[Senate Hearing 112-399]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-399
NOMINATIONS OF THE 112TH CONGRESS--FIRST SESSION
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
MARCH 16 THROUGH DECEMBER 8, 2011
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
S. Hrg. 112-399
NOMINATIONS OF THE 112TH CONGRESS--FIRST SESSION
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 16 THROUGH DECEMBER 8, 2011
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
74-273 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
112th CONGRESS--FIRST SESSION
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts, Chairman
BARBARA BOXER, California RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey BOB CORKER, Tennessee
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania MARCO RUBIO, Florida
JIM WEBB, Virginia JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
TOM UDALL, New Mexico MIKE LEE, Utah
*Frank G. Lowenstein, Staff Director
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Republican Staff Director
*Note: William C. Danvers (assumed Staff Director position as of
October 3, 2011)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
[Any additional material relating to these nominees may be found
at the end of the applicable day's hearing.]
----------
Page
Wednesday, March 16, 2011........................................ 1
Joseph M. Torsella, of Pennsylvania, to be Representative to the
United Nations for U.N. Management and Reform, with the rank of
Ambassador and Alternate U.S. Representative to the 65th
session of the U.N. General Assembly........................... 6
------
Tuesday, March 29, 2011.......................................... 43
Suzan D. Johnson Cook, of New York, to be Ambassador at Large for
International Religious Freedom................................ 47
------
Tuesday, April 5, 2011 (a.m.).................................... 71
Robert Patterson, of New York, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador to
Turkmenistan................................................... 75
Mara E. Rudman, of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant
Administrator of the United States Agency for International
Development.................................................... 78
------
Tuesday, April 5, 2011 (p.m.).................................... 109
Scott Gration, of New Jersey, to be Ambassador to the Republic of
Kenya.......................................................... 114
Michelle Gavin, of the District of Columbia, to be Ambassador to
the Republic of Botswana....................................... 115
------
Wednesday, April 6, 2011......................................... 137
David Bruce Shear, of New York, to be Ambassador to the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam............................................ 142
Kurt Walter Tong, of Maryland, for the rank of Ambassador during
his tenure as U.S. Senior Official for the Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation (APEC) Forum.............................. 144
------
Wednesday, May 4, 2011........................................... 163
Daniel Benjamin Shapiro, of Illinois, to be Ambassador to Israel. 168
Stuart E. Jones, of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador
to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan............................. 172
Hon. George Albert Krol, of New Jersey, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be
Ambassador to the Republic of Uzbekistan....................... 181
Henry S. Ensher, of California, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador to the
People's Democratic Republic of Algeria........................ 185
Thursday, May 26, 2011........................................... 207
Hon. Gary Locke, of Washington, to be Ambassador to the People's
Republic of China.............................................. 211
------
Tuesday, June 7, 2011............................................ 263
Jeanine E. Jackson, of Wyoming, to be Ambassador to the Republic
of Malawi...................................................... 269
Geeta Pasi, of New York, to be Ambassador to the Republic of
Djibouti....................................................... 271
Donald Koran, of California, to be Ambassador to the Republic of
Rwanda......................................................... 274
Lewis Lukens, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Republic of
Senegal and to serve concurrently as Ambassador to the Republic
of Guinea-Bissau............................................... 277
Ariel Pablos-Mendez, of New York, to be Assistant Administrator
of the United States Agency for International Development...... 279
------
Wednesday, June 8, 2011.......................................... 299
Jonathan D. Farrar, of California, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of Nicaragua.......................................... 302
Lisa J. Kubiske, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Republic of
Honduras....................................................... 304
James H. Thessin, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Republic
of Paraguay.................................................... 307
D. Brent Hardt, of Florida, to be Ambassador to the Co-operative
Republic of Guyana............................................. 309
------
Tuesday, June 21, 2011........................................... 341
Hon. Anne W. Patterson, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Arab
Republic of Egypt.............................................. 346
Michael H. Corbin, of California, to be Ambassador to the United
Arab Emirates.................................................. 366
Susan L. Ziadeh, of Washington, to be Ambassador to the State of
Qatar.......................................................... 369
Matthew H. Tueller, of Utah, to be Ambassador to the State of
Kuwait......................................................... 371
Kenneth J. Fairfax, of Kentucky, to be Ambassador to the Republic
of Kazakhstan.................................................. 374
------
Wednesday, June 29, 2011......................................... 411
Derek J. Mitchell, of Connecticut, to be Special Representative
and Policy Coordinator for Burma, with the rank of Ambassador.. 416
Frankie Annette Reed, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of the Fiji Islands, and to serve concurrently as
Ambassador to the Republic of Nauru, the Kingdom of Tonga,
Tuvalu, and the Republic of Kiribati........................... 422
------
Wednesday, July 13, 2011......................................... 439
Paul D. Wohlers, of Washington, to be Ambassador to the Republic
of Macedonia................................................... 442
William H. Moser, of North Carolina, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of Moldova............................................ 445
John A. Heffern, of Missouri, to be Ambassador to the Republic of
Armenia........................................................ 447
Thomas M. Countryman, of Washington, to be Assistant Secretary of
State for International Security and Non-Proliferation......... 460
Jeffrey DeLaurentis, of New York, to be Alternate Representative
of the United States of America for Special Political Affairs
in the United Nations, with the rank of Ambassador, and
Alternate Representative of the United States of America to the
Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations......... 463
------
Tuesday, July 19, 2011........................................... 483
David S. Adams, of the District of Columbia, to be Assistant
Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs..................... 486
Joyce A. Barr, of Washington, to be Assistant Secretary of State
for Administration............................................. 488
------
Wednesday, July 20, 2011......................................... 507
Hon. Earl Anthony Wayne, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to Mexico. 511
Arnold Chacon, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Republic of
Guatemala...................................................... 517
------
Thursday, July 21, 2011.......................................... 539
Sung Y. Kim, of California, to be Ambassador to the Republic of
Korea.......................................................... 543
------
Tuesday, August 2, 2011.......................................... 555
Hon. Norman L. Eisen, of the District of Columbia, to be
Ambassador to the Czech Republic............................... 562
Hon. Francis Joseph Ricciardone, Jr., of Massachusetts, to be
Ambassador to the Republic of Turkey........................... 565
Hon. Robert S. Ford, of Vermont, to be Ambassador to the Syrian
Arab Republic.................................................. 571
------
Wednesday, September 7, 2011..................................... 621
Hon. Wendy R. Sherman, of Maryland, to be Under Secretary of
State for Political Affairs.................................... 626
------
Wednesday, September 21, 2011.................................... 669
Robert A. Mandell, of Florida, to be U.S. Ambassador to
Luxembourg..................................................... 673
Hon. Thomas Charles Krajeski, of Virginia, to be U.S. Ambassador
to the Kingdom of Bahrain...................................... 676
Hon. Dan W. Mozena, of Iowa, to be U.S. Ambassador to the
People's Republic of Bangladesh................................ 678
Michael A. Hammer, of the District of Columbia, to be Assistant
Secretary of State for Public Affairs.......................... 681
------
Wednesday, October 5, 2011....................................... 713
Susan Denise Page, of Illinois, to be Ambassador to the Republic
of South Sudan................................................. 718
Adrienne S. O'Neal, of Michigan, to be Ambassador to the Republic
of Cape Verde.................................................. 721
Mary Beth Leonard, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of Mali............................................... 724
Mark Francis Brzezinski, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to Sweden. 726
------
Wednesday, October 12, 2011...................................... 745
Dr. Michael Anthony McFaul, of California, to be Ambassador to
the Russian Federation......................................... 750
------
Tuesday, November 8, 2011........................................ 807
Hon. Roberta S. Jacobson, of Maryland, to be an Assistant
Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs.............. 810
Hon. Mari Carmen Aponte, of the District of Columbia, to be
Ambassador to the Republic of El Salvador...................... 830
Adam E. Namm, of New York, to be an Ambassador to the Republic of
Ecuador........................................................ 833
Elizabeth M. Cousens, of Washington, to be Representative of the
United States of America on the Economic and Social Council of
the United Nations, with the rank of Ambassador; and, to be an
Alternate Representative of the United States of America to the
Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations, during
her tenure of service as Representative of the United States of
America on the Economic and Social Council of the United
Nations........................................................ 836
Thursday, December 8, 2011....................................... 891
Earl W. Gast, of California, to be an Assistant Administrator of
the United States Agency for International Development......... 893
Tara D. Sonenshine, of Maryland, to be Under Secretary of State
for Public Diplomacy........................................... 895
Anne Claire Richard, of New York, to be Assistant Secretary of
State for Population, Refugees, and Migration.................. 899
Robert E. Whitehead, of Florida, to be Ambassador to the Togolese
Republic....................................................... 902
NOMINATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
Joseph M. Torsella, of Pennsylvania, to be Representative to
the United Nations for U.N. Management and Reform, with
the rank of Ambassador and Alternate U.S.
Representative to the 65th session of the U.N. General
Assembly
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert P.
Casey, presiding.
Present: Senators Casey, Rubio, DeMint, and Lee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT P. CASEY, JR.,
U.S. SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA
Senator Casey. The hearing will come to order.
First of all, I want to thank the nominee, Joe Torsella,
for being here and for taking the time to come back.
And I appreciate the attendance here of our ranking member,
Senator DeMint.
Today the Foreign Relations Committee meets to examine the
nomination of Joe Torsella to be Representative of the United
States of America to the United Nations for Management and
Reform, with the rank of Ambassador and Alternative U.S.
Representative to the 65th session of the U.N. General
Assembly.
Joe Torsella has been here before, and we're grateful that
he's back. His wife, Carolyn, is with us. And I'm told that
your daughter, Grace, is here and your son, Joe--is that--did I
get that right? Thanks very much for being here. We're
grateful.
And we know that--as I think I said before, that when a
public official, elected or appointed, puts themself forward
for public service, I know that's a commitment that you make,
but also that your family makes. And I know that's a challenge,
and we're grateful that your family is here to support you.
In the past 2 years, the world has witnessed a shift, in
the United States foreign policy, toward a comprehensive
multilateralism which is embodied in our renewed commitment to
the international system that the United Nations represents.
This new direction is critically important to how we conduct
foreign policy and how we relate to the United Nations.
The United States was one of the primary architects of the
United Nations and its affiliated bodies. And as a world
leader, the United States not only has role to play to be an
active participant in the United Nations, but also has an
obligation to ensure that the U.N. has measures of
accountability applied to it.
To that end, Joe Torsella's record as a dedicated in
innovative reformer will serve him well in this important post
as U.S. Representative to the United Nations for Management and
Reform.
In these times of sweeping geopolitical change, the
administration has worked, for the past 2 years, to make
America stronger and more secure by pursuing a strategy of
national renewal and energetic global leadership. Ambassador
Rice has made this case before, and I'd like to take the
opportunity to discuss briefly how the United Nations fits into
that strategy--why we need the U.N., how it makes us all safer,
and what we're doing to fix its shortcomings and help fulfill
its potential.
In these tough economic times here in the United States,
and indeed, around the world, we're all focused on a growing
economy. We're in recovery, but we've got a long way to go. We
want to make sure we're doing everything possible to provide
jobs for Americans who are hurting and out of work.
Yet, even as we get our own house in order, we cannot
afford to ignore problems beyond our borders. When nuclear
weapons materials remain unsecured in many countries around the
world, we are all put at risk. When states are wracked by
conflict or ravaged by poverty, they can incubate threats that
spread across borders, from terrorism to pandemic disease, from
criminal networks to environmental degradation. Like it or not,
we live in a new era of challenges that cross borders as freely
as a storm, challenges that even the world's most powerful
country often cannot tackle on its own. In the 21st century,
indifference is not an option. Withdrawing from the world
community is not only bad policy, it is, in fact, dangerous.
America cannot police every conflict and every crisis,
and--or shelter every refugee. The United Nations provides a
real return on our tax dollars by bringing the world's
countries together to share the cost of providing stability,
vital aid, and hope in the world's most broken places. Because
of the U.N., the world doesn't look to America to solve every
problem alone. Our participation in the U.N. is a wise
investment. But, with any investment, I should say, we must
constantly work to better ensure that management and effective
reforms are in place for that organization; in this case, the
United Nations.
The Foreign Relations Committee has taken steps to address
our Nation's arrears to the U.N. over the past 2 years.
However, in doing so, the committee has called upon the U.N. to
implement a series of reforms and to improve its evaluation and
transparency policies. As the biggest contributor to the U.N.,
we expect, and we deserve, accountability to ensure that our
taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and efficiently.
The United Nations can be more efficient and effective, and
I know that Joe Torsella has ideas on how to make that happen.
I support his confirmation to serve our country at the U.S.
mission at the United Nations, because I believe he has the
background and experience and commitment to public service to
enhance our active U.S. presence at the U.N. by ensuring that
our tax dollars are spent wisely.
Joe has been a faithful public servant and a leading
entrepreneur in Pennsylvania throughout his career. As deputy
mayor for policy and planning in Philadelphia, he helped lead
Philadelphia out of its economic and fiscal crisis by
implementing strategic reforms that the New York Times
described as ``the most stunning turnaround in recent urban
history.''
Most recently, he has served as the chairman of the
Pennsylvania Board of Education, one of the Nation's largest
public school systems, with over 500 public school districts
and 14 State universities. Under Joe Torsella's leadership, the
Board of Education adopted and implemented groundbreaking State
education standards and new high school graduation
requirements. These reforms require students to demonstrate
proficiency in core subject matters in order to receive a
diploma, thereby strengthening public education in the
Commonwealth and holding schools accountable. These reforms
don't come easily. They are a result of building consensus with
a variety of stakeholders. And Joe has gotten results.
Joe has also been instrumental in the establishment of
Philadelphia's National Constitution Center. The center is
dedicated to increasing the public's understanding of, and
appreciation for, the U.S. Constitution.
Finally, I will enter into the record a letter from
President George Herbert Walker Bush which indicates his close
working relationship with Joe Torsella when Joe was the
chairman of the board of the Constitution Center. And I'll
enter that into the record and just read, for the record, one
sentence from that letter. And I'm quoting former President
Bush. ``As a former Ambassador to the United Nations, I could
not be more confident in Joe's qualifications for this job. I
would have been proud to have him on my team. He's a man of
character and principle and will represent our Nation well.''
I think that's well said by one of our former Presidents.
With Joe Torsella representing the United States on
management reform issues, we can have the confidence that our
Nation's interests will be effectively championed and that this
portfolio will be professionally and efficiently managed on
behalf of the people of the United States.
[The letter referred to by Senator Casey follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Casey. And, with that, I turn to our distinguished
ranking member, Senator DeMint.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM DeMINT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Torsella. I appreciate your meeting with me
in our office. I feel very good about your nomination.
I appreciate the chairman pointing out the importance of
the United Nations. Having an international body is obviously
critical to a lot of things in the world, which makes the
problems perhaps that much more important, as well.
And whether it comes to budget processes or peacekeeping
operations, oversight, or transparency, the United Nations has
been unacceptably slow to reform. Waste, fraud, abuse, and
general mismanagement are widespread at the U.N. Yet, the
position of U.S. Representatives the United Nations for
Management and Reform has been vacant for over 2 years. That
makes it appear that the United Nations oversight has simply
not been a priority to the administration, which I hope you can
change.
This is unfortunate. The United States is by far the
largest contributor to the United Nations, donating more than
$6 billion in 2009 alone. I believe American taxpayers deserve
more accountability for their dollars.
One major area of concern is the mandated items Americans
are forced to pay for our nonvoluntary U.N. contributions.
Because of this, Americans end up paying for programs that do
not align with our national security and foreign policy
objectives. For example, since 2006, nearly half of the
country-specific resolutions passed by the United Nations
Humans Rights Council, which Americans are required to fund,
have focused on condemning Israel. Meanwhile, notorious human
rights offenders, like Iran and Cuba, have been ignored.
In the past, the United States has pressured the U.N. to
review their mandates. This process has stalled, largely
because U.N. member states are focused on protecting the
funding for their pet programs. Over 9,000 of these programs
currently exist. Programs that duplicate each other, and
outdated mandates, must be streamlined, eliminated, and merged.
The United States also sends the United Nations voluntary
contributions. President Obama's bipartisan debt commission
proposed making a reduction in the amount of voluntary
contributions the United States gives the U.N. on its draft of
spending-cut proposals. And we should go much further. The
United Kingdom, as you're aware, has recommended cutting
funding for four agencies, and put on notice--put others on
notice for urgent improvement, or they would face cuts, as
well. The United States should examine these cuts and take
similar actions.
Finally, U.N. peacekeeping missions must have more
accountability--much more. According to a 2007 report by the
United Nations Office on Internal Oversight Services, of
roughly $1.4 billion in peacekeeping contracts examined,
significant corruption schemes were involved in roughly 44
percent of these contracts, totaling about $619 million. This
is a topic I'd like to pursue further during the question-and-
answer period, but I'll stop and let you give your statement.
And Mr. Chairman, I suspect if they call the vote
sometimes, we can listen to his statement, and then come back
and ask some questions, if that suits you.
Senator Casey. Thank you, Senator DeMint.
Mr. Torsella, if you could provide your opening. And we may
have to take a brief break to go to vote.
Mr. Torsella. Thank you.
Senator Casey. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH M. TORSELLA, OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO BE
REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED NATIONS FOR U.N. MANAGEMENT AND
REFORM, WITH THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR AND ALTERNATIVE U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE TO THE 65TH SESSION OF THE U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Mr. Torsella. Chairman Casey, thank you for that
introduction.
Senator DeMint, thank you for your comments and for your
courtesy on our recent visit.
Chairman, Ranking Member, Senator Lee, I'm honored to be
here today.
I will abbreviate my full statement slightly, in the
interest of the voting you have to do, and submit the full
testimony for the record.
Senator Casey. Let me just say, it will be made part of the
record.
Mr. Torsella. Thank you. And I would also like to
recognize--in addition to the family members who are here
today--our two children, Kelly Logan and Travis Logan, who are
older, and who are not here--for good reasons, in one case,
because she has a job; and, in the second case, because he's
enlisted in the National Guard Reserve and is at basic
training. So, they're with us in spirit and behind the
nomination, as well.
I'm deeply honored to come before you as the President's
nominee for this position, and grateful to the President, to
Secretary Clinton, and Ambassador Rice for their confidence in
me.
And I want to echo what you said, Chairman Casey, that the
United Nations was born, in part, here in this committee, that
your predecessors were among the earliest advocates and
architects and, when appropriate, constructive critics of the
United Nations, because they believed that an effective U.N.
that had vigorous American leadership was in our national
security interest. Their beliefs, in my judgment, remain true
today. At its best, the U.N. can be a powerful tool to the
United States, and a force multiplier to advance our interests
and our values.
When U.N. peacekeepers are on the ground, they are there at
a fraction of the cost and the risk of the United States acting
alone. When the U.N. builds the civic muscles of a failing
state, or a fragile state, it helps protect American citizens
from the threats that can grow in failed states. And when U.N.
agencies, such as UNICEF, for example, work to eradicate polio
around the globe, we're protecting the health of Americans here
at home.
But, neither the U.N. nor its member states are always at
their best. And all too often, we have seen them at their
worst. As Ambassador Rice has said, there is a serious gap
separating the vision of the U.N.'s founders from the
institution of today. And the investments that we've made and
the challenges that we face are both too great for us to
tolerate any waste, inefficiency, or abuse anywhere in the U.N.
system. The global stakes are too high to allow biased agendas,
narrow interests or political grandstanding to prevail anywhere
in the U.N.'s Chambers.
In recent years, U.S.-led comprehensive reform efforts have
gathered steam and achieved some real, meaningful results, but
there is much, much more work to be done to help the U.N.
achieve a culture of economy, effectiveness, ethics, and
excellence. I can further detail the steps that I believe lie
ahead. In general, oversight and auditing must be strengthened,
management and procurement systems must be upgraded, human
resource reforms must be undertaken, and business processes
need to be streamlined and brought into the 21st century. Those
early steps that have been taken, on whistleblower protection,
for example, need to be fully protected and fully implemented.
I've spent much of my career bringing reform and
accountability to public organizations in challenging contexts.
As chairman of the Pennsylvania State Board of Education, as
you said, Senator, I oversee a system with 500 school districts
and 14 universities. And the hallmark of my tenure there has
been implementing an accountability measure that was contested
and hard-fought in the face of some determined opposition that
guarantees that taxpayers get results for the dollars that we
spend on education in Pennsylvania.
When I was deputy mayor of Philadelphia that city was on
the verge of bankruptcy--decades of poor management practices
made it a city, in the words of one magazine, ``that set the
standard for municipal distress in the 1990s.'' My portfolio
was management reform. I helped negotiate groundbreaking
contracts with Philadelphia's 25,000 employees, of which the
Wall Street Journal said, ``Taxpayers can only applaud.'' I
spearheaded reforms, from contracting out to civil service
reforms, overhauling a bloated disability benefit system, and
making innovative investments in productivity that closed a
$1.4 billion cumulative deficit without raising taxes. As you
said, the New York Times and others called it the most stunning
turnaround in history.
And finally, when I came to the National Constitution
Center, that project was in some public and financial turmoil.
And I'm proud to say that I steered it to an on-time, on-
budget, and bipartisan success. And I led it to a thriving
program of public diplomacy. The Constitution Center has
introduced tens of thousands of international visitors to
American ideas and ideals. We've worked in Afghanistan on
democracy education efforts. We've hosted hundreds of
international leaders, heads of state and heads of government,
to grassroots democracy activists, from Australia, Brazil, and
Cameroon, to Serbia, Tunisia, and the U.K.
So, I come here today as a proud patriot who also has a
deep commitment to America's engagement with the world and at
the United Nations, a demonstrated history of managing taxpayer
dollars carefully, a willingness to listen to good ideas from
all quarters, and a lifetime of experience as a strong voice
for reform in public institutions, and a builder of coalitions
to achieve it.
It would be a great privilege, if confirmed, to use that
experience, working with others in the administration, in
Congress, and most especially here in this committee, to help
the U.N. live up to both its ideals and potential, to renew and
strengthen it for our century, just as your predecessors, in
1945, did for theirs.
Thank you. And I look forward to answering questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Torsella follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joseph M. Torsella
Thank you Chairman Casey, Ranking Member DeMint, and distinguished
members. I am honored to come before you as the President's nominee to
be the U.S. Representative to the United Nations for Management and
Reform, and I am grateful to President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and
Ambassador Rice for their confidence.
The United Nations was born, in part, in this committee. Your
predecessors were among its earliest architects, advocates and,
occasionally, constructive critics because they believed that an
effective United Nations--with vigorous American leadership--was in
America's national security interest.
Their beliefs remain true today. At its best, the U.N. can be a
powerful tool and force multiplier for advancing our interests and
values. When U.N. peacekeepers are on the ground helping to protect
civilians and advancing peace globally, they do so at a fraction of the
cost and risk of the U.S. acting alone. When the U.N. builds the civic
muscles of fragile states, American citizens are made safer from the
threats that grow in failed states. When U.N. agencies such as UNICEF
work to eradicate polio around the globe, we protect the health of
Americans here at home.
But neither the U.N. nor all its member states are always at their
best; all too often, we have seen them at their worst. As Ambassador
Rice has said, a serious gap still separates the vision of the U.N.'s
founders from the institution of today. Both the investments we've made
and challenges we face are too great to tolerate waste, inefficiency,
or abuse anywhere in the U.N. system. And the global stakes are too
high to allow biased agendas, narrow interests, or political
grandstanding to prevail in any of the U.N.'s chambers.
In recent years, U.S.-led comprehensive reform efforts have
gathered steam and achieved some meaningful results. But there is much
more work to be done to help the United Nations nurture a culture of
economy, effectiveness, ethics, and excellence.
Oversight, auditing, and evaluation must be strengthened to better
ensure that U.S. funds are spent wisely and cleanly. Management and
procurement systems must be upgraded and updated for accountability and
transparency throughout the U.N.'s activities worldwide. Critical human
resource reforms are essential to equipping the U.N. with a workforce
that is held accountable for delivering results. Business processes
need to be streamlined, aligned with best practices, and brought into
the 21st century. And important first steps achieved in the areas of
whistleblower protection, financial disclosure, and budgetary
discipline must be protected and fully implemented.
I have spent much of my career bringing reform and accountability
to public organizations in challenging contexts. As chairman of the
Pennsylvania State Board of Education, I oversee a system with 500
school districts, 14 universities, and billions in public funds. Under
my leadership we've made the board's workings more transparent and open
to the public, and passed a landmark accountability measure--in the
face of determined opposition--which implemented rigorous new high
school graduation requirements, the first such change in a generation.
As a deputy mayor of Philadelphia at a time when that city was on
the verge of bankruptcy and decades of poor management practices had
made it, in the words of City and State Magazine, ``the city that . . .
set the standard for municipal distress in the 1990s,'' my portfolio
was management and reform. I helped negotiate groundbreaking contracts
with Philadelphia's 25,000-person workforce of which The Wall Street
Journal said ``taxpayers can only applaud.'' I spearheaded reforms--
from competitive contracting out of city services to civil service
reform, from overhauling a bloated disability benefits system that
encouraged abuse to innovative investments in productivity--that closed
a $1.4 billion cumulative deficit without raising taxes. The New York
Times called it ``the most stunning turnaround in recent urban
history.''
And I came to the National Constitution Center when that $185
million project was in public and financial turmoil. I'm proud to say
that I steered it to an on-time, on-budget, and bipartisan success, and
led it to a thriving program of public diplomacy.
The Constitution Center has introduced tens of thousands of
everyday international visitors to American ideas and ideals, worked in
Afghanistan on democracy education efforts, and hosted hundreds of
international leaders, from heads of state and government to grassroots
democracy activists, from countries ranging from Australia, Brazil, and
Cameroon to Serbia, Tunisia, and the United Kingdom.
So I come here today as a proud patriot who also has a deep
commitment to America's engagement with the world and at the United
Nations, a demonstrated history of managing taxpayer dollars carefully,
a willingness to listen to good ideas from all quarters, and a lifetime
of experience as a strong voice for reform in public institutions and a
builder of coalitions to achieve it.
It would be a privilege, if confirmed, to use that experience--
working with others in the administration, in Congress, and especially
in this committee--to help the U.N. live up to both its ideals and
potential, to renew and strengthen the U.N. for our century, just as
your predecessors in 1945 did for theirs.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
Senator Casey. Thank you Mr. Torsella.
We will take a break for what are two votes, and get back
here as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Mr. Torsella. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Senator Casey. Well, thanks, everyone. We're back. And I
know that other members will be joining us. We just had two
votes, and I did a little running, so I got a little exercise
in between.
But, let me start with some questions. And I know that
Senator DeMint, and maybe Senator Lee, will be back, as well,
for questions.
I wanted to ask you about your experience, which obviously
is relevant to any nomination hearing. But, I did note, for the
record, some of the experience, but, in my judgment, it's a
substantial body of experience that bears directly on the
assignment you'd have at the United Nations. It's easy to talk
about reform in management and accountability. It's harder to
do it in the real world of the private sector, or even, maybe
even harder on some days, the real world of government. And as
someone who's not only run for public office, but was in a
position in two different State government agencies where we
had to change the way business was done, and throw out the old
ways and start down a new path. I know how difficult that can
be, so I have great admiration for what you've done.
But, I wanted to give you some time just to kind of walk
through some of what you covered in your statement, your
previous experience and how that bears directly on the job
you'll have.
Mr. Torsella. Thank you, Senator. Thank you.
As I alluded to in my statement, I began my career in
public affairs as deputy mayor of Philadelphia at a very
difficult time. And almost all the attention of those of us who
were in government then, and I was one of the deputy mayors for
the city, was around a crisis of management, reform, and
accountability. It was not only a financial crisis, but a
broader crisis of confidence that people had in government. And
over the course of several years and painstaking coalition-
building, we changed the way the city did business, and did it
in a way that translated to the bottom line, and didn't do it
by any of the easy, obvious solutions, which, at the time, was,
you know, raising taxes, because our judgment was that the city
couldn't bear it.
I later had my own business, and subsequently was at the
Constitution Center on two different tours of duty, for a total
of 10 years, both in the institution ``building'' phase of the
project, which was a nearly $200 million project, and then in
the running of it. I am proud to say that, for all the years I
ran it, despite the situation when I got there, we never ran a
deficit, we never borrowed a dime, and we, as I suggested,
debuted it in a way that won bipartisan applause, and has put
it above politics.
And then, finally, at the State Board of Education, when I
came in, the proposal to require graduates to pass competency
exams in basic subjects was dead. It had been dead on arrival
for more than about 6 months in a State where 40 percent of our
graduates weren't reading or doing math at grade level. And we
had a total of many billions of dollars in the system,
producing graduates who had diplomas that weren't worth all
that much. And I sorted through the issues, found the common
ground, persuaded opponents to become supporters, and pushed
something across the finish line.
All these are complicated public institutions with multiple
constituencies and high stakes and in circumstances where
people didn't expect results.
Now, I want to note that if confirmed, I'd have the
profound honor of being ``our ambassador,'' standing up for
``our interests and our values,'' not full authority over the
whole system, but I think that those talents of building
coalitions, finding common ground on reform, standing up,
making progress when you can, with partners when you can,
standing up when you can't, and calling attention to things. I
think all those things are relevant and will be useful, and I
look forward, if confirmed, to deploying them.
Senator Casey. Before turning to Senator DeMint, who was
very patient when I was running late, earlier today, so I will
stay within my question timeframe, but--and you may have to do
this more than just in the 2 minutes or so, please preview,
based upon your knowledge of the United Nations, and the
management and other reforms you'd have to bring to bear on
the--at the United Nations--just maybe a list or a summary
would be helpful, I think.
Mr. Torsella. Well, I do--thank you for the opportunity to
talk about this--I do want to reserve my final say on this
until I have the benefit of talented people in the mission and
the State Department and, I hope, like-minded reform colleagues
from different member states at the U.N. But, as I see it
today, I think there are three broad priorities for the next
Representative for Management and Reform.
No. 1 is institutionalizing and strengthening the oversight
function at the U.N. Senator DeMint alluded to a report of a
few years ago about procurement. That report is what a healthy
oversight function can do. The United States led the effort to
establish the Office of Internal Oversight Services at the U.N.
There is a terrific new head of that office, who is at the
beginning of her 5-year term but it is not fully staffed, not
fully staffed at some high levels. And it has not been given
the financial and operational independence it needs to be the
watchdog, which is, I know, a term from your past, Senator,
that you are familiar with--that keeps things on the straight
and narrow.
No. 2 is, broadly, budget discipline. As we heard, the U.N.
budget has grown substantially, and we are the largest
contributor to the U.N. budget. And it is eminently in our
interest that there be appropriate belt-tightening and
management for effectiveness. It is also, though, I want to
say, in the interest of other members states in the U.N., and
the U.N., as an institution, because its credibility is
directly related to the perceptions people have. So, broadly,
the budget discipline and budget processes, and dealing with
those resources.
And then, third, those reforms that I believe can have a
systematic impact, not just the impact of 1 month or a
headline, but whether that's extending the ethics framework--
the disclosure requirements on financial interests, or whether
it's software systems that'll reap tens and hundreds of
millions in benefits, things that make real, longstanding
change.
Senator Casey. Thank you very much.
Senator DeMint.
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Chairman Casey.
I'd like to focus for a minute on the peacekeeping
operations and the U.S. contributions to those. Even though the
United Nations supposedly has a zero-tolerance policy when it
come to abuses against women and children, peacekeeping
missions have been plagued with allegations of misconduct by
U.N. peacekeepers. I mean, this is deeply disturbing. And I
know that this has been none of your doing, at this point, but
I think the record is important. And I'd like to start by
reading you a few figures about these allegations, and how much
money American taxpayers have spent on those very missions.
In 2010, 83 allegations of misconduct against U.N.
peacekeepers and civilian personnel were reported. The U.S.
contribution to U.N. peacekeeping activities was roughly $2.13
billion that year.
In 2009, there were 40 reported allegations of sexual abuse
by U.N. peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The
U.S.-assessed contribution for that year in the DRC was roughly
$210 million.
In 2007, U.N. peacekeepers were accused of serious
allegations of widespread sexual exploitation and abuse in the
Ivory Coast. U.S. contributions to that mission in 2007 were
roughly $138 million.
A 2007 source reported that 20 allegations of U.N.
peacekeeping sexual misconduct with children in Southern Sudan.
U.S. taxpayer-funded contributions for that mission in 2007 was
roughly $215 million.
Just a couple of more of these. But, in November, 2007,
peacekeepers were removed from Haiti following allegations of
sexual exploitation and abuse of children. U.S. contributions
to this peacekeeping mission were around $96 million.
In 2005, U.N. peacekeepers were reported to have traded in
gold and sold weapons to militia groups. U.S. taxpayers, in
2005, gave over $293 million to the peacekeeping mission in the
DRC.
That brings me to my question. Are you willing to cut
funding for these missions where women and children have been
abused? If not, why should American taxpayers continue to pay
for missions where women and children have been hurt?
And we realize that, again, the special interests that are
involved here are going to be very determined to keep the
funding without the oversight that you talk about. And the
culture of the U.N. is going to be very difficult to change.
But, as you look at these figures, as you hear them--and I'm
sure you're aware of a lot of them--how do you intend to
address it? And what are you going to do, as far as funding
versus mission, if we know there's a problem of this kind?
Mr. Torsella. Well, thank you, Senator. I want to
wholeheartedly agree that any incidence of sexual exploitation,
by any peacekeeper, is something that ought to trouble us
greatly and is unacceptable. Even against the context of
120,000 deployed in 14 different missions, the numbers of
incidents is deeply troubling, offensive, and unacceptable.
Peacekeeping is something that cuts across many of the
portfolios of the senior team at the mission, from the
Permanent Representative to others. And I would look forward to
working with my colleagues to continue to make strides on this
problem. There have been some recent reforms put in place.
There are now conduct and discipline teams deployed who weren't
before. But, there is clearly much to do to support the zero-
tolerance policy that the U.S. Government has gotten behind,
that there should be no more such reports as we go forward. And
we need to work with the whole U.N. system, and other member
states, to make sure that that is the case.
Senator DeMint. Can you help explain--and again, I know
you're looking at this, relatively new--but, what could be the
explanation, after, you know, more than 5 years of these
reports--and some of them have been publicized in the
international media--why so little has been done at the U.N. to
address this? You would think they understand the importance of
the credibility and the international community, but there has
been resistance even to deal with this.
Mr. Torsella. Well, as you suggest, Senator, it's difficult
for me to talk about what precedes what I hope will be my
tenure.
Senator DeMint. Right.
Mr. Torsella. But, I think one of the broader contexts that
you alluded to is that this has been an area of tremendous
growth in a very short period of time, that the size and scope
and complexity of peacekeeping operations, over approximately
the last decade, has almost, I think, essentially quadrupled,
and not just in size, but what used to be very conventional
kinds of truly peacekeeping missions have become much more
complicated in some much more difficult circumstances. So, that
obviously makes everything that has to do with peacekeeping
more challenging. And I think that the architecture of managing
this has lagged behind what we've expected them to do.
Now, I think what we need to do is make sure that that's no
longer the case, not just to be a moral voice, but to
understand this comes down to who are the leaders of each
mission, which is something we need to devote attention to, and
how are they pursuing these matters.
Senator DeMint. Just a quick question before I run out of
time. Will you be willing to hold the budget hostage, in
effect--our payments, our contributions to various aspects of
the United Nations--in order to get the attention of these
people here? Are you willing to come back to us and suggest we
withhold funding until we get certain reforms? Because I think
that's the only leverage we are ultimately going to have.
Mr. Torsella. Well, Senator, I am willing to get the
attention and make the progress. And I'm willing to--and hope
to work with you to do that. The U.S. Government position on
withholding has been that our best chance of getting reforms
comes from advocating from the position of strength that,
thanks to all of you, we now have. No one can say the United
States has not done its share and is not paying its assessed
dues.
I understand that there are valid concerns. There are good
people with different points of view around this issue. And
what I want to take away from that debate is a universal
commitment to changing the results that we see, and leveraging
the resources we have to get those results.
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Mr. Torsella.
Senator Casey. Senator Lee.
Senator Lee. Thank you for joining us today, Mr. Torsella.
I had some questions about the U.N. Human Rights Council.
Since 2006, the Human Rights Council has adopted a total of, I
believe, 67 country-specific resolutions. Of those 67, 32,
almost half of them, focused specifically on Israel. And the
U.S. membership on the U.N. Human Rights Council hasn't exactly
reversed this trend. In 2010 alone, I think there were a
total--there have been a total of eight resolutions adopted
condemning Israel in some way, or Israel's actions.
Can you tell me whether you perceive an anti-Israel bias in
this? And, if so, what can be done about that?
Mr. Torsella. Thank you, Senator.
As I believe it's been described by senior officials in
this administration, the Human Rights Council has been a poster
child for some of what's wrong with the U.N. And there has
been, as Ambassador Rice has said, a grotesquely unbalanced
treatment of Israel in the resolutions, for example, that
you've talked about.
The administration's decision to join the Human Rights
Council is based, again, on the premise that, as I've heard it
said, ``If we're not at the table, we're probably on the
menu,'' and that we can do best by such allies by showing up
for the fight. It doesn't mean we're going to win all of them,
but we'll win more than we would if we didn't show up.
Now, I would hope to be a part of the efforts that the
Ambassador described, to remedy that disproportionate
treatment, and to stand up against it. And I do think the Human
Rights Council is an institution that is in need of reform. And
I'd hope, working with others in the administration and in the
mission, to advance that cause.
Senator Lee. Yes. No; I think that's good. I'm pleased to
hear that.
Do you know what, if anything, the Human Rights Council has
done to address serious human rights problems in China, Iran,
and Venezuela, just to name a few examples?
Mr. Torsella. Well, the Human Rights Council is widely
considered by the administration to be far from what we and
others hoped it would be when it replaced its predecessor body.
There is a good argument to be made that the engagement of the
administration has resulted in progress--three examples that I
could talk about, quickly. One is the extension of the mandate
for the special expert on Sudan, which was opposed by others
and we succeeded at. No. 2, the appointment of a special
rapporteur for freedom of assembly, which was again resisted by
some of the notorious violators. And No. 3, our very visible
efforts to keep Iran from winning a seat on the Human Rights
Council to avoid making a further mockery of its intent.
Now, those are three examples where it worked. There are
other examples, as you point out, where the results aren't
acceptable. But, I think what it comes down to is the elbow
grease and determination to keep showing up, keep having the
fights, and use the platform for the purpose for which it was
intended.
Senator Lee. OK. Thank you.
Now, funding for some U.N. programs, including the U.N.
Office on the High Commissioner--Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights and the U.N. Environmental Fund--
are funded on a voluntary basis. Are there other programs that
you think could be funded on a voluntary basis that are not,
currently?
Mr. Torsella. I would not want to express a judgment today
about particular programs. And I'd also note that it is the
strong view of the administration that assessed programs are a
treaty obligation, but also, the administration believes
voluntary programs are a platform from which we can argue
effectively for looking broadly.
What I'd say from following some of the discussions that
have been going on over the last few months, and what I hear
when people talk about the voluntary programs, is that they
maintain a higher standard of transparency, a higher standard
of accountability, and a very natural sense of wanting to be
responsive to donors, and deliver results. I think those themes
and things like sharing audit information are something that
ought to apply across the board, period, in the U.N. system.
Senator Lee. Right. Accountability is an important thing in
any government or any quasi-government body or international
group. And yet, within the United Nations, you don't have quite
the same forces that apply here. It comes with some of the
trappings of a legislative body. It appears, on some levels, to
be something like that. And yet, the people serve on that body,
not as elected representatives of any group of people, but as
representatives of various countries. And some of the
countries' officials are not, themselves, elected; some of them
are despots and tyrants and so forth. So, accountability
becomes a difficult thing. It's not like they can vote and then
expect to be accountable to any one group of people. Is there
anything we can do to offset the lack of accountability that
happens as a result of that?
Mr. Torsella. Well, the short answer is, I hope so. And the
longer answer is that I don't want to give you the impression
that my arrival is going to be greeted with ticker-tape parades
and champagne.
Senator Lee. It should be. It should be. [Laughter.]
Mr. Torsella. Thank you, Senator.
But, I believe--as I outlined, at the beginning of my
testimony, a case that an effective U.N. is in our interest.
But, I believe that it's also in the enlightened self-interest
of the U.N., as an institution, and in the interest of many
Member States, obviously not all, and never all. I will do my
best to make that argument and to figure out the practical
politics of moving these issues forward.
There was recently, by the way, at great effort and cost to
the U.S. political capital, the adoption by the General
Assembly, for the first time ever, of a definition of
accountability for all U.N. employees. That was a herculean
struggle, and that's a start.
Senator Lee. Great.
Thank you very much, sir.
Senator Casey. Thank you, Senator Lee.
Senator Rubio.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Torsella.
A couple of questions. I want to build on what Senator Lee
asked about the human rights entity. It has such distinguished
members, now, as Libya and Angola. Libya, in fact, was approved
by 145 of the U.N. Member States, which is appalling since
Libya, today, is what they were back then, too. So, my question
is, when the United States--when this administration made the
decision to join the commission--you stated earlier--and I get
the point you're trying to make--that you're not on the table,
you're on the menu. The counterargument to that, however, is
that joining it gives this organization, or this entity,
legitimacy, that, in essence, it makes it look like a real
organization, when, in fact, it appears to be largely a
collection of human rights abusers, for the most part.
So, obviously, you don't agree with that assessment. I
would hope you can expand further on why it's important that we
are a member of that. And the previous administration chose not
to join it; they felt that our participation in it gave this
organization legitimacy.
Mr. Torsella. Thank you, Senator. And again, I want to be
careful not to speak to decisions that I wasn't a part of, or
to suggest that decisions will be only in my portfolio. But,
the administration's view of vigorous engagement is the guiding
principle, and has been the guiding principle, across the
board, that with that engagement comes the opportunity to be a
critic, when that's appropriate, and that that's easier to do,
and easier to do effectively, when we're around the table.
Now, I know that there are strong critics of the Human
Rights Council. And I believe people of goodwill can disagree
on this. There are strong critics of the Human Rights Council,
though, who are glad that we're there to stand up, as we do.
And there have been a number of votes that have been won--or,
in the past, lost--by a margin of one, where there would have
been some difference, if we weren't involved.
I don't want to, even for a minute, suggest that it's an
institution that is living up to what the hopes of the U.N.
founders might have been. I don't want to suggest, for a
minute, that the disproportionate and biased treatment of
Israel ought to be acceptable. But, there has been progress
made. And when you talk about, for example, the case of Libya
being elected--a lot of what happened in the past was that--
because of the way that the election system worked, there were
uncontested regional elections. And since engaging, the U.S.
Government has been active in the politicking. And I think you
saw, in the expulsion of Libya from the Human Rights Council, a
historic first, may be one of the fruits of that policy.
So, I would argue that we ought to continue to use our
voices and our votes. And as I say, we will not win all those
fights, but we will win more than if we weren't there.
Senator Rubio. Well, that premises the notion that we would
see behavior after we joined that looks different from behavior
before we joined it. And yet, it's hard to find any examples of
things that we prevented from happening.
For example, the Council still has not addressed human
rights violations in China, in Cuba, in Iran, and other places.
In essence, I'm struggling to find examples of how joining it
has actually influenced, or whether the Council continues to
behave exactly the same way it did before we joined it. The
only difference being, of course, that now the U.S. is a part
of it. So, instead of pointing it out for what it is--you know,
a charade--people can now say, ``But, you're a member, you're
at the table, and ultimately, you've blessed and legitimized
this process.''
Mr. Torsella. Senator, I'd like to take the particulars of
the cases you raised for the record and get you some further
information.
[The written information from Joseph Torsella follows:]
Generally, I do believe that there are differences. Where on the
spectrum they are between what the unacceptable reality is and where
the ideal ought to be, I think we can both agree, they're at the real
low end. But, in the case of action on Sudan, in the case of keeping
Iran off, in the case of the number of special sessions devoted to
Israel in the time that we were off versus the time that we were on, I
do believe that it's progress. And so, we're both going to agree that,
on the scale of where it ought to be, it is not moved nearly far enough
along.
While there is still much work to be done to reform the Human
Rights Council into an institution that lives up to U.N. values and
U.S. aspirations, in recent months, the Council has achieved several
victories for human rights that could not have been accomplished
without U.S. leadership and support:
In March 2011, the Council took assertive action to
highlight Iran's deteriorating human rights situation by
establishing its first country-specific Rapporteur--a Special
Rapporteur on the Human Rights Situation in Iran.
In February 2011, the United States played a pivotal role in
convening the Council's Special Session in which the Council
condemned the recent human rights violations and other acts of
violence committed by the Government of Libya, created an
independent Commission of Inquiry to investigate those
violations, and recommended to the U.N. General Assembly that
it suspend Libya's membership rights on the Council. Days
later, in an unprecedented consensus decision, the General
Assembly suspended Libya.
The United States was instrumental in galvanizing support
for a consensus resolution that marks a sea change in the
dialogue on countering offensive speech based upon religion or
belief through the ``Combating Discrimination and Violence''
resolution, rejecting limitations on free speech and embracing
dialogue and education. This effort was lauded by the U.S.
Commission on International Religious Freedom.
After the violence following elections in Cote d'Ivoire last
December, we worked closely with the African Group to hold a
special session on the human rights crisis that was taking
place. This led directly to the establishment of a Commission
of Inquiry for Cote d'Ivoire in the March session.
In September 2010, the U.S. Government cosponsored a
resolution to create the first-ever Special Rapporteur to
protect Freedom of Assembly and Association, to monitor
crackdowns on civil society groups and advance protection of
the right to free assembly and association through its vigilant
exposure of state conduct.
Just last week, U.S. efforts led to a Human Rights Council
Special Session on the human rights situation in Syria
resulting in a resolution condemning the ongoing violence and
calling for a mission to investigate violations and ensure full
accountability.
The United States has maintained a vocal, principled stand
against the Council's biased focus on Israel. We've been there
to contest moves to single Israel out unfairly. The United
States is by far Israel's strongest supporter on the Council.
The Government of Israel has regularly expressed appreciation
for the role the United States plays in the Council. The March
session included six resolutions targeting Israel. The United
States opposed all six resolutions and issued strong
explanations of votes pointing out how biased and unhelpful
these resolutions are. We cast the only ``no'' vote on five of
these resolutions. If the United States were not on the
Council, we would not have the opportunity to make these
statements from the floor and these resolutions would have
passed by consensus.
Mr. Torsella. Generally, I do believe that there are
differences. Where on the spectrum they are between what the
unacceptable reality is and where the ideal ought to be, I
think we can both agree, they're at the real low end. But, in
the case of action on Sudan, in the case of keeping Iran off,
in the case of the number of special sessions devoted to Israel
in the time that we were off versus the time that we were on, I
do believe that it's progress. And so, we're both going to
agree that, on the scale of where it ought to be, it is not
moved nearly far enough along.
Senator Rubio. And again, I know you didn't make this
decision, but, I do want to drive the point home, because it's
an important thing, going forward. Sudan is really low-hanging
fruit. I mean--OK, Sudan. But, where we really--where an entity
like this would really grow and be a legitimate entity that you
could look at and say, ``Boy, I'm glad we have this,'' is for
them to say something about--like torture and other outrageous
things that are happening in places like China; the constant
daily roundup of dissidents in Cuba and multiple other places
like that, where they don't get to. On the other hand, they
dedicate this inordinate amount of time to Israel. And so, it's
hard for me to see where us joining this Council has changed
what it is, other than the fact that us joining it may have
given it legitimacy it once did not have.
But, I want to--my time is running out--I did want to ask
your view--and, in particular, the administration's view--on
the propriety and effectiveness of using funding as leverage to
achieve reforms. I think there is, in my opinion, a well-
documented history of U.N. reforms that have been the result of
a congressional determination to withhold funding for the
organization or certain functions of the organization. What are
your views on it? What are the administration's views? Is this
a legitimate tool in our arsenal that we will use to hopefully
push for some of these reforms, or not?
Mr. Torsella. Thank you, Senator. And I guess I would
answer that I think that using the resources that we bring to
bear to this as a tool is legitimate. The disagreement may be
about whether using that means using the authority they give
you, or withholding them at the beginning. And I think that's
where the administration would differ.
In terms of the assessed contributions that we make to the
U.N., the administration clearly believes, and I agree, that we
have a better ability to effect change by having paid our dues,
as we have done, and that, within that U.N. budget, there are
going to be things that we and any reasonable person ought to
think are inappropriate. But, there are also things that are
vitally important to our national interest--like the enormous
programs that the U.N. is responsible for, in both Afghanistan
and Iraq, where there are close to 4,000 civilians in the
civilian surge, letting us bring our troops home--that is in
the regular budget, for example.
So, I don't disagree that we ought to use the position of
being the largest funder, use the talents of the U.S.
Government, and use that authority to speak for reform.
Senator Rubio. I'm sorry. Now I'm over time. I want to ask
one quick question. This administration has brought us current.
What reforms have we gotten? What meaningful reforms have
happened as a result of that?
Mr. Torsella. Senator, I would hope to be able to give you
the best answer to that after I've been on the job for a year
or two, if I have the honor to be confirmed. There has been
real progress in establishing the Office of Internal Oversight
Services. There is a terrific and talented and independent and
tough auditor, the Canadian, Carman LaPointe, who's the head of
that. There is the new establishment of a U.N. ethics office,
although its writ has not been extended far enough. And there
has been, within the last week, the news report of the
Secretary General instructing a 3-percent cut in the budget,
from current levels, which is--that we may argue, and I
probably will, about whether that's sufficient. But, that is
the first time in 10 years that's happened.
Now, against the larger story of some of the troubles that
were revealed over the course of the last few years, are we
where we need to be? No. But, I believe that we ought to use
the investments that we've made to demand that those changes be
made and to put together, carefully, the coalitions that it
takes to get them.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Senator Casey. Thank you, Senator Rubio.
I'll make three quick points before turning to--Senator
DeMint, I know, has at least one question, if not more.
First of all, on the question of Libya, what has transpired
recently. We know that--as you noted in your testimony, that
Libya's been suspended from the Human Rights Council. It was a
unanimous vote, I guess, on March 1, if I'm correct. So, I
think--I just wanted to amplify the record on that.
Second, with regard to the important questions that Senator
DeMint raised, I don't think there's much, if any, disagreement
in this room that not only will the administration demand
results from the U.N. and from the administration itself, but
this committee will demand results. And I think the United
Nations needs to know that, and the administration needs to
know that, when it comes to those horrific crimes that were
committed that Senator DeMint spoke to.
And finally--and I would say, in the interests of further
endorsing the nominee who is before us, Mr. Torsella, in his
record--if you read his record, and read the results that come
from that record, when it comes to all of these issues, in
terms of getting results and ensuring that justice is served,
especially for people that are vulnerable, I think he'll be
unyielding, and will insist upon results.
And one final point. Some of these issues are a little
beyond his purview. I just want to note, for the record, the
basic responsibilities of the U.S. Representative for the
United Nations for Management Reform. It's, basically, five.
One is on the issue of U.N. reform; second, budget management;
third, fraud and mismanagement; fourth, procurement practices;
and then, fifth, interaction with business. And I think that's
a pretty broad portfolio, but I know that, even if a question
arose that came across his radar screen that he had any voice
that would speak--that he had a chance to speak to with his
voice, I think it'll be unyielding, and not just getting
results, but also protecting the vulnerable people.
Senator DeMint.
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We'll keep honing in, here, on really, cleaning up the act
of the U.N., because of its importance. I don't think anyone
here is trying to undermine the importance. But, it has been
frustrating, over the years, to see things that just were
unaddressed that seemed so obvious.
Right now, the acting director of the U.N.'s Investigation
Division, Michael Dudley, is under investigation. The U.N.'s
Internal Oversight Office is suffering from a lack of
credibility. Secretary General ignores its recommendations. And
the former head of the office wrote a scathing end-of-mission
report, which described the Secretary General as unaccountable
and unworthy of the position.
If confirmed, will you use the voice and vote of the United
States to ensure that a reputable, independent, and qualified
chief investigator is appointed?
Mr. Torsella. Yes. Senator, I think that goes to the core
of giving every interested party an assurance that things
really are different and there will be a new day. I think, as
you know from your experience in government, the existence of
oversight institutions which cannot be tampered with and that
don't have their budgets and their authority changed is
absolutely crucial. I think that is among the first items on my
list. And having someone in that position, as well as having
the staff slots on the Financial Crimes Unit of that office,
which we were instrumental in demanding be formed--having those
positions filled is virtually my highest priority.
Senator DeMint. Well, thank you for your answers. Thank you
and your family for being here. And I know we all look forward
to your confirmation.
Mr. Torsella. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Casey. Thank you, Senator DeMint, our ranking
member.
And, Mr. Torsella, thank you very much. And I'm using the
``Mr.'' to be formal here, but I--once in a while, I can call
you Joe.
But, you've done well in this hearing and in your previous
engagement with this committee. We're grateful for your time
and your commitment to public service. I think you've done well
on behalf of your family and your friends and supporters in
southeastern Pennsylvania. But, I want to note, for the record,
that you're a proud son of Danville, Pennsylvania.
So, we thank you very much.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record
Responses of Joseph Torsella to Questions Submitted by
Senator Richard G. Lugar
Question. Various administration officials have stated that the
administration is fighting hard to increase transparency,
accountability, and budgetary restraint at the United Nations. However,
few specific details have been offered about what reforms have been
adopted and implemented to address these goals over the past 2 years.
Please provide a detailed account of the U.N. reforms
achieved at the behest of the United States over the past 2
years, the degree to which those reforms have been implemented
and are being observed, and specific examples of how those
efforts are serving to improve transparency and accountability
in the U.N. and resulting in reductions in the U.N. regular and
peacekeeping budgets.
Answer. The administration has pushed aggressively for sound
management and budgeting, accountability, and transparency at the U.N.
For example, the United States has been a force in achieving the
following recent reforms.
1. In December 2008, the United States, along with other likeminded
Member States, succeeded in securing a General Assembly resolution to
transfer the function and caseload of the Procurement Task Force (PTF)
to the Investigations Division of the Office of Internal Oversight
Services (OIOS).
2. As a result of strong U.S. leadership, the General Assembly in
June 2009 endorsed a 3-year pilot for investigations hubs of the Office
of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) in Nairobi, Vienna, and New York
designed to enhance investigative capacity in the field.
3. In July 2009, with strong U.S. support, a new comprehensive
internal justice system for addressing staff grievances came into
effect that consists of professional and independent tribunals to
expedite the resolution of cases and an informal dispute resolution
process to enable staff to seek redress before resorting to litigation.
The new internal justice system enhances transparency, fairness,
efficiency, and accountability in the management of U.N. personnel.
4. In the past 2 years, the United States has led efforts to
streamline the U.N.'s myriad staff contract arrangements and
harmonizing conditions of service across the U.N. system. In December
2010, the General Assembly established parameters for granting
continuing contracts and made significant strides in harmonizing the
conditions of service for staff across the U.N. system serving in
nonfamily duty stations.
5. The United States played a leading role in the establishment of
U.N. Women, which on January 1, 2011, consolidated four U.N. agencies
into one, strengthening and streamlining the U.N.'s work to advance
gender equality and women's empowerment.
6. The United States led efforts in the Security Council to adopt
Resolution 1820, which gives the U.N. better tools to combat sexual
violence in conflict zones and established the first-ever U.N. Special
Representative for Sexual Violence in Conflict in order to bring more
focus on these serious issues.
7. The United States succeeded in securing General Assembly
adoption of the U.N. Global Field Support Strategy, which will yield
greater efficiencies in administrative and logistics support for U.N.
field operations.
8. The United States was instrumental in achieving the passage of a
General Assembly resolution in March 2010 on accountability that will
hold U.N. officials responsible for safeguarding resources and
achieving results.
9. The United Nations has not established a single new peacekeeping
mission in the past 2 years. In 2010, the U.N. peacekeeping budget
decreased for the first time in 6 years. The United States supported
the closure of MINURCAT (U.N. peacekeeping mission in Chad and the
Central African Republic), saving up to $600 million per year. The
United States also led efforts to end the U.N. Special Political
Mission in Nepal once its contributions reached the point of
diminishing returns.
I would also like to mention two areas where the United States was
successful in ensuring that hard-fought reforms remain in place. First,
in 2009 during negotiations over the scale of assessment for the U.N.
regular budget, the United States succeeded in beating back attempts to
increase the U.S. share of the U.N. budget and thereby averted hundreds
of millions in possible new assessments. Second, the United States in
March 2010 was critical in securing a General Assembly resolution that
preserves the existing mandates governing OIOS as well as those that
allow access to OIOS reports by Member States. Maintaining access to
OIOS audit reports is crucial to fulfilling our fiduciary
responsibilities and building a culture of transparency and
accountability at the U.N. The United States continues to ensure that
OIOS has the resources it needs and serves as the primary investigative
oversight role in the U.N.
The administration's commitment to U.N. reform is clear, as is the
need for much more to be done throughout the U.N. system. If confirmed,
my mission would be to build on the progress made to accelerate the
implementation of reforms that would make it more efficient,
transparent, and productive.
Question. The U.N. Headquarters is undergoing a major renovation.
What is the current projected budget of the Capital Master
Plan?
Is the CMP schedule on time?
What is the next major benchmark?
What is the cost to the United States for the CMP?
Will the administration require any additional funding?
Answer. In 2006, the U.N. General Assembly approved a project
budget of $1.88 billion in 2006 for the U.N. Headquarters renovation.
The United States is paying 22 percent: $75.5 million annually over 5
years, plus contributions made during the design phase for a total of
approximately $415 million.
Construction began in May 2008 and is expected to be complete in
2014, with the project being bid in multiple parts. Additional time is
being built into the project schedule in order to complete perimeter
security enhancements.
During 2011, construction work will continue on the Secretariat and
Conference buildings and the basement areas of the complex. The
Secretariat building is scheduled for completion in 2012. Work on the
General Assembly building will commence in 2012 as well.
The U.N. has been steadily reducing the projected cost overruns on
the project and remains confident this project will be completed on or
very close to budget. The U.N. continues to work with its design team
to find ways to reduce costs through the value engineering process and
has been able to bring some parts of the project in under budget
through competitive bidding and tough negotiations. This does not take
into account additional costs of approximately $162.5 million for items
related to but not included in the scope of the Capital Master Plan
such as permanent furnishings and construction security. The General
Assembly is expected to consider in the fall how these costs will be
financed (i.e. through the CMP budget or in the regular budget) given
that the U.N. has indicated not all of these costs will be able to be
absorbed within the Capital Master Plan budget.
Question. Earlier this year, the House voted on legislation to seek
the reimbursement of $179 million owed to the United States from the
U.N. Tax Equalization Fund. On the morning of the vote, the State
Department notified Congress that it had given the U.N. $100 million of
that money to the U.N. for unspecified security upgrades.
Who authorized this decision and when was the decision made?
Under what legal authority did the State Department make
that decision?
Have you received a detailed plan for those upgrades and a
comprehensive explanation of how the U.N. arrived at the $100
million cost for the upgrades?
Why weren't these upgrades included as part of the U.N.
Capital Master Plan, which would have reduced the U.N. share of
the costs from $100 million to $22 million?
Does Congress have your guarantee that none of the $100
million will be used to pay for upgrades inside the U.N.
building or on the grounds or for any other purpose that should
be handled jointly by the U.N. Member States under the Capital
Master Plan?
Is it true that the city of New York requested these
changes--please provide a copy of any such request.
Answer. Under Secretary Kennedy informed the relevant committees,
including the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in a December 29,
2010, letter that the United Nations is taking action to address
significant physical security concerns related to the protection of the
U.N. Headquarters complex in New York and will use $100 million from
the U.N. Tax Equalization Fund (TEF) to fund these critical
enhancements. It is the view of the Department of State that the United
Nations' application of those fund balances, since the original U.S.
contributions had been previously obligated and disbursed, does not
require further authorization under U.S. law.
I would make it a high priority, if confirmed, to see that the
formulas and procedures related to the TEF are changed so that such
fund balances do not accrue in the future.
In a January 11, 2011, letter to the U.N., Under Secretary Kennedy
acknowledged the United Nations' use of these funds, and, to ensure
appropriate oversight of the project, asked that the United Nations
provide detailed monthly updates on its status.
In response to this request, the U.N. has agreed to provide the
Department with monthly reporting on the project's progress and the
associated use of funds. This report provides a mechanism for the
United States to monitor how the funds are being expended and to ensure
that it is consistent with the agreed elements of the project. I have
been informed that providing structural upgrades within the U.N.
complex is the best practical measure for mitigating the security
threat from adjacent New York City streets, given the inability to
close or realign those streets. As a result, some of the work to
implement the perimeter security enhancements will be completed within
the U.N. complex.
The U.N. had shared plans and cost documents with the Department on
the security work it plans to undertake as a result of extensive
consultations with the Department and the city of New York. The city of
New York has urged the U.N. to incorporate more stringent security
measures into the ongoing renovations [see attachment].
These heightened security requirements evolved during the execution
of the CMP. In recent years the U.N. has faced increasing attacks
around the world, such that the threat environment for the institution
had significantly increased. The proposed upgrades adapt the project
design to the new threat environment since the CMP scope originally
agreed in 2006 was based on a lower anticipated threat level. I
understand that in order to fully integrate the perimeter security
enhancements into the CMP, General Assembly agreement would have been
needed, which would have further delayed vital upgrades to the
Conference Building, and would have likely resulted in cost escalation
for the overall CMP.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Question. The Secretary General called for the next U.N. budget to
be cut by 3 percent. As you know, the current proposed 2-year budget
for 2012 and 2013 is $5.5 billion.
What areas would the administration like to see reduced or
eliminated from the U.N. budget?
On what basis are these cuts being justified since the U.N.
has failed to follow through with its mandate review?
Why do U.N. funds and programs that receive vast amounts of
funding such as UNEP and UNWRA, which both receive less than 5
percent of their budgets from the U.N. regular budget still
receive funding through the U.N. regular budget? Shouldn't the
United States look to trim the U.N. regular budget by ending
the token support for these offices through the regular budget?
In December 2009, the U.N. approved a 2-year budget of
$5.156 billion for 2010 and 2011. Thus, even assuming that the
Secretary General is able to get a 3-percent cut from the
proposed budget, the U.N. budget would be growing by 3 percent
based on the previous budget. As you know, the U.N. budget has
grown even faster than the U.S. budget since 2000. Is that
expansion justified?
Do you think that the Secretary General's proposed 3-percent
budget cut is sufficient?
Why doesn't the United States insist on a zero-growth budget
proposal based on the initial proposal in 2009?
Answer. The United States has consistently sought to make
reductions in those areas of the U.N. budget where resources are not
being utilized as efficiently and effectively as possible. We believe
the U.N. can meet its responsibilities without growing the budget by
increasing efficiencies through streamlining processes, examining
structural costs at all levels, eliminating unproductive administrative
practices and obsolete functions, leveraging modern technology, and
adopting proven best practices. We also believe that the U.N. should
critically review its staffing levels and opportunities for competitive
contracting of some services. These efforts to increase efficiencies
and reduce the budget can be accomplished without eliminating mandates.
However, it is important to recognize the difficulties inherent in
trying to achieve U.S. priorities within the U.N.'s framework of
universal membership and consensus-based decisionmaking. The U.S
Government strives to strike a balance between making what reductions
are possible while also maintaining the support needed from others to
achieve our highest diplomatic and security priorities.
For programs such as UNWRA and UNEP, my understanding is that the
USG goal has generally been to prevent the provision of additional
resources from the U.N. regular budget.
In 2010, the General Assembly invited the Secretary General to
prepare the 2012-13 biennium budget on the basis of the $5.397 billion
estimate, reflecting an increase of less than 1 percent over the
current 2010-11 biennial budget of $5.367 billion. Although the U.N.
regular budget has more than slightly doubled since the 2000-01
biennium, Special Political Missions (SPMs) have increased from $115.3
million to $1.2 billion during this same period, with much of the
increase in SPMs attributable to the U.N. Assistance Missions in Iraq
and Afghanistan. As we work to contain unnecessary growth in the U.N.
budget, we must keep in mind the extent to which U.S. priorities have
contributed to expansion of the regular budget.
While I do not believe that any single step, such as the Secretary
General's proposed 3-percent reduction, is itself sufficient to achieve
the effective, economical U.N. we hope for, I strongly support the
Secretary General's initiative to try to implement a 3-percent
reduction in the regular budget. This would be the first proposed
reduction compared to the previous year of spending in 10 years. It is
notable that the U.N. has recognized the need to demonstrate greater
budget discipline in response to the difficult budgetary environment
faced by many Member States. This initiative will create challenges for
the U.N. given such exercises have typically been poorly received by
many Member States. However, if the Secretary General is successful in
putting this forward to the General Assembly, it offers a more
favorable basis for discussions on the 2012-13 budget during the fall
UNGA, which we and many like-minded Member States will seek to
capitalize on. We will work with other Member States to achieve a
budget outcome that reflects restraint while allowing the U.N. to
maintain operational effectiveness.
Question. Please provide a breakdown (by percent and dollar figure)
showing the top five recipient countries of U.N. procurement orders for
the following U.N. agencies/offices/programs, for the most recent U.N.
fiscal year: U.N. Peacekeeping operations; World Food Programme; U.N.
Capital Master Plan; UN/UNDP Headquarters in New York.
Answer. U.N. Systemwide: Across the entire U.N. system, which
includes the U.N. Secretariat, funds and programs, and specialized
agencies, procurement orders totaled $13.8 billion in 2009*. The
breakdown of the top five recipient countries of procurement contracts
systemwide is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Countries Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States.................... $1,734,000,000 12.57
Switzerland...................... 843,800,000 6.11
India............................ 676,700,000 4.90
Sudan............................ 641,700,000 4.65
Russian Federation............... 463,200,000 3.36
Other............................ 9,440,600,000 68.41
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* A thorough breakdown for 2010 is not yet available.
U.N. Capital Master Plan (CMP): Skanska trade contracts represent
the majority of CMP procurement orders. The Skanska trade contracts for
2009 * total $633,197,529. The breakdown of the top five recipient
countries of CMP procurement contracts is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Countries Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States.................... $605,363,903 **95.60
Mexico........................... 8,055,998 1.27
Germany.......................... 2,243,446 0.35
Canada........................... 1,113,347 0.18
China............................ 1,048,412 0.17
Other............................ 15,372,423 2.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* A thorough breakdown for 2010 is not yet available.
