this is an ongoing discussion that we have with our
friends in Mexico.
Mr. Mack. She is going to gavel me down. But you in the
past have identified it as an insurgency?
Secretary Clinton. I have said that it has characteristics
of an insurgency, but I am very sensitive to the legitimate
questions that the Mexican Government raises about really
whether those characteristics are such that it should be
defined as that.
Chairman Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Madam Secretary,
Mr. Mack.
Madam Secretary, I want you to know that the preparations
for this oversight hearing were done by our Afghan war vets,
two full committee majority staff members, Matt Zweig and Greg
McCarthy, and our wonderful Defense Department fellow, Emiliano
Tellado.
Thank you so much. Pleasure having you here, and the
committee is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the committee 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]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
\
statt\
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
\
statt\
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
\s
\
[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]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
\sass\
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