** Of the total procurement contracts.
U.N. Peacekeeping Operations: The Department of Peacekeeping
Operations (DPKO) procurement for 2010 totaled $2,483,011,729. The
breakdown of the top five recipient countries of DPKO procurement
contracts is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Countries Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sudan............................ $269,614,943 10.86
United States.................... 187,838,135 7.56
Switzerland...................... 139,590,239 5.62
Italy............................ 132,391,948 5.33
Panama........................... 75,360,992 3.03
Other............................ 1,678,215,472 67.59
------------------------------------------------------------------------
World Food Programme (WFP): In 2010, WFP globally procured
3,166,320 metric tons of food commodities, with a total cash value of
US$1,250,000,000. The breakdown of the top five recipient countries of
WFP procurement contracts is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Countries Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pakistan......................... $214,356,000 17.15
Ethiopia......................... 88,416,000 7.07
South Africa..................... 65,738,000 5.26
Ukraine.......................... 63,644,000 5.09
Indonesia........................ 60,235,000 4.82
Other............................ 757,611,000 60.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP): The UNDP awarded
$252,109,847 worth of contracts in 2010. The breakdown of the top five
recipient countries of UNDP procurement contracts is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Countries Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germany.......................... $64,744,075 25.69
The Netherlands.................. 36,759,115 14.58
Germany/Cyprus*.................. 35,108,085 13.93
Austria.......................... 30,643,265 12.15
India............................ 16,155,931 6.41
Other............................ 68,699,376 27.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The contract was jointly awarded to both countries, and a breakdown
was not provided.
Question. As you may be aware, some have expressed concern with a
February 2009 report by the U.N. Independent Audit Advisory Committee
(IAAC), Vacant Posts in the Office of Internal Oversight Services,
which found that OIOS had vacancies in over 27 percent of its
authorized posts, including all three director-level positions. The
report expressed concern that the high vacancy rate will have an
``adverse impact on the capacity and ability'' of OIOS to accomplish
its work. Please provide a staffing pattern for OIOS showing all
positions and indicating which are vacant and the length of their
vacancy. Identify which positions are encumbered by American nationals.
Answer. I am providing the most recent staffing chart for OIOS,
dated February 28, 2011.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Question. In your remarks to the committee, you mentioned concern
regarding the U.N.'s Whistleblower policy. What are the strengths and
weaknesses of the current policy?
Answer. In 2005, the Secretary General issued the U.N.
whistleblower protection policy (ST/SGB/2005/21). This policy was
developed after months of consultation with outside experts and State
Department officials. The Government Accountability Project, a public
advocacy group dedicated to advancing corporate and public
accountability and promoting whistleblower protections, hailed the U.N.
whistleblower policy as the ``benchmark for other Intergovernmental
Organizations (IGOs)'' to follow.
The U.N.'s whistleblower policy clearly establishes that reporting
misconduct and cooperating with U.N. audits and investigations are
protected activities. It also establishes a recourse mechanism for U.N.
personnel who are subjected to retaliation or threatened with
retaliation.
While the Secretary General's ethics framework for the U.N. funds
and programs (ST/SGB/2007/11) created the U.N. Ethics Committee to
unify ethical standards across organizations, whistleblower protections
vary greatly across the various funds and programs. Compared to the
Secretariat's policy, whistleblower protections at the funds and
programs are considered weaker and less comprehensive. If confirmed, I
would work to ensure the strengthening and implementation of
whistleblower protections throughout the U.N. system.
Question. As part of your pledge to help institute oversight
responsibilities, if confirmed, will you continue the policy
established during the Bush administration of posting U.N. audits on
the USUN Web site? If not, why not?
Answer. The Obama administration has continued the practice of
posting audits by the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS)
on USUN's public Web site, and if confirmed I plan to continue to post
U.N. audits on USUN's public Web site.
You can find these reports at: http://usun.state.gov/about/
un_reform/oios/index.htm.
Question. The United Nations Development Program is a major
implementer for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Malaria, and
Tuberculosis. According to the UNDP, as of January 2011, UNDP is
currently Principal Recipient in 27 countries, managing a total of 60
active grants amounting to more than $1.1 billion. Policies of the
Executive Board of the UNDP only allow Member States, not
nongovernmental organizations such as the Global Fund or World Bank,
access to internal audits, even when fraud is suspected in the grants.
What actions should the United States pursue to increase the
transparency and ensure the integrity of United States taxpayer
investments in the Global Fund that are managed through UNDP?
Answer. The United States is committed to ensuring Global Fund
resources reach people in need and are used as effectively and
efficiently as possible to save lives. We strongly support the Global
Fund's Office of the Inspector General (OIG), and its ongoing efforts
to strengthen the Global Fund's oversight systems. We have consistently
advocated for increased transparency, accountability, and oversight
over U.S. contributions to the Global Fund, including Global Fund
resources managed by UNDP.
The United States has had high-level discussions with UNDP
management on the importance of sharing relevant audit information with
the Global Fund's OIG and cooperating with the OIG in instances of
suspected fraud. While UNDP does not currently share its internal audit
reports with the Global Fund, UNDP has taken several interim steps to
coordinate with the Global Fund's OIG, including (1) consulting with
the OIG on development of UNDP's annual audit plan; (2) sharing
summaries of UNDP's Global Fund-related audits; and (3) bringing
potential irregularities involving Global Fund projects to the
attention of the OIG whenever and wherever they are found. These steps
are helpful but not sufficient, and the United States is continuing to
push for full Global Fund access to relevant UNDP audit reports.
With strong U.S. encouragement, UNDP management has agreed to
present options for allowing increased access to its audit reports to
the UNDP Executive Board for consideration and approval in September
2011. The United States is working to build support among UNDP Board
members for amendments to UNDP's audit disclosure policies that would
allow increased transparency, accountability, and oversight over
resources under UNDP management.
In addition, the United States is committed to sound management and
accountability within the Global Fund and strongly supports the
establishment of the Global Fund Board's Comprehensive Reform Working
Group and the High-Level Panel on Global Fund Fiduciary Controls and
Oversight, which is being chaired by Former Secretary for Health and
Human Services, Michael Leavitt, and the former President of Botswana,
Festus Mogae.
Question. On March 1, 2011, the United Kingdom Department for
International Development issued a Multilateral Review. This report
evaluated the 43 international funds and organizations to which the
United Kingdom contributes on value for the money and each fund's and
organization's effectiveness in combating poverty, taking in account
transparency and accountability. In trying to maximize our multilateral
investments, should the Department of State, in consultation with USAID
and Department of Treasury conduct a similar study?
Answer. I am reviewing the DFID Multilateral Review and look
forward to discussing its findings with U.N. officials, if confirmed.
A broad and standardized review of agency performance, such as the
DFID Review, is a worthwhile approach that merits thorough and
thoughtful consideration. If confirmed I would review the suggestion of
such a study carefully, against the background of the U.S. Government's
current evaluation mechanisms.
I understand that the previous U.S. Ambassador for Management and
Reform established the U.N. Transparency and Accountability Initiative
(UNTAI) to verify that concrete improvements in management and
accountability are being made by the U.N. system. If confirmed, I look
forward to reviewing the successful UNTAI initiative and possibly
improving its usefulness and relevance. In the current budget
environment, it is important for international organizations to show
that they are having the impact that recipients and donors expect. If
confirmed, one of my main tasks will be to assess the U.N.'s
performance and push for improvements wherever necessary. I would keep
Congress, and this committee in particular, fully informed of what I
find.
NOMINATION
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
Suzan D. Johnson Cook, of New York, to be Ambassador at Large
for International Religious Freedom
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:31 p.m., in
room SD-19, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer,
presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Menendez, Lugar, DeMint, and Lee.
Also Present: Senator Gillibrand.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Could you take your seat, and we will start.
The full Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate meets to
consider the nomination of Dr. Suzan B. Johnson Cook to be
Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom.
Last month, President Obama nominated Dr. Cook to be the
Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom for the
second time. Dr. Cook was nominated for this post in the last
Congress, but the Senate did not complete action on her
nomination before adjourning in December.
We hope Dr. Cook's second nomination hearing in 5 months
will give all members of this committee the opportunity they
need to complete questioning of Dr. Cook so that we can get her
into her position as soon as possible.
This nomination is very important, particularly to
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who specifically requested
that we move on Dr. Cook's nomination when she appeared before
this committee a few short weeks ago. During that hearing--hang
on.
[Pause.]
Senator Boxer. During that hearing, Secretary Clinton noted
that she believes Dr. Cook's professional background and
demeanor are particularly well suited for the post. Dr. Cook
holds a Doctor of Ministry from the United Theological Seminary
and a Master of Divinity from the Union Theological Seminary,
in addition to a number of other professional degrees.
From 1996 to 2009, she was the senior pastor at the Bronx
Christian Fellowship Baptist Church. She also served as the
first female president of the Hampton University Ministers
Conference, which brings together thousands of African-American
clergy members from various denominations across the country.
You are a real pioneer here for women. You were the first
female chaplain of the New York City Police Department; served
as an associate dean of Harvard Divinity School at Harvard;
served on the advisory board of President Bill Clinton's
Initiative on Race. Most recently, she founded Wisdom Women
Worldwide, which brings together women religious leaders from
all over the globe.
If confirmed, Dr. Cook will serve as the principal adviser
to the President and the Secretary of State on matters
affecting religious freedom abroad, and we all know how
important that is. She will be specifically charged with
developing strategies and policies to promote religious freedom
around the world, recommending appropriate responses by the
United States when violations of religious freedom occur, and
helping to promote reconciliation in areas where religion is a
factor in conflicts. And again, we know this happens too often.
These are important responsibilities that will require
tremendous dedication and persistence. In December 2009--would
you just sit in any one of those chairs that you wish? In
December 2009, the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion and
Public Life issued a report highlighting the fact that 64
nations in the world have high or very high restrictions on
religion. Religious minorities bear the brunt of these
restrictions.
The people living in these countries account for nearly 70
percent of the world's population of 6.9 billion. These figures
are staggering and should serve as a reminder of why we should
quickly fill this post.
As Secretary Clinton has said, ``Religious freedom provides
a cornerstone for every healthy society.'' At this time of
tremendous change throughout the world, it is more important
than ever that there be a strong voice from the United States
to stand up for those who may be enduring brutality or seeing
their rights slip away for no other reason than their religion.
And I am going to turn to Senator DeMint for any comments
he may have, unless he yields to Senator Lugar. It is up to
Senator DeMint.
Senator DeMint. Senator Lugar, would you like to go first?
Senator Boxer. Either way. All right.
Then I will turn a moment and as soon as my colleagues
finish, I am going to call on Senator Gillibrand because I know
that she will briefly introduce Dr. Cook, and she is excited to
do that. And then I know she has to depart for another
commitment. But can you wait until the two Senators? OK.
Let us do it, 5 minutes each. Yes?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM DeMINT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank you, Dr. Cook. I appreciate your being here.
And thank you for your willingness to serve our country.
The Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom
is intended to be the principal adviser to the President of the
United States and the Secretary of State regarding matters
affecting religious freedom abroad. This person also advises
the U.S. Government on our policies, including appropriate
responses when rights are violated.
Religious freedom is a very serious issue and requires
effective leadership, attention, and, when necessary, pressure.
Religious freedom is a cornerstone of the foundation that makes
democracy and free enterprise work worldwide. Whether in Iraq,
in Afghanistan, where we are giving blood and treasure, or
India, the world's largest democracy where they are on the
watch list for failing to ensure the rights of religious
minorities, religious freedom must be a priority of our Nation.
As you know, there have been questions raised about the
long vacancy of this post, who controls the International
Religious Freedom Office, and how much of a priority this
office is to the State Department. Just as important, there are
a number of indications that international religious freedom is
not your passion, nor your area of particular expertise.
Having an Ambassador that is well respected and prepared to
address the challenges we face today is important to me and
vital to our country. In fact, it is one of the biggest issues
that I hear about around the world from missionaries and others
doing humanitarian aid is the concern that the people we have
there could not even openly practice their faith because of
oppressive governments or the lack of freedom of religion.
And frankly, I have found it takes a very compelling
argument and a lot of pressure to even get these other
governments to listen to these concerns. So I am concerned
about a person in this position we are talking about having the
passion, the courage, the boldness to deal with this issue.
But thank you for being here. I am interested in hearing
from you and look forward to your vision, your leadership for
this position.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator, very, very much.
And Senator Lugar, and then followed by Senator Gillibrand.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Lugar. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Today, the Foreign Relations Committee again considers the
nomination of Dr. Suzan Johnson Cook to serve as Ambassador at
Large for International Religious Freedom. If confirmed, the
nominee would serve as principal adviser to the President and
Secretary of State on religious liberty issues.
Her responsibilities would include submitting the annual
report on the state of religious freedom to Congress, engaging
other nations on religious freedom issues, and recommending
appropriate responses to violations of religious liberty.
Before Dr. Cook's hearing in November, I submitted 37
questions for the record to her regarding the organization and
mission of the Office of International Religious Freedom, as
well as countries of particular concern, such as Burma, China,
Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Sudan. I appreciate Dr. Cook's
answers to these questions, as well as several more that I have
submitted since that time. Dr. Cook's answers are posted on my
Web site for members and the public to review.
During the last decade, the Office of International
Religious Freedom has engaged numerous countries on ways to
improve their religious freedom practices. For example, an
agreement negotiated with Vietnam involved new laws on
religion, the release of dozens of religious prisoners, and the
reopening of hundreds of places of worship. The office worked
extensively in Saudi Arabia to remove intolerant teachings from
school books and to advocate for the right of religious
minorities to hold meetings. Advances of this type require
painstaking diplomacy, but I believe it is important for the
U.S. Government to be seen unmistakably as an advocate for
religious freedom.
Dr. Cook, if confirmed, will have a difficult challenge
ahead of her. The administration waited a year and a half
before making this appointment, leaving the IRF office without
the leadership and institutional strength that comes with an
ambassador. Inevitably, this was perceived as a signal that the
administration did not place a high priority on the role of the
IRF Ambassador.
At the end of the last Congress, this nomination was
delayed further when the nominee did not get a vote in the
Senate. I join many Members of Congress who believe that the
IRF office has a vital role to play in U.S. foreign policy. The
office has shown that it can produce excellent results if it
enjoys institutional backing from the State Department and the
White House.
It is especially important that Dr. Cook has access to the
Secretary of State and other top decisionmakers; that she has
hiring and supervisory authority over her staff; that the staff
is allowed to focus on the core mission of international
religious freedom; and that the office retains independence and
has sufficient operating funds.
I welcome Dr. Cook to the Foreign Relations Committee and
look forward to her insights on religious freedom priorities.
I thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much. We are very honored that
you are here, both of you. We are very happy.
And Senator Gillibrand.
STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW YORK
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I am delighted to be here today to introduce Dr. Suzan
Johnson Cook for the position of Ambassador at Large for
International Religious Freedom.
Chairwoman Boxer, Ranking Member DeMint, I really
appreciate you holding this hearing. It makes an enormous
difference, and I am very grateful to be here.
Not only has Dr. Cook distinguished herself as a New
Yorker, she clearly has the experience and qualities needed to
be a successful Ambassador at Large. And Senator DeMint, you
have asked for passion, concern, and boldness. I can assure you
Dr. Cook has so much of each of those qualities, she will not
only astound you, she will very much fit the bill.
She is a religious leader of high character and
accomplishment, having served as the first woman senior pastor
at the American Baptist Churches USA and the first female
chaplain of the New York City Fire Department. Beyond her
pastoral experience, she has been a leader in bridging faith
and public service. She served with distinction in the Clinton
White House and as a faith liaison at the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
She is also experienced working at the international level,
having led delegations to critical countries, such as South
Africa, Israel, Jordan, and Egypt. Additionally, she is the
immediate past president of the Hampton University Ministers
Conference and founder of the Wisdom Women Worldwide, the first
global center for women religious leaders.
As you know, religious minorities have recently suffered
from recent attacks in a number of countries, including
Indonesia, Pakistan, and Egypt. It is urgent that we promptly
confirm an Ambassador at Large for International Religious
Freedom. It is vital that the United States has the leadership
in place to work with the international community to protect
the rights of religious minorities and advance the cause of
religious freedom and tolerance across the globe.
I believe Dr. Cook will represent our country with great
honor and distinction, and with great enthusiasm, I support
this nomination as Ambassador at Large for International
Religious Freedom.
And Dr. Cook, when you do give your testimony, please
introduce your family.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Dr. Cook.
STATEMENT OF SUZAN D. JOHNSON COOK, OF NEW YORK, TO BE
AMBASSADOR AT LARGE FOR INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Dr. Cook. Madam Chair, Senator Gillibrand, and members of
the committee, thank you so much for the opportunity to appear
before you today.
I am truly grateful for your consideration of my nomination
by President Obama as United States Ambassador at Large for
International Religious Freedom. I am deeply honored by the
trust that President Obama and Secretary Clinton have placed in
me by nominating me to serve our Nation in advancing the right
for religious freedom.
I would like to thank my family and extended family, who
are here with me today. This whole section here represents my
family and extended family and two sons who have returned to
school for premed and for law. I would like to thank them for
your sacrifice, for your love, and for your endurance, and,
most of all, your presence today.
As President Obama so eloquently stated in his historic
speech in Cairo in 2009, ``People in every country should be
free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion
of the mind and the heart and the soul.''
Religious freedom is the birthright of all people
everywhere. It is a foundation of civil society. It is a key to
international security, and it must always be a pillar of U.S.
foreign policy.
The dramatic events in the Middle East and North Africa
remind us that the desire for freedom within the human spirit,
that inherent desire of all people to live according to their
beliefs without government interference and with government
protection should be had. Secretary Clinton has also made clear
that we need to do much more to stand up for the rights of
religious minorities. She also said we must speak out more and
hold governments accountable. If confirmed, this will be my
core mission.
In my travels, I have found that my experience as an
African-American woman and faith leader has enabled me to
identify with other minority communities, both religious and
ethnic. African-Americans, as you know, did not enjoy full
religious freedom in this land for centuries, and religion was
used by many to justify slavery and segregation. So I am
particularly committed to this issue in the United States, for
people of all faiths around the world.
Immediately following and since the attacks of 9/11, where
I served on the front line as the chaplain for the New York
City Police Department, I have been called upon to aid many
citizens from many faiths and diverse national backgrounds. We
were tragically reminded just weeks ago that the universal
value of religious freedom is not embraced by all. The
assassination of Shahbaz Bhatti, Pakistan's Minister for
Minority Affairs and a courageous champion for religious
freedom, is a painful reminder that our challenge is not easy.
It requires an unwavering commitment to support those around
the world who are risking their lives to stand up for religious
freedom.
If confirmed, I will carry out the full congressional
mandate, as established in the IRF Act, including serving as
the principal adviser to the President and the Secretary of
State on religious freedom. I will bring bold and passionate
leadership to advance and defend religious freedom abroad. I
will ensure the integrity of the annual international religious
freedom report to Congress and draw on these reports, while
engaging governments and societies toward safeguarding the
right of individuals to believe or not to believe.
If confirmed, I will press for the timely and appropriate
designation of countries of particular concern and Presidential
actions, a critical tool to motivate progress on religious
freedom. And I will seek to expand training projects that
address systemic issues, including blasphemy, apostasy, and the
right to change one's religion.
The life and professional background I offer this position
is unique. My international experiences have particularly
shaped my perspectives. I have brought people of different
faiths together to achieve common objectives, including
religious freedom and respect for people of all faiths and
beliefs.
I have traveled to five continents to engage Muslims,
Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Protestants, Jews, and those of
other spiritual traditions. I have led interfaith delegations
to Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and the Caribbean. And I have
worked with World Vision in Ruschlikon, Switzerland, in its
efforts to combat global poverty.
In Zimbabwe and South Africa, I met with Zulu faith leaders
to promote religious freedom and tolerance. And I have worked
and lived with Operation Crossroads Africa, having participated
in a cross-cultural exchange group with spiritual groups in
Ghana, Liberia, and Nigeria.
Now, if confirmed, I will also engage grassroots faith-
based communities, which have enormous impact on cultivating a
climate more receptive to religious freedom in difficult
places. As a religious leader myself, I would bring this
perspective to encourage diverse religious communities to
jointly defend and advance religious freedom and foster a
climate of mutual respect.
America has learned much from our experience with religious
diversity. We must share our lessons, stand with the
persecuted, and encourage all governments to respect and
protect the universal rights of all people.
As President Obama said on Religious Freedom Day on January
14, ``The United States stands with those who advocate for free
religious expression and works to protect the rights of all
people to follow their conscience, free from persecution and
discrimination.''
If confirmed, I will seek to work with all religious
groups, as well as human rights organizations, think tanks,
universities, media partners, foreign governments, Congress,
and of course, the U.S. Commission on International Religious
Freedom, or USCIRF. I will work with colleagues across our
Government to assure that, together, we advance religious
freedom. The mission is too important to be left to one
official or one office in the U.S. Government.
If confirmed, I especially look forward to working closely
with you, Congress, in advancing this agenda together on behalf
of the American people, our national interests, and the values
that we all hold dear.
I thank you for considering my nomination. I thank you for
this opportunity for a hearing, and I look forward to answering
any questions you may have.
Thank you.
And thank you for your introduction.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Cook follows:]
Prepared Statement by Suzan D. Johnson Cook
Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for this
opportunity to appear before you today. I am truly grateful for your
consideration of my nomination by President Obama as United States
Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom. I am deeply
honored by the trust that President Obama and Secretary Clinton have
placed in me by nominating me to serve our nation in advancing the
right to freedom of religion abroad. I would like to take this
opportunity to thank my family and extended family, who are here with
me, for their sacrifice, love, and endurance.
As President Obama so eloquently stated in his historic speech in
Cairo in 2009, ``People in every country should be free to choose and
live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart
and the soul.'' Religious freedom is the birthright of all people
everywhere; it is a foundation of civil society, it is a key to
international security, and it must always be a pillar of U.S. foreign
policy. I believe this in my mind, heart, and soul. Religious freedom
is a universal principle, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and protected in the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR).
The dramatic events unfolding in the Middle East and North Africa
remind us that the desire for freedom lies deep within the human
spirit. No greater freedom exists than the inherent desire of all
people to enjoy the freedom to live according to their beliefs without
government interference and with government protection. I am deeply
disturbed by the increase of persecution and violence against religious
minorities in this region and in many other parts of the world. These
developments belie both our values and our security.
In addition to violence, Christians, Bahais, Jews, Ahmadis, and
other religious minorities often face social, political, and economic
exclusion or marginalization. Secretary Clinton has made clear that
``We need to do much more to stand up for the rights of religious
minorities'' She also said we have to speak out more and to hold
governments accountable. If confirmed, this will be my core mission.
In my travels around the country and around the world, I have found
that my experience as an African-American woman and faith leader has
enabled me to identify with other minority communities, both religious
and ethnic. African-Americans did not enjoy full religious freedom in
this land for centuries, and religion was used by many to justify
slavery and segregation. So I am particularly committed to this issue,
in the United States and for people of all faiths around the world.
Immediately following and since the attacks of 9/11, as the Chaplain
for the New York City Police Department, I have been called upon to aid
many citizens from many faiths and diverse national backgrounds.
We were tragically reminded just weeks ago that the universal value
of religious freedom is not embraced by all. The March 2 assassination
of Shahbaz Bhatti, Pakistan's Minister for Minority Affairs, and a
courageous champion for religious freedom, is a painful reminder that
our challenge is not easy. It requires an unwavering commitment to
support those around the world who are risking their lives to stand up
for religious freedom. President Obama paid tribute to Minister Bhatti
with these words: ``Minister Bhatti fought for and sacrificed his life
for the universal values that Pakistanis, Americans, and people around
the world hold dear--the right to speak one's mind, to practice one's
religion as one chooses, and to be free from discrimination based on
one's background or beliefs.''
If confirmed, I will carry out the full congressional mandate as
established in the IRF Act, in letter and in spirit, including serving
as the principal advisor to the President and the Secretary of State on
religious freedom. I will bring bold leadership to advance and defend
religious freedom abroad. I will ensure the integrity of the annual
International Religious Freedom Report to Congress and draw on these
reports, while engaging governments and societies on the importance of
respecting and protecting religious communities and safeguarding the
right of individuals to believe or not believe. If confirmed, I will
press for the timely and appropriate designation of Countries of
Particular Concern (CPCs) and Presidential Actions, a critical tool to
motivate progress on religious freedom. I will seek to expand training
of diplomats on religious freedom. I will use program resources to
implement projects that address systemic issues challenging religious
freedom--including blasphemy, apostasy, and the right to change one's
religion.
The life and professional background I offer this position is
unique. My international experiences have particularly shaped my
perspectives and brought me to this point. I have been privileged to
enjoy a range of experiences in bringing people of different faiths
together to achieve common objectives--including religious freedom and
respect for people of other faiths and beliefs. I have traveled to five
continents to engage Muslims, Catholics, Orthodox Christians,
Protestants, Jews, and practitioners of several other spiritual
traditions. I have led interfaith delegations to Israel, Jordan, and
Egypt, and throughout the Caribbean. I worked with World Vision, in
Ruschlikon, Switzerland, in its efforts to combat global poverty. I
have traveled to Zimbabwe and South Africa to meet with Zulu faith
leaders to promote religious freedom and tolerance. As a young woman, I
worked with Operation Crossroads Africa, and participated in a cross-
cultural exchange with spiritual groups in Ghana.
If confirmed, I will engage government and religious leaders, as
well as grassroots faith-based communities around the world, which have
enormous impact on cultivating a climate more receptive to religious
freedom in difficult places. As a religious leader myself, I would like
to bring this perspective and use my skills and experience to encourage
diverse religious communities to jointly defend and advance religious
freedom and foster a climate of mutual respect.
America has learned much from its experience with religious
diversity. We must share our lessons, stand with the persecuted, and
encourage all governments to respect and protect the universal rights
of all people. As President Obama said, on Religious Freedom Day,
January 14, ``The United States stands with those who advocate for free
religious expression and works to protect the rights of all people to
follow their conscience, free from persecution and discrimination.''
I have learned important lessons and wisdom from each of my
experiences. If confirmed, to serve as Ambassador at Large, I will seek
to work with all religious groups. And I will work with human rights
organizations, think tanks, universities, media partners, foreign
governments, Congress, and, of course, the U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom. If confirmed, I will seek appropriate
resources needed both for the IRF Office and for innovative programs
and other activities to advance our priorities. I will work with
colleagues at the Department, our Ambassadors overseas, and the White
House to ensure that all parts of our government are working together
to advance religious freedom. This mission is too important to be left
to one official or one office in the U.S. Government.
I also want to acknowledge and commend the efforts of the two
previous Ambassadors at Large, Robert Seiple and John Hanford. Both
embraced the mandate of the IRF Act and were responsible for overseeing
the Office of International Religious Freedom in the Department of
State. If confirmed, I pledge to build on their efforts as faithful
stewards of this congressional mandate and President Obama's vision of
focusing U.S. attention on issues of religious freedom and working with
persons of all faiths to pursue this critical goal.
If confirmed, I especially look forward to working closely with
Congress in advancing this agenda together on behalf of the American
people, our national interests and the values we hold dear. I look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Dr. Cook.
And we are having this hearing because a couple of folks
wanted to hear more about you. And I have got to say, I am so
impressed. It is impressive.
And you speak about traveling to five continents, which I
think is a tremendous education. And is it true you speak
Spanish?
Dr. Cook. Yes; it is. I lived in Valencia, Spain.
Senator Boxer. That is very good, too. And that, you know,
to me, you have presented just a wonderful resume and a very
strong presence here.
I would like to ask those who came with you, family and
extended family, just to stand for a minute. If they would
stand? You don't need to introduce them all. I just feel they
should be recognized because I know you traveled to be here
with Dr. Cook, and I just want to thank you for that.
Because when people come before us like this, they need
support, and thank you very much for being here. Really, it
means a lot to her, and I know I am very impressed that you are
all here.
So let me say I am convinced in terms of all that you have
done in your life that you are ready for this challenge. And I
so admire Secretary Clinton and Senator Gillibrand, who know
you so well. And so, I am excited that you are willing to do
this.
I have a couple of questions on topics that I hope you are
prepared for. If not, you can just get back to me on the
record.
As you know, violent attacks against Coptic Christians in
Egypt have increased significantly in recent years. In January
2010, on Coptic Christmas Eve, six Coptic Christians and a
Muslim security guard were killed in a driveby shooting outside
a church.
On New Year's Day 2011, a suicide bomber killed 23 people
in an attack on a church in Alexandria, Egypt. And just a few
weeks ago, violent clashes between Muslims and Coptic
Christians in the capital of Cairo left at least 13 dead and
140 wounded.
This violence against Coptic Christians, who make up 10
percent of Egypt's population, is concerning, especially now
while the Egyptian people are looking forward to a new lease on
life for them. In her testimony before the Tom Lantos Human
Rights Commission in January, Nina Shea, a commissioner of the
U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, stated,
``The U.S. and the community of nations have a fundamental
obligation to address the violence and protect those religious
minorities.''
If confirmed, how will you work to ensure that U.S.
prioritizes the protection of religious minorities and the
prosecution of violators in its discussions with Egypt about
its future?
Dr. Cook. Thank you, Senator.
I share your concern certainly about the Coptic Christians
and other minorities in Egypt. Having traveled there and lived
there, I know many of the religious leaders. It has been
disheartening to learn of all the institutions that have been
forbidden to be built or be renovated. So it has been ongoing.
In this transition, it is important that there be dialogue
and engagement with civil society. The U.S. Government high-
level officials have had numerous occasions to have dialogue
with Egypt, including Secretary Clinton. And if confirmed, I
would build upon those conversations and draw on the tools that
are available to me, at my disposal.
One of the keys that is happening is that religious leaders
are emerging as voices, and it would be important, if
confirmed, to sit down with all sectors and begin a dialogue
that would include protection for Coptic Christians and others.
Senator Boxer. So you would agree that this is a moment in
time that we shouldn't waste when it comes to religious
freedom----
Dr. Cook. Without question.
Senator Boxer [continuing]. In Egypt particularly, and
these other countries that are going through this dramatic
revolution, some peaceful, some not. I would say in that vein,
and this would not be your portfolio, but I think this is
really a moment in history where we should look at religious
freedom and also equality for women because, you know, this is
a rare moment.
The other question I have, and then I will yield to Senator
DeMint. I have questions for the record on the Congo. If I
don't have a chance to answer it and some others, but this one
I thought I would ask you.
The spiritual leader of many of my constituents and
hundreds of millions of Orthodox Christians around the globe is
His Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. As you know, his
nearly 2,000-year-old sacred see is in Istanbul, Turkey, has
faced tremendous discrimination at the hands of the Turkish
Government over the better part of the past century.
Fortunately, Turkey has taken some steps regarding the
religious freedom of the Ecumenical Patriarch in recent months,
including providing Turkish citizenship to potential successors
of the patriarch and returning important property to the
church. But much remains to be done, including reopening an
important orthodox seminary that was closed by the Turkish
Government in 1971 and recognizing the title of Ecumenical
Patriarch.
If confirmed, how would you work to significantly improve
religious freedom and human rights for the Ecumenical Patriarch
and for ethnic Greeks living in Turkey?
Dr. Cook. Thank you for your question.
A large part of my constituency is also Greek Orthodox. I
had the pleasure of serving with Father John Poulos in Astoria,
Queens, as a police chaplain. And so, for many years, that
issue has been a highlight of my priorities.
I have also had the pleasure of serving with Father Alex
and Archbishop Demetrios in the New York region. And just
Friday at the White House, I celebrated Greek Independence Day
with them. So I am very attuned to the subject matter.
If confirmed, I would continue to press the government to
recognize the Ecumenical Patriarch. We are pleased that 12
metropolitans were confirmed as citizens, which broadens the
pool for the next Ecumenical Patriarch. But that would be one
of the first trips in my priorities that I would like to take,
to visit and see the Ecumenical Patriarch. Long overdue.
Senator Boxer. Well, it is music to my ears. I thank you.
Senator DeMint, the floor is yours.
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I am sure the State Department would take exception to my
comments. But over several administrations, I have seen an
unwillingness at the State Department to address seriously
religious freedom and religious persecution issues. I think,
when pressed, they tend to pat you on the head, and I am
speaking of my head at this point, and saying, ``That is
important,'' rhetorically. But it is, frankly, too messy to
compromise a political or economic relationship.
And that is why I mentioned the importance of a real
passion and boldness because I don't expect this administration
or the next within the State Department culture to really take
these issues as seriously as they should. Because one of the
things that I know is important and true, that we are not going
to have economic and political freedom where no religious
freedom exists.
I just would like to ask your response. As we look at
violations in Afghanistan, where we have Americans of all
faiths fighting, giving their lives, billions of dollars being
spent, an Afghani who converted to Christianity was sentenced
to death, effectively. And fortunately, because of I think a
lot of political pressure, that is not going to happen, but
that person no longer can live in their home country.
What would you do? How would you deal with this? Because it
is not just Afghanistan. It is Iraq. It is other places where
American blood has been shed, and now we are faced with
governments we have helped install who are not supporting
religious freedom. What would you do in Afghanistan?
Dr. Cook. Thank you for your question, Senator.
I share the concern deeply because there is a lot of
violence and persecution, and there are many laws that are
written totally against those who are religious minorities. If
confirmed, I will work together with partners, international
partners who have been working on religious freedom issues for
a long time.
We are heartened by the release of Said Musa, who, although
he is not able to live any longer in his country, it was the
U.S. Government, as well as many of my partners, NGO partners,
who have worked for his release and his reuniting with his
family. So we are concerned. And if confirmed, I would continue
to press the Afghan Government for protection of all of its
citizens and to also work with them in terms of promoting
religious freedom.
Senator DeMint. Would you be willing to do that publicly,
to speak to the media, or I know is the State Department will
tell me and you, let us do this under the radar. Let us not
make any waves. And so, the international pressure that we
would like to be there is often not present.
And I am not saying that some of the behind the scenes work
does not pay dividends. As in Afghanistan, we did not establish
religious freedom, but we saved the person's life. Frankly, for
what we are fighting for, I am not sure that that should be our
end goal.
But you have mentioned working with our partners, or I
mean, can you be more specific? We have that very real
situation right now where countries where our troops are on the
ground, where religious freedom does not exist. How would you
work with our Government and those governments? How would you
exert the pressure that is needed to get the attention here as
well as there?
Dr. Cook. Thank you for your question.
The beginning of your question was would I certainly use
public diplomacy as one of the tools? I would use all of the
tools that are available to me to elevate religious freedom to
the highest level, both in our Government and around the world.
There are times situationally that public pressure and the
headlines is important, and there are times, in the case of
Said Musa, situationally that you need to do it more quietly.
And Afghan is a very complicated situation, and there are times
that you have to move quietly for the saving of a person's life
and for the reunification of his family.
So one of the tools that I am strong at is public
diplomacy, and when appropriate, certainly I will use that and
all the tools that are available to me.
Senator DeMint. OK. Just one final question. It appears
from what we see that this position has kind of been lowered in
status at the State Department. Yet we expect you to be the
primary adviser to the President on religious issues, which
means, again, probably in the pecking order, you would have to
use strong personality and a lot of push in order to get some
attention. And again, that is very important.
How do you anticipate dealing with that inside the
structure there at the State Department?
Dr. Cook. Well, thank you again for your question.
I bring a 30-year, three-decade-long experience. You asked
initially in your opening statement for boldness, courage, and
passion, and those are three qualities that I have. But I don't
see the position as lowered. I see it as being a premier
bureau, the DRL bureau. I see a team of 20 wonderful full-time
civil servants and also Foreign Service officers who are really
on their game, their A game, and have worked very hard.
They are just missing an Ambassador at Large to complete a
strong team. And so, if confirmed, I would join that team, and
we would elevate, again, religious freedom to the highest
levels possible.
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Dr. Cook.
Senator Boxer. Senator DeMint, thank you for those
excellent questions.
Senator Menendez, welcome.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Reverend Cook, thank you for coming again. I was ready to
vote for you the last time you were here.
Dr. Cook. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Menendez. And I, having heard some of your answers
that were preempted by the chair that I had to the questions of
the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which
is something that I am passionate about. Senator Snowe and I,
in a bipartisan effort, are circulating a letter to the
President on this issue, which we expect many Senators to join
us on.
And we are concerned that while we have made some progress
with Turkey on this issue, especially with regard to objecting
to referring to his All Holiness as ecumenical and proving some
aspects of patriarchal succession, but there is a lot more that
needs to be done. And you and I have had the opportunities in
your visits before your nomination or as you were nominated,
but before you were in the committee, in your responses to me
the last time.
And from what I have heard of your responses to Senator
Boxer that are in line with the type of advocacy that I would
want someone in this position to have, not only as it relates
to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but to religious freedom
internationally. And I know one thing. That until we get
someone in this position, there will be no advocacy in the
world for the religious freedom that we all believe in and
espouse passionately. And so, I think it is incredibly
important to get someone into this position as the Ambassador
at Large for International Religious Freedom.
Let me ask you, since I know some of my colleagues have the
concern about the nature of the position and the structure of
it and what not, before you took this nomination, I am sure you
wanted to have a role to be effective.
Dr. Cook. Yes.
Senator Menendez. So what understandings did you come to in
terms of what is going to be your ability, both individually
and within the State Department and beyond, to be able to be
that voice and make that case and to have the ear of those who
can shape policy?
Dr. Cook. Thank you for your question, Senator. It is good
to see you again.
As I came to this position, I read very carefully the IRF
Act and understand critically that I would be the principal
adviser to both the Secretary of State and the President of the
United States, and I would carry out the IRF mandate as it is
written fully to its potential. I have no problem doing that.
The structure that is in place still allows me to do that.
Again, I share we have a tremendous team of Foreign Service
officers and civil service workers who make up or comprise
about 20. I would head the IRF office and would do that to my
full ability. I don't feel the position is diminished
whatsoever. What is lacking is the person in the post of
Ambassador at Large for Religious Freedom.
So I am prepared to do that. I am ready to do that. And
certainly, visiting the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Vatican is
something this office has not done, and that would be one of my
priorities when assuming the post, if confirmed.
Senator Menendez. I appreciate that. Now do you know
Secretary Clinton?
Dr. Cook. I know her very well, and I would have access to
the Secretary.
Senator Menendez. You have known her since before she was
the Secretary of State?
Dr. Cook. I knew her before. I was in the Clinton White
House when she was the first lady. Also, she was the Senator
for my very famous State, New York.
Senator Menendez. And she must have known you during that
period of time?
Dr. Cook. Very much so and very closely.
Senator Menendez. And so, therefore, you know the Secretary
in a way that maybe some other nominee would not know the
Secretary and be able to get her ear. Is that fair to say?
Dr. Cook. That is very fair to say, sir.
Senator Menendez. OK. Do you know President Obama?
Dr. Cook. I know President Obama as well, thank you. And I
could have his ear also.
Senator Menendez. Do you know him well enough that you will
have the wherewithal to be able to, when you feel that it is
fitting and appropriate and necessary on some issue of
religious freedom in the world, to be able to make your case to
him?
Dr. Cook. Yes, sir. I do.
Senator Menendez. Well, that is ultimately the two main
opportunities that we want, for this person who would have this
position to be able to speak to the Secretary of State and to
the President of the United States when they feel that it is
important, appropriate, fitting, and necessary to promote
religious freedom in the world and to have the ears of those
individuals.
So I am once again ready and willing to vote for your
confirmation. I believe from my conversations with you, not
only as it relates to the Ecumenical Patriarch, but other
concerns I have in the world, that you will be a strong
advocate and not a shrinking violet in this respect.
And so, thank you very much for coming once again before
the committee.
Dr. Cook. You are welcome, and thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Lugar.
Senator Lugar. Dr. Cook, my colleagues have tried to help
us all define your role as Ambassador at Large, and of course,
you have related responses to questions from Senator Menendez
your relationship with the President and the Secretary of
State.
Let me ask a question this way. A Pew Foundation study from
December 2009 indicated that approximately 70 percent of the
population of the world lives in areas where religious freedom
is severely restricted. Now I suppose whether it is your own
initiative, that of the 20 talented persons who are working
with you, or even on occasion a thought from the President or
the Secretary of State, how do you go about prioritizing what
exactly you are going to do, and which countries you will be
visiting?
I ask this question because if you have two-thirds of the
world where restrictions on religious freedom are very
substantial, there is, of course, a long list of possibilities.
How do you plan to occupy your time most profitably? Or, is
this a situation where you wait for a crisis to occur and then
head out to the front and see what you can do?
Dr. Cook. OK. Thank you, sir, for your question, Senator
Lugar.
The Pew study goes on to say that not only 70 percent are
persecuted daily, but also more than 200,000 million Christians
each day are persecuted and discriminated against. And in the
20th and 21st centuries, more people have been killed because
of their faith than in the other 19 centuries combined. So I am
very concerned about the lack of this office being filled.
My priorities would be such that we can't cover all the 198
countries, but we are mandated by the IRF Act to give a report
on those countries. I would sit down with our staff and our
team and our wider partners, NGOs and academy and others who
have been working on religious freedom, and determine those
priorities.
Certainly the Middle East right now is urgent, and that
cannot be ignored. I would want to travel immediately to Egypt
and to Iraq. In Asia, I would love to travel to Vietnam and to
Afghanistan and Pakistan and certainly China, where we are
developing relationships. And then, in sub-Saharan Africa,
would love to go to Nigeria, which is also of urgent concern,
as well as stopping by Liberia, which is having the same
conflict as Nigeria. But they are one of what we call a
``promising practice,'' and I would use that as a model perhaps
for Nigeria and other countries that are experiencing religious
freedom issues.
So those would be my priorities immediately. Certainly
sitting down domestically with people who have been working on
religious freedom for issues. Just as when religious freedom,
the IRF Act was developed, there was a summit called of the
academy scholars, NGOs, who were working on religious freedom,
I would want to have those conversations as well. But those
would be my priorities.
Certainly a visit to the Ecumenical Patriarch and to the
Vatican, which this office has not done for the last decade, I
think, out of respect and as a priority.
Senator Lugar. Well, you have named some very excellent
priorities. But now how do you conduct yourself when you
arrive? You come on the scene. You have already made a study
indicating that things are not going well in terms of religious
freedom.
In a concrete sense, what do you actually propose? A plan
for better conduct by that government, by the society? In other
words, specifically what action does an Ambassador at Large
take that makes any particular difference in the minds of those
leaders?
Dr. Cook. Thank you for your question.
Certainly the tools that are available to me, first of all,
is getting, securing the report and reporting on religious
persecution in the 198 countries. But the second tool is
diplomacy. We would work with the embassies and posts where we
have a post on the ground as my first point of entry, and then
also with the NGOs and civil society in those societies.
Where there are diplomatic relations that are lacking, I
would work with multilateral fora and also partners who are
related to those countries. So there will be a strategic plan.
I would not go without a plan. I would move strategically, not
emotionally, and certainly work with those partners that are
already on the ground.
But wherever we have embassies, we would secure that
relationship first.
Senator Lugar. How do your responsibilities interact with
those of the U.S. Commission on International Religious
Freedom? Where do they fit into the picture?
Dr. Cook. Oh, they fit very complementarily. We have not
had a chance to sit down, but that would be part of the
conversations I would have initially if I am confirmed. That
would be one of the first conversations with the commissioners,
and I would be an ex officio member of USCIRF. And so, part of
that would be to have presence.
One of the acronyms--this is a city of acronyms, and so I
have had to learn a new language coming before you. So I have
developed one, which is MAP, putting religious freedom on the
MAP. And the M is for multilateral relationships and meetings
that matter. A is for accessibility and availability of the
Ambassador. And P is for policy, partnerships, and presence and
using those tools that are available to me.
So USCIRF would be one of those entities that I would sit
with, that we, together, would put religious freedom on the map
and work in a complementary collaborative relationship.
Senator Lugar. Thank you very much.
Dr. Cook. You are welcome.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Senator Lugar.
Senator Lee.
Senator Lee. Thank you for joining us today, Ms. Cook.
Dr. Cook. Thank you.
Senator Lee. I wanted to talk to you for a minute about
Iraq's indigenous Christian population. Do you have any
thoughts that you could share with us about what you would do
to help Iraq's Christians?
Dr. Cook. Yes; thank you, sir, for your question, and
welcome.
It is good to--there has certainly been a lot of violence
and a lot of discrimination against Iraq's Christian
population. There has been a shift certainly in military action
there, and so part of what is going to be necessary is to also
have conversations with General Petraeus and the military
chaplains who are there.
Being a religious leader, I also bring that camaraderie of
relationship with the chaplains who are on the ground. But also
we have Ambassador Bodde, who has been assigned to Iraq, and
there also is Deputy Assistant Secretary Corbin, who has been
assigned to Iraq. Those would be conversations that I would
need to have with them as well, because they have been doing
the work, and also partner with them and build upon the
relationships that they have built in Iraq.
Senator Lee. OK. What about in Pakistan, defamation laws?
Those have proven problematic for religious liberty, as I
suspect you would agree. Have you given any thought to those
and how you might deal with those in this capacity?
Dr. Cook. Well, yes. Pakistan is very complicated. It has
some societal issues, as well as religious freedom issues. But
we are thankful that on last Thursday, the antidefamation
resolution, an alternative was presented by Pakistan, and
defamation is no longer in the title. The United Nations Human
Rights Council met in Geneva, and an alternative resolution was
passed unanimously so that it will protect religious
minorities.
We are very concerned certainly about the Ahmadi
communities there and the Christian communities and other
religious minorities. And in our wider group of friends and
partners, I have a wonderful friendship with an Ahmadi family,
Mr. Nasir Ahmad. And so, talking with those persons from those
communities which have been oppressed is certainly something
that we want to continue to do.
But Pakistan represents many complexities, and we will
continue to work forward. We will certainly--our condolences
certainly went out to Prime Minister Bhatti's family and to
Governor Taseer's family, and we would hope that as we continue
that they will have a new champion for religious freedom. But
in the meantime, we certainly have to build upon the work that
they did.
Senator Lee. Do you feel well equipped to come into a role
that is still in the process of being defined?
Dr. Cook. I think the role is very defined, and I feel very
equipped and compatible with this role. So I think that I am
very prepared. Courageous and boldness and passion is what
Senator DeMint asked for, and I bring those qualities to it, as
well as a wealth of experience.
Senator Lee. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Senator.
Well, Dr. Cook, I want to thank you and all of your family
and extended family who came today. I speak for myself in
saying you are an incredible witness before this committee. You
have acquitted yourself, I think, magnificently. You have
answered every question in detail. You never ducked a question.
And I think you have shown, I hope--I hope--this committee
that you are ready. I think you are more than ready for this
job. So I thank you.
I know Senator DeMint has a few questions. I have a couple
of questions. Others may. So we will leave the record open for
24 hours. So stay close to us, and get those answers back.
Senator Boxer. And then we will work with the Foreign
Relations Committee to have your nomination moved forward.
Again, thank you so very much.
And this hearing stands adjourned. Thank you, colleagues.
Dr. Cook. Thank you, Senator.
[Whereupon, at 3:16 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record
Responses of Suzan Johnson Cook to Questions Submitted by
Senator John F. Kerry
Question. What level of input will you have in the administration
of the Human Rights and Democracy Fund (HRDF)? How would you ensure
that religious freedom considerations are taken into account during the
programming of HRDF funds?
Answer. Established under President Clinton, the HRDF has funded
such projects as promoting the rule of law, advancing democratic
values, and supporting religious freedom efforts and worker rights in
over 50 countries. Over the last 3 years, more than $10 million of the
HRDF has been committed to religious freedom programming. As Ambassador
at Large, if confirmed, I would be directly involved in the review and
selection process on all proposals related to religious freedom.
Religious freedom programming currently supports such areas as: (1)
training religious groups, civil society, and lawmakers to develop
legal and policy protections for religious freedom, (2) addressing
expressions of intolerance, antidefamation, anticonversion, and
antiblasphemy laws that restrict religious expression; (3) increasing
public awareness of religious freedom through media outlets and opinion
makers; and (4) strengthening capacity of religious leaders to promote
faith-based cooperation across religious and sectarian lines.
If confirmed, I will collaborate closely with DRL's programming
office, on HRDF programs that are reviewed and approved generally under
DRL authority, paying particular attention to those proposals where
religious freedom is integrated with the larger promotion of freedom of
expression. For example, programming on Internet freedom has direct and
significant benefits for the advancement of freedom of religion.
Question. The forces of change in the Middle East may pose a risk
to religious minorities, particularly in those countries experiencing
violent turmoil. What steps would you take to protect the religious
freedom of minority communities in that region? How would you support
moderate voices and encourage dialogue on religious freedom among
representatives of different faiths?
Answer. If confirmed as a principal advisor to the President and
Secretary of State on international religious freedom issues, I look
forward to promoting religious freedom as a core objective of U.S.
foreign policy. Religious freedom is a fundamental human right and a
pillar of a democratic society. The Middle East must be a top priority
for promoting religious freedom, especially given recent attacks on
religious minorities in the region. I am deeply disturbed by the
increase of persecution and violence against religious minorities in
this region and in many other parts of the world. I will impress upon
governments that religious freedom enhances stability, and that
restrictions on religious communities only serve to encourage more
sectarian tensions and violence.
The changes that we are seeing in the Middle East have been
dramatic and often inspiring, yet violence and intolerance remain
sources of concern--particularly for religious minorities in this
region. We are observing a mixed picture in the region, and I would
encourage those voices promoting religious freedom among the emerging
political leadership and strengthened minority-community voices.
Minority religious communities in Middle Eastern countries where they
had previously been repressed should have new opportunities for
engagement with governments, interfaith dialogue, and progress toward
greater religious tolerance and religious freedom. It will be one of my
top priorities to support those voices inside the region using these
opportunities to increase respect for religious freedom and interfaith
dialogue.
If confirmed, I will lead the U.S. Government's efforts to press
for reform with governments that violate religious freedom, work with
governments that share our views, and reach out to religious leaders
worldwide to urge them to work with the United States in this region to
promote religious tolerance and freedom. The Secretary is deeply
engaged on religious freedom issues, and the first line of defense on
religious freedom is our hard-working embassies and missions worldwide.
The IRF Act provides many tools to advance this agenda. I will use all
the tools of diplomacy and engagement, including public and private
messaging, pressure, and programs.
I will work with my colleagues in the State Department and with
civil society to advocate for a change in the Egyptian law to remove
severe restrictions on building and renovating Christian places of
worship. I would also press the Iraqi Government to protect vulnerable
religious minorities by taking effective measures to prevent future
attacks and to bring to justice the perpetrators of attacks on
Christians and other minorities.
If confirmed, I also look forward to engaging political and civic
leaders directly to encourage greater reforms and protection of
religious minorities. I specifically hope to travel to Egypt and Iraq
soon to meet with my counterparts in the governments to urge them to
fulfill their international obligations to respect freedom of religion
and ensure the safety of its religious minorities. I will work more
broadly with communities around the region to advance religious freedom
by engaging religious leaders and civil society; through programming
and exchanges; and by promoting interfaith dialogue, tolerance, and
mutual respect through education.
Question. In Uzbekistan, government restrictions on religious
freedom have led to the arrest and imprisonment of thousands of
persons, including many Muslim individuals and registered and
unregistered religious groups. What strategy would you employ to
encourage the Government of Uzbekistan to abide by its international
commitments on religious freedom, including its commitments under the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
Answer. I am deeply concerned about the Uzbekistan Government's
restrictions on and abuses of religious freedom. If confirmed, I intend
to build on the important work of State Department colleagues and press
the Government of Uzbekistan to take specific actions to support
religious freedom. Uzbekistan has been designated a Country of
Particular Concern (CPC) since 2006. Since the CPC designation, State
Department officials have met numerous times with Uzbek officials, both
in Uzbekistan and in Washington, most recently during the Annual
Bilateral Consultations in Tashkent in February 2011. Secretary Clinton
also raised religious freedom, among other human rights issues, with
President Karimov during her December 2010 visit to Tashkent following
the OSCE summit.
If confirmed, I would work with U.S. colleagues, key international
partners, USCIRF, and NGOs to advocate for progress and help Uzbekistan
improve its practices and legislation. If confirmed, I plan to travel
to Uzbekistan to reinvigorate and elevate our dialogue on religious
freedom. I will press hard for the Uzbek Government to simplify the
registration process for religious groups and reduce the requirements
for registration, and will also urge the Uzbeks to reduce or eliminate
the civil and criminal penalties for unregistered religious activity. I
will work to ensure that advocacy for religious freedom continues to be
an integral part of future Annual Bilateral Consultations and will work
with my colleagues to utilize all diplomatic tools to motivate and
persuade the Uzbek Government to make improvements. I would use
appropriate public diplomacy and program assistance toward that goal.
Question. The status of the Rohingya in Burma, Bangladesh,
Thailand, and other Southeast Asian countries remains precarious.
Lacking citizenship, they often face restrictions on access to
education and other basic services, live in deplorable conditions, and
do not enjoy the right to certain fundamental human freedoms, including
rights to freedom of religion, association, and movement. What role
would your office play in encouraging greater protections for the
Rohingya against policies that discriminate on the basis of religion?
Answer. I am very concerned about the plight of the Rohingya,
particularly in Burma where the government continues to refuse to
recognize them as citizens, rendering them stateless, and imposes
restrictions on their movement and marriage. I am also concerned about
the treatment of Rohingya refugees in Thailand and Bangladesh. If
confirmed, I will work with our embassies in the region as well as the
Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration to continue to press for
the rights of Rohingya in Burma and throughout the region. I will
follow this issue closely, highlight Rohingya human rights problems in
our annual reports, engage governments in the region to end
discrimination against the Rohingya, and work toward developing
regional solutions to address their plight.
Burma is designated a Country of Particular Concern for its ongoing
violations of religious freedom. The U.S. Government has a wide array
of financial and trade sanctions in place against Burma for its
violations of human rights. Our Embassies also offer support to local
NGOs and religious leaders and exchange information with otherwise
isolated human rights NGOs and religious leaders.
______
Responses of Suzan Johnson Cook to Questions Submitted by
Senator Barbara Boxer
Question. As you may know, DRC has been called the ``rape capital
of the world.'' The United Nations estimates that 200,000 women and
girls have been raped in the DRC over the past 12 years, and that
15,000 women were raped in eastern DRC in 2009 alone. This level of
brutality is simply incomprehensible and it must be stopped once and
for all. According to the U.S. State Department's 2010 Report on
International Religious Freedom, ``Nearly 90 percent of the
population'' of DRC ``attends religious services each week.'' Given
that the vast majority of Congolese citizens regularly attend religious
services, what, in your opinion, is the role of religious communities
in raising awareness about violence against women? If confirmed, how
will you work to encourage religious communities to take a leadership
role in stopping violence against women in DRC?
Answer. I know your staff visited the Democratic Republic of the
Congo recently and applaud your efforts to raise awareness of these
human rights issues. I share your concern about the broader human
rights issues in the country, particularly the horrific widespread
violence against women. As a religious leader myself, I believe that
communities of faith, working in concert with traditional leaders, can
and should play an important role in raising awareness to combat
violence against women and elevating the role and status of women in
society.
If confirmed, I would strongly encourage churches and all religious
communities to use their combined influence to address this horrific
problem. Communities of faith can and should have a voice in reducing
violence against women. If confirmed, I hope to travel to the DRC to
help bring together these communities and urge them to demonstrate
leadership in this important issue.
Question. On Thursday, March 24, the United Nations Human Rights
Council (UNHRC) passed a resolution on ``Combating Intolerance and
Violence Against Persons Based on Religion or Belief.'' This was widely
hailed by many religious groups and religious freedom advocates as a
victory over a ``defamation of religions'' resolution that has long
been championed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).
Many feared that the ``defamation of religions'' resolution would be
used to further criminalize peaceful criticism of religion, including
reinforcing blasphemy laws in countries such as Pakistan where
violations carry the risk of death. As noted by the U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom, the new resolution ``properly focuses
on protecting individuals from discrimination or violence, instead of
protecting religions from criticism.''
If confirmed, how will you work to build on this resolution?
And how will you work to encourage countries to eliminate
blasphemy laws, particularly those that carry the death penalty
such as in Pakistan and Afghanistan?
Answer. The consensus resolution adopted by the U.N. Human Rights
Council (UNHRC) represents a significant step forward in the global
dialogue on countering intolerance, discrimination, and violence
against persons based on religion or belief. The State Department,
including staff from the Office of International Religious Freedom,
worked intensively on developing this new approach.
If confirmed, working with member states from the Organization of
the Islamic Conference and the European Union, I will urge robust
implementation of the concrete measures outlined in the resolution such
as education, awareness building, government outreach, service
projects, dialogue, and countering offensive speech with more speech. I
will also partner with governments, civil society, and religious
leaders on constructive joint initiatives to combat intolerance,
discrimination, and violence against persons based on religion or
belief.
In countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan, I am deeply
concerned about abuses under the blasphemy laws. In Pakistan, the
implementation of these laws has resulted in the arrest of, and attacks
on, hundreds of Pakistani citizens, both Muslim and non-Muslim. If
confirmed, I will urge the Government of Pakistan to address these
problematic laws. I will also actively engage with the country's
religious leadership and civil society actors advocating for tolerance
and interfaith efforts. Our message is simple: we need to work together
to reduce interfaith tensions and violence; blasphemy laws have
actually contributed to violence and are thus counterproductive to
their stated aims.
In Afghanistan, although in recent years the death penalty has not
been carried out either by local or national authorities, these kind of
discriminatory laws and practices are rooted in intolerance that
governments should combat. If confirmed, I will urge the Government of
Afghanistan to uphold its international obligations to freedoms of
religion and expression, and also work in coordination with the
international community, including our European partners, the United
Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), and other like-
minded partners to reinforce the importance of freedom of religion,
tolerance, and respect. This will be a long process and progress will
be measured in increments. If confirmed, I will use all of the tools at
my disposal to engage with religious leaders and civil society--like
the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC), and I will help
develop programs and exchanges to support these policies.
Question. The Government of Vietnam has a long history of
intolerance to religious freedom despite provisions contained within
the Vietnamese Constitution that provide for individual belief.
The government is especially harsh to individuals associated with
religious groups that are not officially recognized. However, even
members of churches that are acknowledged by the government, such as
the Catholic Church, suffer persecution. Security officials interfere
with religious gatherings, confiscate religious literature, and harass
religious leaders with frequent interrogation.
In some instances, government officials have destroyed churches and
religious structures. Religious groups and activists are threatened,
harassed, and even sometimes imprisoned, such as in the case of former
prisoner of conscience, Father Nguyen Van Ly, who was sentenced to 8
years in prison in 2007. He was released last year on medical parole;
an order that expired on March 15, 2011. As a result, Father Ly faces
possible rearrest by the government.
If confirmed, how would you personally work to protect
individuals who are at risk of harassment and detainment as a
result of their religious activities?
How will you work to more broadly to advance religious
freedom in Vietnam?
Answer. If confirmed, Vietnam will be one of my top priorities, and
I will use all the tools at my disposal to promote true religious
freedom there, including reporting, diplomatic engagement, public
diplomacy, and targeted programming. While there has been some overall
progress in religious freedom over the last decade, Protestant
minorities in the Central and Northwest Highlands, the Catholic Church,
and individual religious believers of a variety of faiths still face
serious problems. The State Department already engages regularly with
the Government of Vietnam in Hanoi and in Washington, including at our
annual Human Rights Dialogue, the most recent of which was led by
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Assistant Secretary Michael Posner
in December 2010 in Hanoi.
If confirmed, I will travel to Vietnam to meet with religious
freedom activists and with the families of imprisoned activists to
consult on how best to advocate for them. I will advocate with the
Vietnamese Government in Hanoi, and I will engage the Embassy of
Vietnam in Washington. If confirmed, I will raise individual cases and
I will address the broad institutional and societal issues that
obstruct full freedom of religion. I will also work with my colleagues
in the State Department, the United States Commission on International
Religious Freedom and other NGOs in the United States working on these
issues, with Members of Congress, Vietnamese civil society, and the
Vietnamese diaspora in the United States to bring about positive
improvement toward full religious freedom in Vietnam.
______
Responses of Suzan Johnson Cook to Questions Submitted by
Senator Jim DeMint
Question. Do you believe the international standard for religious
freedom protects the right of individuals to share their faith publicly
(proselytism) and to change their faith (conversion)? If so, how will
you work with foreign governments that have laws that criminalize the
peaceful expression, teaching, or sharing of religion? Please be
specific on how you intend to work with the most egregious government
violators.
Answer. It is clear to me that international human rights standards
protect the ability of individuals to change their beliefs and to share
their beliefs in public. These rights are protected under the freedoms
of religion, of expression, and of associations as stated in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights. If confirmed, I will address this issue
directly through communications with governments that place
restrictions on the ability to proselytize or convert. The State
Department has closely followed the development and implementation of
anticonversion laws, blasphemy laws, and apostasy laws in South Asia,
East Asia, and the Middle East. These laws generally violate human
rights law. Moreover, they can often lead to increased societal
tensions and violence.
Therefore, in addition to directly pressing governments to bring
their laws into conformity with international law, I will also engage
civil society and religious leaders to hear their concerns and to
engage them in building cultures of religious tolerance. I will also
engage like-minded partners in the international community and raise
these issues in regional and international human rights fora.
In countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan, I am particularly
concerned about abuses under the blasphemy laws. In Pakistan, the
implementation of these laws has resulted in the arrest of and attacks
against hundreds of Pakistani citizens, both Muslim and non-Muslim.
Last fall these laws led to a death sentence for a Christian convert,
Aasia Bibi. If confirmed, I will urge the Government of Pakistan to
address these problematic laws. I will also actively engage with the
country's religious leadership and civil society advocates for
tolerance and interfaith efforts.
In Afghanistan, although in recent years the death penalty has not
been carried out either by local or national authorities,
discriminatory laws and practices that ban conversion are rooted in
societal intolerance. If confirmed, I will urge the Government of
Afghanistan to uphold its international obligations and commitments to
respect freedom of religion and freedom of expression, and I will also
work in coordination with the international community, including our
European partners, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan
(UNAMA), and other like-minded partners to reinforce the importance of
freedom of religion, tolerance, and respect. This will be a long
process and progress will be measured in increments. If confirmed, I
will use all of the tools at my disposal, such as engaging religious
leaders and civil society, like the Afghan Independent Human Rights
Commission (AIHRC). I will also rely on programming and exchanges, and
will promote interfaith efforts, tolerance, and mutual respect through
education.
Question. Will you recommend sanctions for the most egregious
violators? What actions will you recommend for Countries of Particular
Concern (CPCs) for the most egregious violators?
Answer. The IRF Act mandates a Presidential Action for all CPCs,
and provides specific examples of sanctions. If confirmed, I will
recommend for consideration by the Secretary sanctions against
egregious violators of religious freedom as appropriate to motivate
improvement of the country's respect for religious freedom. The
President also has the authority to waive the action only if the waiver
would ``further the purposes of the Act,'' or if ``an important
national interest'' is at stake. The CPC status remains, even if a
waiver is granted.
Presidential Actions are a critical tool in an effort to push a CPC
toward improving conditions of religious freedom. For the most
egregious violators, any sanction listed in the section 405 (9)-(15) of
the IRF Act, or a commensurate action is appropriate. Sanctions are one
of a number of tools under the IRF Act. To expect real progress on
religious freedom, they should be part of a broader engagement strategy
to address restrictions on religious freedom. The ultimate goal
underlying the CPC designation process is to realize actual progress
and improvements in religious freedom. If confirmed, I will seek as
many opportunities and use as many tools as possible to achieve this
goal.
Question. Please explain how the Human Rights and Democracy Fund
(HRDF) operates. You stated that roughly $4 million in HRDF funding
would be at your disposal. Is that figure correct? For what purpose do
you intend to use the HRDF? What measurable outcomes have there been,
related directly to religious freedom, as a result of this funding?
Answer. The HRDF supports the U.S. foreign policy goals of
defending human rights and strengthening democratic institutions. The
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) has administered the
HRDF to implement innovative projects in over 50 countries since the
HRDF was established. The HRDF supports projects that advance U.S.
foreign policy goals such as promoting the rule of law, strengthening
democratic institutions, and defending religious freedom and worker
rights.
Over the last 3 years, more than $10 million of the HRDF has been
committed to religious freedom programming. These programs support: (1)
training religious groups, civil society, and lawmakers to develop
legal and policy protections for religious freedom; (2) addressing
expressions of intolerance, antidefamation, anticonversion, and
antiblasphemy laws that restrict religious expression; (3) increasing
public awareness of religious freedom through media outlets and opinion
makers; and (4) strengthening capacity of civil society leaders to
promote interfaith cooperation.
For example, the HRDF has funded a group of experts to analyze,
identify, and eliminate hateful language in textbooks and increase
content on tolerance in Israeli and Palestinian schools. In Vietnam and
Laos, HRDF funds have supported joint trainings on religious freedom
for government officials and religious leaders from diverse
backgrounds. HRDF religious freedom programs are in place to increase
discourse on religious freedom in the Middle East, Indonesia, and
Pakistan in a wide variety of media, through print programming.
If confirmed, I will work with my colleagues in the International
Religious Freedom office, DRL, and throughout the State Department to
strengthen the creative development, monitoring, and evaluation of this
programming.
Question. Will you be responsible for hiring and other employment
decisions for the Office of International Religious Freedom? Please
explain.
Answer. If confirmed as Ambassador at Large, under the mandate of
the IRF Act, I will head the Office of International Religious Freedom.
This mandate includes overseeing hiring and employment for the office,
within U.S. Government guidelines. The Office Director and the Deputy
Director, in their supervisory capacities, handle the day-to-day
responsibilities of personnel management.
Question. Do you intend to meet with all new Ambassadors before
they leave for their posts? Do you believe that the level of current
training is sufficient?
Answer. If confirmed, I would make it a priority to meet with
ambassadors appointed to serve in countries where we have concerns
about religious freedom. In some cases, I would also want to meet with
ambassadors going to countries or missions with whom we collaborate to
advocate for religious freedom. I will seek opportunities in my travel
and when Chiefs of Mission are in Washington to promote collaborative
strategic initiatives to promote religious freedom. Ambassadors and
their staffs are the critical front line in advancing U.S. religious
freedom policy. It is crucial that we work together to pursue common
goals. If confirmed, my priority will be to cultivate constructive
working relationships with our embassies.
If confirmed, I look forward to participating in the new courses
being developed at the Foreign Service Institute, our National Foreign
Affairs Training Center, to help officers in Washington and abroad
promote human rights and religious freedom. Much of the current
training for ambassadors and other State Department officers is
excellent in focusing on the challenges in the field of promoting
religious freedom.
The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor--including the
Office of International Religious Freedom--together with the National
Foreign Affairs Training Center (FSI), are working to create new
courses dealing with religious freedom issues, for both senior and
working levels, and including interagency courses. In a recently
developed course, religious freedom has been a significant part of
training on human rights. A new 3-day course in June will be offered
with a specific focus on Religion and Foreign Policy, and the Office of
International Religious Freedom is providing significant input on
course design. I understand demand for all these courses is very high.
If confirmed, I will also personally work with FSI, to ensure they have
the resources and expertise they need on religious freedom issues to
prepare diplomats to engage boldly and constructively on issues of
religious freedom.
Question. What is the Muslim Brotherhood?
Answer. The Muslim Brotherhood is a transnational Islamic
organization founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna as a
religious, political, and social movement. It was established to
advocate the centrality of Islam to all facets of life--including
politics--and it argued for the creation of an Islamic state in Egypt
based on Islamic law (Sharia). In modern times, the organization seeks
to implement Islamic law in Egypt. Offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood
have spread throughout Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Palestinian Territories,
Lebanon, and North Africa. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt renounced
domestic violence in the early 1970s, although it has defended the
right to armed jihad in some cases, such as for Palestinians.
The Brotherhood can also be seen as a broad ideological movement
that has given birth to political parties in several countries, such as
the Islamic Action Front in Jordan and Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank.
These parties liaise and sometimes receive support from the Egyptian
Brotherhood but today generally remain operationally independent from
Cairo. In Egypt under Mubarak, the group was the frequent target of
large-scale campaigns of arrest and intimidation by the government and
was not allowed to participate legally in the political process,
although ``independent'' candidates aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood
were occasionally elected to Parliament, most notably in 2005.
The stated goal of the Egyptian Brotherhood's current leader or
General Guide, Muhammad Badie, is to ``show the world the true Islam,
the Islam of moderation and forgiveness that respects pluralism in the
whole world.'' However, in 2008, Muhammad Madhi Akef, then the
Brotherhood's General Guide, said his organization supports democracy,
but only the ``right kind . . . one that honors Sharia.'' While the
Brotherhood continues to eschew violence and has consistently condemned
al-Qaeda, its leadership has generally viewed attacks by groups such as
Hamas and Hezbollah as legitimate because the Muslim Brotherhood views
attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah as being categorically distinct from al-
Qaeda violence. In their mind, Hamas and Hezbollah are using violence
in pursuit of legitimate national liberation goals in the face of
foreign occupation. They view al-Qaeda attacks as indiscriminate,
disconnected from any achievable political goals, and guilty of killing
too many Muslims. In 2007 it released a draft political party platform
statement that indicated a broad commitment to democratic norms,
although some elements suggested ongoing ambiguity regarding universal
civil rights and the status of Sharia. The movement's youth wing, which
took part in the demonstrations in Tahrir Square, has expressed
interest in reforming the Muslim Brotherhood by elevating the role of
women within the organization, incorporating religious minorities, and
placing less emphasis on the direct implementation of Islamic law.
The Muslim Brotherhood has expressed its intention to participate
in the post-Mubarak political process in Egypt and supported the
constitutional amendments. A number of other Islamic parties have
emerged since Mubarak's fall, some of which have come out of the
Brotherhood itself. This reflects the variety of agendas and
generational differences found today within this broad movement.
Question. Do you believe that past actions by the United States
against countries labeled by the Department of State as Countries of
Particular Concern (CPCs) have been effective? If so, how? Please give
examples.
Answer. The effectiveness of past actions against CPCs has varied
between countries. I am committed to the use of CPC designations and
will use Presidential Actions as appropriate. The range of CPCs, the
diversity of the abuses and restrictions on religious freedom, and in
some cases the restrictions on direct engagement (such as North Korea
and Iran), require evaluation on a case-by-case basis and targeted
strategies. Past actions have yielded significant results in some
countries. For example, an agreement in 2006 with the Government of
Vietnam led to enactment of a new legal framework that opened the door
to recognition of new religious groups and increased registration of
Protestant churches. Despite this progress, significant issues remain,
and, if confirmed, I will focus on Vietnam as a priority country. Even
when CPC designation leads to progress toward religious freedom, we
must remain vigilant and continue our diplomatic engagement.
Actions taken by the United States against a country of particular
concern must be part of a broader engagement strategy with that country
to truly realize progress. If confirmed, I will develop broad
engagement strategies--tailored to each country--that complement the
important tool of a Presidential Action under the IRF Act. This
engagement is critical to the IRF Act mandate for the Ambassador at
Large ``to advance the right to freedom of religion abroad.'' For
example, we can complement the threat or use of a Presidential Action
through a range of tools, including diplomatic advocacy, working
directly with religious and other civil society leaders, consulting
with diaspora communities in the United States, funding effective and
creative programs on the ground, and collaborating with other
governments and NGOs to advance religious freedom.
Question. What tools will you use other than public diplomacy?
Answer. If confirmed, I will lead the U.S. Government's efforts to
press governments that violate religious freedom, engage governments
that share our views, and reach out to religious leaders and civil
society worldwide to urge them to work with me on an agenda in their
countries and regions to promote religious tolerance and freedom. I
would work with my colleagues throughout the U.S. Government,
particularly our ambassadors overseas, to develop robust strategies to
monitor, promote, and report on religious freedom around the world. The
IRF Act provides many tools to help advance these goals, including
sanctions and other Presidential Actions when appropriate.
We must also leverage multilateral efforts, especially in
collaboration with like-minded partners, to reinforce the importance of
freedom of religion. I would also work with religious leaders and other
civil society groups in an effort to increase their influence on
government policies and assist their efforts to confront societal
pressures that cause religious persecution. Exchanges are also an
important tool, bringing government and religious leaders to the United
States to experience firsthand our policies on religious freedom and
sending speakers from the United States to promote religious freedom
abroad. In multireligious societies, there are many opportunities for
creative programs such as training religious groups, civil society,
lawmakers, and government officials to develop legal and policy
protections for religious freedom; increasing public awareness of
restrictions on religious freedom and international rights; and
promoting interfaith tolerance and mutual respect through education,
training, and media tools. Each country presents unique challenges and
opportunities, and almost always will require a multi-faceted approach.
Question. Given the recent unrest in Middle East, what new
opportunities for involvement do you see that did not previously exist?
Please outline in detail your strategy for the region.
Answer. The Middle East must be a top priority for promoting
religious freedom, especially given recent attacks on religious
minorities in the region. I am deeply disturbed by the increase of
persecution and violence against religious minorities in this region
and in many other parts of the world. I will impress upon governments
that religious freedom enhances stability, and that restrictions on
religious communities only serve to encourage more sectarian tensions
and violence.
The changes that we are seeing in the Middle East have been
dramatic and often inspiring, yet violence and intolerance remain
sources of concern--particularly for religious minorities in this
region. We are observing a mixed picture in the region, and I would
encourage those voices promoting religious freedom among the emerging
political leadership and strengthened minority community voices.
Minority religious communities in Middle Eastern countries where they
had previously been repressed should have new opportunities for
engagement with governments, interfaith dialogue, and progress toward
greater religious tolerance and religious freedom. It will be one of my
top priorities to support those voices inside the region using these
opportunities to increase respect for religious freedom and interfaith
dialogue.
If confirmed, I will lead the U.S. Government's efforts to press
for reform with governments that violate religious freedom, work with
governments that share our views, and reach out to religious leaders
worldwide to urge them to work with the United States in this region to
promote religious tolerance and freedom. The Secretary is deeply
engaged on religious freedom issues, and the first line of defense on
religious freedom is our hard-working embassies and missions worldwide.
The IRF act provides many tools to advance this agenda. I will use all
the tools of diplomacy and engagement, including public and private
messaging, pressure, and programs.
In Egypt, if confirmed, I would lead U.S. efforts to foster
strategic dialogue between Muslims and minority groups who desire a
civil state where all people, irrespective of religious identity, share
equal rights, duties, and opportunities. I will work with my colleagues
in the State Department and with civil society to advocate for a change
in the Egyptian law to remove severe restrictions on building and
renovating Christian places of worship. In Iraq, I would work with
other U.S. officials to continue to press the Iraqi Government to
protect vulnerable religious minorities by taking effective measures to
prevent future attacks and to bring to justice the perpetrators of
attacks on Christians and other minorities. I would also focus on Saudi
Arabia, in particular pressing for meaningful reform of educational
curriculum, which continue to incite hatred and intolerance toward non-
Muslims and certain Muslims. I will seek to reinvigorate our dialogue
with the Saudis to reduce systemic restrictions on religious freedom
for all Saudis, including Shia Muslims.
______
Responses of Suzan Johnson Cook to Questions Submitted by
Senator Richard G. Lugar
Question. The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998
established the United States Commission on International Religious
Freedom (USCIRF) to review annually the state of international
religious freedom and to make policy recommendations to the President,
Secretary of State, and Congress. The Commission's mandate is set to
expire September 30, 2011. Does the administration support the
reauthorization of the Commission? Why or why not?
Answer. USCIRF has played and continues to play an important and
positive role in advocating for religious freedom throughout the world.
The respective roles of the Department of State and USCIRF under the
International Religious Freedom Act (IRF Act) are complementary. Each
continues to focus on the mutual goal of promoting religious freedom
while fulfilling their statutory mandates, which include publishing
annual reports. If confirmed I will seek out USCIRF's input and will
welcome their recommendations. I will increase collaboration between
USCIRF and the Department of States' Office of International Religious
Freedom (IRF Office) toward our shared goal of ending religious
persecution and advancing freedom of religious belief and practice
around the world. With regard to a reauthorization, I understand that
the legislation that has not yet been introduced. Since I am not
confirmed, I am not yet in a position to speak on legislative matters.
When enacted 13 years ago, the IRF Act envisioned clear and
distinct roles for the Ambassador at Large as head of the IRF Office,
and USCIRF as an independent congressionally funded Commission. Passage
of the IRF Act brought heightened emphasis to the cause of religious
freedom as a central component in U.S. human rights policy and U.S.
foreign policy generally. In 1998, as evidenced by the structure of the
IRF Act itself, Congress created USCIRF as an additional voice on
religious freedom, and to evaluate progress on U.S. religious freedom
policy and make recommendations accordingly.
Question. In Pakistan, a Christian government official, and the
first-ever Federal Minister for Minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti, was shot
and killed after advocating the reformation of local blasphemy laws.
This assassination followed on the heels of the assassination of Punjab
Governor, Salman Taseer in January 2011 who also called for the
reformation of these laws. What strategy would you employ to combat
such religious intolerance?
Answer. I am very concerned about the attacks on religious
minorities in Pakistan, including abuses under the blasphemy laws; the
treatment of Christians, Ahmadis, and reform-minded Muslims; and the
increase in the number and severity of reported high-profile cases
against members of religious minorities.
I am deeply saddened by the brutal killing of Minister Bhatti and
Governor Taseer and condemn the killings in the strongest possible
terms. My deepest sympathies are with their families and friends. Both
men gave their lives to defend the principles of religious freedom,
equality, and human rights for all Pakistanis. The assassination of
Minister Bhatti, merely 2 months after the assassination of Governor
Taseer, emphasizes the need for aggressive advocacy of religious
freedom and tolerance in Pakistan.
I am committed to the same principles Minister Bhatti and Governor
Taseer fought for, and, if confirmed, I will prioritize and elevate
U.S. efforts to promote freedom of religion in Pakistan. I will work
with Government officials to urge them to take the necessary measures
to address the serious religious freedom problems in the country and to
address discriminatory and repressive blasphemy and anti-Ahmadi laws.
These laws have been exploited to harass religious minorities,
sectarian opponents, and Muslims, and to retaliate in personal
disputes. I will also work with civil society, including religious
leaders, to encourage voices of tolerance and to support their efforts
to promote religious freedom and interfaith respect and understanding
in Pakistan.
Question. A New Year's Day car bombing in Alexandria, Egypt killed
21 worshippers at a local Coptic church and marked one of the deadliest
terrorist attacks in Egypt since 2006. Many Coptic Christians worry
that religious persecution will escalate given the uncertain political
landscape in Egypt at this time. What role, if any, would your office
play in addressing religious violence in the region and protecting
religious minorities?
Answer. The Middle East must be a top priority in promoting
religious freedom, now more than ever, given both the attacks on
members of religious minorities in the region and opportunities to
build upon the common purpose that emerged as Muslims and Christians
supported each other in Cairo's Tahrir Square. If confirmed, I will
work with my colleagues in the U.S. Government to support those in
Egypt and throughout the region who seek meaningful progress on
religious freedom. If confirmed, I will encourage opportunities that
have emerged from calls for political reform. I will join forces with
my colleagues to combat efforts to exploit sectarian tensions. I remain
very concerned about longstanding violence and discrimination against
members of religious minorities in Egypt and elsewhere in the region.
If confirmed, I would plan to visit this region soon and press the
governments to protect religious freedom, and to discourage sectarian
violence and societal intolerance. Governments that justify restricting
religious freedom out of security and stability concerns only encourage
impunity and often lead to more sectarian violence. I would emphasize
that point to governments in the region. I would work with my USG
colleagues to press governments to protect members of vulnerable
religious minorities by taking effective measures to prevent future
attacks and to bring to justice the perpetrators of attacks on
Christians, Jews, and members of other religious minorities.
I will also work to strengthen civil society that promotes
religious tolerance, and programs that promote tolerance and mutual
respect between different religious communities. If confirmed, I will
advocate for increasing U.S. programs and activities to support
initiatives in several areas directly related to religious freedom,
such as funding for programs that work with Coptic and Muslim community
groups, reform of official curricula to remove religious bias, as well
as support for NGOs that monitor the country's media for occurrences of
sectarian bias.
Regarding Egypt in particular, if confirmed, I will work closely
with our Ambassador and other USG officials to advocate for an end to
acts of sectarian violence, for greater protection of religious freedom
and equal rights under the law for persons of all faiths. I will
advocate for the removal of laws that discriminate against religious
minorities and for the adoption of a unified law on places of worship.
I will also work with the Government of Egypt in its efforts to address
concerns of the Coptic community. I am heartened to see that the
Egyptian Prime Minister has met with the leadership of the Coptic
community following the recent destruction of a Coptic church in Sol.
I have also been encouraged by calls for unity and mutual respect
among Egypt's various religious groups. If confirmed, I will support
and encourage our Embassy in Cairo in its continuous efforts to promote
religious freedom values with government officials, civil society, and
political and religious leaders. I will also strongly support our
Embassy's efforts to maintain and broaden an active dialogue with
leaders of the Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and Baha'i religious
communities, human rights groups, and other activists.
Question. While religious minorities in Iran face constant
persecution and harassment, many members of the Baha'i community have
been arrested for proselytizing in Tehran, Bam, and Kerman, and seven
Baha'i leaders who were sentenced to 20 years in prison in August 2010.
Given the lack of diplomatic relations the United States has with Iran,
what strategies, if any, would your office employ to foster religious
freedom in Iran?
Answer. I have been following the persecution of Baha'is and other
religious communities in Iran with great concern. I understand that the
State Department is working closely with representatives of these
communities and other like-minded countries to develop best strategies
for improving both religious freedom in Iran and the morale of the
persecuted populations. President Obama's criticism of the Iranian
Government's persecution of the Baha'i and Sufis in his March 20
remarks marking the Persian holiday Nowruz, got the attention of the
Iranian Government and was enthusiastically received by Baha'is and
other religious minorities in and outside of Iran.
If confirmed, I will continue these efforts of targeted and
effective statements, partner with like-minded governments and the
newly created U.N. Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Iran, and
develop additional opportunities to sanction those who continue to
persecute Baha'is because of their faith.
Under the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and
Divestment Act of 2010, the U.S. Government has applied targeted
sanctions against Iranian officials for serious human rights abuses.
Just last month, the Prosecutor General of Tehran--who among his many
actions against minorities and others, ordered the arrest of seven
Baha'i--was added to the sanctions list.
NOMINATIONS
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
Mara E. Rudman, of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant
Administrator of the United States Agency for
International Development
Robert Patterson, of New York, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador
to Turkmenistan
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert P.
Casey Jr., presiding.
Present: Senator Casey.
Also Present: Senator Reed.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT P. CASEY JR.,
U.S. SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA
Senator Casey. The hearing will come to order.
I want to thank everyone for being here this morning.
The way we will proceed is, I will present an opening
statement. I will turn to my colleague Senator Reed of Rhode
Island. We are grateful he is here with us. And then, of
course, we will turn to our nominees and go from there.
But first of all, I want to thank everyone for being here.
Today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, meets to examine
the nominations of Mr. Robert E. Patterson to be Ambassador to
Turkmenistan and Ms. Mara Rudman to be the Assistant
Administrator for the Middle East at the U.S. Agency for
International Development.
First, with regard to Turkmenistan, the United States has
not had an Ambassador in Turkmenistan for nearly 5 years. As
the country begins to open up to the outside world, it is
critical that the United States is fully represented to pursue
a range of interests, including human rights, energy, and
security interests.
The human rights situation remains of serious concern in
Turkmenistan. Last May, I signed a letter, led by Senators
Durbin and Brownback, to Secretary Clinton on behalf of three
prisoners of conscience detained in Turkmenistan. Just last
week, Turkmen authorities confined a Radio Free Europe
contributor to a psychiatric hospital after he criticized a
local government official of corruption. This Soviet-era
practice of committing political dissidents to psychiatric
facilities, unfortunately, continues in Turkmenistan.
As Turkmenistan continues to open more to the outside
world, it is important for the United States, working with the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, to take an
active role in advancing our interests and our values. I know
that Mr. Patterson shares these concerns, and I look forward to
hearing how he will address human rights issues amid our other
important interests in Turkmenistan.
Many in the Senate have concerns about Turkmenistan's
energy resources and their export abroad. I understand that
Turkmenistan shares a desire to diversify its energy export
routes and has indicated that participating in the Nabucco
Project is a possibility, and I look forward to hearing from
Mr. Patterson on how he will encourage this diversification of
Turkmenistan's energy export routes and how this important
market can become more open to U.S. companies.
Turkmenistan has played a positive role with respect to its
neighbor Afghanistan. The Government of Turkmenistan has built
hospitals and schools in parts of Afghanistan inhabited by
Turkmen. We should be working to further encourage this kind of
activity.
Recognizing the deep historic ties between Afghanistan and
the countries of Central Asia, some have expressed concern
about the level of coordination among our diplomatic assets in
the region. As the importance of the Northern Distribution
Network through Central Asia to Afghanistan has grown, regular
coordination among our diplomats in South and Central Asia will
become even more important. I hope that communication and
coordination among the posts in these countries will be a top
priority for the State Department.
Mr. Patterson is a career Foreign Service officer who has
served in challenging posts around the world. He currently
serves as the senior adviser for the Somali diaspora and has
served in our embassies in Kenya, Russia, Hungary, Ukraine, and
Armenia. His experience in the former Soviet Union will
especially serve him well in this post, if confirmed. Mr.
Patterson has served the United States in the U.S. Air Force.
Mr. Patterson, I want to thank you for your longstanding
service to the country and for your willingness to take on
another challenging assignment. We are grateful.
Next, to the Middle East. The Middle East is right now
experiencing change of historic proportions. That is a dramatic
understatement. There is almost no way to capture what we are
seeing playing out every day in the Middle East on television
news or in so many other ways that we get information.
And if confirmed, Mara Rudman will assume a very
challenging assignment in overseeing USAID's programs in the
Middle East. As countries in the region continue to experience
unrest, the work of USAID will be essential in helping to
ensure political transitions based upon democratic institutions
and economic reforms.
USAID has missions in seven countries and two regional
missions in the Middle East, for a total FY 2010 budget of $1.6
billion. These programs are targeted toward health, education,
good governance, and economic development.
But more important than these statistics is how we
calibrate our approach to development in a region where the
United States foreign assistance has been historically
criticized for supporting undemocratic governments. In this new
environment, USAID will need to be more agile, responsive, and
able to engage directly with more citizens in places like
Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, and Syria, more so than it has in the
past.
How we implement these programs and America's profile in
supporting civil society and democratic governance is just as
important as the programs themselves. During this seminal
period in history and in the history of the Middle East, the
developmental challenges in the region seem to grow by the day.
I would like to touch on just a few.
As we have transitioned responsibility for enforcing U.N.
Security Council Resolution 1973 to NATO, the United States
will continue to play an active role in providing humanitarian
relief to the people of Libya. The President has declared as
U.S. policy that Gaddafi must go. But he has also said that we
will not use our military to effect this change.
In this environment, the tools of USAID are all the more
essential. Humanitarian and medical support for Libya's people
and democratic institution-building for an emerging political
class will be necessary in preparation for a democratic Libya.
In Egypt, a political transition continues that will soon
produce new leadership. Without improvements in Egypt's
economic prospects, the accomplishments of those courageous
people who marched and demonstrated in Tahrir Square, those
activists' progress and accomplishments will be jeopardized.
The United States has an important role to play in Egypt's
economic development and must also encourage political reforms
that reflect the democratic aspirations of the Egyptian people.
Next, to Yemen. Yemen, the poorest country in the region,
has faced severe development problems ranging from water
shortages to debilitating poverty. USAID's ability to conduct
assistance in this country is critically important, and the
deadly protests against the government have already had an
impact on our ability to do that.
Maintaining our ability to deliver assistance to the people
of countries like Yemen amid the political turmoil will be
increasingly important in the months to come. All of this takes
place amid a challenging budget climate here in Washington.
Administrator Raj Shah has made serious efforts to reform
USAID and assure accountability and programmatic efficiency to
the American taxpayer. And it is important that he is doing
that, and it is important that we support him in doing that.
Dr. Shah takes on this task not only in the name of fiscal
responsibility, but also because our assistance needs to be
strategic and targeted in order to best take advantage of these
transformational openings and opportunities in the region.
Events in the region demand a smart development approach by
the United States that takes a long-term view. President
Obama's nominee, Mara Rudman, has the experience to fulfill
this strategic vision for the region. We are fortunate that she
has accepted the President's appointment, and if confirmed, she
will be a true asset during this historic period of change in
the region.
She currently serves as the Chief of Staff for Presidential
Envoy for Middle East Peace, former Senator George Mitchell,
where she has a unique perspective on the formulation of United
States foreign policy in the region. Her public service at the
State Department, at the National Security Council, and here on
Capitol Hill will serve her well in her new position.
And because today we don't have a ranking member with us
for the hearing, I will turn immediately to our witnesses. But
first, to my colleague, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island. We
are honored he is here. He is someone that was a mentor to
young Senators like me when I got here in 2007.
And I am always grateful that he is with us to provide his
perspective on so many important foreign policy challenges we
have. He is here today in a more limited sense, unless he wants
to expound upon his comments about Mara Rudman. But we are
grateful, Senator Reed, that you are here, and you have the
floor.
STATEMENT OF HON. JACK REED,
U.S. SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
It is a great pleasure and privilege to have the
opportunity to introduce Mara Rudman, the President's nominee
to be the United States Agency for International Development's
Assistant Administrator for the Middle East.
No one is as superbly qualified as Mara to address the
critical challenges you have laid out, Mr. Chairman. She has an
extraordinary background, extraordinary intellect, and
extraordinary dedication.
I first had the privilege to work with her about 15 years
ago, when Lee Hamilton, the chairman of the House Foreign
Relations Committee, detailed her to the Task Force on National
Security organized by our leader, Dick Gephardt. I was part of
that task force and extraordinarily impressed by her intellect,
by her contribution, and by her sincere and absolute dedication
to advancing our ideals and also good public policy.
She has an extensive background, as you laid out, in terms
of the Middle East. It began a long time ago at Dartmouth
University, and continued at Harvard Law School. Then she went
on to clerk for Judge Stanley Marcus in the Southern District
of Florida, and was an associate in a Washington law firm.
But really, it was on Capitol Hill where she found not only
her niche, but also had so much of a profound and meaningful
impact, working first for Gerry Studds and then as chief
counsel to Lee Hamilton on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
She also served on the National Security Council, under
both President Clinton and President Obama. So she has the
experience of both the executive, and the legislative, and all
of it, indeed, in the context principally of Middle East
policy. And as you pointed out, she has served the last few
years as the Chief of Staff to George Mitchell in his
extraordinarily important work as Special Envoy in the Middle
East.
She has also been in the private sector. She has worked
with our former Secretary of Defense, Bill Cohen and the Cohen
Group. All of this experience underscores how well prepared she
is for the most challenging assignment I can think of, trying
to provide the soft power in a region that requires that.
She is a pragmatist, and a problem-solver. She is going to
do a great job, and I would urge your immediate consideration
and favorable consideration.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Casey. Senator Reed, thank you very much.
We are honored that you are here today, and that is quite a
significant testimony about a nominee. We are grateful you are
able to provide that. You are welcome at the Foreign Relations
Committee anytime.
Thank you, everyone, and we will go right to our witnesses
now.
Mr. Patterson, you have the floor. Of course, if you want
to submit your statement for the record, both of your
statements, will be made part of the record in full.
And of course, if you want to go through your statement,
that is fine. We will try to keep it roughly to about 5
minutes, if you can. Or if you want to just summarize that
would be fine also.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT PATTERSON, OF NEW YORK, A CAREER MEMBER OF
THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF COUNSELOR, TO BE
AMBASSADOR TO TURKMENISTAN
Mr. Patterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I am honored to appear before you as
President Obama's nominee to become U.S. Ambassador to
Turkmenistan. I am grateful to the President and to Secretary
Clinton for their trust in me. If confirmed, I will work with
you to advance America's interests in Turkmenistan.
The United States recognized Turkmenistan in February 1992
and since that time has supported its development as a stable,
secure, democratic, and prosperous Central Asian state.
However, Turkmenistan lies in a tough neighborhood bordering
Iran and Afghanistan and faces many challenges in building
democratic institutions and in fighting corruption.
A key U.S. priority in Central Asia is to encourage efforts
to aid in the stabilization of Afghanistan. Turkmenistan shares
a long border with Afghanistan and is aware of the danger that
continuing instability there poses to itself and to other
countries in the region.
Turkmenistan has acted in accordance with its policy of
positive neutrality to provide discounted electricity, housing,
hospitals, and other forms of humanitarian aid to its Afghan
neighbors. President Berdimuhamedov's recent announcement of
the intention to increase electricity supplies fivefold to
Afghanistan is a welcome sign of continued engagement in that
important effort. If confirmed, I will encourage Turkmenistan
to continue to provide all possible support to Afghanistan.
Turkmenistan has significant natural gas reserves and is
seeking to diversify their distribution. President
Berdimuhamedov has expressed Turkmen interest in supplying gas
to Europe through a Trans-Caspian Pipeline. We continue to
strongly encourage Turkmenistan to send its gas across the
Caspian to Europe via the Southern corridor.
Another potential project is the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-
Pakistan-India, or TAPI, pipeline, which President
Berdimuhamedov has taken a leading role in promoting. If built,
TAPI would strengthen economic ties between Central and South
Asia by sending needed resources to growing markets.
U.S. firms have the experience and a demonstrated track
record in major energy projects. And if confirmed, I would work
hard to support their efforts to invest in Turkmenistan.
Of course, our commercial relationship with Turkmenistan
goes beyond energy. U.S. companies are active in various
sectors of the Turkmen economy, from agriculture to civil
aviation. If confirmed, I will actively support U.S. firms and
seek to expand economic ties with Turkmenistan, particularly in
light of the President's National Export Initiative.
As recent events have yet again demonstrated, respect for
human rights, the rule of law, and transparent and accountable
governmental institutions are essential to peace and long-term
stability in any country. If confirmed, I will energetically
engage the Government of Turkmenistan on the full range of
human rights issues, including arbitrary detentions and
arrests, limitations on freedom of movement and expression,
allegations of torture and prisoner abuse, and human
trafficking.
A frank and detailed discussion of human rights concerns
already has a prominent place in our Annual Bilateral
Consultations with high-ranking Turkmenistan Government
representatives. These consultations began in June 2010, and I
am certain that we will use future such meetings and other
contacts to discuss important human rights issues.
Turkmenistan's border with Afghanistan and its outlet to
the Caspian Sea have made it a significant drug transit
corridor. In recent years, the United States has had some
success in increasing cooperation with Turkmenistan on
counternarcotics programs, including improved control of its
borders and ports.
Much remains to be done, and if confirmed, I will seek
opportunities to strengthen our emerging counternarcotics and
border security cooperation with Turkmenistan, with the goal of
improving regional stability. A better capacity to combat the
drug trade at its source ultimately contributes to the well-
being of the United States.
Much of my 25 years in the State Department has been spent
at U.S. missions overseas, and I have come to believe that we
make our greatest impact on a country through engagement with
its people in their own communities. Some of these contacts
fall under the formal heading of public diplomacy, but much
happens when you simply get out and live life in the country to
which you are assigned.
In Turkmenistan, the small number of foreign visitors and
residents makes such incidental contacts all the more
important. And if confirmed, I will encourage colleagues in our
mission to demonstrate American values in their daily
interactions with citizens of Turkmenistan.
Finally, I know that, if confirmed, I will ultimately be
responsible for the welfare of the U.S. mission, my U.S.
mission colleagues, and their families in a fairly remote part
of the world. Their well-being and that of other Americans in
Turkmenistan will be a top priority.
Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Robert Patterson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert E. Patterson
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am honored to appear
before you as President Obama's nominee to become U.S. Ambassador to
Turkmenistan. I am grateful to the President and to Secretary Clinton
for their trust in me. If confirmed, I will work with you to advance
America's interests in Turkmenistan.
The United States recognized Turkmenistan in February 1992 and
since that time has supported its development as a stable, secure,
democratic, and prosperous Central Asian state. Turkmenistan lies in a
tough neighborhood bordering Iran and Afghanistan, and faces external
and internal challenges in building democratic institutions and civil
society, open media, and in fighting corruption.
A key U.S. priority in Central Asia is to encourage efforts to aid
in the stabilization of Afghanistan. Turkmenistan shares a long border
with Afghanistan and is aware of the danger that continuing instability
there poses to itself and to other countries in the region.
Turkmenistan has acted in accordance with its policy of ``positive
neutrality'' to provide discounted electricity, housing, hospitals, and
other forms of humanitarian aid to its Afghan neighbors. President
Berdimuhamedov's recent announcement of the intention to increase
electricity supplies fivefold to Afghanistan is a welcome sign of
Turkmenistan's continued engagement in that important effort. If
confirmed, I will encourage Turkmenistan to continue to provide all
possible support to Afghanistan.
Turkmenistan has significant natural gas reserves and is seeking to
diversify their distribution. In recent statements, President
Berdimuhamedov has expressed Turkmen interest in supplying gas to
Europe through a Trans-Caspian Pipeline. We continue to strongly
encourage Turkmenistan to send its gas across the Caspian to Europe via
the Southern Corridor. Another potential project is the Turkmenistan-
Afghanistan-Pakistan-India, or TAPI, pipeline, which President
Berdimuhamedov has taken a leading role in promoting. If built, TAPI
could strengthen economic ties between Central and South Asia by
sending needed resources to growing markets. U.S. firms have the
experience and a demonstrated track record in major energy projects,
and, if confirmed, I would work hard to support their efforts to invest
in projects in Turkmenistan, including projects like the Trans-Caspian
Pipeline and TAPI.
Our commercial relationship with Turkmenistan goes beyond its
prominent energy sector, however. U.S. companies are active in various
sectors of the Turkmen economy--ranging from agriculture to civil
aviation. If confirmed, I will actively support U.S. firms and seek to
expand economic ties with Turkmenistan, particularly in light of the
President's National Export Initiative.
As recent events have yet again demonstrated, respect for human
rights, the rule of law, and transparent and accountable governmental
institutions are essential to peace and long-term stability in any
country. If confirmed, I will energetically engage the Government of
Turkmenistan on the full range of human rights issues, including
arbitrary detentions and arrests, limitations on freedom of movement
and expression, allegations of torture and prisoner abuse, and human
trafficking. A frank and detailed discussion of human rights concerns
already has a prominent place in our Annual Bilateral Consultations
with high-ranking Turkmenistan Government representatives. Those
consultations began in June 2010, and I am certain that we will use
such meetings and other contacts with the Turkmen Government in the
future, to discuss important human rights issues.
Turkmenistan's border with Afghanistan and outlet to the Caspian
Sea have made it a significant drug transit corridor. In recent years,
the United States has had some success in increasing cooperation with
Turkmenistan on counternarcotics programs, including improved control
of its borders and ports. Much remains to be done, and if confirmed I
will seek opportunities to strengthen our emerging counternarcotics and
border security cooperation with Turkmenistan with the goal of
improving regional stability. A better capacity to combat the drug
trade at its source ultimately contributes to the well-being of the
United States.
Much of my 25 years in the State Department has been spent at U.S.
missions overseas, and I have come to believe that we make our greatest
impact on a country through engagement with its people in their own
communities. Some of these contacts fall under the formal heading of
``public diplomacy,'' but much happens when you simply get out and live
life in the country to which you are assigned. In Turkmenistan, the
small number of foreign visitors and residents makes such incidental
contacts all the more important, and, if confirmed, I will encourage
colleagues in our mission to demonstrate American values in their daily
interactions with citizens of Turkmenistan. I believe that ``public
diplomacy,'' promoting more official people-to-people exchanges, should
also be a major priority. More than 740 Peace Corps Volunteers have
been actively engaged in this effort in Turkmenistan since the start of
the program there in 1993, teaching English and promoting health
education in remote parts of the country.
Finally, I know that, if confirmed, I will ultimately be
responsible for the welfare of my U.S. mission colleagues and their
families in a fairly remote part of the world. Their welfare will be my
top priority, as will the well-being and interests of other American
citizens living in Turkmenistan.
Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions.
Senator Casey. Thank you, Mr. Patterson.
Ms. Rudman.
STATEMENT OF MARA E. RUDMAN, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE AN
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Rudman. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to appear before
you today.
I want to express my appreciation for the trust and
confidence that President Obama and Administrator Shah have
placed in me through this nomination. And I am grateful to have
the strong support of Secretary Clinton.
It is difficult to conceive of a more challenging time to
be considered for this portfolio. In country after country, the
people of the region have, in a word, inspired. As the
President said last week, ``We must stand alongside those who
believe in the same core principles that have guided us through
many storms.''
If confirmed, I look forward to working with the dedicated
women and men of USAID and colleagues throughout the U.S.
Government, laying the foundation for diplomatic and
development strategies that will serve us and the peoples and
countries of the Middle East in the months and years ahead. I
want especially to recognize the dedicated public service of
George Laudato, who has led the Bureau for the past 3 years.
This transition and period of regional change are providing
a rapid-fire chance to operationalize Secretary Clinton and
Administrator Shah's shared goal--to modernize and strengthen
USAID, reaffirming its status as the premier development agency
in the world. If confirmed, I can assure you that no one will
work harder to see that we are responding effectively to the
great challenges and historic opportunities that we face.
In that regard, my objectives for the Middle East Bureau go
to areas that I believe are critical to the sustainability,
growth, and success of our policy missions. If confirmed, I
would focus on managing our relationships with key countries so
as to move from assistance to cooperation and partnership.
I would work to ensure that the best and most innovative
initiatives are not only developed, but implemented
effectively. And I would coordinate closely with colleagues at
State, Treasury, and the White House and Defense to see that we
are truly practicing smart diplomacy, using development,
diplomacy, and defense as mutually reinforcing policy platforms
to make the objectives of the QDDR come alive.
I focus on the pragmatic, on the details of how to get
things done and bridge the gaps with a range of actors, across
cultures internationally and domestically. I recognize that it
is important to have a political horizon, a strategic vision.
But once we have it, we must be able to maintain the vision
while we implement programs and projects with maximum
effectiveness.
Under the leadership of Administrator Shah, USAID is
implementing an aggressive agenda to streamline development
work, the USAID Forward agenda, which you mentioned. In this
context, I am excited that the Middle East Bureau is already
brokering new approaches to development.
I appreciate the enormity of tasks ahead in this region and
in this position. I also recognize how fortunate I am to have
worked with and for people who helped me prepare to take this
challenge. I would like to specifically thank Representatives
Lee Hamilton, Howard Berman, and Sam Gejdenson, leaders on the
House Foreign Affairs Committee, for the investment they have
made in guiding me.
I also owe much to Senator Reed and Senator Shaheen, who
have been gracious with their counsel to me over the years, and
to Chairman Kerry. Among other things, Chairman Kerry showed me
how, by example, to conference a bill in my early days as
HFAC's chief counsel.
I have spent much time deeply involved in the Middle East,
from my first position as a legislative assistant for my
hometown Congressman to my current work as a deputy to Senator
Mitchell, where, among other things, I coordinate United States
efforts to support Palestinian institution-building.
Through my time in Government, I have learned to appreciate
the dynamics among and between the agencies and actors that
play a role on foreign assistance and foreign policy. To
implement programs effectively and meet foreign policy
objectives, it is critical to navigate smoothly in this
environment. I also value the time I have spent working on both
ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, in different parts of the
executive and with the judiciary.
When working on governance challenges in other parts of the
world, it has made a huge difference for me to be able to draw
upon the experience I have had in our own Government--a
contentious floor debate, an intricate conference bill
negotiation, a complex set of jury instructions to be drafted,
advising a President, working out budget differences with a
legislature controlled by the opposition party.
I discovered the magic of how quickly this makes the world
a much smaller place when I found myself explaining the House
Rules Committee operations to a group of villagers in a remote
part of the West Bank when the Palestinian Legislative Council
had just run its first election in the mid-1990s, and rules
that would govern its proceedings were at the time heavily
debated among its citizenry.
This is because, as President Obama described in Cairo
nearly 2 years ago, ``All people yearn for certain things--the
ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are
governed, confidence in the rule of law and the equal
administration of justice, government that is transparent and
doesn't steal from the people, the freedom to live as you
choose.''
As President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Administrator
Shah believe, we have the power to create the world we seek if
we have the courage to embrace opportunity and the willingness
to do things smartly, sometimes differently, and together.
I am honored to be considered for this position and fully
appreciate the responsibility and challenges it entails. I am
deeply committed to the mission of USAID and the role it plays
in advancing our national security, promoting economic
opportunity, and embodying our core American values.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
welcome any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mara E. Rudman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mara E. Rudman
Mr. Chairman, ranking member, distinguished members of the
committee, it is an honor to appear before you today as President
Obama's nominee to be the next Assistant Administrator for the Middle
East at the U.S. Agency for International Development.
I want to express my appreciation for the trust and confidence that
President Obama and Administrator Shah have placed in me through this
nomination. And I am grateful to have the strong support of Secretary
Clinton.
It is difficult to conceive of a more challenging time to be
considered for this portfolio. In country after country the people of
the region have, in a word, inspired. As the President said last week,
``we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles
that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence
directed against one's own citizens, our support for a set of universal
rights . . . [and] our support for governments that are ultimately
responsive to the aspirations of the people.''
If confirmed, I look forward to working with the dedicated women
and men of USAID, and colleagues throughout the U.S. Government, laying
the foundation for diplomatic and development strategies that will
serve us and the peoples and countries of the Middle East in the months
and years ahead. I want especially to recognize the dedicated public
service of George Laudato, who has led the Bureau for the past 3 years,
having been called back to USAID from retirement to do so.
This transition and period of regional change are providing a
rapid-fire chance to operationalize Secretary Clinton and Administrator
Shah's shared goal: to modernize and strengthen USAID, reaffirming its
status as the premier development agency in the world. If confirmed, I
look forward to picking up the baton as my colleagues are working to
make important progress. I can assure you that no one will work harder
to see that we are responding most effectively to the great challenges
and historic opportunities that we face.
In that regard, my objectives for the Middle East Bureau go to
areas that I believe are critical to the sustainability, growth, and
success of our policy missions. If confirmed, I would:
Focus on managing our relationships with key countries so as
to move from ``assistance'' to ``cooperation and partnership.''
Work to ensure that the best and most innovative initiatives
are not only developed, but implemented effectively; that we
evaluate the results, and learn from and apply those lessons
going forward.
Coordinate closely with colleagues at State, Defense,
Treasury, and the White House to see that we are truly
practicing smart diplomacy, using development, diplomacy, and
defense as mutually reinforcing policy platforms to make the
objectives of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review
(QDDR) come alive.
I believe in the importance of focusing on the pragmatic--on the
details of how to get things done and ``bridge the gaps'' with a range
of actors, across cultures internationally and domestically. I
recognize that it is important to have a political horizon, a policy
objective, a strategic vision. But once we have it, we must be able to
maintain the vision while we implement programs and projects with
maximum effectiveness.
Under the leadership of Administrator Shah, USAID is implementing
an aggressive agenda to streamline development work, the ``USAID
Forward'' agenda, which builds on Secretary Clinton's QDDR and the
Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development. In this context, I
am excited that the Middle East Bureau is already brokering new
approaches to development.
I appreciate the enormity of tasks ahead in this region and
position. I also recognize how fortunate I am to have worked with and
for people who have helped prepare me to take on this challenge. I
would like to specifically thank Representatives Lee Hamilton, Howard
Berman, and Sam Gejdenson, leaders on the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, for the investment they have made in guiding me. I also owe
much to Senators Jack Reed and Jeanne Shaheen, who have been gracious
with their counsel, and to Chairman Kerry. Among other things, he
showed me by example what it really meant to conference a bill in my
early days as HFAC's chief counsel.
I have spent much time deeply involved in the Middle East, from my
first position as a legislative assistant for my hometown Congressman,
who served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee; to a research
fellowship in the region; to work as chief counsel at the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, where I focused among other matters on rule of law
efforts and programs.
When I served President Clinton as a deputy national security
advisor and Chief of Staff at the National Security Council, I helped
to coordinate strategic and budget aspects of the Middle East peace
negotiations efforts. I explored yet another aspect of these issues in
my work in the private sector, where I assisted in creating the
nonprofit economic development oriented Middle East Investment
Initiative. Now, as a deputy to Senator Mitchell, I have spent the
majority of my time focusing on coordinating U.S. efforts to support
the Palestinian institution-building program, across U.S. agencies, in
Washington and in the field, and among Palestinian Authority, Israeli,
and international actors.
Through my time in government, I have learned to appreciate the
dynamics among and between the agencies and actors that play a role on
foreign assistance and foreign policy matters. To implement programs
effectively, and meet policy objectives, it is critical to navigate
smoothly in this environment.
I also value the time I have spent working on both ends of
Pennsylvania Avenue, in different parts of the executive, and with the
judiciary. Given the critical role of the legislative branch in funding
and overseeing foreign assistance programs and policy, the executive
branch in setting and developing policy, and the powerful balancing
role of our judiciary, having an insider's familiarity with these
institutions has served me well, and will continue to do so in this
role, if confirmed.
When working on governance challenges in other parts of the world,
it has made a huge difference for me to be able to draw upon experience
I have had in our own government: a contentious floor debate, an
intricate conference bill negotiation, a complex set of jury
instructions to be drafted, advising a President, or working out budget
differences with a legislature controlled by the opposition party. I
discovered this firsthand when I found myself explaining the House
Rules Committee operations to a group of villagers in a remote part of
the West Bank when the Palestinian Legislative Council had just run its
first election in the mid 1990s and rules that would govern its
proceedings were at the time heavily debated among the citizenry.
Indeed, as President Obama described articulated in Cairo nearly 2
years ago, ``[A]ll people yearn for certain things: the ability to
speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in
the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government
that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to
live as you choose.''
In presenting the foreign assistance budget request recently,
Secretary Clinton noted ``Generations of Americans . . . have grown up
successful and safe because we chose to lead the world in tackling the
greatest challenges. We invested the resources to build up democratic
allies and vibrant trading partners. And we did not shy away from
defending our values, promoting our interests, and seizing the
opportunities of each new era . . . the world has never been in greater
need of the qualities that distinguish us: our openness and innovation,
our determination, our devotion to universal values.''
As President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Administrator Shah
believe, we have the power to create the world we seek if we have the
courage to embrace opportunity and the willingness to do things
smartly, sometimes differently, and together.
I am honored to be considered for this position and fully
appreciate the responsibilities and challenges it entails. I am deeply
committed to the mission of USAID and the role it plays in advancing
our national security, promoting economic opportunity, and advancing
our embodying our core American values.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
welcome any questions you might have.
Senator Casey. Thank you very much.
I wanted to, for the record, just read the heading of a
statement for the record that Senator Shaheen made available to
us. This is a statement for the record for today's nomination
hearing in support of the nomination of Mara Rudman to be
Assistant Administrator for the Middle East, U.S. Agency for
International Development. And that is, of course, dated today.
I wanted to make sure that Senator Shaheen's statement was
made part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Shaheen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jeanne Shaheen,
U.S. Senator From New Hampshire
Chairman Casey and Ranking Member Risch, thank you for holding this
important nomination hearing.
I am pleased today to speak in strong support of Mara Rudman's
nomination as the next Assistant Administrator for the Middle East at
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). At a critical
time in the volatile and dangerous Middle East region, President Obama
and USAID Administrator Shah have made an exceptional choice in
nominating Mara to fill this important role.
I had the great pleasure of traveling with Mara to the Palestinian
West Bank on NDI election monitoring missions during the historic
elections in both 2005 and 2006. During these missions, I had the
opportunity to witness firsthand Mara's impressive grasp and
understanding of this complex region, as well as her sharp intellect
and her focused commitment to peace for the people of the Middle East.
Mara has remained a good friend to my office, and her valued counsel
over the years has been insightful, prudent, and sound.
Mara's impressive background and experience in Middle East issues
is substantive and wide-ranging. She is currently the Deputy Envoy and
Chief of Staff to one of our country's most prominent and capable
diplomats, Senator George Mitchell, the current Special Envoy for
Middle East Peace at the State Department. Under President Clinton, as
a Deputy National Security Advisor, she helped to coordinate U.S.
efforts to negotiate Middle East peace.
Mara has served in distinguished positions throughout government
and the private sector--including stints on Capitol Hill, on the
National Security Council staff, and at the Cohen Group. Her degree
from New Hampshire's own Dartmouth College further adds to her
impressive resume. Mara will face daunting challenges and enormous
opportunities, should she be confirmed, but I am confident that Mara's
experiences and background have prepared her well to take on these new
responsibilities and to succeed at USAID.
In today's complex international environment, it is critical for
USAID and the State Department to recruit and retain America's best and
brightest if we are to overcome the difficult security challenges of
the 21st century. Mara Rudman is clearly one of our Nation's more
capable and experienced foreign policy minds, and I am proud to fully
support Mara's nomination for this important position at USAID.
I would urge my colleagues to quickly and positively act on her
nomination. I want to thank the committee for your time and
consideration, and thank you to Mara for again returning to public
service. I look forward to working with her in her new endeavor.
Senator Casey. I want to thank you both for your
willingness to serve again and again in difficult assignments,
and I have a number of questions. I will try to alternate. I
will start with Mr. Patterson, just by way of the order of
speaking.
First of all, I wanted to focus on Iran. As much as we have
had a focus in the region, it seems like every other week,
there is a new country that comes into sharper focus in the
region, and that is understandable. We have, I think, an
ongoing challenge presented by the Iranian regime. And I know
that this Sunday, the New York Times had a review on that, and
I thought it was very helpful.
One of the strategies that we have employed with regard to
Iran, and I think it is the right strategy--is to do everything
we can to isolate the regime. And I think we have made some
good progress on that, especially as it relates to sanctions.
As we move down the pathway to further implementation of
that particular part of our strategy of isolation, we know that
the assignment you are about to undertake upon confirmation
will have some tension with that. Based upon both geography and
history, Turkmenistan has longstanding ties with Iran, and I
guess I would ask you, as Ambassador, how you help to manage
that in your own work, where one of our policy objectives is
isolation as it relates to the regime. How are you supporting
that policy, while not discouraging Turkmen investment and also
the cooperation that takes place with Iran's energy sector?
How do you manage all that in the context of a difficult
assignment?
Mr. Patterson. Mr. Chairman, thanks for that question.
One of the key issues, obviously, is the sanctions regime
that is in place with Iran. And the State Department, the
administration has gone out of its way to make sure that the
Government of Turkmenistan is aware of the sanctions that are
currently in place. There have been demarches from our Embassy
in Ashgabat on a number of occasions to the Turkmenistan
Government to keep them aware of sanctions in place and as they
change.
Last week, a small delegation from the State Department
traveled to Ashgabat and met there with American companies that
are represented in Turkmenistan to brief them on sanctions
regimes as well and to make sure that in the course of doing
business with the Government of Turkmenistan and in the region,
that they didn't, inadvertently do anything that would
contravene the sanction regime in place.
If confirmed as Ambassador, I would work very hard to make
sure that the government is aware. I am aware, as are you, Mr.
Chairman, that Turkmenistan shares a border with Iran, and
there is a trading relationship in place. Part of it is as the
result of people of the same nationality on both sides of the
border, and this has been going on for centuries.
But certainly our concerns would be first and foremost in
my mind as I take up this post, if confirmed, and I would make
sure that the Government of Turkmenistan was aware of them.
Thank you.
Senator Casey. No, thank you. And I know that probably one
of the challenges is to be able to encourage leaders to be able
to compartmentalize, to be able to understand and appreciate a
strategic objective we have, but also knowing that we can also
have a constructive relationship with Turkmenistan.
I have another question that relates to energy and, of
course, natural gas is central to that. I would ask you, if you
are confirmed, what efforts would you make to encourage
Turkmenistan to pursue alternative routes with regard to
natural gas exports?
Mr. Patterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Turkmenistan has already taken a few steps in diversifying
its markets. As you know, it has a relationship with China, and
a pipeline was built and inaugurated in December 2009 that
ships significant amounts of natural gas to China. In place at
the time that the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991 were routes
that took natural gas to Russia, of course.
The administration has been encouraged by President
Berdimuhamedov and the Turkmen Government's interest in
aggressively exploring the possibility of the TAPI pipeline
that I mentioned in my testimony. If built, and there are many
challenges in building this pipeline, that pipeline would bring
natural gas to India and to Afghanistan and to Pakistan.
Much remains to be done, but we have made it clear to the
Government of Turkmenistan that American companies are able and
have the skills necessary to help the government overcome
technical challenges as it considers going forward with that
project. We have also been encouraged by recent statements that
have been made supporting the Trans-Caspian pipeline, the
Southern corridor that I mention in my testimony.
Again, we believe that there are challenges to completing
the construction of that pipeline, but American companies are
in place in Ashgabat, as I mentioned earlier, and are more than
eager to get involved in that kind of a project. So, if
confirmed, I would work hard to make sure that this process of
diversification that has already begun continues.
Thank you.
Senator Casey. I have one more question, and then I do want
to turn to the Middle East. One question I have is just based
upon your own review of the data and to the extent to which you
can get a good sense of the economy in Turkmenistan. What is
your assessment of their economic situation now?
Because we know that throughout the world, we have lived
through a couple of years of pretty fragile economies in many
places. And of course, energy plays a big role in that. But how
would you assess the strengths and the challenges in their
economy?
Mr. Patterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Turkmenistan remains heavily dependent on natural gas
resources. Attempts are being made to diversify, but at this
point, much of the income that comes into the country comes
from the distribution of natural gas and other such resources.
It is difficult to find authoritative economic statistics
on Turkmenistan. The statistics that we do have seem to show a
major growth in the economy. Much of the basic purchases of the
population are subsidized in one form or another by the
government as a result of these natural gas and other incomes.
But it seems that since coming to office in 2007, President
Berdimuhamedov has understood the need to do more than just
rely on natural gas and has begun looking for other
opportunities for the economy. This includes in agriculture to
a much lesser extent, of course, and manufacturing.
American companies, again--and I see this as part of my
mandate, if confirmed--have played a role in some of the
sectors of the economy that have been explored by the
Government of Turkmenistan. Agriculture, there are companies
like Case, Caterpillar, and construction and others that are in
place there. And if confirmed as Ambassador, I would make an
effort to make sure that the expertise that U.S. companies have
can help expand this process of diversification of the economy.
Thank you.
Senator Casey. Thank you.
I want to turn to the Middle East for a couple of minutes.
Ms. Rudman, thank you for your testimony, and I know when we
were talking yesterday, one of the challenges that we discussed
was how you do your job and how USAID approaches the region in
light of this remarkable change.
And again, it is hard in a few words to be able to
summarize or fully encapsulate what has happened in the Middle
East and what will happen yet ahead of us. For anyone who has
any exposure at all to the challenges within the region, that
is a difficult assignment. But how do you approach it in terms
of rebalancing our priorities and our approach to the region?
And I realize that you cannot simply think of it as one
region, as one jurisdiction. You have to approach each country
individually, in addition to having a regional strategic
vision. But how do you approach that as you start down this
road?
Ms. Rudman. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question.
I appreciate the opportunity to look at these issues. I am,
obviously, at this point in the position of looking at this
from an ``if confirmed'' perspective, and I have had the
opportunity, through the briefings I have been going through,
to be looking at these issues prospectively.
And so, in responding in that way, I would say that you,
Mr. Chairman, brought up a number of points in your opening
statement that I think are consistent with an approach that
would be a sensible one here. In other words, to look at the
region in a way that takes into account both, as you said, a
country-by-country perspective, but also requires the U.S.
Government as a whole, as well as the Agency for International
Development, to be agile, to be more agile perhaps than the
agency has been to date but is getting more so.
To be agile, to be responsive, and to look carefully at how
we respond, how the Agency for International Development
responds and not just where the agency responds going forward
as well. I would say that USAID has been going through a very
thorough review of all of its programs across the board in the
region, as well as a very significant country-by-country
review, and has shown a significant degree of flexibility in
terms of what it is able to do to respond with, I believe, a
significant degree of flexibility. I think we have seen that.
You mentioned Libya, for example, and what has been
happening there in terms of humanitarian response. I know there
has been a great deal of briefing on Egypt to date. And again,
that is a whole of government response.
And so, there is both a need to look at this in a--and we
talked about this yesterday--in a country-by-country way. There
is a need to look at it in terms of regional strategic
approach, and there is a need to look at it in terms of a
response to other countries in the region, consistent with some
of the questions that you asked of my colleague here at the
table as well.
And in each of these cases, we are going to need to apply a
variety of filters. We, the U.S. Government, as well as those
specifically within the Agency for International Development,
must be able to, from the soft development perspective, do our
part for the whole of government response and be as agile as
possible in doing so.
Senator Casey. Yes; I guess in a region like the Middle
East where you always have tension, that is one of the
realities that will persist, even in this new environment. You
probably have more instability now than you did before, but
there are also some opportunities. Because prior to this,
depending on the country, USAID might have been, in a sense,
more limited, because you were dealing with a very strong,
authoritarian government that would only let you do so much.
Now you have opportunities.
You have a fervor for change and for helping folks on the
ground, and support for democratic change and human rights and
development. These are all positive developments, I think. So
you have both opportunities, but you also have some uncertainty
about the institutions you are dealing with--who will be the
leader, and how you will deliver that aid.
So in a word, you have to be nimble, and you won't have as
much predictability as you might have had before. And I don't
underestimate the change.
One of the difficulties that USAID will have, is a set of
budget constraints and, I think, a focus on results and a
heightened degree of scrutiny on the work that USAID does in
this context. Because I think that the American people are
paying much closer attention to the Middle East and to these
developments in the context of not just what is happening
there, but also in the context of budget constraints.
I mentioned in our meeting yesterday that I was in the
region in July. And it is just remarkable the difference
between then and now. We were in Egypt and had a meeting at the
Embassy with civil society leaders, and their the major focus
was on fairness in the monitoring of elections. That was the
extent, that was the full ambit of what they were thinking of
at that time and focused on.
I would have a much different meeting and much different
visit now. We wouldn't even be meeting with the same government
officials. And I think that is true of other places in the
region.
One of the places we visited was Lebanon. As I mentioned
yesterday, the overwhelming and predominant presence of
Hezbollah and the influence that Hezbollah has in that country
is just extraordinary, at least from my own experience. I have
never been in a place where there was that kind of predominant
presence of one organization, in this case a terrorist
organization.
The Lebanese Government officials, as well as the leaders
of their Armed Forces, were very grateful to the American
people for helping train their army and their police, and I was
happy that they recognized that. But of course, now the
situation has changed in Lebanon as well. And with that change,
with the ascendancy of Hezbollah and the greater impact and
influence that Hezbollah will have, we have to consider whether
or not our strategy will change with regard to aid, military
and otherwise.
I know that we have provided that kind of assistance, and
the President requested $100 million in assistance for Lebanon
for fiscal year 2012, the budget that we have not quite begun
to debate here on Capitol Hill. But given the influence that
Hezbollah has, I am worried about how we will approach this
assistance.
How do you deal with that as it relates to your work, upon
confirmation, at USAID? How do you assess that in the context
of all the changes, even apart from the region, just within
Lebanon itself? Because we want to, obviously, continue to be
helpful, but how do you approach that in your work?
Ms. Rudman. Sure, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the question.
I appreciate your concerns about it.
I know that you raised the question with Secretary Clinton
as well. So I know the depth of your concern on this issue.
As you know, the government, of course, is still being
formed in Lebanon. We are watching that very closely, and we
will review, are in the process of reviewing our assistance
closely and are continuing, however, to plan our assistance
program so that we can be prepared for a variety of different
outcomes and possibilities.
So that for exactly I think what you observed when you were
over there, that we are prepared to be able to have an impact
in a variety of different circumstances so that we can have the
greatest possible impact, understanding, of course, that we
can't, won't, do not engage with Hezbollah under any
circumstances. And so, we are watching very closely, obviously,
the development of that government.
That said, the USAID portfolio has been one that has had,
we believe, a significant and useful impact in the country.
USAID works in a number of low-income areas in that country,
has worked in microenterprise, has created jobs, in significant
ways has also worked in civil society. And so, USAID has had
impact in some significant ways and has the opportunity to
continue to have and build upon that kind of impact going
forward, again, nongovernmental opportunities.
And so, USAID has the ability to continue to do that kind
of work, and the agency would look to, going forward, do that
kind of work. And if confirmed, I would hope to have the
opportunity to engage with you as we see what happens with the
development of the government as we go forward.
And we certainly know, are quite cognizant both of the
budget situation and of the need to consult. We have heard loud
and clear what your concerns are, and we would share those
concerns as we see how that government develops.
Senator Casey. I should say, are there lines, bright lines,
redlines, whatever phrase you use? But I guess I would ask
this. Do you think the lines will change in terms of how we
deal with Hezbollah, or is there a kind of standard that you
would use to approach how USAID deals with Lebanon with regard
to Hezbollah?
Is there a standard in place now, or is that something that
would have to develop or be altered based upon the changed
circumstances? Because the American people understand that when
we provide aid to a country, sometimes there are figures within
the government that cause us real concern.
Hezbollah has, as you know, controlled ministries, and I
want to get a sense of whether or not you would have to develop
new standards or whether you would apply the same set of
standards even in the aftermath of this change?
Ms. Rudman. Mr. Chairman, the standards that are in place
in terms of the rules that govern USAID and, in fact, the rest
of our Government with respect to lack of contact and lack of
assistance, it would be hard for me to imagine those changing
under any circumstances.
Senator Casey. I know the President's fiscal year 2012
budget request includes $400.4 million in economic assistance
to the West Bank and Gaza to strengthen the Palestinian
Authority, and I am quoting here, ``To strengthen the
Palestinian Authority as a credible partner in Middle East
peace and security efforts and continue to respond to
humanitarian needs in Gaza.''
And the request also states that the assistance will
``provide significant resources to support Palestinian
Authority reform efforts,'' and it goes on from there about
what that entails.
Based on your own significant experience and on what you
see ahead of us in terms of support for those efforts in the
West Bank, in regard to the Palestinian Authority. In July,
myself, Senator Shaheen and Senator Kaufman delivered a message
on behalf of our government to our counterparts in Saudi Arabia
encouraging Saudi Arabia, among others, to pay its dues, so to
speak, to help the Palestinian Authority as we have done.
But tell us a little a bit about that, and then I will move
back to Mr. Patterson.
Ms. Rudman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My challenge in responding to this question is being brief.
So I will try to take that into account.
Senator Casey. We do have a lot of time because I am not
going to call on anybody unless the staff wants to do some
questions.
Ms. Rudman. The effort for the United States Government
with respect to Palestinian state-building is one where we have
a real partnership with the Palestinian leadership with respect
to President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad and also with
respect to the Israeli side. And I say this from a position of,
as I said in my opening statement, in the coordination role
that I currently work in.
I work on a regular basis both across our Government with a
whole of government approach and with the Palestinian
leadership and the Israeli leadership on a daily, if not
sometimes an hourly, basis in moving forward with these
programs. And so, in this case, we have a Palestinian
leadership vision in a number of key areas from governance to
health, education, infrastructure, which focuses on water
issues; where we are very much focused point right now for both
the West Bank and Gaza and working in close coordination,
again, with the Israeli Water Authority and the Israeli Defense
Ministry in moving forward on those key issues, as well as road
infrastructure, and then also on economic development issues.
And without close cooperation, again, with the Israeli
side, we would not be able to advance in any of those issues.
And we work very closely with key leaders of the international
community as well.
On all of these issues, I have often said it is a privilege
to work with the doers, and often it is the doers more than the
talkers on the state-building, institution-building side of
things. And so that I do believe a number of real results have
been achieved.
Folks here may hear less about those results than you do,
frankly, on the negotiating track side of things, and the
United States has a dual track approach, on institution-
building and on the negotiating side of things. The
institution-building side of things has been able to achieve a
little bit more of late than the negotiating side has. We
certainly very much hope that the negotiating side is able to
pick up.
But both sides are mutually reinforcing. And what we have
said all along is that they need to be mutually reinforcing,
and one ultimately cannot succeed without the other. And both
are necessary for both Israelis and Palestinians and for the
United States ultimately and for our interests in the region.
And so, to get back to your initial question, the $400.4
million request is one that folks should have every confidence
is funding that is well spent, is money that is going toward
tangible benefits on the ground for Palestinian people and for
Israelis to be able to see the results of how that funding is
spent.
Senator Casey. On our trip, we had a chance to spend some
time on the West Bank and we sat down with Prime Minister
Fayyad. He was very focused on specific projects, literally
hundreds, if not thousands of them. And so, the aid that our
Government and a lot of governments have provided is bearing
fruit.
I do want to move back to Mr. Patterson for a few
questions. I wanted to raise a question that I referred to in
my opening statement about political prisoners in Turkmenistan.
If confirmed, what steps would you take to persuade the
government to free these prisoners, in the interim, to allow
for free access for independent monitors to include the
International Committee of the Red Cross?
I realize that these kinds of challenges don't have a
textbook that is prepared for you, but can you give us a sense
of the kind of the steps you would take as you begin?
Mr. Patterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an important
question.
We have in place some mechanisms for discussing human
rights issues, including those with specific prisoners like the
ones you mentioned in your opening statement. We compile
reports every year, as you know, that get the best possible
information. Both our religious freedom report and our human
rights report and our trafficking in persons report cover human
rights practices in Turkmenistan.
And we take the information from those and from other
sources and meet at our newly inaugurated Annual Bilateral
Consultations where human rights plays a prominent role. The
first meeting of the ABC was in June 2010. We recently, in
February, had a review. And at both of those meetings, high-
level U.S. Government officials discussed with their Turkmen
Government counterparts specific cases and specific practices
and the challenges that they pose.
We saw today perhaps a little bit of very modest progress
on that agenda. We received--our Embassy in Ashgabat received
information from the government about the status of two of the
prisoners that you mentioned that you had signed a letter
about, Mr. Amanklychev and Mr. Khadzhiev. The Turkmen
Government provided us information about the medical care that
they have received, visits they have had from their families,
et cetera.
So this is modest, as I said. But it is, perhaps, a sign
that the kind of dialogue that we have is beginning to bear
some fruit. If confirmed, I would hope to go to Ashgabat, build
a constructive relationship with Turkmen Government
representatives, and use that constructive relationship to make
human rights an important part of the interactions that I have
there.
You mentioned visits to prisoners and the problem with the
ICRC. It is a difficult nut to crack. The ICRC has felt that
the conditions that have been offered it aren't acceptable. I
would do what I can to ensure that some access to prisons is
made available. It is not clear to me at this juncture, to be
honest, how I will proceed. But certainly, it will be one of my
major concerns when I am there.
Thank you.
Senator Casey. And of course, the earlier that you can
raise it, the earlier you can implement a strategy, the better.
But I realize as well sometimes we have expectations that can
exceed the reality. Upon confirmation, you will be walking into
an assignment that hasn't been filled in quite a while, and you
will have to develop relationships and build some confidence
and trust. But obviously, the earlier that you can move on
that, the better.
Also one question about nongovernmental organizations,
NGOs, and the restrictions that the government places on them.
Can you tell us anything about how you will approach that
issue?
Mr. Patterson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Again, a very good
question.
The Mejlis, the Turkmen Parliament, has been considering
changes to the public organizations law. We will have to see
what those changes might produce. Some changes that are
contemplated, if implemented, might mean a somewhat better
environment for nongovernmental organizations to operate in.
In the meantime----
Senator Casey. Statutory change of some type?
Mr. Patterson. These would be, if implemented, statutory
changes. Again, adopting the law and implementing the law, as I
understand it, are two different things. But perhaps there is a
possibility here.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, I would like to
focus a lot on people-to-people exchanges. I think we have had
some modest success in building a degree of trust with the
Turkmen Government about those exchanges, about bringing
students and others to the United States. I am for having
representatives from Fulbright programs and other programs go
to Turkmenistan.
I didn't mention in my statement, but in the part that is
for the record, we have a Peace Corps that is in place with 31
members throughout Turkmenistan. And from what I have heard,
their presence has done a good deal toward perhaps trying to
erase stereotypes about the United States and giving people
some firsthand contact with Americans.
So I would foresee an incremental approach to this
difficult problem, hope for changes in the law that will create
a better environment, but in the meantime, work on the people-
to-people front. And of course, talk to the Turkmen Government
about how more opportunities for participation among more of
its citizens ultimately is in the interests and engendering
stability in the country.
Thank you.
Senator Casey. I will ask you one broad question. If you
had to point to one or more experiences you have had around the
world in different places and different assignments, is there
one or a combination of experiences you had that you think will
be particularly helpful in this assignment if you are
confirmed?
Mr. Patterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wouldn't point to one specific experience. Much of my
career was spent in what was then the Soviet Union, and I had a
good deal of experience at the times that I was there in
working with NGOs that were attempting to move their agendas
forward in a difficult environment.
I feel that I understand, although this may be a little bit
too optimistic before going there, the kind of environment that
awaits me in Turkmenistan. I hope that some of the experiences
that I had in the Soviet Union during the Perestroika period
and before and also experiences that I had in Russia after the
Soviet Union fell apart will come to my aid as I attempt to
grapple with these problems.
To be sure, Turkmenistan is not Russia, and I don't mean to
imply that it is. But it was part of the Soviet Union for some
time, and there is a certain legacy that it shares. That legacy
is fading with time, as all things do. But I think,
nevertheless, that some of the ideas that I had in working with
people there and some of the practices that I saw might be
useful as I approach this new assignment, if confirmed.
Senator Casey. Thank you.
Along those same lines, Ms. Rudman, as you have the
experience of working with Democrats and Republicans in the
House and the Senate, you are probably prepared for just about
anything. And I know that experience will help you enormously.
One of the places that we hear most about when it relates
to al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or when President Saleh
might be moving to a different chapter in his life, is Yemen.
And this is true of a lot of countries in the Middle East; we
hear most about them when there are stories that relate to
violence. We hear a lot about Yemen in those contexts, but we
don't hear nearly enough about the poverty, the water shortage,
the human misery that sometimes creates the foundation or the
wellspring of a lot of the difficulties that that country is
having.
In some ways, a place like Yemen is almost ready-made for
all that USAID does well. And I wanted to get your sense of
that in light of not just the problems, the horrific poverty
and the challenges there, but also in light of both those
problems juxtaposed with substantial unrest and change at the
highest levels of the government. How do you approach that?
What was a difficult set of circumstances before, but maybe
now even more difficult in light of what you would be trying to
do with USAID there. What is your sense of that? And I know it
is kind of a broad, difficult question. But as you know, we
have some time here.
Ms. Rudman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
question.
And USAID has been looking, not surprisingly, at the
situation in Yemen. It has been working there, USAID, for some
time. It has been doing capacity-building work in Yemen. It
continues to work in Yemen, even now with the situation as it
is, and has been able to continue working there, even with the
difficult situation.
It has been looking at changing some of its programming,
obviously, with the situation on the ground. And the work that
it has been doing in the capacity-building context, some of
that work has been at the level of technocrats in the
government. So it is not that all work is--there is a
transitional element to it, even with, as you say, President
Saleh, with some transition going on there, there is a level
within the bureaucracy that would continue to benefit from the
types of capacity-building work that has been ongoing.
But more broadly, the type of negotiation and dialogue and
discussion that is very important within Yemen and that has
been opening up more broadly across a greater part of the
population is something that USAID has been involved in,
continue to be involved in, and is looking help to foster more
of and to be able to support in broader ways, in addition to
the type of economic support with the very poor parts of that
population, as you pointed out, and in ways that USAID is well
situated to be able to do with a number of its partner
organizations.
And so, it has--USAID has that kind of outreach within the
country and will continue to look for opportunities to be able
to do that work, again through this transition period.
Senator Casey. And USAID, like every part of our Government
now, is under budget constraints and is somewhat limited. In a
place like Yemen, and I will ask another question because I
know it is in the news today even more so than it has been in
the last couple of weeks. But there is certainly a water
shortage issue, and part of the problem there is true of other
countries in the region. Regardless of who is in charge, there
seems to be an institution-building challenge.
When you come into a country that has issues of poverty and
instability and that kind of turmoil, the institutions often
need to be either built up or reformed. If you are in Yemen
today, where would you start in terms of making progress on the
institutions?
I am assuming that the challenges are almost across the
board. But are there places in Yemen's Government where the
most attention would be warranted, or do you have a sense of
that yet?
Ms. Rudman. Well, Mr. Chairman, it is a fair question, and
it is a good question.
Where I think that USAID has some opportunities here is the
fact that there are programs in place that USAID has been
working on. So there is the ability to know who different
players are, and I say this without myself personally having
that information. But what I would do, if confirmed, is to go
and talk to the folks who have been running those programs for
USAID in the mission to understand who the technocrats are who
have been working the different programs.
So to get a feel for whom USAID has worked with effectively
and who has been less effective in the different ministries.
And again, this is at the technocrat working level. But in my
experience in other places, you can get a pretty good feel
pretty quickly about who runs programs well and who doesn't
from your partner organizations. And when you have people at
missions who are in the field, you get that kind of direct
information very quickly.
That is very useful, and you also obviously have an embassy
and your ambassador and your DCM, and you get a mix of that
type of information. It helps to inform, obviously, your policy
judgments, but also your ability to use your precious
assistance resources carefully.
You want to make sure. You have limited dollars to use. You
want to put it toward the programs that are going to use those
dollars most effectively, and you want to make good judgments
about it.
And that is where, even if you are going to be shifting
those resources, the fact that you have had a mission and that
that mission has experience, and even if some of the players in
that government are shifting, you have been working with some
of them for a while. And so, you should be using the judgments
from your people in the field to make some of the assessments
about how you are going to be shifting things.
I don't have that data at my fingertips, but I have some
sense about how to go about getting that data to be able to
come back and talk with you all and be making those assessments
going forward.
Senator Casey. Some of the biggest challenges you have
involve working with and coordinating among the various
departments of our Government. I know that in your testimony,
when you focus on your approach, your third bullet point was
``coordinate closely with colleagues at State, Defense,
Treasury, and the White House to see we are truly practicing
smart diplomacy using development, diplomacy.''
Just that coordination alone is difficult. I think that
both of our nominees will run into that kind of challenge in
managing within the boundaries of our own Government and our
own institutions.
Well, I think we are coming almost to the close of our
hearing. I don't know if there is any further statement either
of you would want to make or any point you would want to
amplify? We won't take audience questions today. [Laughter.]
But I wanted to give you an opportunity if you had any
further statement or further information you wanted to give to
the committee. And of course, we may send questions that will
be for the record that you would submit answers to in writing.
But if there is anything that either of you wanted to add to
the record now, I can certainly give you that opportunity.
We don't need a closing statement, but if there is
something you wanted to add?
Ms. Rudman. Mr. Chairman, I would just thank you,
obviously, for the opportunity to appear before you.
And on your last point, as with any challenge, including
the challenge of coordinating with the rest of my colleagues in
Government, I actually really do see it as an opportunity
because you don't get to solve any problems if you don't get to
use the resources of everyone all together.
And so, if there is anything I think I have had experience
with, it is figuring out how to kind of work together with
everyone on the team. And I fully appreciate that it is not
always easy, but if you don't get process right, you don't get
policy right.
And so, I recognize the challenges, but I really do see it
as an opportunity to try to get it right in the whole of
government way of doing things.
So thank you. Thank you.
Senator Casey. Well, thank you. And I appreciate both of
you putting yourself forward for further and challenging
service, especially at this time.
And as I think I have shared with Ms. Rudman, I could also
apply to you, Mr. Patterson. You could be doing other things in
the private sector and making a lot of money, I am sure, and
you have chosen to serve your country. And we appreciate both
of you putting yourself forward for that kind of service, and
we are particularly grateful.
We hope that we can move your nominations as expeditiously
as possible through the committee and then through the Senate.
I will never make a prediction or a promise about that because
there is a great deal of uncertainty about the process here.
And we are going to try to move it as fast as we can.
But we are grateful for your service, for your testimony,
and for your willingness to take on these difficult
assignments.
Thank you very much.
And we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record
Responses of Mara Rudman to Questions Submitted by
Senator John F. Kerry and Senator Richard G. Lugar
Question. Please describe your responsibilities as an officer for
International Commission for Holocaust Era Insurance Claims (ICHEIC)
and the ICHEIC Trust from 2002-09. Please indicate, in particular, what
role, if any, you played in the following areas:
Developing or implementing policies or procedures for
identifying relevant insurance policy records and publishing
names of policyholders;
Developing standards of proof or providing guidance to
claims arbitrators on criteria to be used in making decisions
on or related to claims; and
Developing or implementing policies or procedures for
responding to requests for information from the U.S. Department
of State pursuant to Section 704 of the Foreign Affairs
Authorization Act of 2003 (Public Law 107-228).
Answer.
introduction to icheic and my responsibilities as chief operating
officer
I was the Chief Operating Officer (COO) for ICHEIC from 2002 to
2007 (former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger was the Chairman/
Chief Executive). As COO, my primary responsibility was to do
everything possible to carry out the mission of the organization, that
is, to help ICHEIC to find previously uncompensated claimants and pay
them.
ICHEIC was created several years earlier, in August 1998. By the
late 1990s, the question of Holocaust-era asset restitution had
reemerged and numerous class action lawsuits were filed. U.S. insurance
regulators recognized that given the understandable challenge of
documentation, the length of time that had passed, and the effort and
costs involved, the path of litigation presented significant
difficulties. Working through state insurance regulators, the National
Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), identified the companies
most likely affected and worked with these companies to arrive at a
means of resolving the issues presented. These issues were identified
working with Holocaust survivors, by conducting interviews, researching
the historical background, and organizing informational hearings across
the country. ICHEIC was the result.
I began working with ICHEIC 4 years into this pioneering startup's
efforts. It faced many bumps in the road in its early years, with
initial high administrative costs combined with a lengthy development
period for claims forms that led to slower initial outreach and claims
processing and awards. In April 2003, several months after I had
joined, 59,117 claims had been submitted to date, only $38 million had
been paid to claimants, and a low percentage of claims had been decided
overall. Critics said ICHEIC would run out of funds long before its
member companies made decisions on the claims that had been submitted,
and that the Commission would never make the completion deadlines it
had set.
Four years later, when ICHEIC closed its doors, we had moved more
than $500 million in total for Holocaust-related work. More than $306
million had been paid to more than 48,000 Holocaust victims or their
heirs for previously unpaid insurance policies (of a total of 91,558
claims submitted and decided), along with nearly $200 million
distributed for humanitarian purposes. Of the $306 million paid out
directly to claimants, more than half went to individuals with so
little information about their potential claim that they were unable to
identify even the company that may have issued the policy.
Upon joining ICHEIC, my team and I worked hard to make sure that
ICHEIC's mission could be implemented effectively and expeditiously. At
Chairman Eagleburger's direct instruction, we were charged with
addressing concerns that had been raised about the Commission's
operations prior to our coming on board. We increased its transparency
and outreach; we succeeded in reaching terms of agreement among
Commission members with respect to the German Foundation, and the
French and Swiss insurance companies (AXA, Winterthur, and Zurich) that
were critical to implement claims decisionmaking timelines and funding
structures; and we reduced administrative costs, ensuring that overall
operating expenses would absorb less than 18 percent of the overall
ICHEIC budget.
Additionally, as COO, my work, with my staff, included:
Transparency/Accessibility:
Redesigning the ICHEIC Web site to make it user friendly and
make available information including the final valuation
guidelines as well as committee structures, claims
processing statistics, audit reports, quarterly reports, a
guide to how the process worked, and annual meeting
presentations;
Working to publicize ICHEIC mission and no-cost procedures
to make sure potential claimants worldwide knew how to file
a claim;
Costs/Service Quality:
Moving international call center operations (for claimants)
from a for-profit contractor to the nonprofit Claims
Conference, with operators trained by my staff, to lower
costs and improve quality of service;
Instituting measures to reduce administrative costs
including changing locations for the annual meeting,
instituting and strictly enforcing member and staff travel
reimbursement policies, etc.;
Service Quality/Effectiveness:
Using the agreed upon audit process to examine insurance
company files, and ensuring database built which was
constructed from research in archives across Europe;
Establishing systems to process the more than 90,000 claims
submitted from all over the world;
Administering an independent appeals system presided over by
jurists who, over the life of the process, reviewed
hundreds of appeals that provided every claim that named a
company the opportunity for review. The relatively small
percentage of reversals on original decisions underscored
the strength of the initial system of checks and balances
my team constructed. This included internal ICHEIC staff
verification of every company decision, as well as outside
independent audits of companies' records and decisionmaking
practices, to make sure they complied with ICHEIC rules and
guidelines.
I. Developing/ implementing policies or procedures for identifying
relevant insurance policy records and publishing names of
policyholders
In addition to these tasks, when I started working with ICHEIC, my
team and I built upon the work that had been underway since the late
1990s with respect to archival research and building a research
database and lists of possible policyholders.
I.A. Research and matching
Working closely with European insurance companies, I accelerated
implementation of the protocols developed by ICHEIC committees prior to
my arrival to make sure that information provided by claimants was
matched to all available and relevant surviving records in the
companies' possession. Since many claimants had little or no
information about specific insurance policies, ICHEIC also conducted
archival research to locate documents that were relevant to Holocaust-
era life insurance claims. I ensured that where necessary, we
commissioned experts to conduct additional research in public archives
and repositories in Central and Eastern Europe, Israel, and the United
States to collect as much relevant information as possible. These
efforts augmented the database ICHEIC created that provided a critical
tool used by companies and ICHEIC to further enhance information
provided by claimants and thus the chances of identifying policies on
submitted claims.
Our research spanned 15 countries and included over 80 archives.
Researchers reviewed three types of records. The first, representing
the bulk of the material reviewed, consisted of Nazi-era asset
registration and confiscation records. Files pertaining to the post-war
registration of losses made up the second category. The third category
was comprised of insurance company records located in public and
regulatory archives. ICHEIC researchers located almost 78,000 policy
specific records. This research augmented the often limited information
provided with claims. This research effort had a significant positive
impact on the disposition of claims. More than half of the total amount
awarded to claimants was based on this archival research and went to
individuals who were unable to identify a policy or name a company that
was the source of their claim.
I.B. Publishing potential policyholders' lists
In my role as COO, I participated in ICHEIC's work to develop and
publish these lists, and to maintain the lists on the Yad Vashem Web
site after ICHEIC ceased operations. Development of lists of potential
policyholders' names was a by-product, however, of our efforts to match
claim form information with relevant policy information discovered
through archival research or in companies' records. Finding one's name
on a list published by the Commission was never intended as necessary
to file a claim. Our extensive outreach efforts made that clear.
Consistent with the Commission's mission of reaching out to the
broadest possible universe of interested parties, ICHEIC published on
its Web site its research and the 519,009 potential Holocaust-era
policyholder names who were thought likely to have suffered any form of
racial, religious, or political persecution during the Holocaust.\1\ In
so doing, however, the Web site also carried a clear warning that
finding a name on the Web site was not evidence of the existence of a
compensable policy. There were many similar names with spelling
variations, policies that might have been surrendered or paid out prior
to the Holocaust, and some policies that had already been the subject
of previous government compensation programs, making them ineligible
for further payments under the ICHEIC process. The list remains
accessible through the Yad Vashem Web site (www1.yadvashem.org/
pheip).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The number of policies issued during the period (1920-1945)
would be considerable and in many cases, records, when available, would
not be in a database but on microfiche, film, and paper. The prewar
proportion of the persecuted population (as determined by ICHEIC's
research) was only a fractional part of the prewar insurance market.
\2\ ICHEIC's published lists--as components of ICHEIC's research
database--result from working closely with archival experts in Germany,
Israel, the United States, and elsewhere, and drawing on information
from company policyholder records. During the ICHEIC process, companies
had to identify which policyholders might potentially fit the
definition of Holocaust victim. For companies with many surviving
records, this presents a considerable challenge, because in most
instances, insurance companies did not identify policyholders based on
racial, religious, political, or ideological factors. Nor was it
possible to filter solely on the basis of ``Jewish''-sounding last
names: the name Rosenberg, for example, often believed to be a typical
Jewish name, was also the name of one of the Nazi party's highest
ranking ideologues. Similarly, Anne Frank shares her last name with the
notorious governor-general of occupied Poland, Hans Frank, who was
hanged at Nuremberg.
The Commission considered all these factors, and culled out from
an overall list of policyholder names that are those most likely to
have been persecuted during the Holocaust. The Commission's list also
contained many more names of policyholders likely to have been
previously compensated on their policies because the majority of
policies issued in Germany had already been subject to prior postwar
compensation programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Developing standards of proof or providing guidance to claims
arbitrators on criteria to be used in making decisions on or
related to claims
I was able to implement ICHEIC's relaxed standards of proof as
criteria to be used in making decisions on or related to claims among
companies and ICHEIC's claims verification team. I also ensured the
distribution of the relaxed standards of proof, and all ICHEIC's rules
and guidelines, through all available routes, including to claims
arbitrators.\3\ I could do so because these relaxed standards of proof
were developed by ICHEIC prior to my arrival. Very early on as claims
were coming into ICHEIC, it became clear that the bulk of the claim
forms contained little detailed information, that policy documentation
was the exception rather than the rule, and that many claims did not
name a specific company, or named a company that ceased to exist before
1945. So ICHEIC worked, through its committee structure--with Jewish
organization representatives, insurance regulators, and companies--to
establish relaxed standards of proof and create valuation standards
that could be calculated without the usual policy documentation. This
is also when decisions were made to develop an extensive research
database and matching system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Appeals process judges (arbitrators) were to be provided copies
of ICHEIC rules and guidelines as part of their initial training;
though part of that training also included informing them that while
they had the use of legal advisors to staff them and help with
researching and drafting their decisions, they had absolute discretion
and independence in the ultimate determination of decision outcome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under my tenure, my staff and I created and instituted the separate
but related humanitarian claims payment process for unnamed unmatched
claims, and for Eastern European claims on companies that had been
liquidated, nationalized, or for which there were no known
successors.\4\ All these elements became part of the critical
architecture of the Commission. The audits to which all companies were
subjected, conducted by outside independent auditors, proved the
effectiveness of this architecture; and our ability to carry out our
mission depended on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``ICHEIC not only facilitated the payments of claims against
existing companies, it also paid out claims against now defunct
companies and funded survivor assistance programs.'' Eric Fusfield,
Director, Legislative Affairs, B'nai B'rith International, Letter to
Chairman Barney Frank and Ranking Member Spencer Bachus, House
Financial Services Committee, February 6, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect specifically to relaxed standards of proof: during its
existence, the Commission directly or through its member companies/
partner entities offered payment to more than 48,000 of the 91,558 who
made inquiries. As noted, only a small percent of all the claim forms
the Commission received named a specific company and far fewer
contained policy documents. Survivors who had attempted to recover the
proceeds of insurance policies during the immediate postwar period had
been frustrated by companies' demands for death certificates and proof
of entitlement that they could not provide. Understanding that
expecting such documentation was both insensitive and in most cases
impossible, the relaxed standards of proof adopted by the Commission
did not require claimants to submit such evidence to make a claim.
Under ICHEIC's relaxed standards of proof, the claimant produced
whatever evidence the claimant had available. Individuals filling out
claim forms were asked to provide all information available to them,
including copies of existing documents in their possession that might
be relevant. Sometimes claimants had actual copies of policies, but
there was no expectation that such would be the case. The relaxed
standards of proof allowed claimants to provide nondocumentary and
unofficial documentary evidence for assessment.
Companies were similarly required to produce the evidence they had,
with the objective of helping claimants to establish sufficient
evidence of a contractual relationship. Once the existence of a policy
was substantiated, the burden shifted to the company to show the status
of the contract or to prove the value of the contract had been adjusted
or the contract had been paid. All parties agreed, however, that the
relaxed standards of proof were to be interpreted liberally in favor of
the claimant.
ICHEIC established independent third party audits for the claims
review process for each participating company to assess the status of
existing records, and to ensure that records were appropriately
searched and matched, in accordance with ICHEIC rules and guidelines.
The ground rules for these audits were dictated by written agreements
ICHEIC entered with its participating companies and partner entities
such as the German Insurance Association and the German Foundation,
reviewed and ultimately approved by ICHEIC's Audit Mandate Support
Group, a committee on which regulators and Jewish organization
representatives served.
The relaxed standards of proof adopted by the Commission aimed to
ensure that every claim, no matter what evidence the claimant could
produce, would be reviewed to identify whether evidence could be
located sufficient to substantiate the existence of a contract.
Finally, during my tenure we instituted an in-house verification
team to cross-check every company decision. The verification team also
conducted a series of large-scale exercises to review decisions made by
member companies. Discrepancies were reported back to the companies for
reassessment and, where appropriate, remedial action. At the conclusion
of ICHEIC's work, the verification team also carried out major
reconciliation exercises, to make sure that all research information in
ICHEIC's database conformed to and had been matched against companies'
policyholder information, and that all claims filed had been checked
against all companies' decisions.
III. Developing/implementing policies or procedures for responding to
requests for information from the U.S. Department of State
pursuant to Section 704 of the Foreign Affairs Authorization
Act of 2003 (Public Law 107-228)
I worked with staff to make as much information as possible
publicly available on the ICHEIC Web site at www.icheic.org. ICHEIC
also provided the State Department an observer position on the
Commission, in addition to the public information to which the State
Department had easy access. Through ongoing consultation with State
Department representatives, my team at ICHEIC viewed this cooperative
approach as an effective way to ensure that the Department had the most
extensive possible array of information to report to the Congress
pursuant to the obligations of the State Department under section 704.
In addition, we provided U.S. state insurance regulators with regular
updates on claims submitted by claimants residing in their states, both
through electronic statistical reports and participation in NAIC
International Holocaust Commission Task Force quarterly meetings and
monthly teleconference calls.
IV. Responsibilities as an officer for the ICHEIC Trust
The final meeting of the ICHEIC board of directors and members on
March 20, 2007, decided that ICHEIC would cease its legal existence at
a time to be determined by Chairman Eagleburger. This occurred on July
17, 2007, at which point a trust, which became the ICHEIC Trust,
undertook the final closedown of ICHEIC's operations. Lawrence
Eagleburger, Pat Bowditch, (formerly ICHEIC's Chief Financial Officer),
and I served as the Trust's officers; I resigned my position early in
the administration.
The responsibilities of officers of the ICHEIC Trust include:
paying all outstanding obligations and liabilities of ICHEIC as they
become due; preparing the final financial audit of ICHEIC and causing
it to be posted on ICHEIC's Web site; preparing, signing, and filing
ICHEIC's wholly owned U.S. subsidiary, ICHEIC LLC's, final U.S. tax
return and other tax reporting; overseeing and controlling defense and
disposition, including litigation and settlement, of all claims,
lawsuits, and other forms of litigation, if any, asserted against
ICHEIC, its officers or directors, or any person who has been
indemnified by ICHEIC, serving as the notice party in all outstanding
contracts to which ICHEIC is a party, signing all required documents,
including tax returns, on behalf of ICHEIC, and providing all required
administrative functions on behalf of ICHEIC after its legal
termination.
Question. Some have questioned the work of ICHEIC, for which you
served as CEO. It has been reported in the press that, in response to
such criticisms, you explained that: ``Everybody expected too much. . .
. We at ICHEIC have had a lot of ground to make up.'' (Tom Tugend,
Jewish Telegraphic Agency, ``ICHEIC Hit By New Broadside,'' available
at http://www.jta.org/news/article/2004/06/15/11639/
Inbroadsideoffici2004.) Please provide any additional information
concerning this statement that you believe would be helpful to the
committee in considering your nomination.
Answer. I was asked to respond to criticism that we were not going
to complete our mission, would still be deciding claims in 2011, and
would run out of funds. I felt confident that we were going to get done
in time, though I recognized we had considerable work ahead. Events
proved me right. In the interview, I explained my view that while the
critics' assertions would not prove correct, I also appreciated the
basis for concern that had led to some of the statements. I understood
that when the Commission was in its early years, those involved were
pioneers. All involved had acknowledged to me that they had
underestimated the complexity and timeframe for carrying out the
centerpiece of ICHEIC's mission: finding previously uncompensated
claimants and paying them. This makes me particularly proud to report
that by 2007, when ICHEIC closed its doors, we had moved over $500
million directly supporting Holocaust-related purposes. We had
processed (decided and verified) decisions on more than 91,000 claims,
more than $306 million in claims had been paid, and we distributed
nearly $200 million for humanitarian purposes.
Question. Information has come to the committee's attention that in
2007, you, as ICHEIC CEO, may have announced that certain of ICHEIC's
records would be sealed for several decades, or no longer retained.
Please provide any additional information concerning this matter that
you believe would be helpful to the committee in considering your
nomination.
Answer. The goal was and remains preserving important historical
information, making everything publicly available that we possibly
could, while appropriately protecting the privacy rights of
individuals.
There is evidently confusion with respect to ICHEIC records that
were provided to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and are publicly
available there, and personal files of individuals who filed claims
with ICHEIC, which were archived at the Museum. The terms of the
agreement between ICHEIC and the museum were proposed and explained
generally at ICHEIC's concluding meeting on March 20, 2007, and are
available on the ICHEIC Web site. Under this agreement, the museum
maintains and hosts the ICHEIC Web site (www.icheic.org); it maintains
ICHEIC key documents, including all relevant historical and research
database in its library, and makes them available to visitors to the
library. These documents include key policy decision memoranda as well
as meeting minutes produced over the lifetime of the organization, as
well as the research information that ICHEIC culled from its work in
archives across Europe.
With respect to individual claimants' files, applications and
appeals, the museum maintains these in its archives. Given that these
documents contain personal and sensitive information, this material
must be closed to research by third parties for a period of 50 years.
In reaching this agreement, ICHEIC sought legal guidance from privacy
law experts, who reviewed the releases that individuals signed when
they filed with ICHEIC and recommended that based on the strong
commitments made by ICHEIC regarding data confidentiality and use of
data only for the limited purpose of investigation/claims processing,
combined with relevant data protection laws, ICHEIC would need to
obtain specific consent from claimants prior to sharing of any claimant
data with a third party. Given ICHEIC's 90,000+ claimants, the costs in
March 2007 of obtaining such specific consent were estimated in the
millions, and the more prudent outcome was deemed to be restricting
access to this data for the 50-year period (recommended given range of
ages of individuals filing.)
There was also a reference made at the March 2007 ICHEIC meeting to
ICHEIC's routine financial and administrative records, which would be
maintained in storage for a period of 5 years; I have been told that
the ICHEIC Trust has since determined that those will be maintained for
a period of 10 years, consistent with Swiss law for corporate entities
(since ICHEIC was an unincorporated Swiss verein).
Question. Your 2007 Lobbying Disclosure Form describes certain work
that you performed on behalf of the American Insurance Association
(AIA) as ``supporting work done by International Commission on
Holocaust Era Insurance Claims (ICHEIC), including defending against
legislative attacks on its efforts and ability to carry out its
mission.''
a. Please provide additional information concerning the
nature and scope of the lobbying work you performed on behalf
of AIA.
Answer. Once ICHEIC closed, there was no one available to do work
for the organization. In the transition period after it closed but when
it was subject to an organized public attack, I was asked by its
members, including European insurance companies, to continue my work
for a transitional period. This transitional year was the practical
next step to ensure that our previous several years' efforts at ICHEIC
were not rolled back or undone. I registered under the Lobbying
Disclosure Act when these efforts involved advocacy on behalf of
ICHEIC. ICHEIC's members believed it was important to maintain a clear
record on the work it had done, through participation in congressional
hearings, briefings, and the like, and responding to ongoing inquiries
regarding ICHEIC (including those from Congress and survivor groups).
The AIA was a membership association for several European insurance
companies who were ICHEIC participants. It was the available mechanism
because ICHEIC was no longer in existence.
This work included preparing draft written testimony for Secretary
Lawrence Eagleburger to submit to the House Foreign Affairs Europe
Subcommittee; preparing Diane Koken, Vice Chairman of ICHEIC, former
Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner and former President of the NAIC,
for testimony before the House Financial Services Committee and helping
with subsequent followup communications; preparing Ms. Koken and
Secretary Eagleburger for testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, and helping to prepare Anna Rubin, of the Holocaust Claims
Processing Office of New York, and Stuart Eizenstat, for testimony
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the same day, as well
as helping Secretary Eagleburger with drafting initial responses to
follow up questions for the record from that hearing. I also worked
through the latter half of 2007, with Diane Koken and Anna Rubin
particularly, in following up with European companies to gain their
written commitments to what they had previously pledged orally at the
closing ICHEIC meeting: to continue to process individual claims
consistent with ICHEIC rules and guidelines. We also discussed the
extent to which the New York Holocaust Claims Processing Office had the
capacity to monitor informally the ongoing claims decisionmaking by
companies, and communicated with congressional staff on these matters.
b. Please describe the extent, if any, to which you had any
responsibility for or involvement in matters relating to
ICHEIC, Holocaust-era insurance claims, and any legislation or
litigation related thereto, during your employment by the
Department of State from 2009 to the present.
Answer. I had neither responsibility for nor involvement in matters
related to ICHEIC, Holocaust-era insurance claims, and any legislation
or litigation related thereto, during my employment by the Department
of State from 2009 to the present.
c. Please describe the extent to which, if any, you expect
to have responsibility for or involvement in matters relating
to ICHEIC, Holocaust-era insurance claims, and any legislation
or litigation related thereto, if you are confirmed as USAID
Assistant Administrator for the Middle East.
Answer. I would not expect to have any responsibility for or
involvement in any matters related to ICHEIC, Holocaust-era insurance
claims, or any legislation or litigation related thereto, if I am
confirmed as USAID Assistant Administrator for the Middle East.
Question. Please provide any further information on your work for
ICHEIC or AIA that would be useful to the committee in considering your
nomination.
Answer. In closing, I appreciate the time and care you have taken
in putting together these questions. I have tried to respond with the
same attention to detail in response. I was and remain committed to the
work that the Commission accomplished. Putting together these responses
have made me reflect, with some pride, at the mission ICHEIC developed
in 1998, the disparate stakeholders who were brought together, the
hurdles that were overcome. It was an organization that almost
necessarily was going to be confronted with constant challenges. I knew
when I stepped in to take on the responsibilities of COO, 4 years into
its operations that I was taking on a troubled but worthy organization.
I am comfortable that my team and I were able to accelerate
significantly ICHEIC's ability to achieve its mission.
In 5 years, we moved more than $500 million in Holocaust-related
funds to those who deserved them. In the process, we made the
organization more transparent and accessible to people worldwide. After
the organization closed, I made what I considered a practical decision,
at the urging of ICHEIC members, to see that the work of the
organization was not undone. The European insurance companies had
provided ICHEIC's operating funds as well as the funds to compensate
claimants and for humanitarian purposes. I did this work fully
anticipating that I would operate in the same manner as I did as
ICHEIC's COO--I would provide my best and most forthright advice and
guidance on what was most important and necessary to fulfill the effort
at hand: to support the work done by ICHEIC, and defend it against
efforts that we viewed as undermining its mission.
Again, I thank you for your efforts to understand ICHEIC's work and
mission, and the work that I did with and for it. As always, I stand
ready to respond to any additional questions you may have.
______
Responses of Mara Rudman to Questions Submitted by
Senator Richard G. Lugar
Question. With dramatic change taking place in countries throughout
the Middle East on almost a daily basis, what is your view on how USAID
programs in these countries should be reviewed and recalibrated in
order to most effectively promote democratic principles? How will you
lead in promoting increased flexibility of USAID programs to respond to
these changes? How do you plan to work with Mission Directors in these
countries in your decisionmaking process for responding to these
changes?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that every USAID mission in the
region is maintaining a close watch on local political conditions,
engaging in scenario planning and reviewing existing and projected
resource flows to anticipate and rapidly respond to changing
conditions, as well as short and medium opportunities, as they arise.
This is an unprecedented moment of opportunity for political reform in
the region--reform necessary for longer term regional stability.
Missions need to ensure they are agile, so they can work with the broad
range of civil society groups that are defining and leading the popular
movements in each of these countries, consistent with U.S. law and
policy. If confirmed, I will work aggressively to ensure that USAID
utilizes the necessary procurement and personnel instruments to act
quickly in support of openings in the political environment, including
utilizing centrally based rapid response mechanisms.
It is my understanding that USAID is working to provide assistance
as needed and requested--to pursue credible transitions to democracy
and to meet expressed social and economic needs throughout the Middle
East. These transition programs will be demand-driven, but are expected
to cover needs related to the political transition, youth engagement,
economic recovery, and rebuilding social networks and support
institutions.
If confirmed, I would seek to build on these efforts, specifically
by:
Redirecting ongoing programs and putting in place new
programs to respond to the rapidly unfolding situations in
Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen and to be prepared to meet new needs
as they emerge;
Utilizing contacts with implementing partners and civil
society to significantly increase direct engagement with a wide
range of critical actors, including civil society
organizations, youth, political party representatives, labor,
and others who have been mobilized by recent events.
Reviewing previous commitments and identifying new ways of
partnering through a renewed focus on implementation by those
most engaged in their own transition, while tapping an
extensive network of existing programs and relationships.
As for my approach vis-a-vis the Mission Directors, if confirmed, I
will maintain regular communication with USAID's Mission Directors to
benefit from their on-the-ground analysis and deep knowledge of local
conditions. As we move forward, it will also be critical to consult
regularly with interagency partners and with Congress.
USAID is hosting a forum in Morocco later this spring to discuss
how missions can best support the historic trend toward political
liberalization underway in the region. I understand that this meeting
will be both a brainstorming and a practical discussion generating
actionable recommendations. It should provide help in revising mission
strategies to reflect the evolving environment. If confirmed, I would
consider this Morocco discussion a starting point for (1) my ongoing
dialogue with Mission Directors; (2) readjustments and reinvigoration
as needed on existing programs; and (3) implementation of new efforts.
Question. As you are testifying, the U.S. Government's support for
Yemen President Ali Abdullah Saleh has begun to shift. What do you
believe should be the highest priority investment for U.S. development
assistance in the country at this time?
Answer. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula remains a major threat
not only to the U.S. homeland, but also to Yemen's stability and that
of the region. AQAP has taken advantage of insecurity and poor
governance in regions of Yemen that suffer from ongoing internal
conflicts, resource challenges, insufficient delivery of services, and
an ineffective security architecture. For this reason, the United
States has adopted a two-pronged strategy for Yemen--helping the Yemeni
Government confront its security concerns in the near term, and
mitigating the serious political, economic, and governance issues that
the country faces over the long term.
USAID, in conjunction with Embassy Sanaa, supports a peaceful
political solution. Existing programs are being reviewed based on their
ability to respond to current needs and the extent to which they can
take advantage of new openings and future opportunities. Since the
programs were designed as stabilization projects, there is considerable
flexibility consistent with the ``stabilization'' objective.
Elections and political process reform are clearly a priority at
this time of political transition. Economic stability programming and
fiscal reform will also be necessary to address severe economic
challenges facing the country. It is my understanding that USAID is
currently analyzing needs in this regard, and will continue to
rigorously test the hypothesis that meeting the development needs of
underserved communities is causally related to improving political and
social stability. If confirmed, I would look forward to seeking the
Congress' counsel on USAID's overall approach to development assistance
in Yemen.
Question. In addition to significant funding through the new
Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Account at the State Department,
the administration is proposing over $300 million again in FY12 for
continued funding for Iraq through the Economic Support Fund. What
kinds of programs will USAID promote in developing Iraq's agriculture
sector and in building its private sector economy? What examples can
you provide? What programs will be ending/discontinued? With the
transition to a civilian-led mission, will the Joint Campaign Plan
still be the guiding document? Are there any sectors that, despite
their problems, will not receive funding from USAID?
a. What kinds of programs will USAID promote in developing
Iraq's agriculture sector and in building its private sector
economy?
Answer. USAID is not receiving funding through the OCO account in
the FY12 Iraq request. Rather, USAID's requested ESF funds are
accounted for in the base request. USAID/Iraq will implement three
existing programs focusing on economic growth and agriculture and may
consider new programs focused on private sector competitiveness
contingent on funding and interest from potential Iraqi beneficiaries.
The current programs are:
i. The Provincial Economic Governance program, which supports
microfinance, small business development centers, access to credit for
small and medium size enterprises, and technical assistance to the
Iraqi Government on trade and investment reforms leading to possible
WTO Accession.
ii. The Financial Sector Development program, which improves the
soundness of Iraqi private financial institutions by establishing and
developing a credit bureau, a financial sector training institute, a
payments system and modern centralized data Repository System, and
enhancing the sectors' ability to advocate for private sector
investment, growth and development.
iii. The Agribusiness program, which works to improve the value
chain of existing Iraqi agribusinesses, farmers, and marketers to
improve productivity and marketing, increasing agricultural revenues,
incomes, and employment.
Since the inception of USAID-supported microfinance institutions in
Iraq since 2004, the Provincial Economic Growth program has disbursed
more than 257,200 microloans worth a combined value of $593 million,
with the average loan valued at $1,400 at 15-18 percent annual interest
rates with a repayment rate of over 98 percent. For the period of April
2008 to February 2011, USAID-sponsored programs have generated 206,456
jobs through sustainable microfinance, SME Bank lending, its youth
initiative and Small Business Development services.
USAID's FY12 request for Iraq, as reported in the Congressional
Budget Justification, contains a line item on Private Sector
Competitiveness intended for a new program to assist the Government of
Iraq in leveraging private sector resources to improve the delivery of
electricity. Effective electricity delivery is critical to Iraq's
economic growth and development.
The Financial Sector Development program started in the summer of
2010. It is implementing USAID's Memorandum of Understanding with the
Central Bank of Iraq to build its capacity to oversee and promote the
private financial sector in Iraq.
b. What programs will be ending/discontinued? Are there any
sectors that, despite their problems, will not receive funding
from USAID?
Answer. USAID is no longer engaged in counterinsurgency (COIN)
programming in Iraq. Programs such as the Community Stabilization
Program (CSP) have ended. CSP was vital in helping stabilize urban
communities in priority areas by creating employment opportunities for
insurgent-prone Iraqis. However, as conditions have improved and with
the drawdown of the U.S. military, it is my understanding that USAID is
now focused on development programs that will help bolster Iraq's
economy, create jobs, restore essential services, and build Iraq's
institutional capacity.
c. With the transition to a civilian-led mission, will the
Joint Campaign Plan (JCP) still be the guiding document?
Answer. After the U.S. military departs by December 31, 2011, my
understanding is that there will be no JCP and all American citizens
will be under Chief of Mission authority. This means that 2012 will be
the first critical year of full civilian leadership of the U.S.
bilateral relationship with Iraq. Provincial Reconstruction Teams will
be fully demobilized and replaced by at least two consulates and two
Embassy Branch Offices.
Additionally, USAID will have at least one regional representative
and one locally employed specialist in each of the two consulates in
Erbil and Basrah. USAID is currently determining how security
requirements may change for its development programs in the absence of
a U.S. military presence.
Question. The State Department's Middle East Partnership Initiative
(MEPI) has a mission of developing more pluralistic, participatory, and
prosperous societies throughout this region through economic and
political empowerment. How do you plan to work with MEPI during this
historic time in the region? How do you plan to work to prevent
duplication in your efforts in individual countries?
Answer. I have a longstanding and excellent working relationship
with Tamara Wittes, the Deputy Assistant Secretary at the State
Department with responsibility for MEPI. We have worked together
closely in our current responsibilities, and if confirmed, I have every
expectation that cooperative partnership would continue into my next
role at USAID.
MEPI and USAID have worked together since MEPI's establishment in
2002. Their work is both complementary and should be well-coordinated
at embassies and in Washington. USAID maintains a mission and field
presence in seven countries in the region, while MEPI operates, in some
capacity, in every country in the region, except Iran. This allows MEPI
and USAID to play to their respective strengths and comparative
advantages.
Each NEA embassy has an internal coordination committee chaired by
the Deputy Chief of Mission. The committee's core responsibility is to
coordinate all USG foreign assistance programming in the host country.
Broad representation from embassy sections, including coordination with
public diplomacy and representational activities, assures maximum
possible cross-fertilization among programs and projects, whether
USAID, MEPI, or DRL.
The committee looks to each embassy's Mission Strategic Resource
Plan (MSRP) and to its Democracy Strategy for overarching guidance as
it responds to queries and proposals from Washington agencies and
offices. USAID, DRL, and MEPI participate in the annual review process
for each embassy's MSRP, providing an additional feedback loop in the
coordination process.
MEPI, DRL, and all embassies receiving foreign assistance are
required to submit an Operational Plan, which is a budget and
programmatic proposal for the use of new foreign assistance resources.
The operational plan contains detailed information on how foreign
assistance resources are coordinated by various implementers
in each country. After an interagency review designed to resolve any
areas of conflict or overlap, each operational plan is approved by the
Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance.
Again, if confirmed, I look forward to working closely with the
MEPI office, and discussing with Mission Directors as well, how the
current system is functioning and where there may be room for
improvement.
Question. Please put U.S. Assistance to the Palestinian Authority
into the broader political context. With Israeli-Palestinian political
negotiations frozen, is U.S. budget support for the Palestinian
Authority and development assistance in the West Bank and Gaza building
trust between the parties? Are projects designed to increase
cooperation, in trade, private sector development, infrastructure, etc?
If so, please provide examples. Also, please provide current trade
figures through the Jalameh crossing in the northern West Bank, as
compared to the period prior to USG reconstruction of that facility.
a. With Israeli-Palestinian political negotiations frozen,
is U.S. budget support for the Palestinian Authority and
development assistance in the West Bank and Gaza building trust
between the parties?
Answer. The United States Government is committed to achieving a
two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as part of the
administration's comprehensive regional peace between Israel and its
Arab neighbors. U.S. policy is premised on the assumption that
establishing sustainable peace requires forward movement on two
simultaneous and mutually reinforcing tracks: political negotiations
and the hard work of building institutions and the capacities of the
future Palestinian state.
While the political negotiations track is outside the purview of
USAID, USAID's efforts with respect to supporting Palestinian Authority
(PA) capacity-building and institutional reform and economic
development efforts regularly show results with respect to building
trust between the parties. I have seen these results in ways small and
large: most recently in the resumption of bilateral working-level
discussions between Ministries of Finance, similarly in productive
working level discussions between justice officials, and with respect
to ongoing cooperation on immediate and long-term needs on the
difficult issues surrounding water resources.
USAID programs are designed and implemented to help the PA to
become more effective and credible partners with respect to governance
and institutional capacity. Budget support to the PA is the most
tangible and direct means of helping the PA to build the foundations of
a viable, peaceful Palestinian state. U.S. budget assistance helps
ensure that the PA remains solvent and thus can be an effective and
credible partner in Middle East peace efforts and continue progress on
reforms and capacity-building.
The United States has made it clear that we will work only with a
PA government that unambiguously and explicitly accepts the Quartet's
principles: a commitment to nonviolence, recognition of the State of
Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements and obligations.
b. Are projects designed to increase cooperation, in trade,
private sector development, infrastructure, etc? If so, please
provide examples.
Answer. Facilitating trade into and out of the West Bank and Gaza
is critical to improving Palestinian economic growth, and it must occur
consistent with Israeli security needs. More than 240,000 truckloads of
imports and exports crossed through the three main West Bank commercial
cargo crossings last year; USAID provided scanning equipment and other
assistance to the Government of Israel to expand the capacity of the
crossings while addressing Israeli security concerns.
USAID has supported the tourism sector in Bethlehem by setting up
festivals and concerts to attract local and international tourists; and
is working with the Government of Israel to open up Bethlehem's three
checkpoints for tourist buses, ensuring that the Arab-Israeli
communities had transport to Bethlehem during the high-volume Christmas
period. All three checkpoints are now open for tourist buses and the
long waiting lines in front of the previously lone access point to
Bethlehem have disappeared.
USAID has partnered with international information technology (IT)
firms such as HP, Apple, Microsoft, and Cisco to help to develop
Palestinian IT firms in particular and the IT sector in general to be
able to provide world-class services. USAID introduced many Israeli
high-tech firms to Palestinian counterparts, and the Israeli firms have
signed several contracts for Palestinians to provide IT services.
In response to both Israeli and Palestinian Water Authority (PWA)
concerns that groundwater quality is deteriorating due to the lack of
wastewater treatment, the United States will focus significant energy
and resources in coordinating donor efforts to respond. USAID completed
an assessment of 10 small-sized wastewater treatment plants for several
villages in the northern West Bank. Design of these facilities began in
October 2010 and is expected to be completed by November 2011, with
permitting and land acquisition to begin once design is complete.
c. Also, please provide current trade figures through the
Jalameh crossing in the northern West Bank, as compared to the
period prior to USG reconstruction of that facility.
Answer. Facilitating trade into and out of the West Bank and Gaza
is critical to improving Palestinian economic growth. USAID's
assistance helped to reopen the Jalameh vehicle crossing between Israel
and the northern West Bank. What was previously a closed facility
without traffic is now a busy crossing with an average of more than
8,000 cars and buses entering the West Bank every week. USAID's
investment of less than $2 million for upgrades at the crossing has had
important impacts on commerce, trade, and investment in Jenin and the
northern West Bank. Last year, Arab-Israeli visitors through the
crossing made over $40 million in purchases in Jenin.
Question. There are concerns about anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli
incitement in Palestinian Authority textbooks. Please provide the
latest assessment of the textbooks used by the Palestinian Authority
and describe any USG involvement in their development or
implementation.
Answer. USAID supports the Palestinian Ministry of Education and
Higher Education in its efforts to provide quality education for
Palestinian youth. USAID assistance in education focuses on
improvements in teaching methodologies, introducing contemporary
approaches to teaching and learning, integrating information technology
into the classroom, and expanding the impact of early childhood
programming throughout the West Bank and Gaza.
Since 2000, when the Palestinian Authority (PA) began introducing
new textbooks that included many references to promoting values of
reconciliation, human rights, religious tolerance, and respect of law,
diversity and environmental awareness, a succession of studies has
found that the new textbooks represent a significant improvement and
constitute a valuable contribution to the education of young
Palestinians.
Although not a USAID-funded program, UNRWA has developed an
expanded human rights curriculum for use in all UNRWA regional schools
based on the history and content of the 30 articles that comprise the
1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Despite opposition from
Hamas in Gaza, the new curriculum is being taught in grades 1-6, with
plans to roll out a more advanced set of lessons for grades 7-9.
Additionally, the State Department/MEPI's My Arabic Library program
works with the PA Ministry of Education to deliver libraries to schools
in the West Bank, organize teacher training sessions, and provide
after-school programming. This program encourages independent reading,
thinking, and analytical skills in young readers.
The Palestinian curriculum is transparent, and all textbooks are
available for review in Arabic on the Web site of the official
Palestinian Curriculum Development Center at http://www.pcdc.edu.ps/.
______
Response of Robert Patterson to Question Submitted by
Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Question. As cochairman of the Helsinki Commission, I remain deeply
concerned over the dismal human rights situation in Turkmenistan. Over
the weekend, we received a report that an elderly gentleman of 80 years
old, Mr. Shapudakov, has been detained by Turkmen authorities and
confined to a psychiatric facility. Reportedly, his activities in
uncovering and reporting on corruption may have prompted this apparent
reprisal by local officials.
Has the State Department looked into this case and raised it
with Turkmen officials?
Answer. The U.S. Government has received reports from RFE/RL and
other sources that civic activist Amangelen Shapudakov was recently
detained and committed to a psychiatric hospital. According to some of
these reports, Mr. Shapudakov's confinement may be linked to a family
dispute over property.
Our Turkmenistan Desk officer in Washington and the Public Affairs
Office at Embassy Ashgabat are in daily contact with RFE/RL
headquarters in Prague regarding the Shapudakov case. We are following
the situation surrounding Mr. Shapudakov's detention. DAS Susan Elliott
raised Mr. Shapudakov's case with the Turkmenistan Ambassador to the
United States and our Embassy is also raising his case with Turkmen
officials. We have asked the Turkmen government to verify the
circumstances surrounding the case in order to ensure that it was
handled appropriately by local officials, and that Mr. Shapudakov is
afforded access to any legal counsel or proceedings, consistent with
Turkmen law.
The State Department remains actively engaged with the Government
of Turkmenistan on human rights through the Annual Bilateral
Consultations (ABC) process, launched in June 2010 by Assistant
Secretary Robert Blake. At the 6-month ABC review in Ashgabat on
February 16, A/S Blake raised several specific human rights concerns by
the USG, including the recent uptick in harassment and blacklisting of
RFE/RL journalists and family members by Turkmen security services. We
have also raised issues of government harassment of journalists with
the Turkmenistan Ambassador to the United States.
______
Responses of Mara Rudman to Questions Submitted by Senator Marco Rubio
Question. For decades, the United States consented to authoritarian
Arab regimes' requests not to engage opposition groups in exchange for
regime cooperation on security matters. The previous administration
started to reverse these policies, but the current administration has
rolled back or significantly limited many of those initiatives. I
believe this practice has severely restricted our influence in many of
these countries. Can you define the aims and principles that would
guide USAID's programs in the Middle East following the Arab Spring?
Have the recent events changed our engagement policy with opposition
groups in countries like Syria and Yemen? How is the U.S. Government
preparing for contingencies in Syria and Yemen?
a. Can you define the aims and principles that would guide
USAID's programs in the Middle East following the Arab Spring?
Answer. This is an unprecedented moment of opportunity for
political reform in the Middle East. It is my understanding that USAID
is providing assistance as needed and requested--to pursue credible
transitions to democracy and to meet expressed social and economic
needs throughout the Middle East. These transition programs are demand-
driven, but are expected to cover needs related to the political
transition, youth engagement, economic recovery, and rebuilding social
networks and support institutions.
In the short term, I understand, USAID is reviewing its
partnerships with government entities and pursuing programs aimed at
empowering civil society with democratic transition and governance
issues. In the long term, it is my understanding that the Agency will
focus on addressing those underlying conditions that were a catalyst
for popular unrest, including unemployment and education.
As the situation evolves, it is my understanding that USAID will
continue reviewing how best to use its assistance to support democratic
transition, economic development, and the aspirations of the local
population. If confirmed, I will work aggressively to utilize the
necessary personnel and procurement instruments to act quickly in
support of openings in the political environment, including utilizing
centrally based rapid response mechanisms.
If confirmed, I would build on USAID's existing efforts by:
--Redirecting ongoing programs and putting in place new programs to
respond to the rapidly unfolding situations in Egypt, Tunisia,
and Yemen and to be prepared to meet new needs as they emerge;
--Utilizing contacts and grants with implementing partners and civil
society to significantly increase direct engagement with a wide
range of critical actors, including civil society
organizations, youth, political party representatives, labor,
and others who have been mobilized by recent events; and
--Reviewing previous commitments and identifying new ways of
partnering through a renewed focus on implementation by those
most engaged in their own transition, while tapping an
extensive network of existing programs and relationships.
b. Have the recent events changed our engagement policy with
opposition groups in countries like Syria and Yemen?
Answer. It is my understanding that USAID is willing to work with
elected, peaceful groups, provided they operate through democratic
institutions and the rule of law, with respect for equal rights, and
reject violence as a way to achieve their political goals.
Additionally, I understand, USAID will also continue to work with USG
counterparts providing democracy and governance programming to explore
appropriate USG assistance opportunities in support of unfolding events
in the Middle East.
I am aware that it is USAID's view that the transitions in the
Middle East and North Africa must be locally owned processes and that
any organization or individual that adheres to the principles of
democracy, including the principle of nonviolence, should be able to
participate in these processes.
c. How is the U.S. Government preparing for contingencies in
Syria and Yemen?
Answer. It is my understanding that every U.S. Embassy and USAID
mission in the region is maintaining a close watch on local political
conditions and in some instances is engaging in scenario planning. I am
aware that USAID also has a Middle East Strategic Planning Group
conducting a range of strategic and contingency planning in USAID
presence and nonpresence countries in the Middle East.
As we face tough fiscal decisions as a nation, the United States
will need to be creative and flexible in identifying resources to
support security and prosperity in Syria, Yemen, and other regions of
great strategic value. I understand that USAID is actively reevaluating
its programming and assistance to prepare for contingencies and adapt
its support to the transitions underway across the region.
Question. As you know, the Department of Defense constantly
develops and updates contingency plans on possible U.S. responses to
conflicts and crises that may arise abroad. Does USAID have a similar
process to guide our response in times of crisis? If not, would you
recommend legislative mandates to help USAID implement such practices?
Does USAID have a similar process to guide our response in
times of crisis? If not, would you recommend legislative
mandates to help USAID implement such practices?
Answer. It is my understanding that USAID maintains contingency
plans for humanitarian disasters in all overseas missions. Missions in
the Middle East are currently reviewing their country programs to
identify short- and medium-term needs in the region in order to be able
to provide assistance as needed and requested.
Additionally, I understand that USAID also maintains internal
processes to regularly develop, review, and update contingency plans
for conflicts or crises abroad. As a result of this planning, I am
aware that USAID is currently engaged with the Department of Defense in
a joint review of stabilization contingencies in the Middle East and an
interagency ``defense, diplomacy, and development'' review for steady
(nonconflict) state planning.
Finally, I understand that USAID possesses contingency funding
capabilities to provide the U.S. Government with the flexibility
necessary to respond to rapidly developing political, humanitarian, and
security scenarios, without forcing the Agency to divert funding from
other priority programs.
At this time, I do not believe that additional legislative mandates
are needed to help USAID implement contingency planning practices. If
confirmed, I would assess USAID contingency plans in detail to
determine more fully whether legislation in this regard would be
beneficial.
Question. Under the Millennium Challenge Account, American foreign
aid is disbursed through Compacts to recipient countries that
demonstrate a commitment to just and democratic governance, investments
in the country's population, and economic freedom. Going forward, would
the administration support applying the policy indicators of the
Millennium Challenge Compacts to all USAID programs in the Middle East?
Answer. The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and USAID are
intricately linked, but their purposes and mission are distinct. The
link between the two agencies is codified in the Millennium Challenge
Act of 2003. USAID assistance regularly plays a transformative role in
countries throughout the world in ways that support progress toward
consideration for MCC compact eligibility. For example, USAID
implements almost all of MCC's threshold programs in countries not
quite ready for compact assistance. In addition, the USAID
Administrator serves as a permanent board member on the MCC Board of
Directors and has a voice in MCC policy and selection decisions.
USAID's Office of Development Partners (ODP) supports interagency
coordination efforts on U.S. Government development policies.
MCC works in synergy with USAID's core development policies. MCC
was created, in part, by incorporating some of USAID's best practices
and lessons learned into its model, but it was not designed to
substitute for USAID's range of development programs. In countries
where MCC and USAID are both active, their programs augment and
complement each other.
Most developing countries do not meet the MCC eligibility criteria,
since MCC was created to work only with a select group of developing
countries that meet high hurdles in terms of governance in the areas of
ruling justly, investing in people, and economic freedom. Yet the
United States still has a compelling foreign policy and national
security interest to provide foreign assistance in nonqualifying
countries, and USAID is the primary agency to provide that assistance.
MCC compact assistance focuses on economic growth; USAID's mandate
is much broader and includes global health, food security, democracy
and governance, and disaster relief, among other areas. Applying MCC
policy indicators to USAID programs in the Middle East would preclude
the United States from doing some of our most important work.
Question. Since joining the Obama administration, have you had any
contact with any organizations or persons in connection with the
Holocaust-era insurance claims issue or the government's position on
the Generali litigation? For the purposes of this question, the word
contact includes discussion(s) on the Holocaust-era insurance claims
issue with any insurance company; lawyer, lobbyist, or representative
of any insurance company associated with Holocaust-era claims; any
federal department or agency concerning Holocaust-era claims; any
Member of Congress or staff concerning Holocaust-era claims?
Answer. Shortly after joining the Obama administration, I was
recused from matters related to World War II Holocaust restitution
programs for a period of 2 years from the date of my appointment.
I thus had no contacts of the nature referenced, for this period.
However, I did have limited contacts with colleagues at ICHEIC Trust,
the close-down entity that filed taxes and carried out other
administrative functions when ICHEIC ceased to exist, which were
required to complete my administrative responsibilities, prior to
resigning as an officer.
As a direct result of the correspondence sent to the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee about me, and this issue, I have since been in
touch with several colleagues with whom I worked closely on Holocaust-
era insurance claims issues, and others who were familiar with the
history of its efforts.
I have not had any contacts related to government's position on the
Generali litigation since joining the Obama administration.
NOMINATIONS
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
Scott Gration, of New Jersey, to be Ambassador to the Republic
of Kenya
Michelle Gavin, of the District of Columbia, to be Ambassador
to the Republic of Botswana
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:31 p.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Christopher
A. Coons, presiding.
Present: Senators Coons, Isakson, Inhofe, and Lee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER A. COONS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE
Senator Coons. I am pleased to call to order the first
Africa Subcommittee nomination hearing of the 112th Congress
and will start by saying that I am both humbled and honored to
assume the chair of this subcommittee. Africa is a continent of
tremendous strategic importance to the United States and the
world, and I am extremely grateful to our committee chairman,
Senator Kerry, and my colleagues on the committee for
entrusting me with the gavel.
I look forward to working with my friend, Senator Isakson,
to accomplish our shared vision and strategic goals for the
subcommittee and hope to serve as a model for bipartisan
cooperation on issues pertaining to Africa in the 112th
Congress and beyond.
Before I go any further, I want to just say a few words, if
I could, about my predecessor in this role, Senator Russ
Feingold of Wisconsin, who chaired this subcommittee for 4
years with great integrity and focus and resolve. I only hope
to bring to the table the degree of substance, direction, and
drive which made Senator Feingold such a well respected
chairman of the subcommittee and Senator.
Today I am honored to chair the confirmation for Ms.
Michelle Gavin, nominated to be Ambassador to Botswana, and
Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, nominated to be the Ambassador to
Kenya. While these are different countries with divergent
histories, accomplishments, and challenges before them, the
issues we will discuss today in the context of these nomination
hearings and in the context of Botswana and Kenya, issues of
governance, of democratic institutions and elections, of health
initiatives, human rights, and trade, counterterrorism, U.S.
interests, and a broader regional strategy, are the larger
themes that will serve as focal points for this subcommittee in
the year ahead.
Kenya, as some of you may know, has special meaning for me.
I developed a deep interest in Africa during my junior year of
college when I studied at the University of Nairobi through St.
Lawrence University and traveled through Kenya and Tanzania in
an attempt to immerse myself in African culture. After college,
I wrote about antiapartheid divestiture strategies while
serving as an analyst for a research center here in Washington
and subsequently returned to Africa as a volunteer for the
South African Council of Churches. So my ties to Kenya and
Africa are both professional and personal.
And today's nominees bring to their positions significant
and meaningful experiences. Ms. Michelle Gavin knows this
subcommittee extremely well, having previously served as staff
director under Senator Feingold for whom she also served as
foreign policy advisor. Following her tenure with Senator
Feingold, Ms. Gavin was legislative director to Senator Salazar
and most recently served as special assistant to the President
and senior director for Africa at the NSC. Prior to joining the
National Security Council, Ms. Gavin was an adjunct fellow for
Africa and an international affairs fellow at the Council on
Foreign Relations where she focused on democracy and governance
issues. Perhaps most importantly, I am extremely proud that she
and I and her husband all by coincidence are Truman Scholars.
Gen. Scott Gration has most recently served as the
President's special envoy from March 2009 until, I believe,
just last week--special envoy on Sudan when Ambassador
Princeton Lyman was appointed to that post. I recently met with
Ambassador Lyman and look forward to working with him on
priorities relating to Sudan such as the humanitarian
conditions in Darfur and preparations for Southern Sudan's
impending independence for which both General Gration and Ms.
Gavin have played an instrumental role in their immediate past
capacities. Today I look forward to hearing from General
Gration the lessons he learned as the envoy in Sudan that may
apply or be relevant to Kenya, with a particular focus on
accountability and human rights and transitions to sustainable
democracies.
General Gration served in the United States Air Force from
1974 to 2006, began his career as an F-5 and F-16 instructor,
including a 2-year assignment with the Kenyan Air Force. In
1995, General Gration took command of an operations group in
Saudi Arabia during the Khobar Towers bombing. The following
year, he was transferred to Turkey to oversee Operation
Northern Watch, enforcing a no-fly zone over Iraq. Since then
he has served as deputy director for operations in the Joint
Staff, director of regional affairs for the Deputy Under
Secretary of the Air Force for International Affairs, and
commander of the Joint Task Force-West during Operation Iraqi
Freedom, among many other roles.
General Gration speaks Swahili and has served as the CEO of
Millennium Villages, an organization dedicated to reducing
extreme poverty, as well as the Safe Water Network, an
organization helping to provide safe water to vulnerable
populations in India, Bangladesh, and Ghana.
I look forward to hearing from both of you about how we can
advance United States interests in Botswana and Kenya, two
strong allies which play distinct, yet critical regional roles.
Since the 1960s, Botswana has moved on a path of outstanding
governance and economic growth. It is a model of stability in
Southern Africa and a close partner of our country, including
in its extraordinary battle with HIV and AIDS. I look forward
to hearing from Ms. Gavin about how we can deepen bilateral
ties in a manner that furthers shared diplomatic, political,
and economic goals in the region.
I look forward to hearing from General Gration about the
role he will play in this critical period as Kenya implements a
new constitution and prepares for elections, emerging from the
dark period of the 2007-08 violence in a manner that holds
those responsible at the International Criminal Court. As
President Obama has recently said, the United States stands
with the Kenyan people as they continue to reach for a better
future, and I hope that brighter future is near, especially as
it relates to democracy, accountability, and national
reconciliation.
I would now like to turn to the distinguished ranking
member with whom I am honored to serve for his opening remarks.
Senator Isakson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA
Senator Isakson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
congratulations to you on your appointment to this committee.
And for the benefit of all, we have already met on a couple of
occasions to discuss the subcommittee and its role in the
committee. And I look forward to working with Senator Coons,
and he will be a great chairman, I am confident.
I am also delighted to see Michelle Gavin and Gen. Scott
Gration here before the committee today. I fortunately have
worked with General Gration on a number of occasions before in
his role as special envoy to the Sudan, and I appreciate the
guidance and help he has given to me as I have gone to that
region and gone to Darfur and tried to work as a supporter of
what we all want, which is: liberation, and better health care,
and better food, and better accommodations for the people of
Darfur, but also a peaceful settlement to the split between the
North and the South. And I think it should be noted that we all
realize how dangerous the potential was for another civil war
in the Sudan.
I commend General Gration and his support for the
comprehensive peace agreement and his ability to see to it that
peaceful elections were held, and hopefully between now and, I
guess it is--July--when that takes effect, we can continue to
have basically a peaceful and respectful division of the Sudan.
Hopefully the fledgling South will be a good democracy and a
good partner with the United States.
And further, if it is peaceful, it will allow us to really
focus on Darfur where we need to continue to focus on the
humanitarian tragedy in that region of the West Sudan.
And I congratulate General Gration on his nomination to be
Ambassador to Kenya. Kenya is an equally important country to
the United States in Africa, and it has some similarities in
ways to the Sudan. One, it has a refugee area in the northern
part, bordering on Somalia, the Dadaab, which is going to be an
important area for us to deal with and to help the Kenyans deal
with. And then second, I know the ICC is in Kenya investigating
post-election difficulties which that country had, and General
Gration's experience, I am sure, will help in assisting that to
take place.
And finally, hopefully General Gration will be as committed
to the NGOs in Kibera as he has been to the NGOs in Darfur. Two
of the most tragic scenes I have personally ever seen in my
life were the slum of Kibera in Nairobi, Kenya, and the Darfur
situation. And we deserve to support those NGOs with every
strength that we possibly can.
For Michelle Gavin, I will simply say, if she sends her
daughter to all the meetings, she will be the greatest diplomat
this country ever had. She has got an infectious smile and
beautiful eyes, and she is a pretty 2-year-old young lady. And
I congratulate Michelle on her nomination.
Botswana is a country the United States sees as a real
shining star in Africa, but like all African countries, it does
have its challenges, none greater than the HIV/AIDS epidemic
and explosion that has taken place there. And I look forward to
working with her in the role of PEPFAR and the other things we
do in that country to help bring about a moderation of the
infection rate and hopefully a decline in years to come.
I congratulate both of you on your nomination and look
forward to the question and answer period to follow.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Senator Isakson.
I am now going to read a statement from Chairman John
Kerry. It was his specific request to me that rather than
simply introducing this into the record, that I read it at the
outset of this hearing.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman, could I make a special
request? I am not sure that you are going to be able to get to
everyone. I have a commitment. I may have to leave a little
earlier. Could I just make a comment about our two nominees?
Senator Coons. Certainly.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. All right. I appreciate it.
First of all, I have had the chance and the opportunity to
spend a long time with each one of you guys, and as you know,
the only thing I look for with someone going into a position as
an ambassador is to have a real heart for Africa. And I talked
about that. And I did go back and see, Scott. After our visit,
I found out that the year after I came from the House to the
Senate, when you were in Saudi Arabia, that is when I first met
you because I was over there and we looked up our notes. And to
think that we have someone with your background who is willing
to do this.
And I have to say to you, Michelle, I echo the words about
your cute, little 2-year-old daughter. When I showed her the
picture of my 20 kids and grandkids, she picked out the one she
thought was the prettiest, and I will be calling Jesse Swan to
tell her that she won.
But let me just say, in case I do have to leave, that it is
very rare that we get people who honestly have a heart for
Africa, and when Joel Starr, back here who is with me, told me
that he first met you when he was with Tom Campbell, I figured
you must have been about 12 years old at that time. [Laughter.]
But it is nice that you have kept your heart for Africa.
And after 116 African country visits, it is showing you my
commitment to Africa. I am always really happy when I see
someone who has not just a formal commitment to a job but a
heart for Africa. Both of you are high on the list of that.
So I just thank you for letting me to get that off in case
I have to leave before it is my turn.
Senator Coons. Certainly, Senator.
I am now going to move to reading a statement that Chairman
John Kerry wanted introduced at the beginning of this
nomination hearing.
[The prepared statement of Senator John F. Kerry, as read
by Senator Coons follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John F. Kerry,
U.S. Senator From Massachusetts
Today, I would like to express my strong support for the
nominations of Scott Gration and Michelle Gavin.
General Gration has spearheaded the Obama administration's Sudan
policy since 2009. On January 9, 2011, we saw the fruits of those
efforts when the people of Southern Sudan went to the polls to vote for
independence. I had the tremendous privilege to be there that day, with
General Gration, and to bear witness to that historic moment--to the
triumph of the forces of peace over those of war.
Much remains to be done in Sudan to secure long-term peace between
North and South and to strengthen the ties between what will be two
separate but interconnected nations. The status of Abyei must be
resolved, and the people of Darfur still wait for their peace
agreement. It is therefore absolutely critical that we remain fully
engaged in Sudan, and particularly in Darfur. For that reason, I am
glad that the President has named Ambassador Princeton Lyman to succeed
General Gration as Special Envoy.
But we must recognize the tremendous achievements that have been
made to date. Just a few months ago, many were predicting that the
referendum would not even take place. But it did, and both the nominees
before the committee this afternoon played a key role in helping to
make success possible--General Gration through his direct negotiations
with the Sudanese and Ms. Gavin through her work at the White House.
This experience will serve them well in their new posts. I have met
and traveled with both General Gration and Ms. Gavin, and we have
worked closely in our shared quest to help the peoples of Sudan find a
lasting peace. They are both dedicated public servants with deep
experience in the region, and I strongly support their nominations.
Senator Coons. That having been said, I would like to now
turn to the nominees for their opening remarks. And if I might,
I would like to specifically invite you to also introduce your
families who we have already had the pleasure of meeting but
who should be recognized, I think, for the sacrifices they have
made to support your commitment to public service. If I might
first, General Gration.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT GRATION, OF NEW JERSEY, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO
THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA
Mr. Gration. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and
members of the committee.
It is an honor to appear before you this afternoon to seek
your approval to be America's next Ambassador to the Republic
of Kenya. I am truly grateful to President Obama, to Secretary
Clinton for the confidence that they have placed in me for the
nomination to represent our country in Kenya. If confirmed, I
will work with you and other Members of Congress to advance
American interests in Kenya, to promote a common understanding
between our two countries.
I appreciate the opportunity to introduce my wife Judy, the
mother of our four children and my full partner in over 35
years of public service. If confirmed, Judy will bring a wealth
of knowledge to this assignment. She was born in Nairobi. She
spent her childhood in Kenya as the daughter of missionary
teachers. And in fact, both of her parents are buried there in
Kenya.
Like Judy, I was also raised in Africa, in Congo and Kenya.
I learned to speak Swahili as a toddler and developed a
lifelong interest in the region. In 1974, I returned to Kenya
to do humanitarian work. In the early 1980s, I spent time as an
F-5 instructor pilot in Kenya for 2 years. And during the last
20 years, I have returned to Kenya numerous times, on military
duty, as CEO of Millennium Villages, and with an NGO working to
increase access to safe drinking water.
For more than five decades, Kenya has been one of our most
reliable partners in Africa. If confirmed, I look forward to
leading our diplomatic efforts in this next important period of
Kenya's history.
Since the terrible period of post-election violence in
2007, Kenyans have embarked on an ambitious program of reform.
Implementing the new constitution, cooperating fully with the
ICC, and advancing accountability are critical elements that
must be in place to ensure a peaceful, transparent, and
credible Presidential election next year.
As the reform process moves forward, I am committed to
working privately and publicly to protect human rights, to
fight corruption, and to promote democratic values,
development, accountability, and national reconciliation.
The 1998 attack on our Nairobi Embassy, an attack that
killed 218 people, is a solemn reminder of the constant
terrorist threat. Furthermore, the conflict in Somalia
continues to increase Kenya's security and humanitarian
challenges. If confirmed, I will support Kenya's efforts to
secure its borders, to protect its citizens, and to care for
those who seek refuge.
You can count on me to protect Americans living and
traveling in Kenya. If confirmed, I will reach out to the
estimated 20,000 Americans in Kenya. We will work together to
find ways to strengthen the economic and cultural ties between
our two countries.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, if approved, I
will be grateful and exceedingly proud to serve as the next
U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Kenya.
And I will be pleased to respond to any questions you may
have for me. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gration follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scott Gration
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the committee, it is
an honor to appear before you this afternoon as you consider my
nomination to be our country's next Ambassador to the Republic of
Kenya. I am truly grateful to President Obama and to Secretary Clinton
for the confidence they have placed in me and for the nomination to
represent our Nation in Kenya. If confirmed, I will work with you and
the Congress to advance American interests in Kenya and to promote a
common understanding between our two countries.
I would like to introduce my wife, Judy--mother of our four
children and my full partner in over 35 years of public service. If I
am confirmed, Judy will bring a wealth of knowledge to this assignment.
She was born in Nairobi and spent her childhood in Kenya, where both of
her parents are buried.
Like Judy, I was also raised in Africa, in Congo and Kenya, where I
learned Swahili and developed a lifelong interest in this region. In
1974, I returned to Kenya to do humanitarian work. In the early 1980s,
I served as an F-5 instructor pilot with the Kenyan Air Force for 2
years. During the last 20 years, I've returned to Kenya numerous
times--on military duty, as CEO of Millennium Villages, and with an NGO
working to increase access to safe drinking water.
For more than five decades, Kenya has been one of our most reliable
partners in Africa. If confirmed, I look forward to leading our
diplomatic efforts in this important period of Kenya's history.
Since the terrible period of post-election violence in 2007,
Kenyans have embarked on an ambitious program of reform. Implementing
the new constitution, cooperating fully with the ICC, and advancing
accountability are critical elements that must be in place to ensure a
peaceful, transparent, and credible Presidential election next year.
As the reform process moves forward, I am committed, if confirmed,
to working both privately and publicly toprotect human rights, to fight
corruption, and to promote democratic values, development,
accountability, and national reconciliation.
The 1998 attack on our Nairobi Embassy that killed 218 is a solemn
reminder of the constant terrorist threat. The conflict in Somalia
continues to increase Kenya's security and humanitarian challenges. If
confirmed, I will support the Government of Kenya's effort to secure
its borders, to protect its citizens, and to care for those seeking
refuge.
If confirmed, you can count on me to protect Americans living and
traveling in Kenya. I will work with the estimated 20,000 Americans in
Kenya; to seek ways to strengthen economic and cultural ties between
Kenya and the United States.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, if confirmed, I will be
grateful and proud to serve as the next U.S. Ambassador to the Republic
of Kenya. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you might
have.
Senator Coons. Thank you, General.
Ms. Gavin.
STATEMENT OF MICHELLE GAVIN, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE
AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF BOTSWANA
Ms. Gavin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Isakson,
Senator Inhofe. It is a great honor and privilege to appear
before you today as President Obama's nominee to be the
Ambassador to the Republic of Botswana, and I deeply appreciate
the confidence the President and Secretary Clinton have placed
in me by putting my name forward for your consideration.
I am also deeply, deeply grateful for the support of my
husband, David Bonfili; my daughter Clara; and my parents,
Michael and Jeanette Gavin.
My own professional background has left me keenly aware of
the importance of working with this committee and the Congress,
if confirmed, in order to advance U.S. interests in Botswana,
including maintaining a strong tradition of democratic
governance, encouraging economic diversification, and combating
the HIV/AIDS epidemic. For many years, as you mentioned, I
served on the staff of Senator Russ Feingold who focused
intensely on African issues during his tenure on this
committee, and most recently I was a special assistant to
President Obama and senior director for African affairs at the
NSC, a position that gave me new insight on the importance of
our partnerships on the continent and a rich understanding of
the critical role that interagency cooperation plays, both in
Washington and in the field, as we work to achieve our foreign
policy objectives.
At independence in 1966, Botswana was, by many measures,
one of the poorest countries on earth. Now it is a middle-
income country and an exemplar for the continent, having
consistently maintained a democratic government, responsibly
managed its natural resources, and invested in its people and
infrastructure. Botswana is an excellent partner and our
bilateral relationship is strong, grounded in a shared
commitment to democracy, good governance, and human rights.
The United States and Botswana also share an interest in
ensuring the sustainability of Botswana's success by deepening
economic diversification, promoting regional economic growth
and development. Botswana aims to strengthen the nondiamond
sectors of its economy, creating jobs and opportunities for the
next generation, and supporting this endeavor through
partnerships with the United States, including increased
bilateral trade, will be one of my priorities, if confirmed.
In addition, if I am confirmed, I will serve as the United
States representative to the Southern African Development
Community, or SADC. Regional integration and cooperation are
essential to the long-term stability and prosperity of all of
southern Africa's countries. So I look forward to exploring
appropriate opportunities to work with SADC to promote these
objectives.
Despite a remarkable commitment on the part of the
Government of Botswana to save its citizens from HIV/AIDS, and
despite strong support from the United States and
nongovernmental entities, Botswana still has the second highest
HIV/AIDS prevalence rate in the world. Much has been done to
combat the epidemic, particularly with regard to treatment. And
currently, depending on the measure you use, either 83 or
closer to 95 percent of Botswana who need antiretroviral
treatment receive it free of charge from the government--of
Botswana, not our Government. This success could not have been
achieved without the $480 million in support provided by the
United States through PEPFAR since 2004. And if confirmed, I
will do my utmost to ensure that taxpayer resources are used
effectively in combating HIV/AIDS in Botswana, working to build
on existing successes and focusing critical attention on
prevention where more gains must be made.
In Accra in 2009, President Obama said, ``I do not see the
countries and peoples of Africa as a world apart; I see Africa
as a fundamental part of our interconnected world, as partners
with America on behalf of a future we want for all of our
children. That partnership must be grounded in mutual
responsibility and mutual respect.''
Botswana is a small country but plays an important role
both regionally and globally. It has been a strong, clear voice
in support of human rights around the world. In fact, it was
one of the first countries in the world to sever relations with
Libya when it became clear that the regime in Tripoli was
prepared to massacre its own citizens in order to cling to
power.
In partnership with the United States, Botswana hosts an
International Law Enforcement Academy that helps law
enforcement professionals from around the continent sharpen
their skills and improve their capacity to combat transnational
crime.
Botswana is an international leader in conservation and has
important insight to offer in global discussions regarding
environmental issues.
If confirmed, I look forward to encouraging leadership by
Botswana on a range of issues where our interests align.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you so
much for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I
would be happy to answer any of your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gavin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michelle Gavin
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a great honor and
privilege to appear before you today as President Obama's nominee to be
Ambassador to the Republic of Botswana. I appreciate the confidence the
President and Secretary Clinton have placed in me by putting my name
forward for your consideration. I am also deeply grateful for the
support of my husband, David Bonfili, my daughter Clara, and my
parents, Michael and Jeanette Gavin.
My own professional background has left me keenly aware of the
importance of working with this committee and the Congress. If
confirmed, I pledge to work with you to advance U.S. interests in
Botswana, including maintaining its strong tradition of democratic
governance, encouraging economic diversification, and combating the
HIV/AIDS epidemic. For many years I served on the staff of Senator Russ
Feingold, who focused intensely on African issues during his tenure on
this committee. Most recently, I was a Special Assistant to President
Obama and Senior Director for African Affairs on the National Security
Staff, a position that gave me new insight into the importance of our
partnerships on the continent and a rich understanding of the critical
role that interagency cooperation plays both in Washington and in the
field as we work to achieve our foreign policy objectives.
Upon independence in 1966, Botswana was, by many measures, one of
the poorest countries on earth. Today it is a middle-income country and
an exemplar for the continent, having consistently maintained a
democratic government, responsibly managed its natural resources, and
invested in its people and infrastructure. Botswana is an excellent
partner and our bilateral relationship is strong, grounded in a shared
commitment to democracy, good governance, and human rights.
The United States and Botswana also share an interest in ensuring
the sustainability of Botswana's success by deepening economic
diversification and promoting regional economic growth and development.
Botswana aims to trengthen the nondiamond sectors of its economy,
creating jobs and opportunities for the next generation of Batswana,
and supporting this endeavor through partnership with the United
States, including increased bilateral trade, will be one of my
priorities. In addition, if confirmed, I will serve as the United
States representative to the Southern African Development Community or
SADC. Regional integration and cooperation are essential to the long-
term stability and prosperity of all of southern Africa's countries,
and I look forward to exploring appropriate opportunities to work with
SADC to promote these objectives.
Despite a remarkable commitment on the part of the Government of
Botswana to save it citizens from HIV/AIDS, and despite strong support
from the United States and nongovernmental entities, Botswana still has
the second highest HIV/AIDS prevalence rate in the world. Much has been
done to combat the epidemic, particularly with regard to treatment.
Currently 83 percent of Batswana who need antiretroviral treatment
receive it free of charge from the Government of Botswana. This success
could not have been achieved without the $480 million in support
provided by the United States through PEPFAR since 2004. If confirmed,
I will do my utmost to ensure that taxpayer resources are used
effectively in combating HIV/AIDS in Botswana, working to build on
existing successes and focusing critical attention on prevention, where
more gains must be made.
In Accra in 2009, President Obama said, ``I do not see the
countries and peoples of Africa as a world apart; I see Africa as a
fundamental part of our interconnected world, as partners with America
on behalf of the future we want for all of our children. That
partnership must be grounded in mutual responsibility and mutual
respect.'' Botswana is a small country, but plays an important role
both regionally and globally. Botswana has been a strong, clear voice
in support of human rights around the world; in fact it was among the
first countries to sever relations with Libya when it became clear that
the regime in Tripoli was prepared to massacre its own citizens in
order to cling to power. In partnership with the United States,
Botswana hosts an International Law Enforcement Academy that helps law
enforcement professionals from around the continent sharpen their
skills and improve their capacity to combat transnational crime.
Botswana is an international leader in conservation and has important
insight to offer in global discussions regarding environmental issues.
If confirmed, I look forward to encouraging leadership by the Batswana
on a range of issues where our interests align.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you again for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I will be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Ms. Gavin. Thank you, General
Gration.
We are now going to begin 7-minute rounds with members of
the committee asking questions.
General Gration, thank you for your service to our Nation,
both in the Air Force and as special envoy.
The U.S. Embassy in Nairobi is the largest in sub-Saharan
Africa with roughly 1,400 employees, and as the Sudan envoy,
you managed roughly 30, obviously in your military experience,
much larger contingents.
I would be interested in your overall plan for running an
effective and operating an efficient Embassy, what your
priorities are for that Embassy, and in particular, given there
are 86 who are Department of Defense direct hires, comment, if
you would, on how as a retired general from the Air Force who
served both in a military and diplomatic capacity what you view
is the relationship on unity of effort between our civilian and
military representatives in Nairobi.
Mr. Gration. Thank you very much. It will be a big
challenge because there are people from many different
organizations who represent many different agencies. But I
believe my job is to orchestrate and to provide a vision where
all of these people who represent America do just that:
represent America. And I want to create within the Embassy,
within the country a team, a strong team that is an all-of-
Government team, where it is not just the military or it is not
just USAID or it is not just CDC and other people working
independently, but we are working together to further the
interests of our great Nation in Kenya and in the region. So
there are many things that I want to do in terms of
establishing the priorities.
First of all, I think in building the team, we have to make
sure that it is an inclusive team, a team where everybody can
contribute, where everybody is resourced, and where they have a
sense of what the mission is. So I will be creating that very
early in my time there.
I have worked on a speech that I plan to give in Swahili
within the first couple days to all the local employees, so
that they are part of the team because without them, we really
cannot do the mission we have in Kenya and in the region.
So the concept is to start bringing that team together.
And then I want to put no question in anybody's mind who
works for who. I think, as you point out, when you have
military people and you have other people--that is why I spent
a lot of time understanding the NSDD-38, Chief of Mission
authorities, and what is my responsibility and what I am
accountable for, and how I can continue on to control and
manage those processes.
As for the military people, I understand that they work for
the COCOM, but again, it is the communication, the personal
relationship that I have with the commanders of the military. I
plan to work very hard to strengthen those.
But the concept that I am trying to get to right now is
making sure that everybody understands the mission, understands
our objectives in the country and works as a team to make that
all happen. I believe I can do that based on the experience I
have had in the military and based on my experience that I have
had in the State Department.
Senator Coons. Thank you, General.
You have, as we mentioned, served as President Obama's
special envoy to Sudan since March 2009, and in that capacity,
you have received both criticism and praise for your handling
of an array of challenges, ranging from the expulsion of
humanitarian groups working in Darfur in 2009 to the southern
Sudan referendum in January which Chairman Kerry's statement
lauded you for playing a critical role in moving forward. Some
have said that you compromised on humanitarian issues while
others have lauded your ability to be an effective negotiator
with the Government of Sudan. Some have criticized you in your
tenure as special envoy for being too close with Khartoum in
negotiating with them, and others believe that that was
critical to achieving progress on the referendum.
Do you believe the advocacy groups and other critics have
accurately characterized your approach toward Darfur, and what
are the lessons you might have learned from your experience as
envoy and how would they inform your approach if confirmed as
Ambassador to Kenya?
Mr. Gration. When I took this job, the President was very
clear. He said my primary mission was to save lives, and that
was when we were facing 1.5 million people at risk in Darfur
after the NGOs were thrown out. And to do that, it became
increasingly clear to me, as I thought about how I would
conduct this mandate that I had, that I had to be able to talk
with the Government of Khartoum. As we thought about ending the
conflict that displaced so many people in Darfur, the conflict
with the proxy forces between the Government of Khartoum and
Chad, it became increasingly clear that I had to talk to
N'Djamena and I had to talk to Khartoum. When we thought about
implementing the comprehensive peace agreement and the 12
outstanding issues that had to be negotiated, it was clear that
I had to have a relationship with Juba and Khartoum. And in
every situation, it was obvious that I had to have a
relationship.
And so it became a question of how do you build that
relationship. And I believe that in all relationships, it has
to be transparent. There has to be trust, and there has to be
respect if you want to have influence. I also believe that you
have to have both a blended application of both incentives and
pressures, and that is what we tried to achieve in Sudan, using
all the tools to achieve our national interests and desired
results and behavior changes that were required by using a
blend of both sticks and carrots, as some people say. I would
say pressures and incentives.
And that is what I think I will take also to Kenya, an
ability to look at a situation, to build the relationships that
are based on trust and respect, to create an atmosphere of
transparency where we can talk clearly, where we can express
opinions in a way that are accepted by both sides, and that we
can use the appropriate mix of pressures and incentives to
achieve America's interests in that land.
Senator Coons. Thank you, General.
We are now going to move to the first round of questions
from Senator Isakson. I understand there is a vote underway on
the floor. And so my suggestion--hopefully this meets the needs
of the other members of the committee as well--is that we allow
Senator Isakson to go through his first 7-minute round, and
then we will recess so that all the members of the subcommittee
can go and vote, return, and resume the hearing.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to speak
anyway. I am aware of the bipartisan support for both of these
nominees and the challenges that they face. And I will yield to
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Coons. Senator Isakson.
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Gration, I appreciate your answer to the question
asked by Chairman Coons. Having been to Khartoum myself and
then to Darfur, but dealing with the Khartoum Government, the
comments that you were criticized for are understandable
comments when put in the context of what you were dealing with
at the time. And I commend you on your effort there and what
you did and the fact that the results have proven to be a
peaceful transition, at least as far as it has gone with the
election. And I hope you will give continuing advice to
Princeton Lyman, so that continues through July and we can
actually get to a point where we resolve the remaining issues.
Now, to Kenya, are our Somalia efforts still housed in the
Kenyan Embassy?
Mr. Gration. Yes, sir; they are. There will be, though,
some changes that are happening right now.
There will be an ambassador-rank individual that will be
part of the Somalia unit, and that individual will report
directly to Assistant Secretary of State Carson and will be
responsible for all policy decisions having to do with the
Somalia portfolio.
The Kenya Embassy will still have the operators, the people
that interface on a day-to-day basis, and they will all be
housed and be the responsibility of the chief of mission.
And if confirmed, I will stay very closely involved with
this new ambassador and with all the units to make sure that
there is continuity and make sure that everything is taking
place in accordance with procedures and policy that have been
given to me.
Senator Isakson. But the special mission will report
directly to Johnnie Carson?
Mr. Gration. The Somalia unit that is responsible for
policy and about nine people will report directly to him.
And it makes sense that they are located in Kenya because
many of the TFG members, many of the people that work directly
in Somalia are there in Nairobi right now. So it certainly
makes sense that that organization is there and is sponsored by
the American Embassy under the Chief of Mission authority.
Senator Isakson. How deep is your knowledge of the refugee
camp at Dadaab?
Mr. Gration. I have never been there, but I want to get
more knowledgeable, but I have a basic understanding.
Senator Isakson. My understanding is it continues to grow
and has the potential to be a real problem.
Mr. Gration. Yes, sir. There are somewhere between 315,000
to 350,000 people there, and that number continues to grow. It
needs more land. I understand the Kenyans' reluctance to do
that because they don't want it to get too big, but the reality
is that we have to do a better job not only to help these
people with nourishment, sanitation, and health care, but to
give them the hope that they need to make the adjustment to a
normal life and also to life after Dadaab.
So that means we have to have a policy in Somalia that will
restore the country and give it some stability so people can
return because just to house people in Kenya is not the right
answer and to house them better. The answer is to bring peace,
stability, and the conditions where they can come back and
return to their normal livelihood.
So I believe that the two-track policy the United States
has right now is the right approach, but it is going to take a
tremendous amount of effort because for 20 years there has been
unrest. There has been so little governance, and we have got to
treat Somalia with a higher sense of priority in my view to be
able to create the environment so that there can be governance
and there can be the stability that they so need to be able to
restore the refugee problem that is spilling out into Kenya.
Senator Isakson. I appreciate that answer.
Ms. Gavin, I am sorry your 2-year-old left. She was
stunning and as pretty as her mother. It is good to have you,
and I congratulate you on your nomination.
Botswana is a country that the United States sees as a
shining star. One of the things that I am most interested in as
I have been to Africa is: the tremendous Chinese investment
that is being made on that continent and the challenge between
the Chinese extracting natural resources with their own
workers, and the United States investing money and trying to
create a climate of United States business investment. What
will you do as Ambassador to try and foster that type of
investment in Botswana?
Ms. Gavin. Thank you so much, Senator. I think that, if
confirmed, that will actually be one of my highest priorities.
The Government of Botswana is a willing partner in wanting to
diversify its economy, and there are a lot of positives to that
particular investment climate. But it is also a very small
market, 2 million people. So one thing that I think is going to
be essential is going to be to work closely with Ambassador
Gips in South Africa and others in the region to take a
regional approach to economic development. It is a much more
attractive investment, I think, for U.S. businesses. There is
much more opportunity for the United States that would be
extremely beneficial to Botswana as well if we address this
regionally.
You are absolutely right. China has been increasing its
involvement in Botswana and in the rest of southern Africa
largely in extractive industries, but also getting involved on
some health issues, getting involved with the University of
Botswana to increase sort of their Asian studies capacity. So I
will also look for opportunities to work with the Chinese where
we do have some shared objectives so that I am not reacting in
a way that suggests this is always a zero-sum game.
Senator Isakson. Well, I commend both of you on your
nomination and look forward to working with you.
And I will end where I began in my opening statement. I
hope both of you will do everything you can to support the NGO
efforts, in particular, what is happening in Kibera: CARE,
USAID, Save the Children, Catholic Relief. You saw what they
did, obviously, in Darfur. Those organizations are doing an
awful lot to bring some degree of quality of life to very
impoverished people, and I know in terms of Botswana, I assume
there is PEPFAR money in Botswana and CDC, which is based out
of Atlanta, and the other volunteers that are there--the
support for those volunteers and those NGOs is critical to the
future of that continent and the betterment of those people.
Again, I congratulate both of you on your nomination.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Senator.
We are going to recess for a period of 15 minutes so that
members of the subcommittee can vote, and then we will resume.
The subcommittee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Senator Coons. We are going to resume the nomination
hearing of the Africa Subcommittee. Thank you for being patient
with our recess while members of the committee cast their
votes.
The ranking minority member may or may not rejoin us, but
he urged me to proceed and complimented you both on your
statements and answers so far.
General Gration, if I might. The International Criminal
Court has recently summoned--I believe it is six individuals
from Kenya accused of crimes against humanity during the post-
election violence of 2007. And I believe they are appearing in
The Hague just a few days from now.
If confirmed as Ambassador, what would be your approach to
handling these ICC cases in Kenya?
I noted that the Kenyan Government has called for an
Article 16 delay, arguing instead for local tribunals to
address these questions of violence, and the AU has endorsed
Kenya's request. What is your view of the issue of deferment?
Do you believe the ICC process threatens peace and
stability in Kenya as some have claimed? And given your prior
experience with the ICC in Sudan, how will you handle this in
the context of Kenya?
Mr. Gration. Thank you. Certainly I believe that the
underlying issues have to be resolved, and I will talk about
that in a minute.
But just to answer your questions directly, in terms of an
Article 16 deferment, I do not support that and neither does
our country and do not believe that if there was a deferment,
that it would change the peace and security situation either in
Kenya or regionally. And the fact is it may in some way
exacerbate the situation.
There are other processes that the Kenya Government is
pursuing. One is asking whether article 17 and article 19 would
be appropriate, and that would be where they would appeal to
the ICC to have the process moved back into Kenya, but the ICC
would have to approve that process. If indeed they do that and
ICC approves the process, that may be one other avenue that the
government has, but in terms of article 16, we do not support
that.
But I think the most important element is that we cannot
have a situation where a culture of impunity, where corruption
is not curbed, where human rights are at risk, where people are
looked at as tribesmen and not as citizens of the country.
Those issues have to be resolved.
And that is why as a government we support the reform
actions that have been put in place. On the 4th of August,
Kenya put together a new constitution, but that constitution
has to be implemented. The fact is there are almost 25
different legislative pieces that have to be passed to fully
implement it. In addition to that, there are committees,
courts, commissions, things that have to be set up, and then
people have to be able to understand and buy into this process.
And the government has to show that they are committed to
making sure that these reform measures become part of practice
and become part of the process and there is a democratic
process where people can demonstrate their will through
elections and that they can do this freely and in a transparent
way and a peaceful way. This is what we will be aiming for.
And I think the ICC is part of this, showing accountability
for those, and if they are not guilty, that will come out. But
if folks are proven to have been involved in issues, in crimes,
then they would have to be held accountable for that.
Senator Coons. Thank you.
Ms. Gavin, in the Botswana context, Botswana has often been
recognized as one of the most stable democracies in all of
Africa, one of the most transparent, and President Khama has
spoken out about some of the challenges in Zimbabwe, was one of
the first, in fact, to come out and recognize President
Ouattara as the winner of the elections in Cote d'Ivoire.
Could you just comment on to what do you attribute the
stability, the predictability, the regularity of elections in
Botswana? What actions might we take to strengthen the
multiparty nature of electoral democracy in Botswana, and then
what are we going to do, should you be confirmed as Ambassador,
to strengthen their hand in being a regional supporter of
initiatives that we have taken both in questioning the
legitimacy of elections in Zimbabwe and in strengthening the
region as it has to do with civil institutions?
Ms. Gavin. Thank you so much. It is an interesting thing to
think about, why has Botswana been able to achieve so much
success, and I think it can certainly be attributed to good
leadership, some decisions early on particularly when the
country's diamond wealth was discovered regarding natural
resource management that are highly relevant for the rest of
the region where there are so many mineral-rich economies that
have not been managed as well.
There is also a culture in Botswana of open debate and
dialogue that has existed for a very long time that I think
helps to inform the democratic culture that has developed
there.
I also think it is important to avoid treating Botswana as
the exception to the rule and sort of letting everybody else
off the hook as if Botswana had some special set of ingredients
that other countries do not have, which I think gets to another
part of your question about how to help to amplify their voice
in the region and sometimes globally where we, in fact, have
shared interests and shared objectives, and that, if confirmed,
is certainly something I would hope to work on by encouraging
the Botswanan Government to participate in some global
dialogues and discussion, encouraging the head of state to come
to the U.N. General Assembly, for example, and make sure that
their voice is heard.
I think that as far as strengthening the multiparty aspect
of Botswana's democracy, there are some very encouraging signs
that the opposition is alive and well. In the last election,
the opposition--well, the ruling party received something like
53.3 percent of the vote. So it is not as if no one is out
there voting for opposition parties. They recently, in fact,
came to some agreement to unify and try and rally around the
same candidates the next time they take a go at this.
The press is extremely free in Botswana, and sometimes
highly critical of the government.
So I think what I could do, if confirmed as Ambassador, is
to continue a dialogue with representatives of all political
parties in Botswana and continue engaging the Botswanans and
particularly young Botswanans on issues of just civic
participation, civic activism, make sure that as long as
everybody is participating in the dialogue and the dialogue
stays rich, I think that multiparty democracy is likely to
remain quite strong.
Senator Coons. General Gration, to follow up on that, if I
might. As we go toward the 2012 elections in Kenya, what are
the things that we can and should be doing to continue to push
along the path of reform to strengthen democratic institutions
in Kenya to ensure we do not have a repeat of the 2007
elections and their irregularities? And what do you think
should be our major concerns in terms of potential flashpoints
as we move toward those elections?
Mr. Gration. Certainly we need to encourage all segments of
the population to become involved in this. In other words, we
have to have programs that not only help the government itself
with the implementation programs--and we do need to help
those--but we need to help people like Patrick Lumumba and
folks that are working with corruption. We need to engage again
and continuously with the civil society to make sure that the
people understand the process and they understand that
democratic reform will give them a voice that is clear and that
represents exactly what they are saying and that it does that
without fear.
We need to engage the youth because much of the actual
violence was done by the youth even though they may have been
controlled by other aspects of the government or individuals.
But the youth have to become part of the solution. They have
understand that it is not about bullets. It is about ballots.
It is not about machetes, but it is about getting out there and
making a difference with words and votes and concepts.
So it is going to take an education process, and that is
something we can do through our USAID grants, through things
that we become involved in, things we put our fingerprints on.
But the bottom line is just to, again, push on
accountability, push on these wherever we are through all
aspects of our Embassy so that in my view that should be the
highest priority of getting from now until whether it is next
August or next December when the election is held, that we have
done everything possible so that we can ensure that it is
peaceful. And if for some reason it is not, we will look back
and say we have done everything we could have done.
And that is why in my view, if confirmed, I want to get out
there as soon as possible to start building the relationships
with the government so I can have influence, that I can
understand the situation, and that I can do everything I can to
prepare not only our Embassy to get involved but to bring the
rest of the multilateral organizations, our international
partners, and other people around so that we are all going the
same way same day on this very, very important issue. It is a
high priority and I believe that we can make a difference.
But we cannot waste another day. There is so much that
remains to be done. We saw it in Sudan in both the election and
in the referendum. We can, through right training, through
right programs, and right focus, produce an election that does
represent the will of the people. That is what we will continue
to do, and if I am confirmed, I will put my effort toward this
because in my view it is one of the highest priorities I have.
Senator Coons. One concern I have around sort of
legitimacy, given the recent protests throughout north Africa
and the Middle East, is transparency and corruption. A recent
BBC report projected that maybe as much as a third of the
Kenyan national government spending is lost or wasted through
corruption. It has not ranked high on transparency indices.
How pervasive do you think a problem or challenge
corruption is for Kenya? Is it potentially a source of some
tension or difficulty in the same way that it has been in other
countries that have recently seen popular uprisings? What sort
of a barrier is it to United States-Kenya trade, and what can
we do to help those elements within Kenyan society and
leadership that really want to tackle and fight corruption
within Kenya?
Mr. Gration. Exactly right. From what I understand, Kenya
is rated 154 out of 178 in terms of the corruption index. This
is in my view has to stop, and it is not going to be able to
stop maybe even under my tenure. But I think that, if
confirmed, this is something that we need to put a big dent in
because while the government officials and other people who are
in a position to take, while they gain, what it is doing is it
is just destroying the opportunities for creating wealth at the
local level. Kenya is suffering with--well, they already have
about half their population under 18, but if you take a look at
folks under 30, only about 30 percent really have jobs that are
producing incomes upon which they can support a family and
their desired livelihood.
So when you have corruption, it just hurts, and it also
takes the motivation out of people. If they see somebody else
getting rich by not working hard, it undermines the work ethic.
So in my view for the good of future generations, this has got
to be a priority.
And while I do not know yet all the tools we can use, I
think that there are a lot of tools that we can. And the first
is the whole concept of reform and making sure that as is laid
out in the new constitution, that ministers and Cabinet
officials, I should say, have to get appointed and approved,
that there is a new system of representation, a new house, the
eight provinces are going into 47 counties, and they will have
representation. And you will not have the cronyism, hopefully,
as in there right now.
So it is going to start at the government, but it has got
to go right down to the individual people because, having lived
there--and I am sure you experienced too--even down at the
local level, there are elements of corruption and a way of
doing business. And somehow that has got to change. And I
believe we have to use all elements to help it change, whether
it is the church with Judeo-Christian values or whether it is
part of the Muslim community through their outreach, whether it
is through schools and teaching ethics from grade school on up.
I do not know what the right solution is, but I got to tell
you this is so pervasive and such a big problem and it is
keeping Kenya from having access to the Millennium Challenge
Account. It is keeping the people down, and I believe that we
need to work together.
Maybe this is something that we can form a task force among
the international community to try to figure out how do we all
together help make a difference because I do not think this is
something America can solve. I think it is going to have to be
done by the government itself, by the people themselves, by the
Kenyans themselves, but it is going to take the full support of
all the international community to help make this happen
because it is going to involve that kind of dramatic change for
it to be able to make a difference and be able to stick.
Senator Coons. Ms. Gavin, Botswana has often been cited on
those same rankings as among the most transparent in the world.
And you previously cited the longstanding cultural traditions
of openness and debate. I do not have much insight into how
Botswana, an extraction economy that experienced a sudden rise
in wealth, has managed to avoid the same challenges that many
other governments of all kinds have fallen into of exactly the
sort of widespread corruption, large- and small-scale, that has
characterized many other developing nations and some developed
nations.
Any advice or insight for us on how in a multilateral way,
either through the international community or through values
and ethics changes, we might make progress in nations
throughout the region and the world? What lessons might we
learn from Botswana?
Ms. Gavin. Well, I hope to, if confirmed, certainly learn
more about why the things that work so well in Botswana work
that way. But I do think there is real value simply in their
example of a resource-rich country where the rule of law
prevails, and in fact, government officials, controversial
cases--sometimes the courts rule against the government. So you
have a truly independent judiciary and a police force that
protects the citizens rather than preying on them.
I do think that the International Law Enforcement Academy
that Botswana hosts and that the United States Government
supports is an interesting example of trying to highlight
Botswana's reputation for good governance, rule-governed
procedures, and respect for the rule of law to help build
capacity internationally. Some 29 African countries participate
in training there, largely focused on different aspects of
transnational crime. But simply having the seat of this academy
in a country with such a low level of corruption, I think is a
good example of trying to maximize the value of the Botswanan
story and make it relevant to the rest of the region.
Senator Coons. Ms. Gavin, one of the biggest challenges, as
you mentioned in your opening statement, facing Botswana is a
very high rate of AIDS and HIV infection. There has been
significant progress made to some large extent because of
United States investment, but it is now moving to being one
more directly led by the Botswana Government but where I
understand there might be some great progress being made
through a partnership between Merck and the Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation and the nation of Botswana.
What can you suggest about lessons for us and challenges
ahead to have an adult population that is, I think, at about 25
percent infection? It must be an enormous challenge for
Botswana. How do you see the path ahead in terms of the
American role, the multilateral role, and the role for the
private sector and the philanthropic sector in tackling this
greatest challenge for Botswana?
Ms. Gavin. I think you are right. There is no single thing
that the United States Government does in Botswana that is more
important than continuing this fight against HIV and AIDS, and
I think that we probably can extract some valuable lessons for
other countries hard hit by the epidemic, particularly in the
success they have had in rolling out treatment and also almost
eliminating mother-to-child transmission.
But on prevention, there is still a tremendous amount of
work to be done, and it will take interagency collaboration.
PEPFAR, as you know, Senator, works best when the CDC and AID
are working in a collaborative and complementary way and not
engaged in a constant tussle for resources.
In Botswana, we also have some interesting other elements.
DOD participates helping to work on HIV/AIDS issues with the
Botswana defense forces.
And our Peace Corps Volunteers in Botswana work exclusively
on health issues. Botswana had graduated out of Peace Corps and
then invited the Peace Corps back when the pandemic hit and
they realized the magnitude of the challenge.
So I think that there are very positive lessons that we can
extract on the treatment side, much more to do on the
prevention side, and I think critical to all this is going to
be that interagency collaboration, making sure all those
interagency elements are working together in conjunction then
with the nongovernmental elements, Merck, Gates, and others,
and critically, the most important partner, the Government of
Botswana, in trying to address the prevention challenge.
Senator Coons. Thank you.
General, Kenya is a major focus for both the Global Health
Initiative and the Feed the Future initiative, and both of
these are signature initiatives for the administration and
critical to our role in the region. But Congress is facing
understandable significant pressure to reduce Federal spending,
reduce the Federal deficit, and there is the very real
possibility being discussed literally now of significant
reductions in spending in the current fiscal year or possibly
going forward in these areas.
I would be interested in hearing what role you think there
might be for urging either the Government of Kenya or other
multilateral partners to contribute more of the funding, what
kinds of changes you think there might be in terms of our role
in Kenya, our progress in Kenya if funding is dramatically
reduced, and what you see as the contribution that you could
make as Ambassador in advancing both the Global Health
Initiative and Feed the Future initiative on the ground in
Kenya and then regionally.
Mr. Gration. In terms of Feed the Future, I think it is a
very important program, but I think that we have to think about
what we are trying to accomplish. And in my view, Kenya is too
dependent on rain-fed agriculture, and there are a lot of ways
you can get around that.
First of all, I think what Feed the Future is doing in
terms of understanding the lay of the land and the threats that
people face are very important.
But second, I think what they are doing in terms of
subsistence farming is important. With better seed, better
fertilizer, natural fertilizers, planting legumes, and in
addition to nitrogen enrichment and planting of other crops in
rotation is important. And so those kinds of things are very
important. Even in terms of planting, techniques are important.
But the piece that I believe would really help Kenya is if
we think more about value chain analysis, what are the right
crops, and then marketing and banking. If you build banks to
where you can take the grain and bank it for a year, if it does
not rain the next year, you can eat it, and if it rains, then
you sell it. With fumigation and other techniques, you can
store grain for a year very, very easily.
The second part of banking--it sort of evens out the
market. Instead of having a glut of food when the harvests come
around and then a dearth 4 months later, banking allows you to
put food on the market in a way that it is stabilized.
So there is a whole lot of things that I think can be
included in the Feed the Future initiative so we can actually
get more bang for the buck and ensure people when it does not
rain.
In terms of the Global Health Initiative, I think you are
exactly right. We need to think about programs so that they can
be absorbed by the government. The problem is that when you
infuse a lot of capacity, clinics, more people on
antiretroviral medicines, that kind of thing and then stop the
funding and the government is not in a position to absorb it,
it really creates a lot of problems. So I think two things need
to happen.
One is we need to be partnering with the government when we
put these in so that there is a transition program built into
the Global Health Initiative program or the Feed the Future
program such that if there is going to be public sector
adoption of this, then it is built right in in the beginning,
and the governments know that they have to produce more nurses,
they have to get a way to bring more medicines in so they can
bring it in, which means that our programs may have to be
smaller in the beginning or else we have to take the risk that
we are going to have to fund these for a longer period of time.
But the reality is build a program so the government can accept
it, build a program that helps them accept it. So maybe the
right answer is in the Global Health Initiative is not so much
putting in more clinics but building more nurse training
programs or more other ways that you can build the capacity for
them to take this over in a way that allows you not to skip a
beat when you do the transition.
So I will be looking at both of these programs. I think
they are both good programs, but I understand that they should
be stopgap programs. They should not be programs that are still
there 25 years from now. And if we are not building programs to
work ourselves out of that program, then I think there is a
mistake.
If you know anything about me, I am a big believer in
affordability, sustainability, self-sustaining ability, and
then scalability. If the program is really good, it should be
able to take off on its own. So what I look for in the Feed the
Future programs is while we put in pilot programs, we ought to
be doing this in a way that they are self-sustaining or
government-sustainable and then that they take off by
themselves so that you are not always building a program, but
they will end up growing by themselves.
So these are the things that I think--those principles--we
can look at in both the Global Health Initiative and Feed the
Future to make sure that these programs do last without a
constant infusion of U.S. dollars. But then again, bringing the
international community in and mulilats into the program is
also very important.
Senator Coons. Thank you, General.
Ms. Gavin, one of the criticisms of the Botswana Government
that some indigenous people's advocates have had is that there
has been a resettlement policy for the San people mostly in the
Central Kalahari Reserve, and the challenge has been raised
that it is viewed as having been done largely to advance
diamond extraction and at the expense of a traditional culture.
If confirmed as Ambassador, what would you do to be
involved in this issue and what do you see as the opportunities
for some progress in dealing with the loss of this traditional
culture in the Kalahari?
Ms. Gavin. This has been a longstanding, very difficult
issue in Botswana, and I think that they have tried to address
it both through direct dialogue between the government and
different representatives of the San people, and sometimes the
issue has been taken to court. It is a positive indicator that
the government is not always on the winning side of the court
decisions and it shows there is merit in seeking redress in the
courts certainly. But it is not an issue that has been
resolved, and I think it will remain very difficult.
I think what the U.S. Government can do is try to determine
if there are ways we can help facilitate better communication
between the community still residing in the Central Kalahari
Game Reserve which is actually quite small, but there are
different elements of the community and different voices in the
government itself. If there are things that we can do to help
facilitate those lines of communication, it is certainly I
think well worth exploring every avenue to see what is the
world of the possible there.
Senator Coons. General, I would be interested in your
thoughts on Kenya's role in fighting terrorism. Obviously,
there is a significant challenge with piracy off the coast of
Somalia and now extending out into the Indian Ocean quite a way
and affecting not just the horn but the whole region. Also,
Nairobi was the scene of one of the most horrific attacks on an
American installation in the bombing of our Embassy.
Your view on what as Ambassador you can and should be doing
to be part of our fight against terrorism both within the
nation of Kenya and in the region.
Mr. Gration. I think Kenya can be a very good ally and a
partner in this effort. Kenyans understand terrorism. As you
pointed out, a facility in their country was bombed. But if you
take a look at the number of people killed, they bore the brunt
of that attack many, many times over what Americans lost: 218
people and most of them Kenyan.
They are also keenly aware of what happened on the 10th of
July in Kampala when the al-Shabab bomb went off. Perpetrators
of that crime, some of them potentially Kenyans. And so they
are aware of that.
And they are also aware that every time that one of these
attacks happens, they lose income from tourism. Their economy
is disrupted.
So I think they are willing and ready to be partners.
We have put a lot of effort into training police units and
also military units, and in doing that, we are making sure that
we are vetting properly to make sure that the people that we
train will not be perpetrators of crimes of human rights
violations and that kind of thing.
Kenya has also proven themselves to be a strong partner in
supporting out-of-country operations. They are involved in
southern Sudan, and they have been involved in other
contingencies around the world. So I think Kenya is a great
foundation.
Now, what do we need to do? I think we need to continue
programs but maybe a little bit more specific. So we will take
a good look at what are the ways that the Kenyans can be used
more effectively.
One area I think that we can do better is in intel. The
Kenyans have their ear to the ground. They know a lot of things
that are happening, as do governments throughout that region.
And if we are going to operate, whether it be in Somalia or
whether it be against piracy or whether it be in other
transnational things that are happening in and around Kenya,
they are probably going to know about it before we know about
it. And to develop a relationship with them so that they will
share intelligence, number one, but to develop a relationship
with them and that we can train them in the areas where they
are deficient so they can become more effective in helping us
in the global effort, I think that would be important.
So I will take a look and make sure that the training that
we are doing meets the need not only for Kenyans, but for the
rest of the international community and then look for areas
that we can help with areas where they are deficient to improve
their capacity to help. Kenyans can be and are already strong
partners in the war on terrorism.
Senator Coons. Ms. Gavin, what role do you see for the
United States in promoting bilateral trade with Botswana and
what opportunities, if any, are there for them to take
advantage of United States technology transfer, partners with
us for things like alternative energy, for water generation,
for pharmaceuticals and otherwise? And what role do you see for
yourself as Ambassador in promoting bilateral trade with
Botswana?
Ms. Gavin. Thank you. If confirmed, I think that will be an
absolutely essential part of my role as Ambassador.
Particularly because Botswana is a middle-income country, it
does not qualify for things like Millennium Challenge
Initiative. Playing a role in bringing investors together with
Botswanan businesses, in some cases the Botswanan Government,
and critically taking a regional approach since it is such a
small market I think is an absolutely essential part of trying
to facilitate the economic diversification that is such a high
priority for Botswana. So I think you have hit on a number of
sectors that appear to have some real potential.
Southern Africa has tremendous energy needs. South Africa,
which provides the lion's share of energy to the region, is
strapped. It is clear that there is going to be a growing
demand. And so there are some interesting small-scale projects
in Botswana now around solar that probably bear a closer look.
And I think that it is going to be essential to let people know
what kind of investment climate Botswana has to offer and also
to let people know what kind of regional infrastructure is
there and see if we cannot be creative and get more done
without using a lot of foreign assistance dollars to help what
has been a very strong partner, sharing a lot of our interests
and values, sustain that strength into the future.
Senator Coons. Thank you.
General--and this will be my last question--how do you see
your role, if confirmed as Ambassador, in advancing United
States-Kenyan bilateral trade ties? We export and import
roughly the same amounts. Have there been opportunities for
Kenya to take advantage of the African Growth and Opportunities
Act and are there other things we could be doing to promote
their adoption of U.S.-distributed energy generation, for
example, or water technologies or new developments in seed or
grains or other things that you have spoken about before? How,
as Ambassador, would you advance both the development of Kenya
and American export opportunities?
Mr. Gration. I think there is a great opportunity to create
jobs in America by increasing trade in Kenya. We already have a
great process going where we actually have quite a bit of
trade. There is a surplus and the surplus has been for the last
5 years. Last year it was $34 million.
The issues that you point out are ones that I think we have
to grapple with. Right now, AGOA is pretty much a textile kind
of thing. In fact, I believe it is somewhere around 72 percent
of the products that are exported from Kenya to the United
States under AGOA would be in the textile. But there are so
many other things that Kenya could add to this, and to help
them diversify and increase their base so they do not take
precut and just assemble them and ship them off to America, but
they actually do things that would create jobs for Kenya. And
then in return, I think there are so many things that can be
done in Kenya on the IT side, on the energy production side.
The Kenyans are bright. They are highly educated. The
literacy rate is extremely high.
I think that there is a way that we can import in a way
that creates jobs, wealth creation opportunities in Kenya but
would also create jobs back here. And I look forward to being
part of that, working with our international community,
Americans that are there. There are almost 20,000 Americans
that are involved in private volunteer activities, NGO
activities, but also in commercial business opportunities.
Right now we are going to have to take a look at where our
competitive advantages are and where we can strengthen them.
The other thing I would say is that I want to make sure
that we level the playing field. There are some competitions to
American firms, whether they come from China or other kind of
places, where we can probably do more to give our products a
better shot of taking hold in the country.
So those are the kind of things I will work with and I hope
to work with the American community to come up with their ideas
to know how I can help them better.
Senator Coons. Thank you, General. Thank you, Ms. Gavin.
Thank you to your families. Thank you for your service. Thank
you to Clara for her great patience and persistence. She is
asleep I know. I am grateful for your parents before us and
your testimony.
The record of this hearing will remain open until the close
of business tomorrow, Wednesday, April 6, in the event there
are other members of the subcommittee who were not able to join
us today but who wish to submit additional questions for the
record.
Again, thank you very much.
And with that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:08 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record
Responses of Scott Gration to Questions Submitted by
Senator John F. Kerry
Question. Previous reports by the Office of the Inspector General
described a number of problems within the Africa Bureau, including
poorly led posts and particularly notable failures in public diplomacy.
In your testimony to the committee, you discussed ways you will
approach some of the management challenges that result from the size
and scope of the Embassy in Nairobi. How has your previous experience
shaped your views regarding effective public diplomacy and if confirmed
as Ambassador, how would you seek to approach related issues?
Answer. Effective public diplomacy is a core element of diplomacy,
and an exceedingly challenging one. As Special Envoy to Sudan, I saw
firsthand how important it was to understand the many audiences with
whom I was sharing my messages. I endeavored to reach out beyond
government officials in all parts of Sudan to understand the
perspectives of people from all segments of society and to engage in a
substantive dialogue on their views about their country and about U.S.
policy. In complex situations such as Sudan, effective public diplomacy
builds confidence and trust that the policy and actions of the United
States are based on an understanding and appreciation of the people and
history of the host country. Such confidence and trust lays the
foundation for effectively sharing our values and experiences in a way
that furthers achievement of mutual interests. If confirmed, I expect
to encounter that same diversity of background and perspectives in
Kenya and plan to mobilize all sections of the embassy to support
public diplomacy efforts.
Question. Kenya is one of the original focus countries of the
President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), and HIV/AIDS
funding makes up the largest portion of U.S. assistance to Kenya. In
your testimony to the committee, you discussed the importance of
partnering with the Government of Kenya on these issues. What aspects
of such cooperation have been most successful and where do you see room
for improvements?
Answer. The Kenya PEPFAR program, together with other USG health
investments there, is one of the U.S. Government's largest health
portfolios. The PEPFAR program in Kenya has been very successful since
its inception in 2004 and, in many ways, serves as a model in terms of
success in delivering services, efficient program implementation, and
country ownership. In 2009, the Government of Kenya (GOK) and the U.S.
Government signed the Partnership Framework. This 5-year joint
strategic agenda was based on the GOK's National AIDS Strategic Plan,
and is organized around its four core pillars: health sector HIV
service delivery, mainstreaming of the HIV and AIDS response,
community-based HIV programs, and governance and strategic information.
In addition, the U.S. team in Kenya team has worked together with the
GOK to reform the Country Coordinating Mechanism (CCM) of the Global
Fund. The CCM in Kenya is now performing coordination and oversight of
all donor funding in the health sector for improvements in bilateral
cooperation--not just Global Fund. The committee is assuming
accountability for overall health sector performance. This is a new
model for Africa and promises to be a best practice.
Our joint efforts have delivered strong results. For example, in FY
2010, 410,300 individuals were receiving antiretroviral treatment
thanks to PEPFAR support. In addition, 1,384,400 HIV-positive
individuals received care and support (including TB/HIV) and 673,000
orphans and vulnerable children (OVC) received support services. On the
other hand, HIV incidence has remained stable from 2001 to 2009,
showing that Kenya continues to face challenges in preventing new HIV
infections. The Kenya PEPFAR program has also been a leader among
PEPFAR-supported countries in streamlining service delivery and
supporting development of Kenyan Government disease surveillance and
monitoring capacity. As a Global Health Initiative (GHI) Plus country,
the U.S. team in Kenya, together with the GOK, has developed a strategy
that exemplifies a whole-of-government approach thereby increasing
impact through strategic coordination and integration.
Moving forward, if confirmed, I will work to strengthen national
systems, including the health care workforce, and to build capacity and
political will in Kenya for sustainable, long-term Kenyan-led
responses. If confirmed, I expect to be personally engaged in the
effort to promote these objectives.
Question. In your work on Sudan, you sought to ensure that life-
saving assistance reached people in Darfur, to support the
international peace process, and to help North and South navigate their
way to a lasting and sustainable peace. While there have been setbacks,
the January 9 referendum was a great achievement for the people of
Sudan and a testament to U.S. engagement. If confirmed, how will your
experience in Sudan guide your work in helping Kenya to address its
challenges, including implementation of the constitution, and free,
fair, and safe elections in 2012?
Answer. There are some general principles that guided my work in
Sudan which I believe will also help me effectively work with Kenya as
it moves through this challenging and exciting time in its history.
First, I believe that the United States needs to be actively engaged
throughout the country, talking to all parties and helping to create an
environment where they can forge home-grown solutions and lasting
reconciliation. Second, these efforts in country need to be supported
by sustained, high-level U.S. government attention and commitment to
achieving those objectives. Third, we must work closely not only with
Kenyans but with the international community, including multilateral
organizations, regional states and other countries providing financial
support to ensure a coordinated, coherent, and effective approach.
______
Responses of Michelle Gavin to Questions Submitted by
Senator John F. Kerry
Question. Previous reports by the Office of the Inspector General
described a number of problems within the Africa Bureau, including
understaffed, sometimes poorly led posts and particularly notable
failures in public diplomacy. If confirmed as Ambassador, how would you
seek to address these issues? How has your previous experience prepared
you for such a post and shaped your views regarding managing an
embassy?
Answer. I have consulted extensively with the Africa Bureau and
with the U.S. Embassy in Gaborone to understand the management
challenges that I would face at Embassy Gaborone if confirmed as
Ambassador. I have reviewed the 2009 Inspector General Report of the
Africa Bureau that identified concerns over leadership and the need to
engage proactively in broader public diplomacy. I have had discussions
here in Washington about how to address these issues. If confirmed, I
will ensure solid leadership and recognize that the success of Embassy
Gaborone will be founded on a valued and productive mission team that
incorporates a whole-of-government approach, which I will be honored to
lead. I will ensure we have strong communication among our mission team
and the Africa Bureau to deliver consistent messages and develop a
vibrant public outreach strategy to share our U.S. policy goals.
Embassy Gaborone is already working closely with government, the media,
nongovernmental organizations and private citizens in Botswana to
ensure that our close bilateral partnership continues and remains
strong. I would continue ongoing Embassy efforts to reach out to key
sectors of Batswana youth to expose them to U.S. culture, peers, and
mentors; build close relationships with Botswana's media outlets and
provide opportunities to the media for professional development and
exposure to U.S. counterparts; ensure that rising stars in Botswana
participate in academic and cultural exchanges to the United States;
and I will strive to use social media tools to reach a broad segment of
Batswana, especially youth, with information about U.S. policies and
programs.
In my position as Special Advisor to the President for African
Affairs, I gained considerable experience facilitating cooperation and
coordination between different U.S. Government agencies at the national
level. If confirmed, I look forward to translating these skills into
managing interagency relationships at the country level. In my position
as legislative director for then-Senator Salazar, I had the privilege
of mentoring a staff that was enthusiastic and dedicated but almost
entirely new to Capitol Hill. I look forward to taking on the role as
guide and mentor to the hardworking and dedicated staff at the Embassy
in Gaborone, particularly the entry-level officers.
Question. As you noted in your testimony to the committee, if
confirmed you will serve as the United States representative to the
Southern African Development Community (SADC). Given that regional
integration and cooperation are essential to long-term stability, what
are the benefits and challenges to Botswana stemming from its
membership in SADC and the Southern African Customs Union (SACU)? How
do you envision your role vis-a-vis SADC?
Answer. Botswana has the privilege of hosting the SADC Secretariat
in Gaborone. Botswana also benefits from its proximity to the regional
economic hub of South Africa and from shared customs revenues from
SACU. Nevertheless, Botswana has often been a lone voice in SADC on the
peace and security front, particularly regarding Zimbabwe, and SADC
itself has had difficulty emerging as an organization that is greater
than the sum of its parts. With regards to SACU, Botswana may see
reduced customs revenue as a result of a South African proposal to
change the current revenue-sharing formula.
If confirmed, I would work with Chiefs of Mission in other SADC
countries on ways to help broaden the U.S.-SADC relationship so that
Zimbabwe is only one of many issues we have to discuss. I hope to
engage where appropriate to encourage greater regional integration that
would promote U.S. trade as well as further economic diversification in
Botswana. I also hope to encourage Botswana to continue their advocacy
in the region on transparency and good governance in the mining sector
and beyond.
NOMINATIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
David Bruce Shear, of New York, to be Ambassador to the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam
Kurt Walter Tong, of Maryland, for the rank of Ambassador
during his tenure as U.S. Senior Official for the Asia-
Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Forum
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Office Building, Hon. Jim Webb, presiding.
Present: Senator Webb.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM WEBB,
U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Webb. This hearing will come to order.
Today the subcommittee will consider the nominations of Mr.
David Shear to be the U.S. Ambassador to the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam and Mr. Kurt Tong to have the rank of Ambassador
while serving as the U.S. Senior Official to the Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation Forum (APEC).
I would like to begin this hearing, as chair of the
Subcommittee on East Asia, by expressing my condolences to the
people of Japan and commending them for their courage and
tenacity in facing the recovery from the terrible earthquake
and tsunami that occurred nearly 1 month ago. Japan is a key
security ally, a diplomatic partner and a great friend of the
United States. And as these events have tragically illustrated,
the nations of East Asia and Southeast Asia remain of critical
importance to our economic, strategic and diplomatic interests.
Following the earthquake and tsunami, the United States
military and civilian agencies rapidly offered support to the
Japanese Government to assist in the search and rescue of
civilians. To date, the United States has delivered more than
200 tons of food, 2 million gallons of water, 16,000 gallons of
fuel, and 186,000 tons of other relief commodities. Also, teams
from the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission continue to actively monitor and support the
Government of Japan, as needed, and to mitigate the situation
at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant.
Japan's economy and social system face enormous
ramifications from this disaster, with the World Bank now
estimating the cost of an economic recovery at more than $230
billion. Our assistance and attention to this issue obviously
will be for the long term, given the close relationship that we
have with Japan and the role that Japan plays in the regional
and global economy.
It is vital that we remain engaged in this region, even as
we balance diplomatic engagement in Asia with other global
crises, particularly again in the Middle East. And for this
reason, our relationship with Vietnam and our leadership in
multilateral organizations such as APEC, will play a key role
in promoting stability and prosperity in the region.
I have had the good fortune to have observed and
participated in United States/Vietnam relations now for more
than 40 years. In the past 16 years, since the normalization of
our relationship, I have seen dramatic improvements in the
relationship, especially in the past 6 or 7 years. Our military
effort in Vietnam, during that war, was characterized by
strongly held and differing views, both here and there. Views
that were sincerely held by well-meaning people across the
spectrum. These divisions, the terrible cost of the war and its
bitter aftermath, have made reconciliation between our two
countries a long and complicated process. The process of
reconciliation has been even more challenging for the 2 million
overseas Vietnamese in the United States, many of whom suffered
greatly under the victorious communist regime and have had to
build new lives and chart a new course to reconnect with their
homeland.
In the years since normalization our governments have
carefully, but demonstrably, come to communicate openly and
positively. We have begun to cooperate on bilateral and
regional challenges, including sovereignty disputes in the
South China Sea and water security challenges along the Mekong
River region.
Last year, in large part due to Vietnam's successful
chairmanship of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations,
ASEAN, we saw increasing momentum in our relationship. At the
ASEAN regional forum, in July of last year, Secretary Clinton
announced a new American policy on sovereignty disputes in the
South China Sea, arguing that the resolution of these disputes
and freedom of navigation in the South China Sea are American
national interests. This new policy offers American Government
assistance to facilitate a multilateral resolution in these
disputes. I will say for the record that I have not only
supported these initiatives, but also suggested them, including
while chairing a subcommittee hearing on maritime territorial
disputes in July 2009.
In addition to our regional cooperation, our trade
relationship with Vietnam has grown, from $220 million in 1994
to more than $18 billion 2010. The United States was the
leading source of foreign direct investment in Vietnam in 2009
and Vietnam is the second largest source of American clothing
imports.
Building off its 2007 entry into the World Trade
Organization, Vietnam is moving to implement the structural
reforms needed to modernize and open its economy. Moreover,
Vietnam has joined the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade
negotiations for an agreement, that if successfully
implemented, will further open Vietnam's market and allow
American trade with Vietnam to grow.
With these developments there remain challenges to our
relationship. The United States continues to encourage Vietnam
to protect individual freedoms, including religious freedom,
freedom of the press, expression and labor rights. In this
process it is also important for both countries to make efforts
to bridge the deep divisions affecting both American and
Vietnamese societies, some of which still languish from the war
and from the treatment of those who fought alongside Americans
in that war. We must continue to push forward with an inclusive
dialogue that allows for meaningful reconciliation among all
sides.
Just as our engagement with Southeast Asia has grown
through ASEAN, our participation in APEC has illustrated the
benefits of expanded American involvement in East Asia
multilateral organizations. Our active participation in APEC
supports our strategic and economic interests and it
demonstrates that our commitment to this region's growth is
permanent.
Furthermore, this year the United States will serve as host
for the annual APEC meetings, including the leaders' meeting in
November. This role will allow us to continue the discussion
initiated by Japan last year on regional economic integration,
development and human security. Regional economic integration
with likeminded trade partners, such as Japan and Korea, will
be an important step forward in our long-term economic
recovery, especially as Japan recovers from the recent
earthquake and tsunami. This integration is best implemented in
a way that maximizes the advantages of our respective economies
and also protects our workers from unfair competition. And this
principle is even more important when considering the growing
interdependence of our economy with many of the economies of
East Asia.
The 21 member economies at APEC generate more than half of
global trade. Five of our fifteen top trading partners are in
East Asia and six of the top fifteen are members of APEC. This
demonstrates that the United States is truly an Asia-Pacific
nation and it is important to recognize that our economic and
strategic future will be tied to this region. Therefore, I hope
American participation in APEC can encourage an economic
recovery for all members based on reduced barriers to trade,
sustainable growth, and improved transparency. For our part,
fulfilling commitments on free trade agreements, such as
ratifying the United States-Korea free trade agreement and
putting forward a comprehensive trade policy for the 21st
century, can support these efforts.
I look forward to the testimony of our nominees. I welcome
both of them. And before we hear their remarks, I would like to
briefly introduce them and then invite them to recognize those
who have come with them today to support their nomination.
And I would also state at this point that Senator Inhofe
has an opening statement which will be included in the record
at this point.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator From Oklahoma
Thank you, Senator Webb, for chairing this full committee
confirmation hearing today for Kurt Walter Tong and David Bruce Shear
to be Ambassadors for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, respectively.
Mr. Tong is currently the Economic Coordinator for the Bureau of
East Asian and Pacific Affairs, organizing bureauwide efforts on
economic policy issues. He is also U.S. Senior Official for APEC (Asia
Pacific Economic Cooperation), managing all aspects of U.S.
participation in the organization. Mr. Tong has spent 17 years working
and studying in East Asia, including service at the U.S. Embassies in
Manila, Tokyo, Beijing, and Seoul. Most recently, he served as Director
for Korean Affairs at the Department of State from 2008 to 2009. Prior
to that, he was Director for Asian Economic Affairs at the National
Security Council from 2006 to 2008. He was a Visiting Scholar at the
Tokyo University Faculty of Economics from 1995 to 1996. Prior to
joining the Foreign Service, Mr. Tong was an Associate with the Boston
Consulting Group in Tokyo.
I have met with Mr. Tong and am convinced that his long and
distinguished diplomatic record has prepared him well to be the
Ambassador to APEC.
APEC is the premier economic organization in the Asia-Pacific
region. It was founded in 1989 for the purpose of promoting trade and
investment liberalization in the Asia-Pacific as a means of fostering
sustainable economic growth and prosperity in the region. APEC is one
of a few international fora in which both China and Taiwan are members.
And has made trade facilitation a major priority, something that I
strongly support.
APEC has two distinct features among multilateral trade
organizations. First, all the liberalization measures taken by its
members are voluntary. Members announce their liberalization measures
via ``Individual Action Plans.'' Second, these liberalization measures
are generally extended to all economies--not just APEC members--under
the concept of ``open regionalism.'' However, there have also been
criticisms that the United States is not sufficiently emphasizing U.S.
ties to Asia. In 2010, plans for a Presidential trip to Australia,
Indonesia, and other countries were repeatedly postponed due to
domestic events. In addition, while the United States was the first
nation to announce it would appoint a full-time, resident ambassador to
the Asian Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), David Lee
Cardin was not confirmed until March 3, 2011. The delay in appointing a
U.S. Senior Official for APEC, especially when the United States is
hosting the ongoing 2011 APEC meetings can be seen by some in Asia as
another sign of insufficient prioritization of this important region.
The U.S. is hosting APEC in 2011 for the first time since 1993. The
United States has chosen for its theme, ``Creating a seamless economy
in the Asia-Pacific region by strengthening regional integration and
expanding trade, promoting a green economy, and better coordinating
trade regulations.'' Mr. Tong commented on the significance of this
before House Foreign Affairs Committee in 2009 by stating that,
``Hosting APEC will be a tremendous opportunity for the United States
to promote U.S. business and investment opportunities, which will
benefit American workers, farmers, and businesses of all sizes. It will
also be an important opportunity for the United States to define a new,
21st century economic policy agenda for the Asia-Pacific region.'' I
agree.
I support the nomination of Mr. Tong, and I believe he will work
with Congress, the business community, and his colleagues in the
executive branch to utilize our hosting of APEC this year to the
fullest as an opportunity to both restore confidence at home and
promote new opportunities for our exporters overseas. If confirmed,
Kurt Tong will work to advance U.S. interests through the Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum as we strive to create an economic
system in the Asia-Pacific region that supports growth and job creation
here at home.
Mr. Shear is also a career Foreign Service officer--joining in
1982--and is currently serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary for East
Asian and Pacific Affairs. He has a distinguished overseas career
serving in Sapporo, Beijing, Tokyo, and Kuala Lumpur. In Washington, he
has served in the Offices of Japanese, Chinese, and Korean Affairs and
as the Special Assistant to the Under Secretary for Political Affairs.
He was Director of the Office of Chinese and Mongolian Affairs in 2008-
09. With this distinguished background, I believe that Mr. David Shear
will serve honorably and effectively as our Ambassador to the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam.
Although U.S. relations with Vietnam have become increasingly
cooperative in the years since political normalization, the freedom to
practice religion and to express religious thought--an inalienable
right to all individuals--is still not fully recognized in Vietnam. I
feel that there is a dire need to focus on religious freedom in
Vietnam, and should you be confirmed Mr. Shear, I charge you with
taking up this dire need.
In 2005, Vietnam passed comprehensive religious freedom
legislation, outlawing forced renunciations and permitting the official
recognition of new denominations. Since that time, the government has
granted official national recognition or registration to a number of
new religions and religious groups, including eight more Protestant
denominations, and has registered hundreds of local congregations
particularly in the central highlands. As a result, in November 2006,
the Department of State lifted the designation of Vietnam as a
``Country of Particular Concern,'' based on a determination that the
country was no longer a serious violator of religious freedoms, as
defined by the International Religious Freedom Act. This decision was
reaffirmed by the Department of State in 2007, 2008, and 2009.
Nevertheless, I strongly feel there is room for further progress.
The government's slow pace of church registration, particularly in the
northwest highlands, and harassment of certain religious leaders for
their political activism (especially Father Ly Tong), including leaders
of the unrecognized United Buddhist Church of Vietnam and Hoa Hao faith
were an ongoing source of U.S. concern. Violence against the Plum
Village Buddhist order at the Bat Nha Pagoda in Lam Dong and Catholic
parishioners in Con Dau parish outside of Danang and outside of Hanoi
at
Dong Chiem parish at the hands of the police and organized mobs is
particularly troubling.
Thus, there must remain focus on increasing the Vietnamese
Government's respect for human rights and religious freedom. There
remains a deep concern about the imprisonment of dissidents,
restrictions on the media and the Internet, and the harassment of
religious groups. Vietnam will not realize its full potential without
greater respect for human rights, and its troubling record in this area
could limit the growth of our relationship. I believe that if Mr. Shear
is confirmed, and I will support his nomination, he will make human
rights and religious freedom a central part of his conversations with
Vietnam's communist leaders.
Thank you again, Senator Webb, for chairing this full committee
nomination hearing for ambassadorial posts in the East Asian and
Pacific Affairs region.
Senator Webb. First I would like to welcome David Shear,
the nominee to be the Ambassador to Vietnam. He currently
serves as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asian and
Pacific Affairs at the State Department. Previously he was
Director of the Office of Chinese and Mongolian Affairs. His
overseas assignments include Sapporo, Beijing, Tokyo, and Kuala
Lumpur and he has served several assignments here in
Washington.
Deputy Assistant Secretary Shear speaks Chinese, Japanese,
and is practicing Vietnamese. He just tried some on me when I
said hello. And has a first degree rank in Kendo Japanese
fencing.
Kurt Tong, who is the nominee for the rank of Ambassador
while serving as the U.S. senior official to the APEC Forum, is
with us also. Prior to this assignment, Mr. Tong was the
Director for Korean Affairs in the Bureau of East Asia and
Pacific Affairs. He led the White House National Security
Council's Asian Economic Affairs Bureau from 2006 to 2008. In
his 17 years of work and study in Asia, Mr. Tong has completed
assignments in Manila, Tokyo, Beijing and Seoul and was a
visiting scholar at the Tokyo University Faculty of Economics.
He speaks Japanese, Mandarin Chinese, Korean and Tagalog.
And again, I welcome both of you here today. I will look
forward to your testimony.
And Mr. Shear, why don't you begin and please feel free to
recognize anyone who has come to support you in the hearing
today.
STATEMENT OF DAVID BRUCE SHEAR, NEW YORK, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO
THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM
Mr. Shear. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I introduce my
family members I would like to make sure that everybody
understands that a first degree rank in Kendo is the lowest
rank----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Shear [continuing]. Not the highest rank. It took a few
years to get to----
Senator Webb. You still swing a bad stick, I am sure.
Mr. Shear. Sir, I have a large family cheering section here
and I will--I would like to introduce my wife, Barbara, and my
daughter, Jennifer, and my sister, Laurel. And I have a whole
crowd of nieces and nephews here today, too, as well as our
family friend, Dr. Barry Manning.
Senator Webb. Well, we welcome all of you to the hearing
today.
Mr. Shear. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am honored to appear before you as the President's
nominee to serve as Ambassador to the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam. I am deeply grateful for the confidence that President
Obama and Secretary Clinton have shown in me. And if confirmed,
I look forward to working closely with Congress to advance U.S.
interests in Vietnam.
Thirty-five years ago our two countries ended a war that
left an indelible mark on both of our peoples. For Americans of
my generation, the experience of that war represents an
important juncture in our history. Yet today, just 16 years
after restoring diplomatic relations, we are already seeing the
benefits of the commitment, on both sides, to move beyond our
difficult past and forge a constructive relationship.
As Secretary Clinton said in Hanoi last year, our two
countries have reached a level of cooperation that would have
been unimaginable just a few years ago. That is why, in her
conversations with Vietnam's senior leaders in Hanoi last year,
she proposed that we consider establishing a strategic
partnership with Vietnam. This is the logical next step for a
relationship that has moved toward increased cooperation and
dialogue.
The range of senior level engagement last year was quite
extraordinary. If confirmed, I will continue to deepen our
engagement in areas such as regional security,
nonproliferation, law enforcement, health and climate change.
I am also committed to increasing educational and other
people-to-people exchanges. These people-to-people connections
enrich us and strengthen the bonds between our two societies.
Trade, of course, will remain a lynchpin of our
relationship. Our two-way trade continues to grow, from $15.7
billion in 2009 to $18.5 billion last year. If confirmed, I
will do everything I can to increase U.S. exports to Vietnam
through the President's National Export Initiative. I also look
forward to continued negotiations what the Vietnamese to
advance the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Improved military-to-military ties will also contribute to
stronger bilateral relations. Currently we already cooperate in
such areas as maritime security, search and rescue,
humanitarian assistance and disaster relief and peacekeeping
operations. We have also established a successful record of
ship visits including an historic port call to Da Nang by the
USS John S. McCain last year.
As we develop a strategy partnership with Vietnam, we must
remain focused on increasing the Vietnamese Government's
respect for human rights and religious freedom. We remain
concerned about the imprisonment of dissidents, restrictions on
the media and the Internet and the harassment of religious
groups. Vietnam will not realize its full potential without
greater respect for human rights, and its troubling record in
this area could limit the growth of our relationship. If
confirmed, I will make human rights and religious freedom a
central part of my conversations with Vietnam's leaders and
with the Vietnamese people.
Mr. Chairman, while major strides have been made in our
relationship, 16 years is still too short to have completely
overcome the painful legacy of our past. If confirmed, I will
continue to strengthen our cooperation with Vietnam on the
solemn task of accounting for Americans missing from the war. I
will work hard to maintain our assistance with efforts to
remove unexploded ordnance. And by January 2012 I expect that
we will have broken ground on a major effort to remediate
dioxin residue from the soil at Da Nang Airport, one of several
hotspots where the defoliant, Agent Orange, was stored during
the war. We also continue to provide assistance to Vietnam's
disabled citizens, without regard to cause.
Sir, I have spent my career in the Asia-Pacific region and
I am personally committed to using all of the knowledge and
skills I have gained over the past 29 years to pursue the
American peoples' interests in Vietnam. If confirmed, I will do
my utmost to ensure that our relationship with Vietnam is among
the strongest in the East Asia region.
There is much work to be done and I look forward to earning
your confidence. Thank you for your consideration of my
nomination and I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shear follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Bruce Shear
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am honored to appear
before you as the President's nominee to serve as Ambassador to the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam. I am deeply grateful for the confidence
that President Obama and Secretary Clinton have shown in me and, if
confirmed, I look forward to working closely with Congress to advance
U.S. interests in Vietnam.
Thirty-five years ago our two countries ended a war that left an
indelible mark on both of our peoples. For Americans of my generation,
the experience of that war represents an important juncture in our
history. Yet today, just 15 years after restoring diplomatic relations,
we are already seeing the benefits of a commitment on both sides to
move beyond our difficult past and forge a constructive relationship.
As Secretary Clinton said in Hanoi last year, our two countries
have reached a level of cooperation that would have been unimaginable
just a few years ago. That is why in her conversations with Vietnam's
senior leaders in Hanoi last July, and again in October, she proposed
that we consider establishing a strategic partnership with Vietnam.
This is the logical next step for a relationship that has moved
consistently toward increased cooperation and dialogue.
The range of U.S. senior-level engagement last year was
extraordinary. If confirmed, I will continue to deepen our engagement
in areas such as regional security, nonproliferation, law enforcement,
health, climate change, and science and technology. I am also committed
to increasing educational and other people-to-people exchanges. These
connections enrich us and strengthen the bonds between our two
societies.
Trade will remain a linchpin of our relationship with Vietnam. Our
two-way trade continues to grow--from $15.7 billion in 2009 to $18.5
billion last year. If confirmed, I will do everything I can to increase
U.S. exports to Vietnam through the President's National Export
Initiative; in addition to continuing negotiations with the Vietnamese
to advance the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Improved military-to-military ties will also contribute to stronger
bilateral relations. Currently, there is already cooperation on
maritime security, search and rescue, humanitarian assistance and
disaster relief, peacekeeping operations, defense academy exchanges,
and military medicine. There is also a successful record of ship
visits, including a historic port call to Danang by the USS John S.
McCain last year.
Additionally, I hope that we will continue to provide funding to
strengthen Vietnam's health systems and to help the country build the
capacity it needs to address the scourge of HIV/AIDS and emerging
pandemic threats.
As we develop a strategic partnership with Vietnam, we must remain
focused on increasing the Vietnamese Government's respect for human
rights and religious freedom. There remains a deep concern about the
imprisonment of dissidents, restrictions on the media and the Internet,
and the harassment of religious groups. Vietnam will not realize its
full potential without greater respect for human rights, and its
troubling record in this area could limit the growth of our
relationship. If confirmed, I will make human rights and religious
freedom a central part of my conversations with Vietnam's leaders and
with the Vietnamese people.
While major strides have been made in our relationship, 15 years is
still too short to have completely overcome the painful legacy of our
past. If confirmed, I will continue to strengthen our cooperation with
Vietnam on the solemn task of accounting for Americans missing from the
war. I will work hard to maintain our assistance with demining and
efforts to remove unexploded ordnance. By January 2012, we will have
broken ground on a major effort to remediate dioxin residue from the
soil at Danang Airport, one of several ``hotspots'' where the defoliant
Agent Orange was stored during the war. We also continue to provide
assistance for Vietnam's disabled citizens, without regard to cause.
I have spent my career in the Asia-Pacific region, and I am
personally committed to using all of the knowledge and skills I have
gained over the past 29 years to pursue the American people's interests
in Vietnam. If confirmed, I will do my utmost to ensure that our
relationship with Vietnam is among the most successful in the East
Asian region. There is much work to be done, and I look forward to
earning your confidence.
Thank you for your consideration of my nomination. I welcome your
questions.
Senator Webb. Thank you very much.
Mr. Tong, welcome and if there are people you would like to
introduce, please feel free to do so.
STATEMENT OF KURT WALTER TONG, MARYLAND, FOR THE RANK OF
AMBASSADOR DURING HIS TENURE AS U.S. SENIOR OFFICIAL FOR THE
ASIA-PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION (APEC) FORUM
Mr. Tong. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to introduce my wonderful wife, Mika, and
daughter, Reia. I have another daughter, Mia, and a son, Kyle.
They were not able to make it today. They are equally wonderful
children as well.
Senator Webb. Let the record show, you love all your
children equally. [Laughter.]
Welcome to those of you who are here. And I know it's a
great day for you.
Mr. Tong. Thank you. Thank you very much.
I've also submitted a written record--written statement for
the record.
Senator Webb. Yes. Both of your full statements will be
entered into the record of this hearing.
Mr. Tong. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am truly honored to appear before you today to seek
Senate confirmation as the U.S. Senior Official for APEC with
the rank of Ambassador. Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I look
forward to working very closely with you and with other Members
of Congress to leverage the considerable potential of APEC to
build an economic system in the Asia-Pacific region that
supports growth and job creation here at home.
As you know, APEC is the premier economic organization in
the Asia-Pacific region and a key venue for engaging the most
economically dynamic region of the world. APEC's 21 members,
stretching from Chile to China, account for more than half of
the global economy. They purchase 58 percent of our goods
exports and comprise a market of $2.7 billion consumers.
Through APEC the United States aims to tackle a wide range of
issues critical to long-term prosperity around the Pacific rim.
Most important, the United States uses APEC to open markets
in the Asia-Pacific region, and to connect those markets to
American exporters. Our focus includes eliminating barriers to
trade and investment and creating better environments for our
citizens to do business overseas. APEC initiatives lay the
foundation for high standard, comprehensive trade agreements
such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership now being negotiated,
that can help deepen America's economic ties to the region and
build a more level economic playing field for Americans to
compete successfully.
At the same time, the United States and the other APEC
members recognize that rapid growth is not the sole objective.
We must also achieve high quality growth to provide widespread
benefits to society. APEC has undertaken useful initiatives to
help promote growth that is balanced between and within
economies, includes all segments of society, and is sustainable
in the environmental sense.
In 2011, as you noted, the United States is hosting APEC
for the first time since 1993. This is a tremendous opportunity
for the United States to exhibit leadership by forging a 21st
century economic agenda for the Asia-Pacific and by building an
enduring economic architecture for the region that is open,
free, transparent and fair.
Mr. Chairman, much is at stake. As President Obama has
stated, if we can increase our exports to APEC countries by
just 5 percent we can increase the number of U.S. jobs by
hundreds of thousands. In 2010, a recovery year, U.S. exports
to APEC actually expanded by 25 percent. American products,
innovation and know-how are competitive and in high demand in
Asia.
APEC 2011 is a critical chance to showcase our strengths.
If confirmed as U.S. Senior Official for APEC with the rank of
Ambassador, I pledge to work tirelessly with Congress, the
business community and my colleagues in the executive branch to
leverage APEC to both restore confidence at home and to promote
new opportunities for our exporters overseas. If confirmed, I
pledge to put all of my experience and energy to work to
advance our overall economic interests in the Asia-Pacific
region.
During my 21 years as a career Foreign Service officer, as
you noted, I have handled trade, finance, and development
issues at our Embassies in Manila, Tokyo, Beijing, and Seoul
and have also served at the Department of State and in the
National Security Council.
Mr. Chairman, it would be a great privilege to serve my
country as the U.S. Senior Official for APEC with a rank of
Ambassador. The Asia-Pacific regions represents the future of
the global economy, but the exact contours of that future have
yet to be fully defined. APEC plays a key role in shaping the
region and I stand ready to help seize this opportunity to
promote growth and job-creating opportunities in the Asia-
Pacific for American businesses and citizens.
And finally before closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
take note of the condolences which you offered to Japan and
share those condolences and also pledge that we will look for
ways to utilize our hosting of APEC in 2011 to consider ways
that that organization can be of assistance, both to Japan and
to future sufferers of similar tragedies.
Thank you for considering my nomination and I look forward
to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tong follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kurt Walter Tong
Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I am honored to appear
before you today as the President's nominee to serve as the U.S. Senior
Official for APEC with the rank of Ambassador. I appreciate the
confidence that President Obama and Secretary Clinton have shown in me
and, if confirmed, I look forward to working with you to advance U.S.
interests through the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum as
we strive to create an economic system in the Asia-Pacific region that
supports growth and job creation here at home.
APEC is the premier economic organization in the Asia-Pacific
region and a key venue for engaging the most economically dynamic
region of the world. APEC's 21 members, stretching from Chile to China,
account for more than half of the global economy. They purchase 58
percent of our goods exports, and comprise a market of $2.7 billion
potential consumers.
Through APEC, the United States works to tackle a wide range of
issues critical- to long-term prosperity around the Pacific Rim.
For example, the United States works within APEC to open markets in
the Asia-Pacific region and connect them to American exporters. Their
focus includes eliminating barriers to trade and investment and
creating better environments for our citizens to do business overseas.
APEC initiatives also lay the foundation for high-standard,
comprehensive trade agreements--including the Trans-Pacific
Partnership--that can deepen America's economic ties to the region and
build a more level economic playing field that will help Americans to
compete successfully.
At the same time, the United States and the other APEC members
recognize that attaining high rates of growth is not enough to ensure
meaningful prosperity. We must also achieve high quality growth that
provides widespread benefits to society. This is why efforts have been
made to work within APEC to promote growth that is balanced between and
within economies, sustainable environmentally, fosters innovation, and
empowers all citizens with the skills and opportunities to prosper in
the global economy.
In 2011, the United States is hosting APEC for the first time since
1993. In early March, we successfully held the first APEC Senior
Officials Meeting of the year here in Washington. Hosting APEC this
year presents a tremendous opportunity for the United States to exhibit
leadership by forging a 21st century economic agenda for the Asia-
Pacific, and by building an enduring economic architecture for the
region that is open, free, transparent, and fair.
Much is at stake. As President Obama has stated, ``if we can
increase our exports to APEC countries by just 5 percent, we can
increase the number of U.S. jobs supported by exports by hundreds of
thousands.'' American products, innovation, and know-how are
competitive and in high demand in Asia. APEC 2011 is a critical chance
to showcase our strengths. If confirmed, I will work with Congress, the
business community, and my colleagues in the executive branch to
utilize our hosting of APEC this year to the fullest as an opportunity
to both restore confidence at home and promote new opportunities for
our exporters overseas.
If confirmed, I will put my experience and energy to work to
advance our overall economic interests in the Asia-Pacific region.
During my 21 years as a career Foreign Service officer, I have handled
trade, finance, and development issues at our Embassies in Manila,
Tokyo, Beijing, and Seoul. I have also served as Director for Korean
Affairs at the State Department and Director for Asian Economic Affairs
at the National Security Council.
Mr. Chairman, it would be a great privilege to serve my country as
the U.S. Senior Official for APEC with the rank of Ambassador. The
Asia-Pacific region represents the future of the global economy, but
the exact contours of that future have yet to be fully defined. APEC
plays a key role in shaping the region, and I am ready to help the
United States work through the organization to promote growth and job-
creating opportunities in the Asia-Pacific for American businesses and
citizens.
Thank you for considering my nomination. I look forward to your
questions.
Senator Webb. Thank you very much and again both of your
full statements will be entered into the record.
And what I would like to do, and I will have some specific
questions obviously, but there are a couple of areas that I may
ask both of you to comment on that I think overlap in where
your interests are and your future responsibilities will be.
First, Mr. Shear, you have had a distinguished career in
Asia, but this will be your first posting to Vietnam. Would you
like to tell us how you prepared for this position?
Mr. Shear. Well, Mr. Chairman I started to prepare by
taking Vietnamese language training. And I have got about a
month under my belt and I've got 4 months to go.
Senator Webb. [Speaking in Vietnamese] [Laughter.]
OK. You don't need to try on that.
Mr. Shear. Thank you very much for that lesson. I started
by studying Vietnamese with my wife. She will be working with
me in Hanoi and we both hope to interact very intensively not
only with the Vietnamese Government but with the Vietnamese
people. And I hope that what little Vietnamese language I can
cram in before that time helps me do that.
Second, I have done a fair amount of reading, both on
attitudes toward our history as well as on the international
relations of Vietnam and the region since learning of my
nomination.
And third, I think my experience in the region, both in
Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia as well as with China, will
suit me well for conducting the kind of intensive diplomacy we
need to conduct both with Vietnam and in the region to continue
pursuing our interests there.
Senator Webb. To what extent have you reached out to the
Vietnamese community here in the United States?
Mr. Shear. Sir, I have not yet begun to reach out to the
Vietnamese community, because I have not been confirmed. But as
soon as I am confirmed I hope to start doing that. I will----
Senator Webb. Well, I hope you will.
Mr. Shear [continuing]. The Vietnamese community in the
United States it plays an important role in this relationship.
Their support for us during the war was important during that
time and I recognize that importance. And it is my intention to
stay very closely connected with the Vietnamese American
community here.
Senator Webb. I don't even think you need to be confirmed,
quite frankly, to do that. But I hope you will take that
opportunity before you post.
As you know, this is probably one of the most complex
relationships in American foreign policy because, I like to
say, there are four different components that have had to come
together in the aftermath of the war: those who fought the war
here and those who opposed it; and those who were with us over
there and those who opposed us. I have spent a great deal of my
adult life, as you know, trying to build bridges so that we
could move it forward. And the biggest hurdle, really, is the
people who were with us, inside Vietnam, who remain inside
Vietnam and also the involvement of the Vietnamese community
here, in terms of the policies that we implement.
In that respect, the issue inside Vietnam, when it comes to
human rights, is supplemented by the issue of how people who
were with us and their families are able to be embraced inside
Vietnam itself.
Would you comment on that?
Mr. Shear. Well, I think that first of all, with regard to
the Vietnamese community here and the four elements you
mentioned, I agree with you completely. And I would like to
stay in touch with you as I stay in touch with the Vietnamese
community as well here, both before I leave for Hanoi and after
I have gotten out there.
Certainly continued contacts between the Vietnamese
diaspora and their home country will be important, I think, for
the develop--social--both the social and the economic
development of Vietnam and I look forward to encouraging those
contacts as--if confirmed as Ambassador.
Senator Webb. Another question with respect to religious
and other freedoms inside Vietnam today. I would say, first of
all, we would be remiss if we did not recognize that there has
been dramatic improvement in this area over the years. The
first time I returned to Vietnam after the war was almost 20
years ago today. I was in Hanoi on Easter. I went to Easter
Mass at the Cathedral in Hanoi and there were maybe 10 people
in there and they were older people. I went to Christmas Mass
in 2008 in that same chapel and there were probably 2,000
people in there. So credit needs to be given where it is
deserved.
And, at the same time there are issues that have come up
over the past several months with respect to religious freedom
and others areas and I wonder if you have any comment on that.
Mr. Shear. Mr. Chairman, we agree with you that there have
been improvements in religious freedom in Vietnam and the
government's treatment of this issue. And that is why we
removed Vietnam from the countries of concern list in 2006.
This does not mean that we no longer have concerns about
religious freedom in Vietnam, in fact we watch the issue very
closely. We recognize that there continue to be improvements in
religious practice in Vietnam, more religious organizations are
being registered by the government and thereby made legal, more
kinds of religious gatherings are being allowed to take place,
more priests are being ordained. And with regard to
Catholicism, the relationship between Hanoi and the Vatican has
improved considerably over the past year or so.
So we recognize that improvements have taken place, while
at the same time, watching for setbacks very closely. And we
are particularly concerned about the treatment of religious
practices by the government in the Central Highlands, among the
Montagnards, for example. This remains an issue in which
frictions continue to be generated. We are also watching land
disputes involving several church groups, particularly in
Northern Vietnam. So while we recognize that improvements have
taken place, we also believe that much more can be done and I
hope to work with the Vietnamese Government and people to
improve the basis for religious freedom.
Senator Webb. Thank you. This week a Vietnamese legal
scholar, Co Huy Ha Vu, who is a member of a prominent Communist
family that was revolutionary antecedents--was convicted of
propaganda against the State, sentenced to 7 years in prison,
and 3 years house arrest. Are you familiar with this case?
Mr. Shear. I am, sir.
Senator Webb. What is the administration's position?
Mr. Shear. The State Department issued a public statement
the day after we heard that Dr. Vu had been sentenced. We
stated in that release that we were deeply concerned by the
sentencing and we called for the release of Dr. Vu.
We've also noticed that two human--other activists, Pham
Hong Sun and Le Quoc Quan had been detained since the
sentencing of Dr. Vu and we are watching that situation very
closely as well.
Senator Webb. I personally have had strong concerns over
many years about territorial claims in the South China Sea by
the Chinese. Their activities have increased over the past
several years, and particularly over the last year. And, part
of these relate to claims by the Vietnamese Government that are
in dispute. When Secretary Clinton was in Vietnam last year she
raised these issues and announced that the administration was
interested in pursuing a strategic partnership with Vietnam
with respect to those issues. Would you have a comment on what
that partnership would entail?
Mr. Shear. The strategic partnership has yet to defined.
And I expect that one of my main tasks as Ambassador, if I am
confirmed, will be to define and implement that strategic
partnership.
I think it will basically consist of four parts:
First, we hope to intensify and deepen our exchanges at the
senior-most levels of government. Last year marked a good start
to that with two visits, for example, by Secretary Clinton to
Hanoi in July and October. We hope to continue that trend.
A second aspect of a strategic partnership would be
enhanced diplomatic cooperation with Vietnam in regional
diplomacy. And again, we've already seen a good example of how
that might work in the way in which we coordinated with the
Vietnamese in the runup to the ASEAN regional forum last July.
We think that the Secretary's statement on the South China Sea
was very effective and since she made that statement the
Chinese and the ASEAN claimants to the South China Sea have
conducted, I believe, two or three meetings at the working
level to discuss how to move forward, now to manage their
conflicting claims and perhaps how to conclude a code of
conduct for claimants in the South China Sea. So we consider
the Secretary's intervention on this subject at the ARF last
July to have been successful.
A third area in which we will pursue a strategic
partnership will be in improving military-to-military ties. As
I mentioned in my statement, we are already implementing a
fairly broad range of activities at the military-to-military
level. We hope to further broaden those activities and deepen
them as well.
And fourth, the economic relationship, of course, will be
key. The good news about the economic relationship is that we
did almost $4 billion in export business with Vietnam last
year. The bad news we have an $11 billion trade deficit and I
hope that that trade deficit will narrow during my tenure, if I
am confirmed. And I will do whatever I can to increase American
exports and help create more American jobs back here.
So those, I think, are four essential components to a
strategic partnership. Of course, as we move forward in those
areas we would also like to see progress on the human rights
piece as well.
Senator Webb. Thank you. There is another issue with
respect to sovereignty, if not directly then certainly
indirectly, and that relates to Mekong River and other riparian
water areas. And actually, I would like to get an answer or an
observation from both of you.
I will start with you, Mr. Tong, on this. I have been among
those here who are very concerned about what is happening in
the Mekong River Delta. Also, in terms of Vietnam, if you have
been following what has been happening with the Red River in
North Vietnam, and north of Hanoi with the impact of
hydroelectric damming of these waterways and other
environmental concerns, but particularly the impact of the
hydroelectric dams and the plans to do more of them. China, and
in particular Laos, which has recently indicated it wants to
become the battery of Asia with hydroelectric dams on the
Mekong River.
My understanding is China is one of the few countries in
the world that does not recognize downstream water rights of
other countries, that is riparian water rights. And Laos
apparently is intent on moving forward with some of these
larger dam projects without respect to what is happening
downstream. I was in the Mekong River area in Vietnam last
July, where I was briefed about what is happening with the
increased salinity moving up as the water levels have gone
down. Some people say this is simply climate change or
industrial pollution. Certainly there may be elements of that,
but I would say that the real challenge in the region is for a
multilateral approach toward trying to resolve these issues.
There is not one country in the region that has the diplomatic
power in and of itself to stand up and start talking with the
Chinese about the impact of what is going on.
I introduced, or developed, a piece of legislation that
would require environmental standards to be met before moneys
from organizations like the ADB would go into the construction
of these dam projects.
Mr. Tong, because APEC strongly supports sustainable, green
growth model, and you mentioned in your own testimony about the
environmental considerations that were on the table with APEC,
is this a matter that could be raised in an energetic way in an
APEC environment?
Mr. Tong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for an opportunity to
comment on this problem that is very important to the Lower
Mekong Region, and as you noted, the Red River, which runs from
China into Vietnam.
Exactly as you pointed out, although advocates of
hydroelectric dams point to the benefits from electricity as
well as flood control, these dams can have a major and negative
impact on downstream residents, in terms of issues like
salinity, as you pointed out, and also fisheries. There is a
natural rhythm to the flood cycle that replenishes the soil for
agriculture. And so these are very legitimate concerns that
residents downstream have regarding the resources that come
from upstream.
APEC, I think, would be a good venue to raise this question
and consider it, and if confirmed I will certainly look into
doing so. I would also like to point out the Lower Mekong
Initiative that the State Department has initiated to work with
the countries of the Lower Mekong on development issues and try
to foster a sense of shared mission with regard to that river
basin. It seems to be having a useful impact on that dialogue
and hopefully using that we can then work with China to foster
a greater dialogue in that region. Certainly it is the view of
the United States that that kind of upstream/downstream
communication needs to be enhanced and improved.
Senator Webb. Thank you.
Mr. Shear, any comment on that?
Mr. Shear. Senator, you are absolutely right about the
strategic importance of these rivers and many of these rivers
that rise in China, including the Red River and the Mekong
River. A variety of rivers that flow through Southeast Asia and
South Asia all rise in China. All of the downstream countries
have expressed concern about possible Chinese damming on the
upstream portions of these rivers and while the Chinese have
disclosed--recently started disclosing more information, for
example, about conditions of river flow on the Mekong to Lower
Mekong countries, certainly we believe that more Chinese
transparency in this regard is called for. And we would like to
see the Chinese interact more intensively with those Mekong
River Commission, for example, as the Mekong River Commission
considers future mainstream dams on the Lower Mekong.
The Lower Mekong Initiative is a primary way in which we
have been interacting with the countries of the Lower Mekong,
including Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam. The Vietnamese
are particularly concerned about the proposed construction of a
dam in Xayaburi in Laos, south of Luang Prabang. The Mekong
River Commission I expect will meet to determine whether or not
to move forward on this dam project later this month.
For our part, Secretary Clinton announced at the Mekong
River summit in October in Hanoi, that we supported a pause in
dam construction that would allow Mekong River countries to
better assess the environmental and economic impacts that
damming the Lower Mekong will have. We are very sympathetic in
this regard to Vietnamese concerns, and we will be watching,
very closely, in the run up to the next Mekong River Commission
meeting how this decision plays out.
Senator Webb. Thank you.
I visited the Mekong River Commission headquarters in Laos
nearly 2 years ago. First of all, I would point out that the
Vietnamese representatives there were very bright and focused
on this and quite impressive.
But what I did not hear there, and what I wasn't hearing
last year when I was visiting the Mekong areas and having
discussions inside Vietnam, was anybody taking a deep breath
and saying this is going to have to be a riparian water rights
issue. This is, indirectly, a sovereignty issue. Water, that is
the availability of water in that region, can become a national
security issue too if one country or another decides they can
shut water off. Seventy million people are in that Lower Mekong
area, the Red River, from what I am reading, is at the lowest
level it has been in decades, at least decades and only through
a rational, but multinational approach, are we going to be able
to get our arms around this.
Mr. Tong, I would like your thoughts on the situation in
Japan in terms of the devastation and the clear slowdown
impacting other countries as a result. There was a figure that
I saw the other day of about 40 percent slowdown in terms of
automobile manufacturing or portions of the automobile industry
that will trickle out in terms of the impact on other
countries.
What are your thoughts about that, and is there any role
that APEC could play in assisting this recovery?
Mr. Tong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think that the impact of this natural disaster on the
Japanese economy and how that impacts other economies plays out
in several ways. One is through financial markets, and
fortunately to date we have not seen that much impact through
that channel. One is through trade: Japan's role both as a
buyer of goods from other nations and an exporter in gross
terms of its products. And again, in that area there has been,
thus far, limited impact.
This was an enormous natural disaster affecting hundreds of
thousands of people, however the Japanese economy is very large
and very resilient and has a strong capacity to, in a
macroeconomic sense--in the broadest sense of that term--bounce
back very quickly.
The issue of most concern perhaps at this point is with
regard to specific products where particular Japanese factories
produce important inputs into other processes around the world,
including the United States. And the various elements of the
U.S. Government, not necessarily the State Department, but a
number of them have been watching this and with an eye toward
seeing if there are issues of concern. I would say at this
point that the jury is still out on that question. It may be
that there will be, but it may be that these will be only
short-term concerns. And so I think we need to keep an eye on
it.
The March 11 tragedy happened the day before the last
Senior Officials' Meeting here in Washington. And the Senior
Officials took some special time to consider what we can do as
an organization, as a collection of economies, to address this
kind of situation. Two things happened, really. There was a
renewed sense of shared mission which is useful and important,
and then some discussion about whether, through the APEC
Emergency Preparedness Working Group, we can implement some
projects that help private sector businesses, in particular
small or medium enterprises, prepare for these kind of
disasters so that they can recover more quickly in a financial
sense or in a production sense.
And we hope to, and if confirmed, I hope to continue this
work and accelerate it. And I believe we have the support of
the other APEC economies in this regard as well. We did ask
that one project which had not received APEC funding, be
renewed, and Senior Officials agreed to do that on an
accelerated basis as a result of the events in Japan.
Senator Webb. Thank you.
I'm interested in your thoughts with respect to the Trans-
Pacific Partnership as a concept and how it is evolving and
whether and how developed economies can also proceed in this
arrangement with developing economies given the standards and
those sorts of things. What do you think about that?
Mr. Tong. Thank you, sir. The Trans-Pacific Partnership
really is an enormously important initiative for the United
States in several respects. And I would refer you to the speech
that Secretary Clinton gave on this matter on March 9. This
agreement, if we are able to conclude it, has some very unique
characteristics which would set up the region very well for a
much faster pace of economic integration going forward. And you
have pointed to one very important aspect of that, which is the
fact that TPP includes both developed and developing countries.
So if we can, through that negotiation, come up with ways
that developing countries find it within their means and their
interests to sign up to some very tough disciplines as
envisioned for this agreement, and see that the kind of rapid
economic change that this sort of agreement will foster is in
their interest, then we will have made some good progress
toward really bringing a very diverse economic region together
under this idea of a platform for economic activity which is
free and open and transparent and fair.
You know, with my colleague headed to Hanoi here I think we
should make special mention of the fact that Vietnam, which has
the lowest per capita income of all the TPP partners, has made
a very, if you will, courageous decision to pursue a
negotiation on terms which are quite challenging.
Senator Webb. That actually was my next question, with
respect to Vietnam and the hurdles that it faces in order to
participate in TPP.
Mr. Shear. I'll ask my colleague to chime in in the areas
in which he is much stronger than I am. But, I think the TPP
and Vietnamese participation in TPP offers the United States an
opportunity to further increase our exports and to broadly
strengthen our economic relationship with Vietnam and to
further bring Vietnam into the international economic
community.
In the process, in the course of our negotiations on TPP we
of course will also be looking at Vietnamese labor and
environmental practices and we hope that as a result of
concluding the TPP that those practices in Vietnam will
improve.
Mr. Tong. Well, I certainly share those sentiments and
would just emphasize again that I do believe that it is a
challenging negotiation--we are, collectively, the nine
countries of TPP negotiation, setting the bar quite high. That
is an intentional strategy which they have all bought into of
establishing a state-of-the-art agreement which other economies
in the future can join. We will find out this year really,
whether this is an achievable objective, but it is certainly, I
believe, a very strategically intelligent objective on the part
of all nine countries.
Senator Webb. Thank you. I would like to thank both of you
for your willingness to serve and wish you both the best in
your positions, should you be confirmed and I think you will be
confirmed.
Let me close with just a few thoughts. I have been very,
very concerned for a number of years, and particularly over the
last 10 or 11 years, that the United States has been ignoring
this part of the world, as our attention has been so distracted
with what happened after 9/11. This was something I was writing
about and speaking about before 9/11, but it certainly is true
today. The future of this country is so inextricably
intertwined with this region, as both of you know, and as I
think everyone in this room appreciates. There is no more vital
place for the future of the United States than in East and
Southeast Asia.
And I have done everything I can since I have been in the
Senate, to reinvigorate--do my part in reinvigorating our
relationships with this part of the world. I hesitate to say
the second tier countries, but the countries that are not
China, which I think have fallen off the radar screen here in
the Congress.
I was very proud to have served as a Marine in Vietnam. I
believed then that Vietnam was one of the most important
countries in terms of our relationships in this part of the
world, and I continue to believe it today. Vietnam is 86
million people, a country larger in population than Germany.
It has an enormous future and in terms of our own strategic
interests I think we need to do everything we can, under the
rubric of fairness and being loyal to the people who were with
us when times were different, to strengthen this relationship
and others on the mainland of Southeast Asia for the stability
of the region and for the good of our own country.
And that has been our focus here on this committee. And
both of you, I think, will play a vital role in doing this. And
I look forward to working with you in the future.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record
Responses of David Bruce Shear to Questions Submitted by
Senator John F. Kerry
security
Question. Responding to concerns expressed by the United States,
Vietnam, and many other Southeast Asian countries, China recently
entered into multilateral negotiations with other claimants to reach a
code of conduct for managing territorial disputes in the South China
Sea. How do the United States and Vietnam plan to coordinate to achieve
a successful conclusion to these negotiations?
Answer. Secretary Clinton's statement on the South China Sea at
last year's ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) Ministerial Retreat in Hanoi was
very effective in generating action on the South China Sea. Since the
Secretary's remarks, ASEAN member countries and China have conducted
several working-level meetings to discuss how to move forward on
implementing guidelines for the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of
Parties in the South China Sea. The United States encourages the
parties to reach agreement on a full code of conduct. The United States
is prepared to facilitate initiatives and confidence-building measures
consistent with the Declaration.
The United States will continue to discuss South China Sea issues,
and broader maritime security, with Vietnam, as well as the other
members of ASEAN and China. We will discuss how the United States can
be helpful in advancing our shared interests and promoting peace and
stability in the South China Sea.
Secretary Clinton made it clear in her ARF remarks that the United
States has enduring national interests in the South China Sea,
including continued peace and stability and respect for international
law, including freedom of navigation and unimpeded lawful commerce. We
oppose the use of force or threat of force by any claimant to advance
its claim. We share these interests with the region, as well as other
maritime states and the broader international community.
While the United States does not take sides on the competing
territorial disputes over land features in the South China Sea, the
United States supports a collaborative diplomatic process by the
claimants for addressing the territorial disputes and finding means to
build trust and reduce tensions in the region.
environment
Question. Recent U.N. and Asian Development Bank reports--along
with Vietnamese Government studies--describe how rising sea levels,
increasingly frequent and intense typhoons and drought, and salt-water
intrusion could affect Vietnam, with its heavily populated, low-lying
areas. These reports also highlight that the future impacts of climate
change will only serve to exacerbate these conditions. I have discussed
the potentially far-reaching consequences with Vietnam's leaders, and
they have expressed a willingness to work together to address this
challenge, in areas like data collection and dissemination and
transitioning to renewable energy sources. What steps will you take, if
confirmed, to broaden and deepen cooperation to enhance climate
security?
Answer. If confirmed, I will both build on our existing cooperation
and seek new opportunities to work with Vietnam to enhance climate
security, which is advanced by our work on climate change mitigation
and adaptation. The U.S.-Vietnam Climate Change Working Group
established under the bilateral Science and Technology Agreement is one
avenue I will use to promote cooperation on climate change adaptation
and mitigation. Another program for continued support and possible
expansion is the DRAGON Institute, which the U.S. Geological Survey
launched with Can Tho University to facilitate joint research on
climate change and other environmental issues threatening the Mekong
Delta.
In regard to new programs, Vietnam will be one of the first
countries worldwide to participate in a new Low-Emission Development
Strategy (LEDS) interagency initiative, under which the United States
will support the development of a long-term strategy for robust, low-
carbon growth. As part of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and
Forest Degradation (REDD+) initiative, the United States will offer
training and technical cooperation to government agencies and NGOs to
improve forest and watershed management capability and to better
respond to the impacts of climate change on forests.
If confirmed, I will also encourage Vietnam's continued
participation in the Lower Mekong Initiative, our partnership with the
countries of the Lower Mekong Basin, to build capacity in tackling
regional and global challenges, including adaptation to and mitigation
of climate change impacts.
governance
Question. Some observers see the Vietnamese National Assembly
assuming a greater role in domestic policymaking. How do you assess the
National Assembly's evolving role in Vietnam?
Answer. Although the Communist Party of Vietnam exerts ultimate
influence and control over all governing bodies, primarily through its
Central Committee and Politburo, the National Assembly, once a mere
legislative arm of the Party, has taken on a more significant and
quasi-independent role in recent years. The 493-member body, elected to
a 5-year term, has a variety of powers, including the ability to amend
the constitution and elect members of the Council of Ministers. Members
of the National Assembly have openly debated sensitive political issues
and produced original legislation. Over 1,000 candidates, including
nonparty members, will contest an election in May to seat Vietnam's
13th National Assembly. Although the process falls significantly short
of a full-fledged democratic undertaking, it may produce a legislative
body that better represents the interests of the Vietnamese people than
in past versions.
human rights and religious freedom
Question. How will your experience working with the Chinese
Government on human rights concerns inform your thinking on these
issues with respect to Vietnam?
Answer. My work on human rights in China and elsewhere throughout
my career has underscored for me the importance of human rights in
overall U.S. foreign policy. My experience has also demonstrated for me
our ability to achieve progress when we combine persistence with a
well-defined agenda.
Over the past year, we have seen an increase in suppression of
political dissent by the Vietnamese Government, a worsening of the
respect for rule of law, the imprisonment of dozens of activists, and
new restrictions on the media and the Internet. If confirmed, I will
seek an active and open dialogue with my Vietnamese counterparts.
Vietnam cannot achieve its full potential without greater respect for
the rights of its citizens.
If confirmed, I will continue to seek progress on human rights
issues, partly through the Human Rights Dialogue we have established
with Vietnam. In December 2010, Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
Assistant Secretary Michael Posner led an interagency delegation in a
successful 2-day visit to Vietnam to participate in the 15th round of
the dialogue with the Vietnamese Government. The U.S. delegation
expressed its concern about a wide range of human rights issues,
including freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and Internet
freedom. These meetings followed up on Secretary Clinton's July and
October visits to Vietnam and yielded concrete outcomes and next steps.
human rights
Question. I was disappointed to hear of Cu Huy Ha Vu's sentencing
this week and am concerned that Vietnam may be following the example of
intolerance being established elsewhere. Cu's conviction is the latest
evidence of a troubling crackdown against freedom of expression in
Vietnam. If confirmed, what steps will you take to encourage greater
official tolerance for the views of Vietnam's people?
Answer. If confirmed, I will regularly engage the Vietnamese
Government at the highest levels to express our concerns about the
country's recent increase in suppression of political dissent. The
bilateral Human Rights Dialogue with Vietnam held last December in
Hanoi was successful in raising a wide range of human rights concerns,
including freedom of expression. The Department of State continues to
press those points with the Government of Vietnam. The long-term
success of our growing relationship, and the long-term prosperity of
Vietnam, depends in large part on its people enjoying the freedom to
freely express their views.
Question. Can the full potential of this growing bilateral
partnership be realized in the absence of greater official respect for
freedom of expression?
Answer. I strongly believe that the strength of our long-term
bilateral relationship depends heavily on the ability of the Vietnamese
people to freely express their views, including political opinions that
challenge the policies or positions of the government. If confirmed, I
will encourage the government to respect the freedom of expression as
enshrined in Vietnamese law, bolster the rule of law, end restrictions
on the media and the Internet, and engage all political voices in
Vietnam in meaningful dialogue.
human rights and religious freedom
Question. What is your assessment of Vietnam's progress in
enlarging religious freedom, including its treatment of Montagnard
Christians?
Answer. Since 2006, the overall situation in Vietnam has improved,
prompting the Department of State to remove Vietnam from the Country of
Particular Concern list. Nevertheless, freedom of religion continues to
be subject to uneven interpretation and protection by the Government of
Vietnam. Significant problems remain, especially at the provincial and
village levels and for some minority groups, such as the Montagnard
Christians. The Vietnamese Government can and should do more. If
confirmed, I will make the promotion of religious freedom one of my top
priorities.
Among the problems that remain on this issue are occasional
harassment and excessive use of force by local government officials
against religious groups in some outlying locations. Specifically,
there were several problematic high-profile incidents in 2009 and 2010
when authorities used excessive force against Catholic parishioners in
land disputes outside of Hanoi at Dong Chiem parish, against the Plum
Village Buddhist Community in Lam Dong province, and against Catholic
parishioners outside of Danang at Con Dau parish. Registration of
Protestant congregations also remains slow and cumbersome in some areas
of the country, especially in the Northwest Highlands.
However, Protestants and Catholics throughout the country continue
to report significant improvements in their situation despite
occasional setbacks. The government granted national-level recognition
or registration to eight new Protestant churches, the Baha'i faith, the
Bani Muslim Sect, and four indigenous Vietnamese religious
organizations. Over 1,000 meeting points that had been closed in the
Central Highlands were reopened with additional meeting points
registered, and hundreds of new pastors were ordained and assigned to
newly registered meeting points. Over 228 Protestant congregations were
registered in the Northwest Highlands. The Catholic Church of Vietnam
also continues to report that its ability to gather and worship has
improved and restrictions have eased on the training and assignment of
clergy. In January 2011, the Vatican named a nonresident representative
as a first step toward full diplomatic relations with Vietnam.
agent orange/dioxin remediation
Question. Last spring, Senators Whitehouse and Kerry, along with
seven other senators, submitted a letter to Chairman Leahy and former
Ranking Member Gregg of the Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations
and Related Programs of the Senate Committee on Appropriations
requesting $26 million for dioxin remediation in Vietnam. As you know,
$12 million was appropriated to commence cleanup efforts at Danang
International Airport. What is the status of these efforts, and how do
you assess their impact on United States-Vietnam relations? What
additional efforts in Danang would the outstanding sum (that is yet to
be appropriated) be able to sustain?
Answer. We expect to have contracts in place by the end of this
year and excavation to start about January 2012. New data (as of
February 2011) show the need to excavate roughly 18 percent more soil
and sediment than originally planned. Because we now have a more
comprehensive understanding of site conditions and ongoing and future
expansion plans at the Danang airport, the project is now anticipated
to be completed by the end of 2015 and cost about $43 million.
FY 2010 funding, including $12 million in supplemental funds, will
enable USAID to fund contracts for project planning, construction
management and oversight, and thermal design between now and the end of
2011. However, with the anticipated award around November or December
2011 of the excavation and the thermal construction contracts,
estimated at $11.5 million and $21.6 million, respectively, the FY 2011
requested $18 million would enable us to sufficiently fund these
contracts initially. Both contracts will have major upfront costs. If
the $18 million in FY 2011 funding is approved, additional funding of
between $8 and $9 million would be required to meet total project cost
requirements.
Successful project completion will result in the elimination of the
risk of future exposure to dioxin due to Agent Orange for the estimated
800,000 Vietnamese living near the Danang airport. As we advance to
each new project milestone with our Vietnamese partners, they continue
to express heartfelt appreciation for this U.S. assistance.
______
Responses of David Shear to Questions Submitted by
Senator Richard G. Lugar
Question. In 2010, President Obama announced his intention to
double U.S. exports in 5 years. If confirmed as U.S. Ambassador to
Vietnam, what strategy will you employ to double U.S. exports to
Vietnam by 2015?
Answer. Providing greater opportunities for U.S. companies in
Vietnam will be one of my core goals, if I am confirmed. U.S. exports
to Vietnam in 2010 totaled US$3.7 billion, up 19.8 percent compared to
2009. This increase follows equally impressive growth in 2009 when U.S.
exports to Vietnam increased by 11 percent. However, U.S. exports
accounted for just 4.2 percent of Vietnam's merchandise imports in
2010, indicating a major opportunity to expand our limited share of
this growing market and deepen our bilateral relationship through
trade.
Under the National Export Initiative (NEI), State Department, U.S.
Commercial Service, and Foreign Agricultural Service officers at
Embassy Hanoi and Consulate General Ho Chi Minh City work as a team to
support the NEI Country Plan for Vietnam, which has been designated as
a ``high priority market'' in Asia under the NEI. USAID also provides
support for capacity development and technical assistance in
establishing new legal mechanisms to facilitate trade and investment.
If confirmed, with support from this strong Country Team, I would
work to eliminate both tariff and nontariff barriers to U.S. exports of
goods and services as well as advocate for implementation of
commitments under existing agreements. I would also work with Vietnam
to encourage them to meet the high standards of the Trans-Pacific
Partnership free trade agreement that is currently being negotiated.
Helping U.S. industry identify new export opportunities would be
another key component of my strategy, particularly in the areas of
energy, information and communication technology, education,
transportation, infrastructure development, and agricultural products.
I would also work closely with the American business community in
Vietnam to maintain a favorable environment for business and U.S. goods
and take action on concerns as they arise. I would actively reach out
to U.S. companies interested in doing business in Vietnam and would
advocate for U.S. business at all appropriate opportunities.
Question. Several American families, including four from Indiana,
have adoptions pending for Vietnamese children. This has been a long
and laborious process with families frustrated by inconsistencies in
information received from U.S. authorities as well as other challenges,
some of which result from an evolving adoption mechanism and process on
the part of the Government of Vietnam.
Although Vietnam recently became a signatory to The Hague
Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of
Intercountry Adoption, U.S. officials indicate it will be several
months before a formal agreement is implemented.
Although the United States is awaiting the formal implementation of
a new adoption agreement, it's my understanding that the two countries
had agreed that six of the pending adoptions, ``already in the
pipeline,'' could go forward. Your full assessment of this situation
would be appreciated. Please inform me how you intend to proceed.
Answer. Following the expiration of our bilateral agreement, the
United States and Vietnam continued to process adoption cases for U.S.
prospective adoptive parents who had received an official referral
prior to September 1, 2008. The Department of State made every effort
to encourage the Vietnamese to expeditiously complete all
investigations and seek resolutions as quickly as possible in the best
interest of each child.
The Government of Vietnam took significant time to make a final
decision in many of the cases in the province of Bac Lieu in part
because of delays by the Bac Lieu orphanage in providing the government
with needed documentation. In order to approve each case, the
Government of Vietnam had to determine that each child was eligible for
intercountry adoption and that the dossier could be processed.
On September 14, 2010, the Ministry of Justice sent the U.S.
Embassy in Hanoi a diplomatic note denying the remaining pipeline cases
because of a lack of sufficient legal grounds on which to approve them.
The U.S. Embassy has followed up with the Vietnamese Government on
these cases and provided available information to all of the families.
In order for intercountry adoptions to resume from Vietnam,
Vietnamese law requires that either a new bilateral agreement must be
in place between the United States and Vietnam, or Vietnam must ratify
The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-Operation in
Respect of Intercountry Adoption (the Convention). Vietnam has stated
its intention to ratify the Convention and in June 2010, the Vietnamese
legislature passed a new adoption law which took effect January 1,
2011. Vietnamese officials have recently finished drafting necessary
regulations and will now need to implement the new law and regulations
prior to their ratification and compliance with the standards
established by the Convention.
While the Government of Vietnam's steps toward Hague ratification
and implementation are encouraging, we remain concerned that sufficient
safeguards may not be in place and that the proposed implementation
timeline may be too short. Under U.S. law, if/when Vietnam becomes a
party to the Convention, the U.S. Central Authority must be able to
certify that procedures leading to the adoption of a child in Vietnam
conform to both the standards established by the Convention and the
U.S. Intercountry Adoption Act. This decision, however, cannot be made
prior to Vietnam's Hague ratification.
Following the resolution of all pipeline cases, the Department of
Adoptions has informed the Department of State that the children
previously matched with U.S. prospective adoptive parents are now
subject to the country's new adoption law. The new law requires that
Vietnamese officials follow different procedures from those in the
past, such as making children available for adoption for 2 months at
the communal level, 2 months at the provincial level, and 2 months at
the national level. If no qualified domestic family successfully
completes an adoption of the child, the Department of Adoptions (DA)
will then determine the eligibility of the child for intercountry
adoption based on Vietnamese laws and regulations. The DA Director has
expressed willingness to rematch the final remaining group of six
children with their previously matched U.S. prospective adoptive
parents under the new adoption law (i.e., that they first be made
available for adoption in Vietnam.)
The DA Director, however, has confirmed that Bac Lieu provincial
officials have thus far refused to comply with Vietnam's new adoption
law requirements for making the six children whose adoptions were
denied in September 2010 available for domestic adoption at the
provincial level. In addition, officials have refused to correct birth
certificates with fraudulent information. The DA Director said he was
not certain why these officials were unwilling to move forward and
noted that he did not have authority to compel them to act. He said he
will continue to communicate with these officials on the requirements
of the new law necessary for these children to be eligible for
intercountry adoption. When Special Advisor for Children's Issues Susan
Jacobs was in Vietnam in March, she discussed these cases at length
with the Director of the Department of Adoptions and urged him to find
a way to provide these children with permanent homes. Special Advisor
Jacobs urged him to rematch the children and the parents. The Director
said he planned to hold a training seminar on the new law in the Bac
Lieu province and he hoped the seminar would prompt local officials to
comply with the new law's provisions.
The Department of State has pressed for a strong regulatory
framework and continues to communicate directly with the Government of
Vietnam on implementation efforts. The U.S. Embassy in Hanoi has also
worked closely with other countries in the Inter-Embassy Adoption
Working Group in addressing concerns within the adoption process and
regulations.
The Office of Children's Issues and Embassy Hanoi continue to
communicate directly with all of the Bac Lieu families regarding
Vietnam's efforts to ratify the Hague Adoption Convention and to
explain the processing of cases under the Convention if/when Vietnam
ratifies the Convention.
Question. Within Vietnam, there appears to be decreasing emphasis
on matters related to human rights. Is this perception correct, and if
so, what is the basis?
Answer. The Vietnamese Government increased the suppression of
dissent over the past year, arresting over two dozen political
activists and convicting over a dozen more arrested over the last 3
years. The government also increased measures to limit privacy rights
and tightened controls over the press and Internet. Freedom of religion
continued to be subject to uneven interpretation and protection; in
spite of some progress, significant problems remained, especially at
the provincial and village levels, including for some ethnic minority
residents in the Central and Northwest Highlands. At the same time, the
Vietnamese Government continues to engage with the United States and
other countries in a series of regular human rights dialogues.
Question. Some suggest that select Communist Party leaders in
Vietnam are in large part responsible for limits on political dissent
within the country. Is this accurate? Please describe the nature of
interaction between the Communist Party leaders in Vietnam and
Communist Party leaders in China.
Answer. Vietnam is an authoritarian state ruled by the Communist
Party of Vietnam (CPV). Political opposition movements are prohibited
and Vietnamese citizens cannot change their government. Under Article 4
of the Vietnamese Constitution, the CPV assumes the leading role in
leadership of the state and society. As such, the highest levels of the
Vietnamese Communist Party are aware of, and most likely approve, the
prosecution and imprisonment of high visibility dissidents. We
regularly urge the Vietnamese Government to engage all political
opinions in a genuine dialogue and to respect fundamental human rights,
including freedom of expression.
As the United States and Vietnam celebrated 15 years of normal
diplomatic ties in 2010, Vietnam and China were celebrating their 60th
anniversary of relations. Vietnam was among the first countries to
recognize the People's Republic of China, and China was the first
country to establish official diplomatic ties with Vietnam. While
China-Vietnam relations have been marked by periods of conflict over
territorial and other issues, it appears that the deep historical ties
between the CPV and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) remain strong.
Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh famously summarized their friendship
ties as ``both comrades and brothers.'' More recently, President Hu
Jintao described China-Vietnam relations as a ``treasure'' of the two
parties. Lines between party and government are blurred in both
countries, making it difficult to differentiate between official
government interaction and party-to-party interaction, but the two
parties appear to maintain a robust schedule of senior-level visits and
consultations.
Question. Le Cong Dinh and Nguyen Tien Trung were among political
reformers arrested in June of last year by Vietnamese officials and
found guilty of ``organizing to overthrow the State.'' They received
lengthy prison terms. Has the U.S. Government expressed concern
regarding those political reformers arrested last June? What is the
present status of Le Cong Dinh and Nguyen Tien Trung? Both have pending
invitations from the Indiana University Maurer School of Law to study
law at the Center for Constitutional Democracy at Indiana University.
Answer. We are aware of the cases of Le Cong Dinh and Nguyen Tien
Trung and remain very concerned over their continued imprisonment. Dinh
and Trung were arrested in June and July 2009, respectively. Both were
tried and convicted in January 2010, in a joint trial with two other
activists. Dinh received a sentence of 5 years in prison; Trung was
sentenced to 7 years. The U.S. Consul General in Ho Chi Minh City
sought and was granted permission to attend both trials.
The State Department has repeatedly condemned the arrests and
convictions in strong terms, both publicly and privately, including in
the form of public statements issued at the time of the arrests and
convictions. Former Ambassador Michael Michalak and current Charge
d'Affaires Virginia Palmer have regularly called for the release of
Dinh and Trung. Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and
Labor (DRL) Michael Posner also pressed for their release during the
2009 and 2010 human rights dialogues with Vietnam. DRL Deputy Assistant
Secretary Dan Baer just reiterated these concerns during his visit to
Vietnam in February, as did Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asia
Pacific Affairs Joe Yun in March.
The Embassy and the Consulate General keep in regular contact with
family members of Dinh and Trung, and officials at the State Department
have met with both Mr. Trung's fiance and with Professor David
Williams, Director of the Center for Constitutional Democracy at
Indiana University.
______
Responses of Kurt Tong to Questions Submitted by
Senator Richard G. Lugar
Question. In 2010, President Obama announced his intention to
double U.S. exports in 5 years. If confirmed as U.S. Ambassador to
APEC, what strategy will you employ to double U.S. exports to APEC
countries by 2015?
Answer. The Asia-Pacific region is essential to the success of the
President's National Export Initiative (NEI) and our goal of doubling
U.S. exports by 2015 to help create jobs at home. In the first year of
the NEI, U.S exports to APEC economies totaled $774 billion, up 25
percent from 2009, while U.S. exports to non-APEC member economies grew
about 15 percent to reach $503 billion. We need to work hard to
maintain this momentum.
This year is particularly important as we host APEC for the first
time since 1993. If confirmed, I will work with my interagency
colleagues to increase the private sector engagement and input into the
APEC discussions, and exercise U.S. leadership in delivering concrete
outcomes through the APEC process to address barriers to trade and
investment that American companies face and enhance regional economic
integration. We will leverage APEC 2011 to advance work to make it
cheaper, easier, and faster to do business in the Asia-Pacific, which
will increase export opportunities for our businesses, particularly
small- and medium-sized enterprises. Specifically, we will address
nontariff barriers to trade and work to prevent new barriers from
emerging; foster greater openness in the trade in green technology; and
promote regulatory convergence and cooperation to tackle the regulatory
issues within and between economies that increasingly inhibit trade and
investment.
Question. What is your perspective on the United States
establishing a long-term strategy toward pursuing a Free Trade
Agreement (FTA) with ASEAN?
Answer. In Asia-Pacific trade negotiations, the administration is
currently focusing on developing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as
an advantageous pathway toward regional economic integration and an
eventual Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP) that could include
all 21 members of APEC. APEC leaders last year endorsed the TPP as one
of possible pathways toward FTAAP, and four ASEAN member countries,
Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, and Brunei, are already party to the
negotiations; others may be interested in joining in the future.
At the same time, I believe the administration should continue and
expand its efforts to deepen relations with the ASEAN nations, and
ASEAN as an organization, on both strategic and economic issues. In
particular, on trade policy, it makes sense for the United States to
make concerted efforts to work with the ASEAN nations and the ASEAN
Secretariat on issues such as trade facilitation and regulatory reform.
Working hard on these matters will help build capacity and accelerate
the reform and opening of the non-TPP ASEAN economies, increasing their
readiness to negotiate high-standard free trade agreements with the
United States.
The U.S.-ASEAN Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA)
process is an especially useful channel in this regard, along with the
U.S.-ASEAN Enhanced Partnership.
Question. What is your perspective on the so-called ``centrality of
ASEAN''?
Answer. ASEAN, as an organization and as a group of nations, is
playing an absolutely critical role in the development of the Asia-
Pacific's emerging regional architecture. ASEAN plays a formative and
essential role in each of the ASEAN-centered institutions and summits
such as the ASEAN Regional Forum, ASEAN+3, ASEAN+6, ASEAN Defense
Ministers Meeting Plus, the Asia Regional Forum, and the East Asia
summit. Many of these institutions include the United States. In
addition to engaging these institutions, the United States is
strengthening its engagement with ASEAN by sending our first Resident
Representative to ASEAN, Ambassador David Carden, to Jakarta this
month. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with Ambassador
Carden and other colleagues to develop new areas of cooperation with
ASEAN.
Question. Do you envision a situation whereby the United States
could participate in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) while
concurrently working to develop a long-term strategy toward pursuing an
FTA with ASEAN?
Answer. Through the Trans-Pacific Partnership process, the United
States is negotiating a high-standard free trade agreement with four
ASEAN members, plus four other partners. We will continue to work for
the successful conclusion of these negotiations on an ambitious
timetable.
At the same time, considering the great strategic and economic
importance of ASEAN, I do believe it makes sense for the United States
to continue to consider long-term strategies that would most
effectively expand the United States trade and investment relationships
with the ASEAN member nations, individually and as a group. The main
issue, of course, is the readiness of partner economies and their
governments to enter into high-quality, comprehensive trade and
investment arrangements with the United States, on terms that would be
of benefit to our economy and be acceptable to the U.S. Congress. In
order to lay a foundation, we should continue to work intensively with
the ASEAN Secretariat and the ASEAN governments, including through the
U.S.-ASEAN Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) process, as
well as our bilateral TIFAs and other dialogues, to help build their
capacity, accelerate reform, and create opportunities for realizing
long-term trade goals.
NOMINATIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
Daniel Benjamin Shapiro, of Illinois, to be Ambassador to
Israel
Stuart E. Jones, of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be
Ambassador to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
Hon. George Albert Krol, of New Jersey, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to
be Ambassador to the Republic of Uzbekistan
Henry S. Ensher, of California, Member of the Senior Foreign
Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador to the
People's Democratic Republic of Algeria
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:42 p.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert P.
Casey, Jr., presiding.
Present: Senators Casey, Risch, and Lee.
Senator Casey. The hearing will come to order. I know we
are starting maybe 3 minutes early, but that is not all that
bad to do once in a while.
Today the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meets to
examine the nominations of Daniel Shapiro for the position of
Ambassador to Israel, Stuart Jones to be Ambassador to Jordan,
George Krol to be Ambassador to Uzbekistan, and Henry Ensher to
be Ambassador to Algeria.
I would like to, first of all, welcome Senator Bill Nelson
of the State of Florida. I know we will be joined by Senator
Lieberman as well, both of whom will provide introductions of
Mr. Shapiro.
But in the interest of keeping the Senate on an efficient
path of time this afternoon, I am going to forgo my opening
statement, which is traditionally the start of a hearing, and
give the floor to Senator Nelson so he can make his
introductory remarks. And that way we can keep the Senate
moving at a good pace.
But I am grateful to Senator Nelson for his appearance here
today, and for his willingness to take time to help us have
this hearing proceed. Senator Nelson, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your personal
courtesies.
I must say that in the 11 years that I have been here, this
is one of the prouder moments that I have had to introduce a
nominee to any of our committees. There are times in life when
you know that what is about to occur is exactly the right
thing, and the position of Ambassador to Israel and Dan Shapiro
is the right thing.
We have an extraordinary individual that I can commend to
this committee because I know him very well. Dan was our
legislative director for the first 6 years, my first term as
Senator, and since I was then a member of this committee,
Foreign Relations, as well as Armed Services, we traveled
extensively. And of course, whenever we were traveling anywhere
in the world, I had a walking encyclopedia with me, but that
was magnified once we got anywhere into the Middle East and
Central Asia.
Just for starters, he speaks fluent Hebrew and fluent
Arabic, not a shabby start for an Ambassador to Israel. And his
depth of knowledge, even back when he was with this little
country boy from Florida, was extensive in his advice and
counsel to me. You can imagine what that depth of knowledge is
now that he has been a member of the National Security Council
with the portfolio in that council of the Middle East. And so
we have someone who is uniquely qualified for this position.
Second, I would point out that among all of the White House
staff, when it comes to a matter of the Middle East, who does
the President draw on for his advice, but the fellow who knows
the Middle East backward and forward in order to give advice?
That is an important component as well, so that as our
representative in Israel, when Dan will speak as our
Ambassador, everybody knows that he has got a direct pipeline
to the Oval Office.
And third, let me say that as he represents America, he
will represent all of America. It is true that among the Jewish
community, he is probably as popular as Benjamin Netanyahu. But
I said Dan represents all of America. I so well remember how he
was so capable of putting the interest of the United States
first in whatever interest group that it was that came in
seeking legislation or a change in legislation or having to
deal with our foreign policy. And I particularly watched Dan as
he interacted with a group of our Muslim constituents, of which
I have a sizable representation in the State of Florida, and he
was just so adept with such graciousness as he would carry on
the affairs of our office.
And so I give to this committee my unlimited
recommendation, the highest recommendation, and I would ask
that the committee--and I have already spoken to Chairman John
Kerry--that you all proceed with this expeditiously so that we
can have our new Ambassador in Israel.
Thank you very much, Senator Casey.
Senator Casey. Senator Nelson, thank you very much. We are
welcoming you back to this committee. We appreciate the words
that you expressed here about the nominee, and you have given
us an assignment and we appreciate that.
In furtherance of Senate courtesies before my opening, I
wanted to also turn to Senator Lieberman who, of course, is the
chairman of the Homeland Security Committee and has been a
leader in the Senate for so many years. And we are grateful
that he is here. We are honored by your presence as well,
Senator Lieberman, and you have the floor.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am honored to
be here to help introduce Dan Shapiro to the committee and also
to join with our colleague, Senator Bill Nelson, in praising
him.
I cannot say that Dan ever worked for me as Bill could, but
I am so proud to say that I have known Dan even longer for a
much more important reason: his wife Julie taught my youngest
child when she was very young. And we were very impressed with
Julie. And, you know, Dan was not bad either. [Laughter.]
Of course, I did get to know Dan when he worked with
Senator Feinstein before that. As the record will show, he
worked with Chairman Lee Hamilton in the House of
Representatives and then, of course, his time with Bill Nelson.
This is really a superb appointment. I endorse Dan's
nomination wholeheartedly. He has an extraordinary background,
as Bill said. When Bill said that Dan Shapiro was fluent in
Hebrew and Arabic, I turned to him and wanted him to know that
I knew that he was not bad in English either, and I know that
will help him in his work. [Laughter.]
But more to the point, he brings expertise. He brings a
very informed judgment. He also brings--and I want to stress a
point that Bill Nelson made. At this moment of really
extraordinary change in the Middle East, which has a tremendous
potential for good but also creates uncertainty, Dan Shapiro
will bring to this position his obviously close relationship
with President Obama. And this is a moment when I think it is
more important than ever for there to be close and direct
communications and a relationship of deep trust between the
Government of the United States and the Government of Israel
and really more particularly between the Oval Office here in
Washington and the Office of the Prime Minister in Jerusalem.
And Dan Shapiro as Ambassador will guarantee, I think, that
there is that kind of trust on both sides.
I always say to groups around the country who are concerned
about Israel's security that since the founding of the modern
state and the very rapid recognition of the State of Israel by
then-President Harry Truman, which was so significant to
Israel's immediate legitimacy among the nations of the world,
that the United States has remained Israel's most steadfast
ally and supporter, and it is a natural relationship because we
are two great democracies. The relationship continues strong
both from the White House and really broad bipartisan support
for the United States-Israel relationship. I think Dan Shapiro
understands all that and will bring all that with him.
I will say, just to echo what Bill Nelson said, that in the
pro-Israel community in America--and in that community, there
is a range of opinion. I was quite impressed by the range of
endorsements for this nomination after it was made, going on
one side from the Zionist Organization of America to, on the
other side, the Americans for Peace Now. And that covers quite
a lot of real estate ideologically speaking. But it is a
tribute to Dan's credibility and his accessibility and his
personality that he enjoys that support.
So I know you have a lot of business. I want to leave it to
that. But I will come back to what I said at the outset. Dan
will make a great Ambassador and Julie will make a great wife
of a great Ambassador, and together I know that they will
strengthen our already remarkably strong relationship with
Israel.
Thank you very much.
Senator Casey. Senator Lieberman, thank you very much. We
are grateful you are here with us today.
We will move to my opening statement and then, of course,
we will go to our nominees.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT P. CASEY, JR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA
Senator Casey. Let me speak first about our nominee for the
post of Ambassador to Israel.
The United States relationship with Israel is a cornerstone
of United States foreign policy, as we all know. It is all the
more important during the current historic period of upheaval
in the Middle East. The United States and Israel have an
unbreakable and unshakeable bond based upon common values and a
commitment to democratic institutions, and our strong
relationship with Israel is in the national security interest
of the United States.
The United States relationship with Israel is more
important than ever, given the increasing unrest in the region.
In recent weeks, I and others have voiced concern about the
democratic transition process in Egypt, the threat posed by
extremism in that country, and the prospects for the Camp David
Peace Accords. Countries like Libya, Syria, Bahrain, and Yemen
continue to experience significant unrest. The United States
must lead with policies that reflect our national security
interests as well as our values.
In light of all of these uncertainties, Israel's security
in the region is of utmost concern. United States assistance to
Israel is critical to supporting Israel's security and
maintaining stability in the region. United States assistance
for Israel's missile defense system has already proved
successful in limiting attacks by terrorist groups, as
demonstrated in Ashkelon last month, with the Iron Dome System
which struck down eight short-range rockets fired by Hamas. In
an ever-changing threat environment, the United States must
ensure that Israel maintains its qualitative advantage over
potential threats at home and abroad.
Iran poses a uniquely significant threat to both Israel and
United States national security as a result of its ongoing
pursuit of nuclear weapons, failure to abide by its
international obligations, and rejection of Israel's right to
exist. We have recently seen disturbing instances of Iranian
force projection into the region, including support for
terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah which continue to
launch attacks on innocent Israeli citizens and civilians. The
United States must stand firm in its commitment to Israel's
security by steadily increasing pressure on the Iranian regime.
It is clear that stronger United States and multilateral
sanctions have weakened Iran, but we must continue to work with
our international partners to limit Iran's influence in the
region.
The recent announcement of a Palestinian unification
agreement between Fatah and Hamas has raised serious concerns
over the fate of the peace process. As we know, Hamas is a
terrorist organization committed to the destruction of Israel
itself. The United States must stand firm in our opposition to
any Hamas role in the Palestinian Government and discourage
Palestinian efforts to work outside the parameters of direct
peace negotiations. These efforts are counterproductive and
will only serve to delay the day in which we see Israelis and
Palestinians living side by side in peace and security.
Given Mr. Shapiro's extensive experience, I look forward to
hearing from him about how he will manage this increasingly
challenging environment in the region.
Mr. Shapiro currently serves as the NSC Senior Director for
the Middle East and North Africa and has been an adviser to
President Obama since 2007.
I would like to welcome Mr. Shapiro's family members who
are joining us today, his wife, Julie, and daughters, Leat and
Marav and Shirak, and parents, Elizabeth and Michael. I do not
want to embarrass them, but if they would like to stand, we
would certainly like to acknowledge their presence.
Thanks very much.
I tell you why I do that. Because I know, as a public
official, that when someone is putting themselves forward to
provide public service, especially of the kind we are talking
about here today with our nominees, I know a family serves with
them in one way or another. So we are grateful for your
commitment as well as members of a family.
Let me just move quickly to our second nominee, Mr. Jones.
Jordan, as we know, is an important partner in
counterterrorism and has been a key ally in the Middle East
peace process. Since signing a peace treaty with Israel in
1994, Jordan has provided a strategic buffer to more
adversarial neighbors such as Syria. U.S. support has been
critical to helping Jordan address internal and external
challenges and, in turn, has helped ensure stability in an
increasingly unstable region. Jordan has experienced a series
of prodemocracy protests in recent months with youth-led groups
calling for political reforms and criticizing the lack of
government response to the demonstrations. As public criticism
of the monarchy grows and the government crackdown in
neighboring Syria worsens, the United States must assess how to
best support the Jordanian Government's efforts to balance
political and economic reforms with political stability. I look
forward to hearing how Stuart Jones will navigate this complex
political landscape.
Mr. Jones is currently serving as Deputy Chief of Mission
at the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, a tough assignment. He has
previously served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for
European and Eurasian Affairs, Deputy Chief of Mission at the
U.S. Embassy in Egypt, and Director for Iraq at the National
Security Council. If confirmed, Mr. Jones' depth of experience
in the Middle East will serve him well in this position.
And so I now invite Mr. Shapiro to provide his remarks.
Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Yes, very briefly.
Senator Casey. Our ranking member, Senator Risch.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Risch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me associate myself with the remarks of
both Senator Lieberman and Senator Casey. We get a lot of
publicity here about partisan issues, and our relationship with
Israel is truly a bipartisan affair and has been for some time.
And in that regard, we are all pulling the wagon together.
Mr. Shapiro, thank you for taking the time to meet with me
and with my staff. I sincerely appreciate it. I think this is a
good appointment.
Mr. Jones, let me say this. You are going to a country that
is a friend of the United States and has been a good partner of
ours in the region. Probably one of the great success stories
that we hear very little about in the media is the peace treaty
between Israel and Jordan. Certainly it is a model, and we
obviously support that. It has worked very well, and I know
that you will work to see that it continues to work. Obviously,
there are going to be challenges with the recent matters that
have arisen there. So we look forward to hearing from you as to
how you are going to do that.
With that, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Casey. Thank you, Senator Risch.
We are joined by Senator Lee from Utah as well, and we have
time now or we can have comments later. But I think we will
just move to the testimony and then questions.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL BENJAMIN SHAPIRO, OF ILLINOIS,
TO BE AMBASSADOR TO ISRAEL
Mr. Shapiro. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the warm
welcome.
I have submitted a written statement which I would ask be
made part of the record, and in the interest of time, I will
summarize my remarks.
Senator Casey. Your statement and all the statements will
be made a part of the record.
Mr. Shapiro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Risch, Senator Lee, members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today. I am humbled and honored by the trust President Obama
and Secretary of State Clinton have placed in me with the
nomination to serve as United States Ambassador to Israel. If
confirmed, I will do my utmost to meet that trust and
responsibility and to promote the interests of the United
States.
I also recognize the vital role of this committee in our
Nation's foreign policy as well. If confirmed, I look forward
to close cooperation with its members and its staff and with
the Congress as a whole on strengthening our close and
unbreakable relationship with the State of Israel.
I am grateful, of course, to Senator Nelson for his
introduction and for his support and guidance over the past
decade, and I thank Senator Lieberman for his support and
introduction as well.
Mr. Chairman, I have been involved with Israel most of my
life. I lived in Israel as a young child during the 1973 war. I
went there twice for university studies, and I worked here in
the Congress for many years to support Middle East peace
efforts, strengthen the United States-Israel relationship and
combat terrorist threats against both our nations. I have
gained through those experiences a deep understanding both of
Israel's security needs and its people's justifiable concerns
about the threats they face and Israel's strengths, and its
people's dreams manifested in the building of a modern state
and the unrelenting search for peace. And I have also gained a
deep appreciation for the importance of the United States-
Israel relationship for our own national security.
The United States has stood by Israel as its partner and
ally since its creation. It is a bipartisan commitment, as
Senator Risch says, and I have been privileged to serve
President Obama as he has continued, deepened, and advanced
that partnership. Israel has been and remains our most
dependable ally in the Middle East. We share both common
strategic interests and the values of open democratic
societies. Our militaries train together and learn from one
another. We share critical intelligence to counter terrorist
threats, and our economic ties continue to grow.
The United States has an unwavering commitment to Israel's
security and to ensuring Israel's qualitative military edge.
With Congress' support, we have provided full funding for
Israel's foreign military financing under the terms of the 10-
year memorandum of understanding and helped achieve tangible
success in the development of missile defense technologies such
as Arrow and Iron Dome, and we have seen dramatic evidence of
that success, Mr. Chairman, as you mentioned recently with the
Iron Dome system. We conduct joint exercises and maintain very
close, high-level consultations between our civilian and
military leaders.
We coordinate closely with Israel also on the threat posed
by Iran. President Obama is determined to prevent Iran from
acquiring a nuclear weapon. Israel is a key partner in that
effort, supporting the strong sanctions contained in the U.N.
Security Council resolution 1929 and the Comprehensive Iran
Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, and we maintain
extremely close consultations with Israel at all times on the
nature of this threat.
We firmly reject all attempts to delegitimize Israel. We
consistently oppose anti-Israel resolutions in all U.N. bodies.
We withdrew from the Durban Review Conference in 2009, and we
supported Israel's right to defend itself in the wake of the
deeply flawed Goldstone Report.
We also continue to seek a comprehensive peace between
Israel and all its neighbors. President Obama believes that a
two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is
essential to safeguarding Israel's future as a secure Jewish
democratic state, as well as to achieving the Palestinian
people's legitimate aspirations for independence in a viable
state of their own. It is also profoundly in the United States
own interests. We also believe that direct negotiations are the
only way to achieve this goal, and we oppose unilateral actions
by any party that would prejudice the outcome of a negotiated
settlement.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed by the Senate, I look forward to
strengthening and deepening the excellent cooperation between
the United States and Israel.
Thank you very much. I will be pleased to answer any
questions you and the committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shapiro follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel Benjamin Shapiro
Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar, members of the committee, thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you. I am humbled and honored by
the trust President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have placed in
me with the nomination to serve as United States Ambassador to Israel.
If confirmed, I will do my utmost to meet that trust and responsibility
and to promote the interests of the United States.
I am truly honored by the opportunity to appear before this
committee today. I have spent hundreds of hours in this room, but this
is my first time in this seat. For more than a decade, I worked for
Senator Feinstein and Senator Nelson, and sat on the staff benches
behind the dais. From that experience, I have a deep appreciation for
the vital role that this committee plays in the conduct and oversight
of our Nation's foreign policy. If confirmed, I look forward to close
cooperation and consultation with the members and staff of this
committee and with the Congress as we pursue our shared commitment to
strengthening our close and unbreakable relationship with the State of
Israel.
I am grateful to Senator Nelson for his introduction, and for his
support and guidance over the past decade. I owe much of my
professional development to the opportunities he gave me. And I thank
Senator Lieberman, with whom I have worked closely on our shared
commitment to the closest of United States-Israel relations. I am
grateful to him for coming here today and for his support and
introduction.
Mr. Chairman, my own interaction with Israel has taken many forms
over the years, each of which has helped me gain a greater appreciation
of the unique experience and perspective of the Israeli people. I first
went to Israel at the age of 4. My parents, who were academics, took
our family there for a 6-month sabbatical. It was 1973, and I was there
during the Yom Kippur war. There were air raid sirens, followed by
hours spent in bomb shelters. I saw soldiers driving through the
streets on their way to the front. This was very different from my life
in Illinois, where we never experienced such visible and vivid threats
to our security and way of life. I remember, at the same time, our
family enjoying many examples of the warmth and generosity of the
Israeli people, from the Israeli schools my siblings and I attended to
long hours spent together with other families in our Jerusalem
neighborhood.
I returned to Israel after high school and again during college. In
1988, as the country was reeling from the violence of the first
intifada, rocks rained down on the bus I took to Hebrew University and
my Israeli classmates intensely debated the meaning of these events for
their country's future.
As a congressional staffer, I traveled to Israel as the hopes born
of the Oslo Accords made peace seem within reach, celebrated the
signing of the peace treaty with Jordan, mourned the assassination of
Yitzhak Rabin days after he had returned to Israel from Washington, and
worked to address the threats posed to our nations by Hamas and
Hezbollah.
As my professional involvement with Israel has deepened, so too has
my understanding of Israel's security needs and its people's
justifiable concerns about Iran's nuclear weapons program, suicide
bombers, missile attacks from Hamas and Hezbollah, and the ongoing
efforts of some to delegitimize the Jewish state. But I have also grown
more keenly aware of Israel's deep-rooted strengths and its people's
dreams--manifested in the building of a modern state, the flowering of
Jewish culture and democracy, the Start-up Nation, and the unrelenting
search for peace.
The United States has stood by Israel as its partner and ally from
the first minutes of its creation, and I have been proud to serve
President Obama as he has continued, deepened, and advanced that
relationship.
In a region beset by wars, terror, and autocracy, and in which we
have much at stake, Israel has been our most dependable ally. Our
militaries train together and learn from one another. We share critical
intelligence to counter the threats of terrorist organizations that
target the United States and the West, as well as Israel. Our economies
have grown progressively more intertwined, particularly in the high-
tech and renewable energy sectors. And, perhaps most importantly, we
share the fundamental tenets of open and democratic societies.
The United States security relationship with Israel has
strengthened and deepened under President Obama. Our commitment to
ensuring Israel's Qualitative Military Edge is reflected in our
security assistance, joint exercises, and an extraordinarily close
level of consultation and cooperation at the highest levels of our
civilian and military leaderships. The Congress is our partner in this
commitment, fulfilling the President's request to fully fund Israel's
Foreign Military Financing even in tight budgetary times.
As a candidate, President Obama went to Sderot and saw a community
damaged by rockets and people living in fear of the next attack. As
President, he acted to see that Israeli defenses were significantly
strengthened. With Congress' full support, there has been tangible and
important success in the joint development of missile defense
technologies. The Arrow missile defense program provides Israel with a
significant strategic missile defense capability. More recently, the
Iron Dome short-range missile defense system successfully intercepted
several rockets fired from Gaza last month. The additional $205 million
the President requested and Congress provided for this program will
help produce and deploy additional Iron Dome batteries to protect
Israeli civilian lives in northern and southern Israel. If confirmed, I
will work to provide continued support for United States-Israeli
missile defense cooperation.
Our security relationship also encompasses close coordination on
the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program. President Obama is
determined to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and has
dramatically ramped up pressure on Iran, passing in the U.N. Security
Council the most sweeping and biting international sanctions ever
enacted to increase Iran's isolation and cut off sources of funds and
resources to advance their missile and nuclear programs. Israel is a
key partner in that effort, supporting the strong sanctions contained
in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929 and the Comprehensive Iran
Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act. If confirmed, I will
seek to intensify our regular consultations, in which we share
assessments and exchange ideas on ways to increase international
pressure on Iran.
Defending Israel's security also means fighting attempts to
delegitimize Israel. The Obama administration's record is one of
unshakeable opposition to this campaign. We've been steadfast in our
opposition to anti-Israel resolutions in the U.N. Human Rights Council,
the General Assembly, the Security Council and other U.N. bodies; we
withdrew from the Durban Review Conference in 2009; and we've supported
Israel's right to defend itself in consideration of the deeply flawed
Goldstone report.
Our agenda with Israel in these international fora is not purely
defensive--we are working to ensure that Israel receives full and equal
treatment in all international organizations. Israel has much to offer
the world, and the United Nations and other international organizations
would benefit from Israeli capabilities and expertise. If confirmed,
one of my goals will be to work with the Israeli Government to identify
further opportunities for Israeli participation in the international
civil service, across the U.N. system, and in the governance of the
bodies they serve.
Economic ties between the United States and Israel are also at
their highest levels ever. As Silicon Valley taps into the amazing
Israeli high-tech talent pool and startup culture, we see an
astonishing $32.3 billion in bilateral trade, despite the global
economic slowdown. The Department of Energy and the Government of
Israel have just renewed the bilateral Agreement that frames our joint
research program on alternative energy, which promises to further
enhance our ties in technology cooperation. If confirmed, I will work
hard to expand these successes in areas such as energy production,
green technologies, and defense and aerospace technologies.
No commitment to Israel's security is complete without absolute
dedication to achieving a comprehensive peace between Israel and all
its neighbors. The peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, which have
brought so much stability to the region, are vital and must be
protected and strengthened. The Obama administration believes that a
two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is essential to
safeguarding Israel's future as a secure, Jewish, democratic state, as
well as achieving the Palestinian people's legitimate aspirations for
independence in a viable state of their own. It is also fundamentally
in the United States own interest.
We have been consistent and clear in our call for direct
negotiations as the only way to achieve this goal, and we have
consistently opposed unilateral actions by either side that would
prejudice a negotiated settlement.
We are closely following developments regarding the announced
agreement between Fatah and Hamas. Many of the details remain unclear,
and its implementation is uncertain. What is clear, however, is that
Hamas is a terrorist organization which targets civilians and calls for
the destruction of Israel. To play a constructive role in achieving
peace, any Palestinian Government that emerges must renounce violence,
abide by past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist. As we
have said many times, the United States strongly supports Palestinian
reconciliation, but it must be on terms that support the cause of
peace.
Mr. Chairman, it has been a deep honor to be part of President
Obama's team working on these complex and critically important issues.
If confirmed by the Senate to be the United States Ambassador to
Israel, I will work to the best of my abilities to further strengthen
and deepen the excellent cooperation and communication that already
exists between our nations, as we work together toward a more peaceful,
stable, democratic, and prosperous Middle East.
Thank you for your attention, and I would be pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
Senator Casey. Thanks very much.
Mr. Jones.
STATEMENT OF STUART E. JONES, OF VIRGINIA, A CAREER MEMBER OF
THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF
MINISTER-COUNSELOR, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE HASHEMITE KINGDOM
OF JORDAN
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator
Risch, and thank you, Senator Lee, for being here.
It is an honor to appear before you today as President
Obama's nominee to serve as Ambassador to Jordan. I am grateful
to the President for this nomination and to Secretary Clinton
for her confidence in me and for her leadership of the
Department of State. If confirmed, I will do my best to live up
to their trust and to work as closely as possible with this
committee to advance United States goals in Jordan.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
introduce my family. My wife, Barbara, is here, a former
Foreign Service officer, and my two sons, Thaddeus and Woody,
are here. My daughter, Dorothy, is unable to join us because of
school obligations. I am grateful for their support, especially
during this year while I have served as Deputy Chief of Mission
at the Embassy in Baghdad.
Mr. Chairman, Jordan, as you said, is one of our closest
partners in the Arab world. We share mutual interests and
values. It is well known that Jordan has been a powerful agent
for peace in the region, as one of only two Arab States to sign
a peace treaty with Israel. Jordan is committed to a
comprehensive peace in the Middle East and to a two-state
solution. Jordan has also been a valued partner on Iraq. It
accepted hundreds of thousands of refugees and hosted them with
dignity, opening its schools and its hospitals, and
collaborating with the international community in providing
humanitarian aid.
In this Arab Spring, as other countries have faltered,
Jordan has undertaken important reforms. King Abdullah is a
leader who has long listened to his people. In November 2010,
Jordan held free and fair elections under procedures that met
international standards. In February, we welcomed the new
Jordanian Government with an ambitious mandate for political
reform.
We support the King's and the government's efforts to
respond to the aspirations of Jordan's citizens. Our efforts
include working with Jordanian Government institutions and
civil society to expand citizen participation in the country's
political and economic systems, strengthen independent media,
strengthen the judicial system and the rights of women and
laborers, and increase religious tolerance.
Our economic assistance programs are aimed at addressing
structural challenges in the Jordanian economy. Our security
assistance also strengthens Jordan's capabilities to support
and contribute to Middle East peace efforts, international
peacekeeping operations, counterterrorism efforts, and
humanitarian assistance within the region. If confirmed, I will
work with the Jordanian Government and people to ensure that
all of our assistance advances a sustained and comprehensive
partnership and to ensure that these programs create genuine
benefits in the lives of the people of Jordan.
We have a large Embassy in Amman. I care deeply about the
welfare and security of our personnel, American and Jordanian.
If confirmed, I will also dedicate myself to ensuring efficient
and cost effective stewardship of our programs.
I appreciate and value this committee's oversight of our
mission in Jordan. If confirmed, I look forward to welcoming
this committee's members and staff to Amman. Your presence and
interest are a vital element in ensuring that we remain
successfully engaged with the government and people of Jordan.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, again thank you
for this opportunity. It is an honor to be here. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stuart E. Jones
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is an honor to appear
before you today as President Obama's nominee to serve as Ambassador to
Jordan. I am grateful to the President for his nomination and to
Secretary Clinton for her confidence in me and for her leadership of
our Department. If confirmed, I will do my best to live up to their
trust and to work as closely as possible with this committee to advance
U.S. goals in Jordan. I will also build on the excellent work of my
predecessor and friend, Ambassador Steve Beecroft, to deepen our
partnership with the government and people of Jordan.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce my
family. My wife, Barbara, a former Foreign Service officer, and my two
sons, Thaddeus and Woody, are here today. My daughter, Dorothy, is
unable to join us because of school obligations. I am grateful for
their support, especially during this year while I have served as
Deputy Chief of Mission at our Embassy in Baghdad.
Mr. Chairman, Jordan is one of our closest partners in the Arab
world. We share mutual interests and values. It is well known that
Jordan has been a powerful agent for peace in the region. As one of
only two Arab States to sign a peace treaty with Israel, Jordan is
committed to the achievement of comprehensive peace in the Middle East
and to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Jordan
has also been a valued partner on Iraq. It accepted hundreds of
thousands of refugees and hosted them with dignity, opening its schools
and hospitals and collaborating with the international community in
providing humanitarian aid. The Jordanian Prime Minister was the first
high-level visitor to Baghdad after Iraq's new government was formed in
January.
As other countries have faltered, Jordan has undertaken important
reforms. King Abdullah is a leader who has long listened to his people.
In November 2010, Jordan held free and fair elections under procedures
that met international standards according to both international and
domestic election observers. In February, we welcomed a new Jordanian
Government with an ambitious mandate for political reform. The King has
also established a National Dialogue Commission with a
3-month timeline to enact electoral and political party reform.
We support the King's and the government's efforts to implement a
reform agenda that responds to the aspirations of Jordan's citizens.
Our efforts include working with Jordanian Government institutions and
with Jordanian civil society to expand citizen participation in the
country's political and economic systems; strengthen independent media,
the judicial system, and the rights of women and laborers; and increase
religious tolerance.
Our economic assistance programs are also aimed at addressing
structural challenges in the Jordanian economy. Jordan is one of the
most water-starved nations in the world. The Millennium Challenge
Corporation is funding a 5-year program on water management in Zarqa
which we hope will provide a template for water management throughout
the nation. Jordan has also been impacted by rising energy costs; we
are now engaging the Government of Jordan to promote energy efficiency
and explore the potential for shale gas production. These are just two
examples of our extensive programs in Jordan. Assistance also
strengthens Jordan's capabilities to support and contribute to Middle
East peace efforts, international peacekeeping operations,
counterterrorism efforts, and humanitarian assistance within the
region.
If confirmed, I will work with the Jordanian Government and people
to ensure that all of our assistance effectively and efficiently
advances a sustained and comprehensive partnership and to ensure that
these programs create genuine benefits in the lives of the people of
Jordan.
We have a large Embassy in Amman. I care deeply about the welfare
and security of our personnel--American and Jordanian. If confirmed, I
will also dedicate myself to ensuring efficient and cost-effective
stewardship of our programs.
I appreciate and value this committee's oversight of our mission in
Jordan. If confirmed, I look forward to welcoming the committee's
members and staff to Amman. Your presence and interest are a vital
element in ensuring that we remain productively and successfully
engaged with the government and people of Jordan.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for this
opportunity to address the committee. I would be pleased to respond to
any questions you may have.
Senator Casey. Mr. Jones, thanks very much. I should have
provided the opportunity to introduce your family. If they
would like to stand. I want to make sure that we give them that
opportunity.
Mr. Jones. Thank you.
Senator Casey. Thank you very much.
I would reiterate what I said before about a family serving
with you in public service. We appreciate not only their
presence here but also the work that they do to make it
possible for you to serve.
Mr. Jones. Thank you.
Senator Casey. And we commend both of you for your
willingness to serve.
I will start the first round of questions. I wanted to
start, Mr. Shapiro, with a rather difficult topic related to
what has been happening just in the last couple of days and
weeks: the decision of the Palestinian Authority to form a
unity government with Hamas. We are aware of all of the
difficulties and concerns that that presents. As you know, and
as most Americans I think have a sense of, we have always, and
I think the international community has always said, that the
only way that Hamas could be a legitimate partner in any effort
is if they do at least three things: that they recognize Israel
and renounce violence and agree to abide by the previous
obligations and agreements of the Palestinian Authority. They
have not done that yet.
And I have profound and deep concerns about what is
happening, and I wanted to get your sense of what our policy is
or what it should be going forward, making sure that we are
adhering to those conditions that we have always insisted upon
as it relates to Hamas, which is a terrorist organization.
Mr. Shapiro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There is no question that we in the administration share
many of the concerns that you have just articulated, and I know
many of your colleagues share as well, about the reconciliation
agreement that was announced and signed this morning in Cairo.
We are closely following this in part because we need to learn
more about it. There are many details that are as yet unknown
about this agreement. There are ambiguities in the language of
it. There are deep uncertainties about its prospects for
implementation. And so we will be following that very closely
and staying in close touch with the Congress and also
maintaining, as we always do, very close consultations with our
colleagues and our partners in the Israeli Government to ensure
that we have the closest possible common understanding of the
meaning of these events.
We share the characterization that you provided of Hamas.
Hamas is a terrorist organization that calls for Israel's
destruction and that directs violence against civilians. We
have no disagreement about that whatsoever.
Now, Palestinian reconciliation ultimately is a desirable
goal, but it must take place on terms that support peace, and I
think you have articulated them well. Only a Palestinian
Government that recognizes Israel and renounces violence and
abides by previous agreements between the PLO and Israel can
really be a true partner for peace.
So those are the considerations. We will be watching very
closely as we gain further understanding and facts about the
agreement that was announced.
Senator Casey. Well, I just want to reiterate what I know
to be a bipartisan consensus, as you know, on that issue and
want to remind--I am not saying it is necessary--but I want to
remind
the administration of that commitment that we have to Israel's
security.
I have made a number of trips to the region. When I was in
Israel in July 2010, I had the chance to tour part of Sderot, a
community, among others, that has been assaulted for many
years, to actually see the shrapnel and the results of the
rockets that have landed there, to the point where children, as
you know--and again, you know better than I, but it bears
repeating--couldn't play in playgrounds. They literally built,
as many people here know, a bomb-fortified indoor playground.
So something as simple as playing in a community playground is
virtually impossible, at least at various periods in recent
history, because of those rockets. There have been thousands
and thousands that have landed as a result of the violence
perpetrated by Hamas.
I note that Hamas' leader--this is timely and I think it is
important for the record--his response to the killing of Osama
bin Laden referred to the assassination of an Arab holy
warrior. I do not know what more we can say about the threat
that Hamas poses to Israel and to the region.
So let me move to at least one more question before I turn
to our ranking member, Senator Risch.
A lot of us have worked long and hard on making sure that
we do everything possible to hold the Iranian regime in check,
especially as it relates to the potential nuclear capability,
but also to the ever-present and ongoing threat that is posed
by the Iranian regime's support for extremists and terrorist
organizations in the region, not the least of which are Hamas
and Hezbollah. I spent some time last summer in Beirut, and you
do not have to be on the ground in that country very long
before you feel the overwhelming sense of the power of
Hezbollah in Lebanon, not to mention the impact it has on the
region as a terrorist organization.
But because of that support that the Iranian regime has
provided, we need to be determined and even more determined, I
think, than we have been to make sure that the sanctions we
have applied to the regime work. We are getting some results
from that, but frankly not enough, and we need to consider
tightening up or increasing the sanctions in my judgment.
I wanted to get your thoughts on that in terms of the
impact as you see it of those sanctions and what other steps we
can take to hold the Iranian regime in check.
Mr. Shapiro. Mr. Chairman, we share the concern and the
assessment about the threat posed by Iran not just to Israel,
but to the region--and of course, the threat is very real. It
is articulated openly by the President of Iran who calls for
Israel's destruction. It is a threat to the United States and
it is a threat to our allies and our interests and, indeed,
international stability throughout the region. It is posed both
by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and by its support for
terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and like Hamas which it
attempts to arm.
As I said, President Obama is determined to prevent Iran
from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and the sanctions enacted by
the U.N. Security Council resolution, additional measures
coordinated and taken by the European Union and a number of our
other partners, and the sanctions passed by this Congress have
all created several layers of economic sanctions against Iran
that have had a real impact and that has made Iran struggle in
ways economically that it has not previously done and begin to
feel the pain of the result of its continued pursuit of these
policies.
Now, obviously, we will look for additional measures that
may be available to tighten those sanctions. We are in close
consultations with a number of international partners about
ways that can be done, whether it is countries acting on their
own or in concert. It is something that my colleagues at the
State Department will remain in close consultation with this
committee about, but I can assure you it has our full and
undivided attention.
Senator Casey. Thank you.
Mr. Jones, I will get to you in the next round, but Senator
Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you very much.
Mr. Shapiro, when you travel over there, you cannot help
but be struck by the difference between what is happening in
the West Bank and what is happening in Gaza. So I guess this
new reconciliation pact raises the question in my mind--and I
would like your personal view on this. With that reconciliation
or whatever it turns out to be, is the population going to move
more toward what is happening in the West Bank or is the West
Bank going to move more backward toward what is happening in
Gaza? What is your personal view on that?
Mr. Shapiro. Well, Senator Risch, I think it is hard to
judge exactly how public opinion will react to this agreement.
I would say there is strong support among Palestinians for
reconciliation, and I think that was a driving factor in this
agreement being reached at this time.
We agree with you. There have been tremendous gains made in
the West Bank through an improved economy that is growing
rapidly through improved security that is carried out both by
the Israeli forces and by the Palestinian security forces and
an improved governance under the reforms initiated by Prime
Minister Salam Fayyad. So there is much progress that has been
made, and it is in our interest, as well as Israel's interest
and the Palestinians' interest, that it be sustained.
That will certainly be a priority for us as we again
evaluate the details of this agreement that has been announced
and assess its prospects for implementation. We are very
mindful of that progress and want to see it sustained.
Senator Risch. You didn't really get to your personal view
as to what you think is going to happen, but if you had to
guess, what direction are they going to slide?
Mr. Shapiro. Senator, it is very hard not being on the
ground to get a sense of the reaction. I think at least within
the West Bank we have seen Palestinians appreciating the kinds
of changes that they have experienced in their lives in the way
I have just described. They certainly have other aspirations as
well, as I mentioned, for statehood and for reconciliation. But
I think we would certainly hope the Palestinians would try to
support a government that would allow that progress to be
sustained, and that is what we will be working toward.
Senator Risch. One cannot help but think that those that
live in Gaza have to look across and see what is happening in
the West Bank and say, look, what they are doing is working and
what we are doing is not working, how can we move more in that
direction. One would hope that that is the thought process that
an intelligent person would pursue.
Mr. Jones, your view, please if you would, about the
instability in Syria and how that potential is affecting or
could potentially affect things on the ground in Jordan.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Senator.
I think all of us are watching developments in Syria with
real concern. People of Syria are demonstrating their
frustration and their lack of satisfaction with the Government
in Syria, and the response of the Assad regime has been
extremely brutal. It is a source of concern from a humanitarian
standpoint and, as you said, from a political standpoint.
I think that the situation in Jordan is quite distinct. The
King has long listened to his people, as I said in my
statement. He had already put in place a series of reforms to
address people's concerns, and for the relatively minor
demonstrations that we have seen in Jordan, there has been a
completely different relationship between the people and the
security forces where you see Jordanian security forces
actually providing water and juice to the demonstrators.
Any instability in the region, of course, is a cause for
concern and this is something we are going to have to continue
to watch. But I think certainly our continued support for
Jordan will be essential through this period.
Senator Risch. I appreciate that.
Back to you, Mr. Shapiro. You are at least modestly an
expert on Syria. Do you agree with that assessment? We all
understand the difference between the two governments, but do
you agree with the assessment that that will carry the day?
Mr. Shapiro. I do. I do, sir.
Senator Risch. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Casey. Thank you, Senator Risch.
Senator Lee.
Senator Lee. Thank you both for coming to join us today,
and thank you for your willingness to serve your country.
Mr. Shapiro, I want to echo the comments that have been
made by my colleagues, and I will echo what Senator Casey was
saying a minute ago. I have visited that same village, Sderot,
and visited the same playground. On the outskirts of that city,
I visited this little lookout point where you could look out
and see into Gaza. I have it on good authority that within
about 72 hours after I visited that lookout spot, it was
destroyed by rockets coming over from Gaza. So I am very
sympathetic to the security risks that Israeli citizens face
every single day and my heart goes out to them. I hope that we
can be a support to Israel as we acknowledge that they are in a
very vulnerable position and do everything we can to help them
maintain defensible, secure borders.
In light of the involvement of Hamas and the Palestinian
Organization, is that something that has caused you to consider
whether we should withhold United States funding to the
Palestinian Organization until such time as it clearly and
thoroughly disassociates itself from Hamas?
Mr. Shapiro. Well, Senator, as I stated earlier, there are
a lot of details about this agreement that has been announced
that are still rather obscure, and many of them may not become
clear until it is implemented or attempted to be implemented.
And those details, I think, will bear very much on the question
that you have raised about assistance. There are clear laws
regarding our Palestinian assistance program. I can assure you
that the administration will remain in full compliance with
those laws, and I have already articulated the kinds of
conditions that we think represent a Palestinian Authority that
is committed to peace. So we will, obviously, be considering
that question, but it requires a much greater and better
understanding of an agreement that has not yet begun to be
implemented.
Senator Lee. Sure, but there does come a point at which we
turn that off. Do we not?
Mr. Shapiro. Well, the law is very clear. There are
circumstances under which we would not be able to provide
assistance to the Palestinian Authority.
Senator Lee. And so notwithstanding the fact that there is
sometimes wiggle room--particularly in laws relating to foreign
relations, there is sometimes wiggle room--you stand by the
proposition that the law does have limits. This is a law. This
is not just an aspirational statement.
Mr. Shapiro. Yes, I agree with that.
Senator Lee. I appreciate a statement made recently by
Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who said it is
clear that an Egypt that is anchored in democratic values would
never be a threat to peace, particularly a threat to peace in
Israel. I hope that he is right. Do you agree with his
assessment?
Mr. Shapiro. Well, we certainly support the transition that
is underway in Egypt and believe it represents an incredible
opportunity for the Egyptian people to experience the kind of
self-rule and democracy and the realization of those
aspirations. We think it is absolutely critical that Egypt
remain, as it goes through that transition, the responsible
regional leader that it has been, and a big component of that
is the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt which has been not
only so important to Israel's security but really an anchor of
regional stability and key to our own interests. So we have
been very pleased that the Egyptian transitional government has
repeated its commitment to all of Egypt's international
obligations, including that treaty, and we would certainly have
the expectation that any Egyptian Government would live up to
those obligations and maintain the treaty.
Senator Lee. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Casey. Thank you, Senator Lee.
Mr. Jones, I wanted to get back to you. I meant to do that
in the first round and I ate up all my time and actually took
more time. So I owe the committee a minute and 22 seconds or
something like that.
You have been asked before and your answers, as well as
your statement, acknowledge the challenge in the region and the
impact on Jordan and obviously the reaction by King Abdullah,
as well as Jordanian leaders other than he, have been of marked
contrast to what we have seen in other places in the region.
I wanted to develop that a little further in the sense that
we know that in this fight against terrorism we have had to
develop new relationships and even stronger relationships. I
think it can be said without contradiction that Jordan has been
a strong counterterrorism partner. We appreciate that probably
even more so in the last couple of days. We know that that
fight has been and will continue to be against Islamist groups
in the Middle East.
We also know that even as Jordan is a strong
counterterrorism partner, its peace treaty with Israel has also
played an important role in the Middle East as well.
But given the unrest in the region and given the increasing
influence of terrorist organizations that I mentioned before
like Hamas and Hezbollah, what measures should the United
States take to support King Abdullah's reform efforts
especially at this time?
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Chairman.
As you know, the United States is an important provider of
assistance to Jordan, both economic support funds and foreign
military financing. The economic support funds I think can play
a vital role in terms of helping grow the economy, helping it
address some of its structural challenges. Jordan is an
importer. It imports 96 percent of its fuel. We are involved in
helping Jordan look for alternative fuel sources and look at
nontraditional fuels.
We are also helping them address their water problem.
Jordan is one of the most water-starved countries in the world,
and through the Millennium Challenge Corporation, we have just
issued a $275 million grant over 5 years to work with the
community of Zarqa to develop water management techniques that
we hope will be a model for the rest of the country.
So I think at this level, helping communities, helping
create prosperity--that is a very important way to help combat
terrorism.
Of course, the security side is also very important. Jordan
has been an outstanding partner with us in the struggle against
terrorism, and at all levels we should continue the work that
we are doing with them, supporting their efforts and working
closely with them as a partner.
Senator Casey. I know we are almost ready to wrap up
because we are going to move to our second panel, and we have
had almost 50 minutes so far. So I do want to wrap up.
Senator Risch, do you have any questions?
Senator Risch. No. I am going to pass. Thank you very much,
Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Senator Casey. I would thank our ranking member for being
here.
After we move to our second panel, we may have to adjourn
briefly because of a potential vote, but that is not certain
yet.
I do, as well, want to offer each of you the opportunity to
make any closing statement or any point that you want to
emphasize that we did not ask about or something you did not
have a chance to cover--not that we encourage closing
statements, but if you really feel the need to say something
else.
Mr. Shapiro. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Casey. Thank you very much.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be
here.
Senator Casey. I do want to mention, which I should have
earlier, that Mr. Jones, I am told you are a Pennsylvania
native. That is what the record shows. You grew up in, and your
mother still lives in, Lafayette Hill, PA?
Mr. Jones. Correct.
Senator Casey. I want you to know that that will not have
any impact on your confirmation. [Laughter.]
But it is possible it will have some impact on me.
Thank you very much to both of you and we will move to our
second panel.
What I will do, as we are changing seats, so to speak, is I
will begin a statement so that we can keep the hearing moving.
We have two more nominees today and I wanted to start with
our nominee for Uzbekistan. As many people in this audience
know, Uzbekistan is an important partner in the Northern
Distribution Network which is a major strategic priority for
the United States war in Afghanistan. The airbase in Uzbekistan
provides a vital supply route for the United States and NATO
efforts to defeat al-Qaeda and its allies in Afghanistan and
western Pakistan. The Uzbek Government also cooperates with
United States security forces on counterterrorism and drug
trafficking, two serious international threats.
The United States, however, must balance our strategic
interests in Uzbekistan with the need to hold the government
accountable for serious human rights abuses, including the use
of force to oppress its own citizens as demonstrated by the
massacre in Andijan in the year 2005. According to the State
Department's 2010 Human Rights Report, the Uzbek Government
continues to commit serious human rights violations, including
arbitrary arrests and detention, restrictions on freedom of
speech and assembly, and forced child labor in the cotton
industry.
I would like to especially acknowledge Senator Harkin's
efforts to expose child labor in Uzbekistan, which remains of
critical concern.
I look forward to hearing how Mr. George Krol will
encourage the Uzbek Government to abide by its international
human rights commitments while maintaining our important
security cooperation.
Ambassador Krol is Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for
South and Central Asian Affairs. He has served as United States
Ambassador to Belarus from 2003 to 2006 and has served in
several other challenging posts in Poland, India, Russia, and
Ukraine. I am confident that his broad knowledge and experience
working in the former Soviet Union will serve him well in this
post if confirmed.
Algeria is an important strategic partner of the United
States in the fight against al-Qaeda-linked groups in north
Africa, most notably Al Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb, so-called
AQIM. The Algerian Government has taken an active leadership
role in the African Union's efforts to combat terrorism, and
the recently announced U.S.-Algeria Bilateral Counterterrorism
Contact Group will help to expand our existing cooperation to
ensure greater security, peace, and development in the region.
Algeria's protest movement has remained limited compared to
other countries in the region, but economic factors and
longstanding political grievances have contributed to a series
of strikes and demonstrations.
Algeria's decision in February to lift the 1992 state of
emergency law was a welcomed step, but more needs to be done to
address the human rights concerns such as freedom of assembly
and association, prisoner abuse, and violence against women.
I look forward to hearing from Henry Ensher about how the
United States can work with the Algerian Government to promote
further democratic reforms while also strengthening our
security relationship.
Mr. Ensher is currently serving as adviser to the Office of
Afghanistan Affairs. He recently returned from southern
Afghanistan where he served as Senior U.S. Civilian
Representative. He has also served in our Embassies in Algeria,
Saudi Arabia, Oman, Syria, Israel, Iraq, and was the Director
of Political Affairs for Iraq in the State Department's Bureau
of Near Eastern Affairs in 2006. That is a mouthful.
I would also like to welcome Mr. Ensher's wife, Mona, and
two sons, Henry and Tariq, who are here with us today. And if
they do not mind, we offer the chance, but we would love to
have them stand up and be acknowledged. Thank you for being
here today and thank you for your support for what I know is a
family commitment to public service.
Mr. Krol, would you like to start? Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALBERT KROL, OF NEW JERSEY, A CAREER
MEMBER OF THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER-
COUNSELOR, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN
Ambassador Krol. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Risch.
I am honored to appear before you today as President
Obama's nominee to become Ambassador to Uzbekistan, and I am
grateful for the trust and confidence the President and
Secretary Clinton have placed in me with this nomination.
Unfortunately, my family is not here today. My wife is
serving our Nation abroad, but she and I think my family are
watching on the Webcast. So I say hello to them. You can stand
up. Right? [Laughter.]
Senator Casey. That is permitted. I want to give them a few
minutes to stand up. [Laughter.]
Ambassador Krol. Since establishing diplomatic relations
nearly 20 years ago, the United States has supported
Uzbekistan's sovereignty and independence and encouraged its
development as a prosperous, tolerant, internationally
responsible, and democratic state at peace with its neighbors
and the world. And those remain our fundamental goals to this
day.
Most recently, as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for
Central Asia, I came to appreciate firsthand Uzbekistan's
unique importance to United States foreign policy interests.
Uzbekistan has provided crucial assistance to its neighbor
Afghanistan and to international efforts to stabilize the
situation there. Electricity from Uzbekistan keeps the lights
on in Kabul. And Uzbekistan is also, as you noted, Mr.
Chairman, an important part of the Northern Distribution
Network, a major supply route for coalition forces. And if
confirmed, I will encourage Uzbekistan to maintain this
critical support.
As you also noted, illegal narcotics flows, trafficking in
persons, terrorism, extremism, and weapons of mass destruction
proliferation concerns plague Uzbekistan's neighborhood. Over
recent years, our cooperation with Uzbekistan has grown in
addressing these transnational challenges through engagement
and vetted training programs, and if confirmed, I would work to
strengthen our partnership with Uzbekistan in these areas.
With the largest population in Central Asia and huge energy
and mineral resources and its strategic location, Uzbekistan
has a great economic potential, and if confirmed, I will
encourage Uzbekistan to take steps to attract United States
companies to help develop and diversify its economy and to buy
American goods and services.
Mr. Chairman, almost 30 years' experience in the Foreign
Service has taught me that long-term peace and durable
stability are only possible with respect for human rights, the
rule of law, transparent and democratic institutions, a vibrant
civil society, and an open and free media. If confirmed, I will
engage the government and the people of Uzbekistan fully and
forthrightly on human rights issues such as preventing
arbitrary arrests, addressing the allegations of torture and
mistreatment in prisons, ending forced child labor, and
allowing the free practice of faiths.
If confirmed, I will encourage the Government of Uzbekistan
to increase space for civil society in Uzbekistan and for
international and domestic nongovernmental organizations to
register and function freely.
In 2009, the administration established regular bilateral,
interagency consultations with Tashkent, and in these high-
level meetings, the full range of bilateral and multilateral
interests, including political, security, economic, and
commercial issues, as well as human rights, are discussed
frankly and comprehensively. And flowing from these
consultations, an ambitious work plan is being developed to
make realistic progress in all these areas.
As Secretary Clinton stressed in Tashkent last December, we
desire to move from words to actions. And if confirmed, I look
forward to applying my energy and experience, creativity and
leadership to constant, consistent engagement that meaningful
action in these areas demands.
I know from past ambassadorial experience that being an
Ambassador is not only an honor but a responsibility, and if
confirmed, I will endeavor to be a responsible and accountable
steward of the American people's trust and property, a caring
leader for the entire embassy community, and a faithful
representative of our values and word and deed. And I will
ensure that our mission looks out for the interests of American
citizens living and traveling in Uzbekistan.
If confirmed, I will aim not only to develop effective
relationships with the government but also to get out among the
people of Uzbekistan and engage all elements of Uzbek society.
Public diplomacy is a critical element of our work, and I will
encourage all members of the mission team to be ambassadors to
the people of Uzbekistan, helping to increase understanding of
American policies and values. And fostering greater exchanges
and contacts between our peoples and communities and not just
between our governments will be a major priority.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I know success depends on building
and leading a strong, dedicated mission team and keeping it
fully in step with Washington and not only with the executive
branch but also with Congress, and if confirmed, I will want to
work closely with Congress, with you and the committee and your
staff to advance America's goals and interests in Uzbekistan,
hosting congressional visits and briefing you.
Thank you, sir, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Krol follows:]
Prepared Statement of George Albert Krol
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,I am honored to appear
before you today as President Obama's nominee to become U.S. Ambassador
to the Republic of Uzbekistan. I am grateful for the trust and
confidence the President and Secretary Clinton have placed in me with
this nomination. If confirmed, I will work with this committee and the
entire U.S. Congress to advance America's goals and interests in
Uzbekistan.
Since recognizing Uzbekistan and establishing diplomatic relations
nearly 20 years ago, the United States has supported Uzbekistan's
sovereignty and independence and encouraged its development as a
prosperous, tolerant, democratic society and internationally
responsible state at peace with its neighbors and the world. Those
remain our fundamental goals to this day.
Most recently, as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Central
Asia, I came to understand and appreciate the importance of Uzbekistan
to U.S. foreign policy interests.
Uzbekistan has provided crucial assistance to its neighbor
Afghanistan and to coalition efforts to stabilize the security
situation there. Electricity from Uzbekistan keeps the lights burning
in Kabul. Uzbekistan is also an important part of the Northern
Distribution Network, a major supply route for coalition forces. If
confirmed, I will encourage Uzbekistan to maintain this support.
Illegal narcotics, trafficking in persons, terrorism and extremism
plague Uzbekistan's immediate neighborhood. Over the years, U.S.
cooperation with Uzbekistan has grown in addressing these transnational
challenges through engagement and vetted training programs. If
confirmed, I will work to strengthen our partnership with Uzbekistan in
these areas.
Uzbekistan has the largest population in Central Asia and also is a
major producer of energy and minerals. If confirmed, I will encourage
Uzbekistan to take steps to attract U.S. companies to help develop and
diversify its economy and to buy American goods and services.
Almost 30 years experience in the Foreign Service has taught me
that long-term peace and durable stability are only possible with
respect for human rights, the rule of law, transparent and democratic
institutions, a vibrant civil society and an open and free media. If
confirmed, I will engage the government and people of Uzbekistan fully
and forthrightly, to increase not only our bilateral security and
economic engagement, but also our engagement on human rights issues
such as preventing arbitrary arrests, addressing allegations of torture
and mistreatment in prisons, ending forced child labor, and allowing
free practice of faiths.
If confirmed, I will encourage the government to make space for
civil society in Uzbekistan and for international and domestic
nongovernmental organizations to register and function freely. These
steps can facilitate Uzbekistan achieving its self-declared goal to
become a prosperous, tolerant, and stable society in full accord with
its international commitments and rich heritage as a crossroads of
cultures, education, and human values.
The Obama administration has established an atmosphere and a
mechanism of constructive dialogue and trust with the government and
people of Uzbekistan. In February of this year the second series of
comprehensive annual bilateral consultations with Uzbekistan were held
in Tashkent. Secretary Clinton visited Tashkent last December to
elevate our engagement with Uzbekistan's leadership and civil society.
In these consultations the full range of bilateral and multilateral
interests including political, security, economic and commercial
issues, as well as human rights, are discussed frankly and
comprehensively.
An ambitious work plan is being developed to make realistic
progress in all these areas. Many of these issues are not easy to
resolve and will require great effort. The United States and, I
believe, Uzbekistan are committed to this process and to achieving
results. As Secretary Clinton stressed in Tashkent, we desire to move
from words to actions. If confirmed, I look forward to applying my
energy, experience, creativity, leadership and insight to the constant,
consistent engagement that meaningful action in these areas demands.
I know from my past ambassadorial experience that being an American
ambassador is not only a great honor but also a great responsibility.
If confirmed, I will endeavor to be a good steward of the American
people's trust and property, a caring leader for my embassy colleagues,
and a faithful representative of our values and our interests. I will
ensure that our mission looks out for the interests of American
citizens living and traveling in Uzbekistan.
If confirmed, I will aim not only to develop effective
relationships with the leadership and government authorities, but also
to get out among the people of Uzbekistan and engage all elements of
Uzbek society. To me, public diplomacy is a critical element of our
diplomatic engagement. I will encourage all members of the mission team
to be ambassadors to the people of Uzbekistan working to increase
understanding of the United States, our policies and our values.
Fostering greater exchanges and contacts between our peoples and
communities, and not just between our governments, will be a major
priority.
Finally, I know success depends on my leadership in encouraging and
supporting a strong, dedicated mission team and keeping it fully
synchronized with Washington, not only with the executive branch, but
with the Congress as well. If confirmed, I would look forward to
continuing an active dialogue with you as we seek to strengthen our
relations with the people of Uzbekistan.
Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions.
Senator Casey. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. I will also note
for the record that you were born in Pittsburgh. Is that
correct?
Ambassador Krol. Yes, sir.
Senator Casey. That will have some impact on me. OK.
Ambassador Krol. And I am a Pirate fan too I have to say.
[Laughter.]
Senator Risch. Do we have any Idaho appointees here, Mr.
Chairman?
Senator Casey. We are going to work on those. We are going
to make that part of the next hearing.
Mr. Ensher, we want to welcome you as well and thank you
for your commitment to public service. You can provide a
summary. Both your full statements will be made part of the
record.
STATEMENT OF HENRY S. ENSHER, OF CALIFORNIA, A CAREER MEMBER OF
THE SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF COUNSELOR, TO BE
AMBASSADOR TO THE PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ALGERIA
Mr. Ensher. This will be just a brief summary, Senator, if
that is all right with you.
Senator Casey. Thank you.
Mr. Ensher. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Risch, thank you
very much for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am
honored by President Obama's nomination to be U.S. Ambassador
to Algeria. I deeply appreciate the confidence he and Secretary
Clinton have shown by making this nomination.
If confirmed, my No. 1 goal will be to protect all
Americans living and working in Algeria. I will work to advance
critical United States foreign policy and national security
interests in Algeria by using the full range of our diplomatic
tools to promote security and economic prosperity. Both the
President and the Secretary have emphasized the importance of
outreach to civil society in countries of the region,
especially women's organizations, and if confirmed, doing so
will be a priority.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank you very much for
acknowledging my family, but I feel I would be remiss if I
didn't add just a couple of words. So with permission, I will
do that.
I have been away from the family for much of the last
several years, 2 years, including time spent in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and that would not have been possible particularly
without Mona's unwavering love and support. She has done
splendidly at home even while she was doing a very important
job in service to the people of the United States. So I wanted
to acknowledge that again.
Thank you, sir, for that.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ensher follows:]
Prepared Statement of Henry S. Ensher
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lugar, members of the committee, I
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
I am honored by President Obama's nomination of me to be U.S.
Ambassador to Algeria. I deeply appreciate the confidence President
Obama and Secretary Clinton have shown by making this nomination. If
confirmed by the Senate, my No. 1 goal will be to protect the people
who serve the United States at our mission in Algiers and to protect
the Americans who live and work in Algeria. I will work to advance
critical U.S. foreign policy and national security interests in Algeria
by using the full range of our diplomatic tools to promote security and
economic prosperity. Both the President and the Secretary have
emphasized the importance of outreach to civil society in countries of
the region and, if confirmed, doing so will be a priority.
With your permission, I would like to introduce my wife, Mona, and
our two sons, Henry and Tariq. I would not be here today without their
unwavering love and support. The service to our country in Iraq and
Afghanistan that have kept me away from them for more than 2 years
would not have been possible without Mona's steadiness and grace at
home, even while she excelled at her own very important job.
The relationship between the United States and Algeria has never
been stronger. As the third-most populous country in the Arab world,
Algeria is the largest producer of oil and gas on the African
Continent, and an important supplier of energy to both the United
States and Europe. Algeria also plays a critical role on the front
lines countering violent extremism, and knows firsthand how important
it is to maintain constant vigilance against those who wish to do us
harm.
Like other countries in the region, Algeria has been impacted by
events of the ``Arab Spring.'' President Bouteflika has recently
announced important reforms of the Algerian system, and we look forward
to their early implementation. Algerians will decide any next steps
they wish to take and, if confirmed, I look forward to developing our
relations with them as they continue to craft their own destiny.
Algeria exports nearly 2 million barrels of oil a day. The United
States is by far Algeria's largest trading partner, accounting for
nearly a quarter of all hydrocarbon sales. However, when it comes to
Algeria's imports, the United States doesn't even make it into the top
five. While maintaining a constant flow of oil is critical, if
confirmed I will work with American companies to develop Algerian
partners to help them make use of Algeria's considerable resources for
their shared benefit.
Our relationship with Algeria is built on counterterrorism
cooperation. President Bouteflika was the first Arab leader to call
President Bush following the attacks on 9/11, which reflected our
shared view of the dangers posed by terrorism and led to even greater
cooperation. Algeria's fight against violent extremism in the 1990s
cost tens of thousands of lives, imposing still more sacrifice on the
Algerian people, who have such a long history of struggle to win and
preserve their freedom and sovereignty. Actions of the government
caused the level of violence to decrease, but Algeria knows as well as
the United States that violent extremism remains a threat.
To further improve our bilateral cooperation, we recently kicked
off a Counterterrorism Contact Group. Additionally, Algeria has taken a
leading role in international cooperation on counterterrorism, and, if
confirmed, I will encourage them to continue to do so.
Algeria has long had a significant role in Middle Eastern and
African affairs. It is a key player in conflict resolution throughout
the wider region. It is a leading member state of the Arab League, the
African Union, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. It is a
longstanding member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries and a founding member of the New Economic Partnership for
African Development. Its mediating role in conflicts in the Sahel will
remain vital to finding peaceful solutions there. The ``frozen
conflict'' over Western Sahara cannot be resolved without Algerian
involvement. Not least, Algeria is literally at the confluence of
Africa, the Mediterranean, and the Arab world. It would gain from
increasing trade within the region, and its willingness to lead in this
area will be critical to realizing long-held dreams of regional
integration.
Regarding the Embassy itself, our team has recently moved to a new,
more secure facility, which is critical to our ability to promote our
interests in an environment that still has the potential to be
dangerous to us. To be clear, there has been a lot of improvement in
our ability to operate freely in Algiers since I served there 11 years
ago, but some necessary restrictions remain in place. If confirmed, I
will have no higher priority than the security and safety of the entire
American community in Algeria. Thank you for this opportunity to
address you today. I would be pleased to address any questions that you
may have.
Senator Casey. Thank you very much and thanks for offering
that personal note. That is probably not acknowledged enough in
this city.
I wanted to start with Algeria and some of the challenges
we have with our relationship. We know that we are partners in
counterterrorism and we know that as Ambassador you would have
the chance and the opportunity to build on what is the newly
formed U.S.-Algeria Contact Group, the Counterterrorism Contact
Group. I guess I would ask you first how you see that part of
our relationship and how you would build on that foundation.
Mr. Ensher. That is a great word, Senator. There is a
strong foundation there that goes back some time, even into the
1990s, and takes into account the fact that the Algerians were
the first to acknowledge and express condolences after the
events of 9/11 from the Arab world. Since then, we have engaged
in a number of activities designed to improve that
counterterrorism cooperation, of which the recent beginning of
a contact group is only the latest example.
Sir, if confirmed, I would expect to intensify those
relations across the full range of activities, including
enhanced military cooperation and support for enhanced law
enforcement cooperation and what can be done by improved
relations with civil society as well. There are great
opportunities here and we would look to exploit them fully,
especially the Algerian desire to be a regional leader in this
area, and we will look to support that in particular.
Thank you, sir.
Senator Casey. I was going to ask you another question that
relates to what we have seen play out over the last couple of
months in the region, starting in Tunisia. I was struck by the
contrast, just having been to the Middle East in July, and with
Egypt being the last stop on our trip. We met with civil
society leaders and their request at that time seemed so
limited because of the circumstances that were at work then. In
a meeting with three U.S. Senators, they requested that we and
the U.S. Government provide more help for a freer election in
Egypt--nothing about regime change or the kind of changes we
have seen. In every country in that region, over many years,
there have been civil society leaders, many of whom are now
among the leaders and the activists for change.
In Algeria, the democratic movement or protest movement has
been more limited compared to other countries in the region.
There have been a series of prodemocracy protests and strikes
and demonstrations that have their origins in economics. If you
are confirmed, how would you work with Algeria's civil society
leaders to make sure that the focus is on political reform? It
is a two part question really. How do you see the reform
movement and progress, if any, and two, how would you work with
civil society leaders?
Mr. Ensher. Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman.
It is a two-part response to your two-part question.
First of all, I could not agree more with my colleague,
Ambassador Krol, on the importance of public diplomacy, simply
being out there, making ourselves available as an embassy team
to all aspects of society. We are supposed to be the embassy
not just to the government but to the entire society, and we
will do that under my leadership if I am confirmed, Senator. So
that is one aspect of it.
The other is that we have a number of really excellent
programs under the Middle East Partnership Initiative which
enable us to help certain parts of civil society and, in fact,
even the government develop their capacity better to improve
their capability to advocate effectively for their rights,
which already exist under the Algerian Constitution. And so I
will continue and intensify those.
I would also point out that the Algerian people have long
expressed a desire for broader participation in their own
government, and we will support that as well.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Casey. Thank you.
In my remaining time, I will turn to Ambassador Krol. Mr.
Ambassador, like so many places where we have committed brave
Americans serving in diplomatic posts, there are always
tensions and conflicts that you have to try to resolve as
Ambassador. And I do not envy the challenges that Ambassadors
like you, and those who seek to serve, face.
You are going to have difficulties balancing two things, at
least. One of the problems is the Northern Distribution
Network. I am told that when we move supplies to our troops in
Afghanistan, an estimated 98 percent of the traffic in that
network passes through Uzbekistan. So it is a critical route to
getting supplies to our troops in Afghanistan.
At the same time, we have got to be very tough and
determined about making sure that Uzbekistan addresses the
significant human rights abuses, the concerns that people have
regarding a persecution of religious minority groups, forced
child labor, restrictions on domestic and international
nongovernmental organizations, torture, or illegal treatment in
the criminal justice system. That is a long, long list.
How do you see that challenge and can you give us some
indication about how you will address that priority, in the
context of the necessity for us to get supplies to our troops
through the Northern Distribution Network?
Ambassador Krol. Thank you, Senator. That is a very good
question and certainly a very important one. It is a basic
challenge that I will face, if confirmed, as have my
predecessors.
However, I do not view it so much as an either/or. We have
to pursue both of these matters together, and I would say on
the matter of the Northern Distribution Network, which is all
part of the effort to stabilize the situation in Afghanistan,
that it is clearly in the interest of Uzbekistan. And in our
conversations with the leadership of Uzbekistan, they clearly
wish to see Afghanistan, their neighbor, stabilized. And so I
think they see it very much in their interest to facilitate and
support the international efforts in Afghanistan for their own
merits and for their own security for Uzbekistan. So it is not
a matter that they are just doing this for us. We are doing
this together, and they understand it. They live in a tough
neighborhood, and when we have discussions with them at the
highest level, as when Secretary Clinton was there last
December, this is quite clear that they join us in wishing to
see success in Afghanistan, stability on their border so that
it does not spread into their own country.
On human rights issues, that too is a security and a
stability issue. And if confirmed, what I would like to do, as
my predecessors have, is to develop an atmosphere of trust and
confidence with the government and the people of Uzbekistan so
that they understand that respect for human rights creates
greater stability in a country in order to weather
difficulties, whether they are economic and the like. And this
is not something of simply because we like it to be done and
simply because it is a matter of their obligations under their
international commitments, but that having a respect for human
rights in all the areas that you said do create a durable
stability for a country, which is what is in everyone's
interest, the Uzbek authorities, the Uzbek people, and
ourselves. And so I would like to be able to encourage them to
take steps that broaden this sphere, this space for civil
society, for broadening the choices that people have.
Another issue in Uzbekistan is that a very large percent of
its population is young, very young, and they have aspirations.
They need choices. And a lot of it will be finding jobs, what
kind of a future that they have, and having a society that can
provide those choices will stabilize that so you will not have
resentments building up that could lead to some of the lessons
we have seen elsewhere in the world of late.
Thank you, sir.
Senator Casey. Thanks very much.
Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Well, thank you very much.
Mr. Ensher, let me start with you. My chief of staff was in
Algiers for a week during the recent break. So I am modestly
informed as to what is going on on the ground there. But I
would like to get your views generally as to how the popular
uprisings, for want of a better word, will move forward in
Algiers. How will that resolve? How do you see it?
Mr. Ensher. Thank you very much for that.
I have to say that because of the activities of your chief
of staff, sir, you are well ahead of me. It has been 11 years
since I have been in Algiers.
But with that in mind, I would say----
Senator Risch. By the way, there are still sandstorms there
in case you forgot.
Mr. Ensher. There always are, yes.
It seems to me that there are a couple of ways that this
could go. One way would be for the government to do, as it is
apparently trying to do, which is to get out ahead of the
demands of the population for greater openness, improved press
freedom, broader access to the government, all those sorts of
things. And they have done that by lifting the state of
emergency that had been in place for 18 years and by
promising--promising--the type of legislation necessary to
achieve those goals to be passed sometime in fall of this year.
So that would be the good course of action.
And here I will point out that so far in Algeria, there
have been very few calls for a change of regime. It all has
been about economic and social and political aspirations within
the framework as it exists, not requiring the departure of any
particular leader. That is a huge difference I think from some
of the other places in the region.
The other way that it could go would be for the security
situation to get out of control, and to lead to the sorts of
things that we have seen elsewhere. I frankly do not expect
that to happen. Algeria has a lot of resources to bring to
bear. There is a longstanding demand, a tradition of democratic
practice and a sense that democracy is already the right way to
go. And so I am really quite optimistic about the future there.
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Risch. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Mr. Krol, you have covered the waterfront I think pretty
well. I wonder if you could comment a little bit in general
terms about the terrorism issue in Uzbekistan. We know that
there are Islamic extremists there that pose security threats.
Can you give us your view of that, please?
Ambassador Krol. Yes, Senator. That is again a very good
question, a very pertinent one.
Unfortunately, Uzbekistan has been the victim of terrorist
attacks. There are organizations such as the Islamic Movement
of Uzbekistan, as well as the Islamic Jihad Union, that are
comprised in part of people from Uzbekistan who may be
operationally working in places further to their south,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the like. The Uzbeks are very
concerned to keep that threat at bay. That is why they wish to
maintain strong border controls, as well as controls within
their country, to prevent these groupings from consolidating or
taking action in Uzbekistan.
And it also requires working with their neighboring
countries. I think they are concerned that the neighboring
countries, particularly Tajikistan and Kyrgizstan, that have
long borders with Uzbekistan, that those countries are able to
prevent terrorist groups from conducting or having a safe haven
in these countries in order to have attacks on Uzbekistan or
into Uzbekistan or in the whole region. This is certainly an
area that is of great concern to everyone in the region and the
United States even though we are not of the region, but as you
know, we do have significant assets in Afghanistan as well. And
so it is serious. It demands a great deal of attention, and it
is certainly one of the areas that we wish to cooperate with
Uzbekistan to address.
Senator Risch. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Casey. Thanks very much, Senator Risch.
Ambassador Krol, I wanted to go back to the concerns we
have about human rights, and I know you share these. I wanted
to refer back to a particular statement you made in 2008, and
to get your reaction to some of the information that surrounds
this issue.
In a Voice of America interview in Uzbekistan in October
2008, you commended the Uzbek Government for ``passing orders
to enforce legislation about child labor.'' During the same
year, during the 2008 cotton harvest, the School of Oriental
and African Studies at the University of London found that
approximately 2.4 million school children between the ages of
10 and 15 were forcibly recruited to harvest cotton. A followup
study by the same group released in November 2010 noted that
the practice remains ubiquitous. Our own U.S. Department of
Labor last year included Uzbek cotton on the list of ``goods
produced by child labor and forced labor.''
Clearly, it seems that the government has, in a real sense,
thumbed its nose at the obligations under the ILO Convention
182. I want to have you comment on that based upon those
studies and based upon a previous statement you made.
Ambassador Krol. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is a serious issue and a problem in Uzbekistan. It is
one that we raise consistently with the Uzbek authorities, and
if confirmed, I know it will be one of the ones that I will be
dealing with with them.
As you had mentioned, the Uzbek Government has acceded to
all of the ILO Conventions dealing with child labor. The
government and the President have passed and signed decrees
that prohibit forced child labor in Uzbekistan. And so we
commend them, as we say, for those actions that they have
taken, at least in passing or at least adhering to these
international conventions and signing the legislation.
But as you said, we need to move from the words to actually
fulfilling the commitments made to the ILO Conventions, as well
as fulfilling even the decrees of the President. And most
recently, one could say that there was encouraging news because
the Government of Uzbekistan--and their Embassy here passed us
the information--has set up an interagency commission across
the entire government authorities of Uzbekistan for the purpose
of implementing these commitments made under the ILO and other
things.
So again, it is welcoming to see that, but again, we will
want to see that this goes beyond simply creating a commission
to actually going to the action of addressing the children that
are working in the fields. And I think our human rights report
and other reports of our Embassy have made it clear that it
does continue. So again, I would quote Secretary Clinton again
when she was in Tashkent. ``We need to move from the words
which are welcoming and good to hear to the actions of actually
ending this practice.''
Senator Casey. Well, we would urge you to continue to press
them very aggressively. We appreciate the commitment you have.
Your statements today are important to that.
I will have a number of other questions for the record
probably for both nominees and those that preceded you.
Ambassador Krol, I did not get to prisoners of conscience,
the criminal justice system. There is a long list that we do
not have time to get into today, but we will make sure that the
questions and the answers are made part of the record of this
hearing and your nomination.
We are grateful to both of you for your commitment to
public service at a tough time internationally, and for the
commitment of your families as well.
Unless there is anything else to come before the
committee--Senator Risch?
Senator Risch. Mr. Ensher, on a personal note, is your
family, your wife and your children, going with you?
Mr. Ensher. They will be back and forth a great deal I
suspect. Mona does have a very important job. The boys are in
school and doing other things. But this will be a big change
from Iraq and Afghanistan where at least we have the option.
Thank you for asking.
And, Senator, from those two experiences, the one thing
that I have learned or a thing that I have learned is the
absolute criticality of CODELs and STAFFDELs. It is so
important to reinforce the message that they are getting from
we diplomats out there. It is so important for them to
understand the political environment that we operate in and
that drives the things that we do. So I cannot urge you
strongly enough. I cannot invite you more enthusiastically than
to come to the Kasbah if confirmed.
Thank you.
Senator Risch. Thank you.
Senator Casey. Ambassador Krol, any closing statements?
Ambassador Krol. I would just echo my colleague Henry and
welcome you all to Uzbekistan, the Great Silk Road, Samarkand,
Bukhara, Khiva. It is a fascinating country and a very warm and
hospitable people with long traditions and culture. I think
having your staff and everyone coming out there makes a great
deal of difference to the people.
Thank you.
Senator Casey. Thank you both very much.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record
Responses of Daniel Shapiro to Questions Submitted by
Senator John F. Kerry
Question. 2011 has been a year of unprecedented change in the
Middle East. How have the events in Egypt and Syria affected Israel's
security situation? How do you see your role in supporting the Israeli-
Egyptian relationship? What can the United States do to help ensure the
integrity of the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty? What can the United
States do to ensure that the turbulence in Syria does not spill over
into Lebanon or threaten Israel?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that we continue our close
cooperation and consultation with Israel regarding any developments
that might pose a threat to Israel's security.
Egypt is undergoing a period of significant transition. Our
relationship with Egypt remains strong, and we continue to work
constructively and collaboratively with the Egyptian Government on a
range of issues. We remain encouraged that the current Egyptian
Government has repeatedly expressed its commitment to adhere to past
agreements, including its Treaty of Peace with Israel.
The Department of State fully appreciates the significance of
Egyptian-Israeli peace to our regional interests and to regional
stability. In our discussions with Egyptian leadership across the
political spectrum, we have and will continue to underscore the
importance of upholding this and Egypt's other international
obligations.
On Syria, our policy is that the abhorrent and deplorable actions
of the Syrian Government against the Syrian people must end
immediately. The Syrian Government must also immediately stop arbitrary
arrests, detention, and torture.
Question. What can be done to counter efforts to delegitimize
Israel? Are there steps that Israel could take that would decrease the
popular pressures in Egypt and Jordan to recalibrate their relations
with Israel?
Answer. In the U.N. system and in many international organizations,
members devote disproportionate attention to Israel and consistently
adopt biased resolutions, which too often divert attention from the
world's most egregious human rights abuses. We will continue our
ongoing effort in the full range of international organizations to
ensure that Israel's legitimacy is beyond dispute and its security is
never in doubt.
We will do all we can to ensure that Israel has the same rights and
responsibilities as all states in these bodies--including membership in
all appropriate regional groupings at the U.N.
The peace agreements between Israel and Egypt, and Israel and
Jordan, are fundamental for long-term regional peace and stability in
the region. We strongly support Israeli, Jordanian, and Egyptian
efforts ensure productive relations and strengthened connections
between their governments and peoples in support of regional peace and
stability.
Question. What is the administration's position on the Hamas-Fatah
unity government? What factors will it use in determining the future
relationship with, and financial support for, the Palestinian
Authority?
Answer. We understand Fatah and Hamas have reached a reconciliation
agreement. What is important now is that the Palestinians ensure
implementation of that agreement advances the prospects of peace rather
than undermines them.
We will continue to seek information on the details of the
agreement and to consult with Palestinians and Israelis about these
issues.
We understand the concerns of some Members of Congress. As a new
Palestinian Government is formed, we will assess it based on its
policies and will determine the implications for our assistance based
on U.S. law.
We are confident President Abbas remains committed to the
principles of nonviolence, recognition of the state of Israel, and
acceptance of previous agreements and obligations between the parties.
To play a constructive role in achieving peace, any interim
Palestinian Government formed in the period before elections must
ensure its actions fully implement these principles. The U.S. stance
toward such a government will be fully consistent with U.S. law.
Our position on Hamas has not changed; Hamas is a designated
Foreign Terrorist Organization.
Question. In August 2010, the President said that he believed it
might be possible to reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement
within a 1-year timeframe, a period which roughly corresponds with the
end of Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's 2-year institution-
building program.
Do you still believe a peace agreement is possible? How do
you evaluate Salam Fayyad's program?
Answer. A comprehensive Middle East peace agreement remains a
central U.S. policy objective. As we have said many times, the status
quo between Israelis and Palestinians is not sustainable. Neither
Israel's future as a democratic Jewish state, nor the legitimate
aspirations of Palestinians can be secured without a two-state solution
that is achieved through serious and credible negotiations that address
issues of concerns to both sides.
The Palestinian Authority has set forth a clear vision for
strengthening the institutions of a future Palestinian state, improving
delivery of essential services, and implementing a reform agenda. Over
the past year and a half, the PA has made steady progress in putting in
place policies to reform the security sector, foster economic growth,
expand public services, decrease reliance on donor assistance,
effectively manage public expenditures and improve tax revenue
collection. However, as we have often stated, the Palestinian
institution-building program is mutually reinforcing with efforts on
the political track; it cannot achieve a Palestinian state absent a
negotiated outcome.
Question. On March 16, 2003, Rachel Corrie, an American citizen,
was killed by an Israel Defense Forces bulldozer in Rafah, Gaza while
protesting home demolitions. Both the Obama and Bush administrations
have affirmed that Israel's investigation into Ms. Corrie's killing did
not meet the standard of being ``thorough, credible, and transparent''
that was assured by the Israeli Government in 2003. On June 30, 2010,
Department of State spokesperson P.J. Crowley stated, ``We continue to
stress to the Government of Israel at the highest levels to continue a
thorough, transparent, and credible investigation of the circumstances
concerning her death.''
Please provide information on steps taken under the current
administration, including the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv, to
encourage the Government of Israel to undertake a thorough,
credible, and transparent investigation into Ms. Corrie's
death. What specific steps will the administration take to
ensure accountability is obtained in the case? What specific
steps will you commit to take, if confirmed, to encourage a
reopening of a credible investigative process?
Answer. Since Rachel Corrie's death in March 2003, the Department
of State and the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv have been in close contact
with the Corrie family to provide them with support and assistance. For
7 years, we have pressed the Government of Israel at the highest levels
to conduct a thorough, transparent, and credible investigation into the
circumstances of her death. The Israeli Government has responded that
it considers this case closed and does not plan on reinvestigating the
incident. In March 2010, an Israeli court began hearing the family's
civil case against Israeli authorities. We hope that this venue will
finally provide them with the answers that they seek.
We will continue to work with and assist the Corrie family as
appropriate.
______
Responses of Stuart Jones to Questions Submitted by
Senator John F. Kerry
Question. On February 20 King Abdullah of Jordan outlined an
ambitious program for political and economic reform. What can the
United States do to support these initiatives?
Answer. The United States enjoys a warm relationship with King
Abdullah and with the people of Jordan. If confirmed, I look forward to
supporting their efforts to implement political and economic reform.
Maintaining our MOU assistance levels is the first priority in
supporting the Government of Jordan's political, economic, and social
reform agendas. U.S. economic assistance aims to help Jordan on its
path to growth and development by enhancing private sector
competitiveness, trade, employment opportunities, and workforce
development to promote economic growth. Our USAID programs are
providing technical assistance to strengthen Jordan's tax
administration and improve efficiencies through results-based budgeting
and a more effective financial management information system. Democracy
and governance (DG) programs capitalize on the renewed energy within
civil society to promote civic participation, judicial independence,
legal reforms (including electoral reform), respect for human rights,
and anti-corruption measures.
Question. An opening of the Jordanian political system could allow
the Islamic Action Front to play a more prominent role in Jordanian
politics. What is the United States policy toward the IAF?
Answer. The Islamic Action Front (IAF), an opposition, Islamist
party, has been a part of the Jordanian political system since 1992.
They are a well-established, legal opposition party that participates
nonviolently in the mainstream political process. In the previous
Parliament, the IAF held six seats. The movement boycotted October 2010
parliamentary elections and is therefore not represented in the current
Parliament. The IAF continues to state its loyalty to the monarchy and
allegiance to the system but has called for reforms to the system. The
IAF opposed the appointment of the new Prime Minister in February 2011,
refused to join the new Cabinet, and also boycotted the National
Dialogue Committee. The IAF's specific statements are generally viewed
as not representative of wider Jordanian popular opinion.
The Embassy continues to meet at the working level with IAF
officials, however, the IAF is often not interested in meeting with
Embassy officers.
Question. Jordan has expressed an interest in a bilateral agreement
on peaceful nuclear cooperation. What is the status of these
discussions?
Answer. Negotiations between the United States and Jordan regarding
an agreement for civil nuclear cooperation are ongoing. Since Jordan
currently imports 96 percent of its energy needs, it is vulnerable to
world energy prices which continue to strain its economy. We would like
to help Jordan with its energy security by assisting with development
of peaceful energy alternatives.
Beyond the ongoing nuclear cooperation, we are also working on
additional energy alternatives with Jordan. In order to promote the
diversification of energy supply and a reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions, the United States has engaged with the GOJ on unconventional
natural gas resource development through the Global Shale Gas
initiative (GSGI). A Jordanian delegation attended the inaugural GSGI
Regulatory Conference in August 2010, and another GOJ delegation is
scheduled to visit the United States at the end of 2011. Furthermore,
in January 2011, a memorandum of understanding on shale gas development
was signed between the United States and GOJ on shale gas development.
This agreement set forth the framework under which the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) plans to conduct a resource assessment of Jordanian shale
gas resource potential and help build capacity through technical level
workshops.
Question. What has been Jordan's response to the Fatah-Hamas
agreement signed in Cairo on March 4?
Answer. The Government of Jordan took note of the agreement, is
watching its implementation closely, and continues to engage in
supporting a comprehensive peace in the Middle East and remains
committed partner to that end. We are confident that the Jordanian
Government will continue to play a constructive role in emphasizing to
all parties the importance of securing a comprehensive peace.
Question. As a result of the Arab Spring, there may be increasing
pressure throughout the region to align policies more closely with
public opinion. In the case of Jordan, there may be more pressure to
recalibrate Jordan's relationship with Israel. What can the United
States do to support this important relationship?
Answer. Jordan, like the United States, remains committed to the
vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by
side in peace and security, and Jordan has been a critical partner in
our efforts to make progress toward comprehensive peace in the Middle
East. Jordan is one of only two Arab countries that have signed peace
treaties with Israel (in 1994), and it considers the achievement of
comprehensive peace a top priority for the region and one that is
crucial to the security and well-being of future generations living in
the region. King Abdullah and successive Jordanian governments have
consistently spoken out publicly in support of comprehensive Middle
East peace based on a two-state solution. Jordan views its peace
agreement with Israel as an important component of the comprehensive
peace it seeks to achieve.
The United States will continue to encourage a strong bilateral
relationship between Israel and Jordan by engaging both countries'
leaders on the peace process, developments in the region, and regional
security issues. We will continue to support ongoing programs that
foster closer bilateral ties, especially between the two private
sectors such as the Qualifying Industrial Zones program and encourage
multilateral programming and partnership on resources, particularly on
water use and science and technology.
______
Responses of George Krol to Questions Submitted by
Senator John F. Kerry
Question. Uzbekistan has assumed an increasingly prominent role in
the Northern Distribution Network (NDN), an important series of air and
ground routes that carry supplies to our troops in Afghanistan.
According to recent figures, the United States now ships over 1,000
containers each week to Afghanistan through the NDN, with an estimated
98 percent of that traffic passing through Uzbekistan.
How are we balancing the need for reliable access to such
routes with our responsibility to address Uzbekistan's
significant human rights concerns, including persecution of
religious minority groups, forced child labor, restrictions on
domestic and international nongovernmental organizations, and
torture and ill-treatment in its criminal justice system?
Answer. Encouraging Uzbekistan to continue its support for the
Northern Distribution Network (NDN) and working with it to improve its
respect for human rights are not mutually exclusive goals. Both
increasing NDN capacity and respect for basic human rights are in
Uzbekistan's and America's national security interests as they can lead
to greater and more durable security and stability for Uzbekistan and
the region. Uzbekistan understands that NDN helps address one of its
major national security concerns: establishing a stable and secure
Afghanistan on their southern border. On this basis, we seek to
maintain Uzbekistan's support for NDN. At the same time, we argue that
respect for human rights also establishes greater domestic stability
and security, which also meets Uzbekistan's national interest. We will
continue to encourage Uzbekistan's authorities at all levels privately
and publicly, bilaterally and multilaterally, to meet its international
obligations to respect the full range of universal human rights,
including freeing prisoners of conscience, eliminating child labor, and
ending torture and mistreatment in prisons. To these ends, we will
engage multilaterally with other diplomatic missions in Tashkent, the
European Union (EU) and in international organizations, including the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the
International Labor Organization (ILO) to reinforce the message that
the Government of Uzbekistan meet its human rights obligations. We will
continue to vigorously assist, support, and take up the cause of civil
society and victims of human rights abuses in Uzbekistan. We will
continue to make clear to Uzbekistan's authorities that the type of
partnership we can have with the Government of Uzbekistan and the
assistance we can provide it under current congressional legislation
depends on its respect for human rights in accordance with its
international obligations. We have and will continue to be constant and
consistent in this principled approach.
Question. In its FY 2012 budget, the administration has requested
$100,000 in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) for Uzbekistan. What
specific conditions will Uzbekistan have to meet to be eligible for
these funds?
Answer. The administration requested $100,000 in Foreign Military
Financing (FMF) assistance in the FY 2012 budget to help the Government
of Uzbekistan protect the Northern Distribution Network (NDN) supply
lines. The FMF request was made as a signal of our willingness to
cooperate with Uzbekistan on security issues. The current conditions on
Uzbekistan's eligibility for FMF assistance are included in the FY 2011
State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act and require progress on
respect for internationally recognized human rights and a credible
investigation of events in Andijon in 2005. The administration is
working with the Government of Uzbekistan, through Annual Bilateral
Consultations and other processes, to facilitate improvement in the
areas related to the conditions currently included in the law and will
continue to push for improvements in the government's respect for human
rights.
Question. On March 15, Human Rights Watch (HRW) announced that it
was forced to end its 15-year presence in Uzbekistan after the
government revoked its Tashkent office permit. HRW had maintained
registration in the country after Andijan in 2005, but the Government
of Uzbekistan constantly denied visas and accreditation for its staff.
The committee understands that the matter of HRW's ``liquidation''
is now before the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan. What steps is the
administration taking to urge the Government of Uzbekistan to allow the
organization's office to operate freely and with full accreditation for
its staff?
Answer. We are raising the accreditation of Human Rights Watch and
the legal proceeding to close its office in Tashkent vigorously at all
levels of the Government of Uzbekistan. This issue, and the return of
other reputable nongovernmental organizations supporting human rights
in Uzbekistan, is one of the priority matters on our bilateral agenda
with Uzbekistan, which is raised at our annual bilateral consultations
and reviews. We also work with the European Union and in the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to reinforce
our efforts to press the Government of Uzbekistan to open its country
to international NGOs and to increase space for all forms of civil
society.
Question. According to the State Department's 2010 Country Report
on Human Rights Practices in Uzbekistan, ``torture and abuse were
common in prisons, pretrial facilities, and local police and security
service precincts.'' What strategy will you employ to encourage the
Government of Uzbekistan to end torture in its criminal justice system?
Answer. We will continue to raise the cases of torture and abuse
that occur in prisons to all levels of the Government of Uzbekistan
privately and, when warranted, publicly. We support programs
implemented through the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE) to train and educate Uzbekistani prison officials on
respecting the human rights of prisoners and preventing abuse. We
recently began a new USAID rule of law program that will work with
defense lawyers and prosecutors to improve understanding and
implementation of habeas corpus legislation, with the goal of reducing
the overall number of citizens placed in pretrial detention where a
significant portion of abuse occurs. We also are strongly encouraging
the Uzbekistani authorities to continue to allow the International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) access to prisons run by the Ministry
of Internal Affairs and to extend this access to individuals
incarcerated in prisons run by the National Security Service. This
issue continually is one of the priority agenda items in our bilateral
consultations with the Uzbekistani Government and one that is part of
our bilateral work plan. During her visit to Uzbekistan in December
2010, Secretary Clinton spoke with President Karimov on a number of
human rights issues, including several specific cases of concern and
prison conditions in general. She also met separately with
representatives of Uzbek civil society, including human rights
activists.
Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to press the
Government of Uzbekistan to release the growing number of prisoners of
conscience, both secular activists and religious believers, being held
in prison in that country?
Answer. We will continue to vigorously raise the cases of prisoners
of conscience at all levels of the Government of Uzbekistan both
privately and when warranted publicly. Past efforts contributed to the
release of some prisoners such as Mutabar Tadjibayeva; Sanjar Umarov,
and Farhod Mukhtarov. We have made clear to the Uzbekistani authorities
that the unjust imprisonment of religious believers and secular civil
society activists severely restricts the extent of cooperation and
assistance the United States can provide to the Government of
Uzbekistan in many areas of potential joint endeavor. At the same time,
the United States will support and champion the victims of unjust
imprisonment and work multilaterally with other diplomatic missions,
the European Union, and through international organizations including
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the
U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC) for their release and for a change of
approach by Uzbekistani authorities.
______
Responses of Henry Ensher to Questions Submitted by
Senator John F. Kerry
Question. Some have been surprised that the wave of unrest that
swept through North Africa in recent months has been relatively weak in
Algeria. Why do you suppose Algerians have been relatively less vocal
in demanding change than their Tunisian, Egyptian, and Libyan
counterparts? How would you characterize the Algerian opposition and
civil society?
Answer. While there have been numerous protests in Algeria since
January, these have been more socioeconomic rather than political in
nature, as various groups have called for higher wages, better housing,
access to education, and stronger employment prospects. Algeria
experienced horrific violence in the 1990s, with some estimating nearly
200,000 deaths during a 10-year civil war. Algerian citizens are,
therefore, treading cautiously as change sweeps through the region,
preferring to address issues at their own pace. They nevertheless
remain committed to demanding improvements along these issues.
Specifically, we have not seen widespread calls for President
Bouteflika to step down, and his government has begun the process of
reform.
In February, Algeria lifted the 19-year-old State of Emergency Law.
The United States welcomed this action as a positive step and publicly
reaffirmed our support for the universal rights of the Algerian people,
including the freedom of assembly and expression. President Bouteflika
on April 15 also announced a slate of democratic and economic reforms
in response to popular protests, including the appointment of a
commission to draw up amendments to the constitution. He proposed to
submit to Parliament reform legislation on elections, political
parties, NGOs, local government and women in government, and to revise
the media laws so as to decriminalize press violations. We encourage
the Government of Algeria to move swiftly toward the implementation of
these measures, as we have encouraged other governments, including in
Tunisia and Egypt, to do. We are committed to working with the
Government of Algeria to ensure that it is responsive to the legitimate
demands of its people.
Question. In February, President Abdelaziz Bouteflika announced the
lifting of the Algerian emergency law, in place for almost two decades.
Please describe the implementation of this and other reform gestures
the government has announced. To what extent are restrictions on the
freedoms of assembly, association, and expression enshrined elsewhere
in Algerian law? Has the Algerian Government indicated a willingness to
initiate a broader reform of these limitations?
Answer. Algeria's Government has repeatedly stated its commitment
to democracy, and its most recent Presidential election in 2009 was
certified by international observers as being generally free and fair--
one of the few elections for a head of state in the Arab world to be
conducted under such conditions. Algeria's independent press is also
one of the more active and outspoken in the Arab world. That said,
Algerian democracy would benefit from a more empowered and effective
legislature, stronger and more democratically governed political
parties, a more independent judiciary, and a more professional and
better protected press, including electronic media. We have ongoing
Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) programs of varying sizes and
scopes that target our goals in each of these areas.
We welcome President Bouteflika's announced reforms as a
significant step forward for Algeria and its people. The proposed
measures are wide-ranging and address many legitimate concerns of
Algerian citizens, including reforming laws regulating political
parties, NGOs, local government and women in government. President
Bouteflika also announced that his government will take steps to
decriminalize press offenses, which should lead to more open and free
media. As both President Obama and Secretary Clinton have said on many
occasions, there is a need for political, social, and economic reform
throughout the region, and President Bouteflika's April 15 speech
touched on each of these areas. President Bouteflika has announced a
September deadline for legislative action on these reforms. We look
forward to the concrete implementation of these reforms by the
Government of Algeria and will closely monitor their effects on the
situation in Algeria and the region. It is too early to predict how
these measures will impact Algeria and its people, but we are pleased
that the Government of Algeria has begun the process of reform.
Question. How can the United States help foster a more conducive
economic environment in Algeria that will successfully attract U.S.
businesses to invest in the country, beyond the hydrocarbon industry?
Answer. We are encouraged by growing economic ties between our two
countries. President Bouteflika, during his April 15 speech on reforms,
recognized economic enterprises--public as well as private--as key to
job creation, and promised that the Government of Algeria would draft a
``national investment program'' for companies.
American companies are active in hydrocarbons, banking and finance,
services, medical facilities, telecommunications, aviation, seawater
desalination, energy production, and information technology sectors.
Algeria is one of United States largest trading partners in the Middle
East/North African region. We are supportive of Algeria's efforts to
diversify its economy by attracting foreign and domestic investment
outside the energy sector. We are working with the Algerian Government
to help create appealing business conditions in key areas for foreign
and domestic investors, including the adoption of clear rules and
regulations, streamlining administrative processes, and increasing
access to government decisionmakers. Algeria
has much potential, and U.S. firms could play an important role in
realizing that potential.
Additionally, an annual international trade fair in Algiers each
June draws significant U.S. participation and highlights the U.S.
corporate presence very positively. A trade mission this spring is
being organized by the U.S.-Algeria Business Council which will
demonstrate the interest of the Algerian Government and business
sectors in working with U.S. businesses.
Question. The Maghreb is arguably one of the world's least
integrated regions. What is the potential for Algeria to play a more
significant regional role in security, economic and political matters?
How can the United States foster better regional integration in the
Maghreb?
Answer. Algeria has the ability to be a regional leader on a
variety of fronts, including on economic, counterterrorism, and
political issues. However, this capacity to lead is hampered by its
cold relationship with its neighbor, Morocco. We consistently urge both
Algeria and Morocco to recognize that better relations between their
two countries will foster deeper regional integration, enable both
countries to better address key bilateral and regional issues such as
terrorism, illegal migration, drug trafficking, and trade promotion.
While Algerian-Moroccan relations are uneven, we welcome the recent
exchange of ministers and the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding
on Agricultural Development. Practical cooperation at the working level
has often coexisted even with the unhelpful rhetoric at higher levels
in the past. We have consistently encouraged both Algeria and Morocco
to de-link the issue of Western Sahara from their bilateral
relationship. The launching of the North African Partnership for
Economic Opportunity at last December's first U.S.-Maghreb
Entrepreneurship Conference is just one example of the United States
ability to foster closer regional cooperation among all the countries
of North Africa.
Algerian law also makes certain forms of defense sales very
difficult. Their laws require payment for items after they have been
delivered. Since this goes against U.S. law, participating in Foreign
Military Sales is not possible. Algeria does buy some defense items
through Direct Commercial Sales and is negotiating with the United
States on workarounds to its restrictive laws. They are also increasing
the number of individuals they send to the United States for training,
creating a closer relationship between our nations.
Question. In light of the Arab Spring, some observers have noted
that American diplomats have tended to engage too narrowly on ruling
elites and security officials in capital cities at the expense of
broader civil society. Do you agree with this characterization? If
confirmed, will you commit to encourage the Embassy in Algiers to
engage with a diverse cross-section of Algerian society?
Answer. Through a variety of programs, both within and outside of
the State Department's Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), we
are working with the Algerian Government and civil society to develop
key elements of a democratic society such as the media, political
parties, and the judiciary, as well as reforming critical systems such
as the education, banking and financial sectors. We also work closely
with independent human rights organizations, journalists, political
parties, and other nongovernmental organizations. Human rights are a
significant part of our ongoing dialogue with the Algerian Government,
as with all other governments.
Additionally, while Algeria has traditionally been a country that
afforded women considerable rights, we are always interested in ways in
which we can help to further improve their status. Our educational
programming, and in particular a judicial capacity-building program
through the American Bar Association (ABA), have targeted building on
Algeria's historical openness to equal rights for women. Algeria's
women have an employment rate well above the average for the Arab
world; several government ministers and leader of a large Algerian
opposition party are women.
______
Responses of Daniel Shapiro to Questions Submitted by
Senator Robert Menendez
fatah-hamas unity government
Question. I am very concerned about the announcement that President
Abbas has conceded to form a unity government with Hamas. Hamas rejects
peaceful efforts to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and continues
to call for the destruction of the State of Israel. While I welcome
statements from the administration recognizing that Hamas is a
terrorist organization and requiring that it accept the Quartet
conditions of recognizing Israel's right to exist, rejecting violence,
and endorsing previous Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements in order to
participate in the transitional government and elections, I think this
agreement is going to require more than supportive statements.
What is your view on whether the United States should work
with a Palestinian Authority government that includes an
unreformed Hamas? Do you support, pursuant to U.S. law,
suspending aid to the Palestinian Authority, if after reviewing
the situation it is determined that Hamas will not comply with
Quartet conditions?
Where do you see the peace process heading in light of
President Abbas' decision to reconcile with an unchanged Hamas?
Do you really expect Israel to sit down and negotiate with a
Palestinian Government which includes the terrorist group
Hamas?
Could you also comment on Egypt's role in bringing about the
agreement and whether their involvement foreshadows a change in
their longstanding relationship with Israel?
Answer. We understand Fatah and Hamas have reached a reconciliation
agreement. What is important now is that the Palestinians ensure
implementation of that agreement advances the prospects of peace rather
than undermines them.
We will continue to seek information on the details of the
agreement and to consult with Palestinians and Israelis about these
issues.
We understand the concerns of some Members of Congress. As a new
Palestinian Government is formed, we will assess it based on its
policies and will determine the implications for our assistance based
on U.S. law.
We are confident President Abbas remains committed to the
principles of nonviolence, recognition of the state of Israel, and
acceptance of previous agreements and obligations between the parties.
To play a constructive role in achieving peace, any interim
Palestinian Government formed in the period before elections must
ensure its actions fully implement these principles. The U.S. stance
toward such a government will be fully consistent with U.S. law.
Our position on Hamas has not changed; Hamas is a designated
Foreign Terrorist Organization.
Egypt is undergoing a period of significant transition. Our
relationship with Egypt remains strong, and we continue to work
constructively and collaboratively with the Egyptian Government on a
range of issues. We remain encouraged that the current Egyptian
Government has repeatedly expressed its commitment to adhere to past
agreements, including its Treaty of Peace with Israel.
The Department of State fully appreciates the significance of
Egyptian-Israeli peace to our regional interests and to regional
stability. In our discussions with Egyptian leadership across the
political spectrum, we have and will continue to underscore the
importance of upholding this and Egypt's other international
obligations.
countering the delegitimization of israel
Question. Over the last several years there has been a noticeable
increase in anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiment, even by close U.S.
allies. As you are aware, there has also been a concerted effort at the
United Nations to demonize Israel, as well as to use U.N. bodies to
circumvent the peace process. As U.S. Ambassador to Israel it will be
important for you to oppose these efforts and to work within the
administration to ensure that we do everything we can to blunt these
destructive efforts.
What priority do you give to U.S. diplomatic efforts at the
U.N. and on a bilateral basis to draw attention to growing
anti-Israel bias and to efforts to jeopardize the peace talks
by circumventing the negotiating table?
If confirmed, how will you work to promote Israel's rightful
inclusion in the region and more broadly in the international
community?
Answer. U.N. members devote disproportionate attention to Israel
and consistently adopt biased resolutions, which too often divert
attention from the world's most egregious human rights abuses. We will
continue our ongoing effort in the full range of international
organizations to ensure that Israel's legitimacy is beyond dispute and
its security is never in doubt.
We will do all we can to ensure that Israel has the same rights and
responsibilities as all states--including membership in all appropriate
regional groupings at the U.N. As the President said last September
before the entire U.N. General Assembly, efforts to chip away at
Israel's legitimacy will continue to be met by the unshakeable
opposition of the United States.
If confirmed, I will work to promote full and equal Israeli
participation in consultative groups throughout the U.N. system as one
of our highest priorities across the U.N. system. I will work with my
Department of State colleagues at the Security Council, the General
Assembly, and at all specialized U.N. agencies as they work closely
with their Israeli counterparts to find ways to maximize Israeli
participation.
We strongly support Israel's continued election to U.N. bodies.
With support from us and many others, Israel has been elected to all
U.N. bodies and leadership positions to which it has sought membership
over the last decade. In December 2009, for instance, the U.S. Mission
to the U.N. in New York succeeded in formally adding Israel to the
JUSCANZ negotiating group for the U.N. Fifth Committee, which handles
budgetary matters. The United States achieved another major step
forward when the JUSCANZ consultative group at the Human Rights Council
in Geneva decided by consensus in January 2010 to include Israel in the
group.
In 2010 Israel chaired the Kimberly Process on conflict diamonds.
syria
Question. Over the course of the last 2 years you have played a key
role in the formulation and execution of U.S. policy toward Syria. You
have travelled to Syria and met with President Assad. Now in the last
month we have seen the Assad regime brutally crackdown on the Syrian
people. Hundreds of innocent Syrians have been killed with many more
arbitrarily arrested or beaten.
Is it time to signal that it is time for Assad to go, as we
did with Mubarak and Ghadaffi?
How do you foresee events in Syria affecting Israel's
outlook on the region?
Answer. I have been nominated to serve as the Ambassador to Israel.
If confirmed, my responsibilities will not cover Syria. That said, the
Obama administration's policy is that the abhorrent and deplorable
actions of the Syrian Government against the Syrian people must end
immediately. The Syrian Government must also immediately stop arbitrary
arrests, detention, and torture.
Given the number of variables involved, it would not be prudent to
speculate on future developments in Syria.
We are closely monitoring the constantly evolving situation
throughout the region and consult with our Israeli counterparts on a
regular basis on any developments that might pose a threat to Israel's
security.
______
Response of Stuart Jones to Question Submitted by
Senator Robert Menendez
Question. Assistant Secretary Feltman is in Jordan this week to
meet with King Abdullah and members of civil society to reportedly
discuss the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the Libya conflict and
Jordan's domestic reforms.
Jordan, like many parts of the region has been the scene of
protests calling for political and economic reform. What steps
do you see the Kingdom taking to address the protestors
concerns? How important will the reform agenda--supporting
civil society actors, human rights activists, and independent
journalist, be for you as Ambassador? Are you willing to foster
moderate and peaceful communities who are seeking democratic
change by providing assistance and standing in solidarity with
their efforts? Are you concerned about the ambitions of
extremist elements in Jordan or do you see that concern as a
red herring being voiced by the King in order to limit reform?
Answer. King Abdullah has been responsive to the demands of the
Jordanian people. In early February, he dissolved the Cabinet and
appointed a new Prime Minister. He established a National Dialogue
Committee in March with a 3-month mandate to write new political
parties and elections laws. On April 26, King Abdullah formed a royal
committee to propose constitutional amendments designed to promote
political reform.
If confirmed, I hope to continue a strong U.S. assistance program
for Jordan. U.S. economic assistance aims to help Jordan on its path to
growth and development, while supporting the Government of Jordan's
political, economic, and social reform agenda. Economic support funds
promote economic growth/job creation by enhancing private sector
competitiveness, trade, employment opportunities, and workforce
development. Democracy and governance (DG) programs capitalize on the
renewed energy within civil society to promote civic participation,
judicial independence, legal reforms (including electoral reform),
respect for human rights, and anticorruption measures. DG programs
build the capacity of local governments, independent media, and
political parties.
______
Response of George Krol to Question Submitted by
Senator Robert Menendez
Question. Uzbekistan has emerged as one of the most repressive
countries in the former Soviet Union. President Karimov has ruled the
country with an iron fist for over 22 years and has a well-documented
track record of persecuting individuals perceived to be his critics.
Next Friday marks 6 years since forces directly accountable to
President Karimov killed hundreds of unarmed people who participated in
a demonstration on May 13, 2005, without warning as they ran from the
square. Last year, Uzbek authorities intensified their crackdown on
freedom of expression, prosecuting a correspondent for the U.S.
Government-funded Voice of America news service. Well over a dozen
human rights defenders, political activists, and journalists--many of
whose cases the U.S. Embassy has quietly raised with the Uzbek
Government for years--remain in prison. Torture is widely reported to
be endemic in the criminal justice system. At the end of 2010, the
Uzbek Government continued to suppress even tiny public demonstrations
calling for more democratic freedoms, and denied accreditation to Human
Rights Watch's representative, effectively expelling the last
independent international NGO from Uzbekistan.
The United States has raised many of these issues over the
years, but has usually opted for private rather than public
diplomacy, obtaining few results. What specific steps will you
take if confirmed to more effectively promote human rights in
Uzbekistan?
Given Uzbekistan's lack of credibility on human and civil
rights, how will you ensure that U.S. policy in Uzbekistan is
consistent with its public support for the aspirations of
democracy activists and peaceful protesters across the Middle
East and North Africa?
Answer. Uzbekistan's harsh actions against civil society, the
media, political, and religious figures and its policies restricting
media, political, and religious freedoms have for a long time greatly
concerned the United States. We have severely limited our assistance
and cooperation with the Government of Uzbekistan since the 2005
Andijon events and subsequent severe crackdown. But concern is not a
policy. We will relentlessly raise individual cases of repression both
privately and publicly at all levels of the Uzbekistani Government and
will seek to identify opportunities to support and expand space for
civil society and human rights activists. We will seek out the voices
of civil society in the country and we will do all we can to support,
protect, and expand civil society. We will work multilaterally with
diplomatic missions, the European Union, Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the U.N. Human Rights Council, the
International Labor Organization (ILO), and other relevant
international organizations, institutions, and partners to promote
human rights in Uzbekistan. We will continue vigorously and strongly to
encourage the Uzbekistani Government to expand the space for civil
society, media, political discourse and allow religious freedom for all
peaceful believers. We will continue to advance the view that a robust
and unfettered civil society and free media can provide greater
stability and security for Uzbekistan lest popular resentments grow as
choices become even more limited for the hugely growing youth sector of
Uzbekistan. Regardless of regional, cultural, and historical
differences between Central Asia and the Arab world, this is the major
lesson we take from the recent events in the Arab world, which infuses
our policy toward promoting human rights in Uzbekistan. We will
continue to remind Uzbekistani authorities that there are, and will be,
severe bilateral and international consequences for human rights abuses
such as those maintained in current congressional legislation passed
after the Andijon events restricting direct U.S. assistance to the
Government of Uzbekistan and its designation as a Country of Particular
Concern since 2006 for its restrictions on religious freedoms. At the
same time we will continue to engage with and, if resources permit,
expand our support for embattled civil society and independent media in
Uzbekistan and seek creative ways to provide that support more
effectively under harsh and restrictive conditions.
______
Responses of Daniel Shapiro to Questions Submitted by
Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.
Question. Events of recent months have highlighted the unique role
Israel plays in the Middle East as a reliable, stable, and democratic
U.S. ally who not only shares our interests, but also our values. That
said, ongoing unrest in the region has raised questions about Israel's
qualitative military edge (QME) and the future of longstanding peace
treaties with Egypt and Jordan.
How do you see the unfolding events in the region affecting
Israel's security, and what new challenges may Israel face in
the months ahead? If confirmed, what steps will you take to
ensure that Israel's security remains a top priority for U.S.
assistance funding?
Answer. Since the Reagan administration, the United States has
remained committed to safeguarding Israel's Qualitative Military Edge
(QME). This administration has consistently reaffirmed its unshakable
support to Israel's QME. We have expanded the level and frequency of
our QME consultations with the Israeli Government. If confirmed, I
would continue to fully uphold the U.S. commitment to Israel's QME.
The United States also protects Israel's qualitative military edge
through the provision of substantial security assistance. For roughly
three decades, Israel has been the leading recipient of U.S. security
assistance through the FMF program. Currently, Israel receives nearly
$3 billion per year.
The United State also grants Israel privileged access to advanced
military equipment, such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, to help it
deter potential aggressors and maintain its conventional military
superiority. Israel will be the only state in the region flying the F-
35.
We are closely monitoring the constantly evolving situation
throughout the region. Any developments that in our judgment pose a
threat to Israel's QME will be carefully considered in pending or
future sales of arms or services in the region.
Question. The United States has clearly stated that the only path
to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is direct
negotiations based on the Quartet principles. However, Palestinian
Authority President Mahmoud Abbas continues to seek support at the U.N.
for recognition of Palestinian statehood, thereby circumventing the
direct peace process. These efforts are counterproductive and will only
serve to delay the day in which we see two states living side by side
in peace and security.
Where do you see the peace process heading, particularly in
light of President Abbas' decision to form a unity government
with Hamas, a designated terrorist group? If confirmed, how
will you work to discourage the Palestinians from working
outside the parameters of direct peace negotiations?
Answer. We believe that President Abbas remains committed to peace.
He supports PLO commitments renouncing violence and recognizing Israel.
He has remained firm in his faith that an independent Palestine living
side by side with Israel in peace and security is both possible and
necessary.
As we have said many times publicly and privately, we object to
attempts to resolve permanent status issues in international bodies
like the U.N. The Israelis and Palestinians must work out the
differences between them in direct negotiations. We are working closely
with the parties to bring about a negotiated outcome that will lead to
the establishment of an independent, viable state of Palestine and a
secure future for an Israel that is fully accepted in the region.
We understand Fatah and Hamas have reached a reconciliation
agreement. What is important now is that the Palestinians ensure
implementation of that agreement advances the prospects of peace rather
than undermines them.
We will continue to seek information on the details of the
agreement and to consult with Palestinians and Israelis about these
issues.
We understand the concerns of some Members of Congress. As a new
Palestinian Government is formed, we will assess it based on its
policies and will determine the implications for our assistance based
on U.S. law.
We are confident President Abbas remains committed to the
principles of nonviolence, recognition of the state of Israel, and
acceptance of previous agreements and obligations between the parties.
To play a constructive role in achieving peace, any interim
Palestinian Government formed in the period before elections must
ensure its actions fully implement these principles. The U.S. stance
toward such a government will be fully consistent with U.S. law.
Our position on Hamas has not changed; Hamas is a designated
Foreign Terrorist Organization.
Question. As Hezbollah gains an increasing amount of political
influence in Lebanon in the wake of the government collapse in January,
how do you assess the U.S. role in Lebanon and what actions can the
United States take to ensure that military assistance to Lebanon does
not fall into the hands of Hezbollah forces?
Answer. I have been nominated to serve as the Ambassador to Israel.
If confirmed, my responsibilities will not cover the U.S. relating with
Lebanon. The Obama administration's policy is that we will do all we
can to avoid a conflict between Hezbollah and Israel. As we saw in
2006, such a war would be devastating for civilians in both Lebanon and
Israel.
The Government of Lebanon continues to state its support for the
full implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701--our
primary security-related goal in Lebanon--and to cooperating with
UNIFIL to maintain the calm and a weapons-free zone in south Lebanon.
Ending our assistance to the LAF would contradict this commitment and
be seen as a victory for Hezbollah and Iranian interests in Lebanon.
The Cabinet formation process is still underway in Lebanon. We
continue to stress, both publicly and privately with the Government of
Lebanon, that we expect that the next government will continue to meet
Lebanon's international commitments, which include UNSCR 1559 and 1701,
and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. When the new government is
formed, we will review its composition, policies, and behavior,
including Lebanon's commitment to its international commitments. Since
the government has not yet been formed, it is premature to judge it and
to make any determinations about the future of U.S. assistance to
Lebanon. It is important that we continue to plan for ongoing
assistance through FY 2012 in order to leave all options open.
______
Response of Stuart Jones to Question Submitted by
Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.
Question. Jordan is an important counterterrorism partner in the
fight against Islamic groups in the Middle East, and its 1994 peace
treaty with Israel has played an important role in the Middle East
peace process. Given the growing unrest in the region and increasing
influence of terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, what
measures should the United States take to support King Abdullah II's
reform efforts? How might increased U.S. assistance to Jordan serve our
interests in the region, particularly in regard to Israel's security?
Answer. The Secretary has stated that we have no better ally than
Jordan in countering terrorism and in modernizing the Middle East.
Foreign assistance supports the United States-Jordan bilateral
relationship, a critical alliance that continues to further U.S.
global, regional, and bilateral objectives. Jordan continues to be a
top recipient of U.S. economic and military assistance. As a sign of
the strong, continuing U.S. commitment to Jordan, and in an effort to
further our strategic goals in Jordan and in the region, the U.S.
Government signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Jordan in
September 2008, expressing the U.S. Government's support for providing
predictable levels of assistance to Jordan over 5 years beginning in FY
2010. The MOU stipulates the USG will provide $360 million in ESF and
$300 million in FMF annually, subject to congressional appropriation
and the availability of funds. The FY 2012 request reflects this
commitment.
U.S. security assistance supports the Jordanian Armed Forces' (JAF)
5-year plan for modernization, readiness, and enhanced interoperability
between the JAF, U.S., and NATO forces to advance regional and global
security. In addition, our security assistance will support procurement
and installation of technologies to enhance the Jordanian Government's
control of its borders. This assistance strengthens Jordan's
capabilities to support and contribute to Middle East peace efforts,
international peacekeeping operations, counterterrorism efforts, and
humanitarian assistance within the region.
______
Response of George Krol to Question Submitted by
Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.
Question. A young Uzbek psychologist, Maxim Popov, has been
imprisoned for 7 years for his work distributing a manual on HIV/AIDS
and harm reduction. Funding for the creation and translation of
versions of this manual has come from international donors, including
USAID.
As Ambassador, what will you do to encourage the Uzbek
Government to release Mr. Popov and the growing number of
prisoners of conscience being held in the country's prisons?
Answer. We will continue to vigorously advocate at all levels of
the Uzbekistani Government for the release of Mr. Popov. His case has
been a priority issue discussed in our bilateral consultations, along
with the cases of other prisoners of conscience. We have made clear
that continued imprisonment of prisoners of conscience like Mr. Popov
restricts U.S. cooperation with the Government of Uzbekistan in other
areas of mutual interest. We also work multilaterally with other
diplomatic missions, the European Union and through international
organizations such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE) and the U.N. Human Rights Council to encourage Uzbekistan
to release immediately such prisoners of conscience as Mr. Popov.
______
Response of Henry Ensher to Question Submitted by
Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.
Question. Algeria's Berber community has experienced significant
government discrimination and neglect, particularly in regard to
language and cultural rights. For example, Berber activists continue to
seek official language status for Tamazight, a Berber language, but
President Bouteflika and other Algerian officials have opposed this
change.
If confirmed, how will you work with the Algerian Government
to encourage enhanced respect for the rights of Berbers and
other minority groups in Algeria?
Answer. The United States is committed to minority rights and
freedom of religion in Algeria and around the world. The freedom of
persons belonging to minority groups to practice their own customs and
traditions, including learning and speaking a language, is a basic
right that the United States supports. Algeria has allowed and
supported the teaching of Tamazight in public schools and universities
in Berber areas since 2001. Algeria must ensure that minorities are
free to practice their religions and customs as they wish. We are in
regular contact with a wide variety of religious and cultural leaders
in Algeria, and maintain an active dialogue with the Algerian
Government on religious and cultural freedom issues. With both we
stress the need for the laws governing the operation of religious and
cultural organizations in Algeria to be applied in an equal and
transparent manner.
______
Responses of Daniel Shapiro to Questions Submitted by
Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Question. A top priority for the government and people of Israel is
ensuring Iran is not allowed to achieve a nuclear weapons capability. I
believe that from a U.S. perspective as well, allowing Iran to achieve
such a capability would pose an unacceptable risk to the safety and
security of the United States, Israel, and our other allies. With
events unfolding rapidly in the region, with Libya at war, and Syria
brutally cracking down on its people, it is easy to lose focus on the
Iranian threat. Do you agree a nuclear weapons capability in the hands
of Iran would pose an unacceptable risk to the United States and
Israel? As Ambassador, will you ensure Israel's perspective and
thinking on the Iranian threat is communicated effectively back to
Washington?
Answer. A nuclear armed Iran poses an unacceptable risk to the
United States, Israel, and globally. A strong international partnership
including the United States and Israel stands united in opposition to
Iran's illicit nuclear program. This coalition is determined to
pressure Iran until it changes course. The clear message is that the
Iranian leadership's continued defiance results in harsh political and
economic penalties. If confirmed as Ambassador, I will ensure that
Israel's perspective and thinking on Iran, and its nuclear program, is
clearly conveyed to policymakers Washington.
Question. Over the course of the last 2 years you have played a key
role in the formulation and execution of U.S. policy toward Syria. You
have travelled to Syria and met with President Assad. Now in the last
month we have seen the Assad regime brutally crackdown on the Syrian
people. Hundreds of innocent Syrians have been killed with many more
arbitrarily arrested or beaten. Where should the United States go from
here? Is it time to signal that it is time for Assad to go, as we did
with Mubarak and Ghadaffi? How do you foresee events in Syria affecting
Israel's outlook on the region?
Answer. I have been nominated to serve as the Ambassador to Israel.
If confirmed, my responsibilities will not cover Syria. That said, the
Obama administration's policy is that the abhorrent and deplorable
actions of the Syrian Government against the Syrian people must end
immediately. The Syrian Government must also immediately stop arbitrary
arrests, detention, and torture.
Given the number of variables involved, it would not be prudent to
speculate on future developments in Syria.
Question. Israel is our strongest ally and the only democracy in
the region. What is the administration doing to ensure respect for
Israel and its security by the emerging new governments in Egypt and
Tunisia?
Answer. Egypt is undergoing a period of significant transition. Our
relationship with Egypt remains strong, and we continue to work
constructively and collaboratively with the Egyptian Government on a
range of issues. We remain encouraged that the current Egyptian
Government has repeatedly expressed its commitment to adhere to past
agreements, including its Treaty of Peace with Israel.
The Department of State fully appreciates the significance of
Egyptian-Israeli peace to our regional interests and to regional
stability. In our discussions with Egyptian leadership across the
political spectrum, we have and will continue to underscore the
importance of upholding this and Egypt's other international
obligations.
Tunisia, like most Arab States, does not currently have diplomatic
relations with Israel. The administration continues to actively pursue
the full normalization of relations between Israel and all countries in
the region as part of a comprehensive peace.
NOMINATION
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 26, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
Hon. Gary Locke, of Washington, to be Ambassador to the
People's Republic of China
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:25 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John F. Kerry
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Kerry, Menendez, Cardin, Webb, Lugar, and
Risch.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
The Chairman. The hearing will come to order. We are really
delighted today to welcome our Secretary of Commerce, the
former Governor of the State of Washington, and a very good
friend, Gary Locke, who has been nominated by the President to
be our Ambassador to the People's Republic of China.
Welcome, Mr. Secretary. We're happy to have you here, and
I'm excited about this appointment.
I'm delighted also to welcome the Secretary's family. I
just met Emily, who is 14 years old, who is sitting behind him
there; and Dylan, who is 12; and Madeline, who is 6, who told
me where she is going to school and that she would be much
happier if the hearing were over and her dad could just leave
right now. [Laughter.]
And Gary's terrific partner in life and in this effort,
Mona. We're really happy to have you all here.
This nomination is a very important nomination. All of our
Ambassadors are important, and we have great respect for the
service of everybody. But it is without a doubt that the
relationship with the People's Republic of China stands as one
of the most important relationships for our country today, and
much of our cooperation with China will help to shape this
century, in terms of conflicts as well as economic
opportunities and relationships.
If confirmed by the Senate, which I fully expect, Secretary
Locke will join an elite group of distinguished statesmen, from
former President George H.W. Bush to Winston Lord and Stapleton
Roy and others who have served in this position.
I think it is obvious to all but, nevertheless, worth
pointing out yet again that Secretary Locke's story is
quintessentially American. It's the American story. A
descendent of hardworking immigrants, Secretary Locke's
personal integrity, intelligence, and strong work ethic led him
from Seattle to college in New Haven, Yale University, and then
on to Boston University Law School.
Later, as Governor of Washington, he reached out to China
and helped to strengthen the trade ties between his State and
China. It's clear that that relationship really is a microcosm
of the larger relationships that we need to develop and work on
today. He doubled the State's exports at that time to over $5
billion per year.
At the Department of Commerce, Secretary Locke led the
administration's first Cabinet-level trade mission to China, a
clean-energy mission. He has also served as the cochair of the
U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade.
The President's latest assignment for Secretary Locke may
well be his most challenging. The relationship between the
United States and China is absolutely vital to get right. We
need to avoid falling into the trap of zero-sum competition,
and we need to forge a mutually beneficial relationship based
on common interests.
I think it's safe to say that the recent visit of the
Presidents of China and the United States here in Washington
advanced that effort, but there's still a lot of work to be
done.
I'm not going to speak at length about the long list of
issues that we have to work on, but let me mention,
particularly, advancing human rights; ensuring peace and
stability across the Taiwan Strait; managing trade disputes;
protecting the environment; and, most importantly, cooperating
jointly to help lead the world out of conflicts in other areas
where our joint leadership can have a huge impact on the course
of events.
I want to make just two overarching points. First, with its
newfound economic clout, China, in my judgment, needs to do
more than simply abide by international norms, although that's
important. We are hoping that China will contribute to
strengthening the international system that has helped it to
prosper.
Beijing, we believe, can step up and can shoulder more of
the responsibility that comes with its growing power. We
welcome the opportunity to share the exercise of that
responsibility, together with other nations that care to step
up.
In the area of nonproliferation, for example, we need China
not only to enforce U.N. sanctions and abide by Nuclear
Suppliers Group guidelines, but we want China to be a full
partner in efforts to secure a diplomatic solution to the
nuclear weapons threats that are posed by Iran and North Korea.
It is our judgment that all of our interests are put at risk by
their current illicit efforts, to some degree.
Convincing China that its own interests will be served by
taking on more responsibility for strengthening the
international system will be one of Secretary Locke's most
important tasks as our Ambassador, and, obviously, it won't be
easy.
Even though China may have some of the hallmarks of a great
power, some of its leaders have remained focused more on
meeting their own domestic challenges rather than taking on new
international obligations.
This brings me to my second point. Even though China has
one of the longest and richest histories on the planet, and
even though it has vast global trading networks today, and it
is the world's second-largest economy, it still lags behind
many states, many nations, in its respect for basic human
rights.
In recent months, China's Government has intensified
efforts to control access to information, to restrict freedom
of speech and assembly, and to interfere in the peaceful
practice of religion. This crackdown, in our judgment, and we
have been clear about this at all times in our history,
represents a violation of universal rights, rights specifically
guaranteed under Chinese law. Such violations are ultimately
contrary to the best interests, in our judgment, of any
government, as we are seeing in the Mideast and elsewhere
today.
As Premier Wen Jia-bao himself pointed out last October:
``The people's wishes and need for democracy and freedom are
irresistible.''
Some say that China is not ready for more democracy and
freedom, but Premier Wen had his own rejoinder to that. He
said, ``Freedom of speech is indispensable for any country, a
country in the course of development and a country that has
become strong.'' Premier Wen, in our judgment, is absolutely
correct about this, but it is clear that some in China see
things differently.
Greater tolerance for dissent would, in our judgment, help
China produce better results across a range of government and
private-sector activities.
Effectively integrating our concern for human rights into
every facet of our relationship will be one of the Ambassador's
most important and most daunting challenges.
If confirmed, Secretary Locke will be responsible,
obviously, for helping to build the kind of candid and
cooperative partnership that is essential for both countries.
I've had the pleasure of engaging with Chinese leaders on a
number of these issues. I think we have made progress in those
discussions. I think there has been an increased level of
candor and an increased level of cooperation on a number of
different vital issues of concern. And I look forward to
Secretary Locke's ability to continue to help develop that
relationship. We want a partnership with China.
There are some, even in our country, who often talk about
choices that would actually push China into a different
relationship. There are some who even want China labeled as
something other than a partner or a possible friend. I believe,
personally, and I think others here do, that that would not
serve our interests and that is not necessary.
But all of these relationships take work. Countries always
organize around and react to their needs. That's been true all
through history. It's not going to change overnight. The art is
to try to meld those needs into a common effort and to try to
find ways to cooperate wherever possible in the greater
interests and good of the larger global community, even as we
meet our own needs at home.
Mr. Secretary, I believe that the President has made a good
and wise choice in nominating you. We certainly look forward to
your testimony today and to confirming you. And most
importantly, we look forward to working with you in this
important task.
Senator Lugar.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Lugar. Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming
Secretary Locke and his distinguished family. The post for
which he is nominated is one of the most difficult and complex
in the entire Federal Government. I appreciate this opportunity
to express our views about the priorities of the United States-
Chinese relationship and learn about the nominee's vision.
China's global leverage has increased as it has positioned
itself as the leading creditor nation with more than 18 percent
of the world's current account balance surplus. According to
recent data, China is the United States Government's largest
foreign creditor, holding approximately 25 percent of the
almost $4.5 trillion we owe to other countries.
Greater thought must be given to how we work with China to
establish a more sensible global balance that depends less on
Chinese credit.
China remains an extremely important market for United
States exports. For example, the American Soybean Association
cites China as the largest export market for United States
soybeans in 2010, with nearly $11 billion in sales to China.
But the United States continues to have a severe trade
deficit with China; the benefits of the Chinese market have not
reached their full potential for American businesses and
workers, in part because of impediments to fair competition in
China. We continue to hear complaints about inconsistent
application of rules, requirements for ``indigenous
innovation,'' nontariff barriers to trade, inconsistent market
access, and lack of enforcement of intellectual property
rights.
Civil society within China continues to face immense
challenges in promoting the rule of law and human rights
reform.
In addition to economic issues, the next Ambassador to
China will also have to focus on a wide array of security
problems. These include obtaining greater Chinese cooperation
on issues related to North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Burma, and
other nations, as well as maintaining the security of Taiwan.
The Ambassador must confront the Chinese Government on
stopping the cyber attacks on the United States Government,
American companies, and individual Americans that originate in
China.
More broadly, our Government must work for a better
understanding of the interaction between China's military and
civilian leaders. Earlier this year, during the visit between
the Senate leadership and President Hu, his role and
relationship to Chinese military leaders were among the points
raised by Senators. This topic underscores the need for closer
communication between the United States and Chinese defense
establishments, which has been frequently endorsed by Secretary
Gates.
The Ambassador must have a deep understanding of China's
integration strategy for its Southeast Asian neighbors.
China also is dedicating massive financial resources to
securing and developing natural resources in many parts of the
globe including Latin America and Africa.
Another specific area of concern that has received too
little attention is the incongruent reality of our public
diplomacy in China. A Foreign Relations Committee minority
staff report revealed that while China has more than 70
``Confucius Centers'' operating in the United States, only five
American Centers exist in China. The United States must press
this point of equity for the establishment of American
information outposts within China.
Finally, the American Ambassador and our Government must
give consistent attention to human rights deficiencies in
China. Unfortunately, political and religious freedoms in China
continue to deteriorate. This committee needs a firm commitment
from the nominee that he will work to advance the rule of law
and human rights in China. He must press Chinese leaders
regarding the growing campaign of censorship, arbitrary
detentions, repression, and disappearances.
I look forward very much to today's hearing to learn more
about Secretary Locke and his strategy for approaching the
Chinese in ways that will effectively enhance the economic
prosperity of Americans and the national security of our
country.
I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Lugar.
Mr. Secretary, your full statement will be placed in the
record as if read in full. We look forward to your testimony.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY LOCKE, OF WASHINGTON, TO BE AMBASSADOR
TO THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Secretary Locke. Thank you very much, Senator Kerry and
Senator Lugar and Senator Webb.
It's a pleasure to be in front of this committee, and I'm
very humbled to come before you as President Obama's nominee to
be the next United States Ambassador to the People's Republic
of China.
It's a sign of the importance of the bilateral relationship
between our two great nations that the President has nominated
a current member of his Cabinet to serve in this new capacity.
I want to thank President Obama for his support and his
confidence in me.
I'm proud to be joined today by my family, my beautiful
wife, Mona, and our three lovely children, Emily, Dylan, and
Madeline. No matter where public service taken us, whether from
the other Washington to this Washington, and, if the Senate
confirms me, on to Beijing, they, and especially Mona, have
been the irreplaceable constants, providing much love and much
support.
I also know that if my father, Jimmy, were still alive--he
passed away this past January--he would be proud, that if I am
confirmed, to see his son become the first Chinese-American
U.S. Ambassador to the country of his and my mother's birth.
My father came to United States as a very, very young boy.
He joined the United States Army before the outbreak of World
War II and was part of the Normandy invasion and some of the
fiercest battles in France on their journey to Berlin. And
after the war, he returned to China, where he met and married
my mom, and he brought her back to Seattle where they started a
family.
China is a nation they would hardly recognize from their
childhoods. It's a country filled with ultramodern cities,
where hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty.
The administration welcomes a strong, prosperous, and
successful China, but this new status comes with important
responsibilities. This administration seeks to engage China on
regional and global affairs to advance international peace and
stability in ways consistent with prevailing international
norms, rules, and institutions.
As Vice President Biden said recently, how the United
States and China cooperate will define, in significant part,
how we deal with the challenges the world faces in the 21st
century.
If confirmed by the Senate, I pledge to help build the
positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship that
Presidents Obama and Hu have agreed that our two nations should
aspire to.
For more than a decade, opening markets in China has been a
focus of mine, as Governor of the State of Washington, as an
attorney in private practice, and now as Commerce Secretary. If
confirmed, helping United States companies do more business in
China will be a big part of what I will do every day.
Increasing exports to China will help create jobs and economic
growth here at home, but it will also improve the quality of
life of the Chinese people by providing more access to
American-made products and services, the best in the world, and
help China's leaders reach their goals of modernization.
At the same time, as Ambassador, I will also work to expand
bilateral cooperation on a host of critical international
issues, from stopping nuclear proliferation, to rebalancing the
global economy, to combating climate change. We've made
significant progress on a number of those concerns, even as
challenges remain.
And our work together on North Korea and Iran, though we
continue to encourage China to do even more, is an important
sign that we can cooperate to address sensitive issues in the
United States-China relationship.
While there are many areas of collaboration, there are also
areas of vigorous disagreement. That includes human rights,
where we have very significant concerns about China's actions
in recent months, especially the crackdown on journalists,
lawyers, bloggers, artists, and religious groups.
The protection and the promotion of liberty and freedom are
fundamental tenets of U.S. foreign policy. And if confirmed, I
will clearly and firmly advocate for upholding universal rights
in China.
And as much as the job of Ambassador is to communicate our
position to China's leaders, I also pledge to reach out to the
people of China. And my goal will be to directly convey and
express the values that America stands for and the desire for
ever-closer bonds of friendship between our two peoples.
Let me close by saying that, should I be confirmed, I
pledge to work closely with this committee, and I hope to host
each of you and your staffs in China. We have an outstanding
team of career professionals at the Embassy and at the
consulates in China. And if granted the privilege of serving, I
will do my best to honor their work as they pursue and promote
American interests and objectives in China. We have much to do.
Chairman Kerry and Senator Lugar, Senator Webb, thank you
for this opportunity to address you, and I welcome your
questions and your comments.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Locke follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gary Locke
Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Lugar, and members of the committee,
it is humbling to come before this committee as President Obama's
nominee to be the next U.S. Ambassador to the People's Republic of
China. It is a sign of the importance of the bilateral relationship
between our two great nations that the President has nominated a
current member of his Cabinet to serve in this new capacity. I want to
thank him and Secretary Clinton for their support and their confidence
in me.
I am proud to be joined today by my family. No matter where public
service has taken us--from one Washington to the other, and now on to
Beijing--my wife, Mona, and our three children, Emily, Dylan, and
Madeline, have been the irreplaceable constants, providing love and
support.
I also know that if my father Jimmy were still alive, he would have
been proud to have seen this day and to reflect on its significance--
the first Chinese-American nominated to be the U.S. Ambassador to
China, the country of his and my mother's birth.
If confirmed, my family will join me in taking up the charge of
representing the promise of America as a land of freedom, equality and
opportunity.
Of course, one of the highlights of this endeavor, if confirmed,
will be joining a brand new family: U.S. Mission China. I know that the
outstanding team of career professionals at our Embassy and consulates
will provide the knowledge and advice critical to making this
transition a smooth one. If confirmed, I will do my best to honor their
service, as they pursue and promote American interests and objectives
in China. We have much to do.
Should I be confirmed, I will work to build the positive,
cooperative, and comprehensive relationship that President Obama and
Chinese President Hu have agreed our two countries should aspire to. In
doing so, I will support our ongoing efforts to expand bilateral
cooperation on a host of critical international issues, from climate
change to stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials.
I will support enhanced exchanges among our two peoples, especially our
youth, which is so important to long-term mutual understanding. At the
same time, I will be realistic and honest about the many challenges and
differences that exist between us, including our serious differences on
human rights, and will work toward managing those differences, while
remaining true to our values as Americans.
Please allow me to expand on these general comments by examining a
few issues in greater detail.
Developing commercial cooperation with China has been a focus of
mine for more than a decade. As Washington State's Governor, I presided
over the doubling of exports to China. As an attorney in private
practice, I helped American companies navigate the Chinese business
environment. And as Commerce Secretary, I have traveled to China four
times, made it the first stop of the administration's first Cabinet-
level trade mission and cochaired two Joint Commission on Commerce and
Trade sessions in which we've won important commitments from the
Chinese Government.
If confirmed, helping U.S. companies do more business in China will
be a big part of what I do every day as Ambassador. It's a win-win
proposition. American workers benefit, because the more U.S. firms
export, the more they have to produce, and the more they have to
produce, the more people they have to hire. That means more jobs here
at home. But the people of China also benefit, because the more access
they have to American-made products and services--the best in the
world--the better the quality of life will be for the Chinese people.
China's 12th Five-Year Plan also anticipates the need for a more
balanced economic relationship that will require continued increases in
U.S. exports and ever-broader collaboration with U.S. companies working
with their Chinese counterparts. This is good for the United States and
will help China reach its modernization goals.
I firmly believe improved United States-China cooperation is
critical to the world community, and if the Senate grants me the
privilege of representing the U.S. in China, I will take with me a
profound understanding of the promise our relationship holds.
There is so much we can accomplish when we work together. From the
search for new, cleaner sources of energy--our companies are working
together through the Energy Cooperation Program--to our successful
Innovation Dialogue--there are many issues where cooperation is not
aspirational but reality. I have been proud to be part of that
expanding cooperative relationship during my tenure as Commerce
Secretary.
But I am aware of the challenges that exist as well. The Obama
administration has made frank and honest conversation an important part
of our dialogue with China, and if confirmed, I intend to seek to
engage China's leaders in the same manner. As our relationship
continues to expand, candor between the leaders of our two countries is
necessary to strengthen the bonds of trust.
Action, of course, will also deepen that trust. That's why I will,
if confirmed, closely follow Vice Premier Wang Qishan's recent pledge
to continue China's campaign to improve intellectual property
protection and enforcement, as well as President Hu's January 2011
commitment to de-link innovation policy from procurement preferences.
Demonstrating measurable progress on these and other commitments is an
important element of building trust in the economic and commercial
sphere between our two countries.
We also want to see renewed efforts by China to reform state-owned
enterprises (SOEs). We seek to ensure that large SOEs and other
national champions are functioning as commercial enterprises within the
Chinese economy. I have previously made clear that China's lack of
followthrough on transparency and intellectual property rights
protection and enforcement commitments made during previous bilateral
dialogues has meant that U.S. companies have not seen the benefits of
those commitments. Rebalancing our economic relationship will require
the type of market opening that the implementation of these commitments
will bring. The commercial relationship between our nations stands at a
crossroads, a relationship that can no longer be characterized by China
making and the United States taking. If confirmed, I will make
implementation of existing and future commitments a policy priority in
my interactions with the Chinese Government
Should I be confirmed, it will be one among many priorities, as we
work to ensure our shared goals of regional stability and increased
prosperity.
To that end, I hope to be an able messenger of the Obama
administration's policies for the Asia-Pacific region generally and to
the Chinese Government specifically, if confirmed. Working through a
whole of government approach, the administration seeks to engage China
on regional and global affairs to advance international peace and
stability--and in ways consistent with international rules, norms, and
institutions. At the same time, the administration will continue to
work with allies and partners in Asia to foster a regional environment
in which China's rise is a source of prosperity and stability for all
its neighbors.
Along these lines, developing the military-to-military relationship
will lead to greater strategic trust between the United States and
China, and we are working to strengthen our existing military-to-
military dialogues, The first meeting of the civilian-military
Strategic Security Dialogue that took place at the S&ED earlier this
month and the visit of People's Liberation Army Chief of the General
Staff Chen Bingde last week were also important steps toward sustained,
substantive dialogue to reduce misunderstanding, misperception and
miscalculation.
Given the pace of China's military modernization, building mutual
trust is necessary to defuse tensions that may arise, but also
critically important to living with each other as fellow Asia-Pacific
nations. The United States is an Asia-Pacific power, and we have a
strong commitment to defending U.S. interests and values in the region.
While the United States and China will inevitably have differences
from time to time, it is far from preordained that those differences
should lead to conflict. As President Obama has stated, ``We need to
improve communication between our militaries, which promotes mutual
understanding and confidence.''
With regard to Taiwan, the United States has welcomed the progress
in cross-strait relations achieved over the past 2 years. The United
States remains committed to our one China policy based on the three
joint communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act. We do not support
Taiwan independence. We believe that cross-strait issues should be
resolved peacefully in a manner acceptable to people on both sides of
the strait. We oppose unilateral actions by either side to alter the
status quo across the Taiwan Strait. We urge China to reduce military
deployments aimed at Taiwan and to pursue a peaceful resolution to
cross-strait issues. If confirmed as Ambassador, I will continue to
make these views clear to China's leaders.
China has also been an important diplomatic player on issues
concerning North Korea. That has included playing a central role as
chair of the six-party talks. China has repeatedly stated that it
shares our goal of a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. If confirmed, I
will continue to work closely with China to press the DPRK to cease its
provocative behavior, take meaningful steps to denuclearize, and to
ensure full implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1718
and 1874.
China also has played an important role in the diplomatic efforts
to address the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program. The United
States has been pleased with the unity that China and other P5+1
partners have maintained in our negotiations with Iran, and we continue
to jointly insist that Iran comply with its international obligations.
The administration worked closely with China to pass U.N. Security
Council Resolution 1929 last June, and have called upon China to ensure
that this resolution is fully implemented and to take additional steps
to restrict any new economic activity with Iran that might provide
support to its nuclear program, including in the energy sector. Iran's
nuclear program was a key topic of President Obama's talks with
President Hu, and we welcomed President Hu's assurance that China is
committed to implementing U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929 and
other resolutions on Iran fully and faithfully.
The United States ability to work together on issues such as North
Korea and Iran is an important sign that we can cooperate to address
more sensitive issues in the relationship. That includes human rights
issues. The protection and the promotion of liberty and freedom are
fundamental tenets of American foreign policy. If confirmed as
Ambassador, I will be a forceful advocate for promoting the respect of
universal human rights in China. We do so not only because of who we
are as Americans. Rather, we do so because greater respect for human
rights is also in China's interest. As Secretary Clinton said at the
S&ED earlier this month: ``[W]e know over the long arch of history that
societies that work toward respecting human rights are going to be more
prosperous, stable, and successful. That has certainly been proven time
and time again, but most particularly in the last months.''
So, the administration is troubled--and I am troubled--by the well-
documented deterioration of the human rights environment in China. To
name just one prominent case, the detention of artist and activist Ai
Weiwei raises many issues about China's commitment to building a
society based on the rule of law. The United States is also very
concerned about the increased repression of Tibetans and Uighurs,
continuing restrictions on religious freedom, and increased efforts to
control the Internet and constrain civil society. As my predecessors
have, I will raise human rights issues and individual cases with
Chinese Government officials at the highest levels.
But as much as the job of Ambassador is to communicate the U.S.
position to China's leaders, I will also make reaching out directly to
the Chinese people a priority. Technology is providing new avenues of
communication with ordinary Chinese citizens. My goal will be to
express as directly as possible the values that America stands for and
the desire for ever-closer bonds of friendship between our two peoples.
I'll close by touching on the nuts and bolts of diplomatic work. I
bring a personal history as a problem-solver and an effective manager.
As such, if confirmed, I will focus our diplomacy on results. As
Secretary of Commerce, I focused on delivering more effective and
efficient services to American businesses and workers in a way that
reduced costs and simplified the bureaucratic process. If confirmed, I
will approach the U.S. mission in China in much the same way, looking
for ways to engage in public diplomacy that work best to get our
message across to the Chinese Government and out to the Chinese people.
If confirmed, I also plan to aggressively confront a number of the
challenges that Mission China faces. I understand that our facilities
in Shanghai need to be upgraded to meet the demands that increased visa
applications have put on the post there. Reduced ability to process
visa applications has a concrete cost to our economy in lost travel and
tourism exports. For this reason, I will continue the efforts made
throughout our posts in China to improve visa appointment wait times
without losing a focus on security. I have worked closely with the
State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs on visa issues as
Governor and Commerce Secretary and now look forward to continuing that
partnership as Ambassador, should I be confirmed.
I have enjoyed the process of conferring with many of you as the
nominee to be the next U.S. Ambassador to China. I hope that I have
conveyed to you that I am prepared to undertake this unique opportunity
to continue my service to our Nation.
As I seek your support for my nomination, I look forward to having
the opportunity to continue to learn from your deep experience and
knowledge about the Asia Pacific region, China, and foreign relations
generally. If you and your colleagues do vote to confirm me as
Ambassador, I pledge to work closely with you and your staffs through
regular consultation, and I hope I will have the privilege of hosting
each of you and your staffs in China.
Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Lugar, and members of the committee,
thank you for this opportunity to address you. I welcome your questions
and comments.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
I neglected, in my opening, to point out, but I think it's
more appropriate that you do anyway, your status as the first
American of Chinese descent. I think that is really an amazing
part of the story, and I'm confident it gives you a very
special level of credibility and capacity to validate a number
of issues. I think we're well-served in that regard.
I would like to ask you--obviously, there are a lot of
issues. But I want to get your sense of how we manage the
economic component at this point in time. There is a degree of
anxiety within the Congress with respect to the currency issues
and the trade practices, some of the procurement practices, et
cetera. We've had these meetings with the Chinese. We've
discussed these things.
Some Americans would suggest that this discussion has been
going on for quite a while without the kind of results that
impact their perception of the unfairness of the playing field,
whether it's intellectual property or other things. The
progress seems slow to a lot of folks. I wonder if you would
comment on whether that's just the way it is going to be? Does
that represent a difference of opinion over it? Does it
represent the imbalance of negotiating leverage? What's your
take on why it is taking so long to open up a greater level of
both transparency and accountability with respect to those
issues and accomplishing progress?
Secretary Locke. Well, thank you very much. I think we
would all agree that progress has been slow, but, in fact, we
are making progress. And I think progress has been accelerating
in just the last few years.
Obviously, both China and the United States, and the G20
nations, have talked about a rebalancing the world economy, and
part of that rebalancing includes American consumers being less
in debt. It also means that we, as a country, have to get our
fiscal house in order. And the President has very ambitious
goals, as evidenced by the budget he has proposed over the next
several years that will freeze domestic spending. And there's a
lot of discussion now on reducing our debt and our deficit.
But, also, China recognizes that it must export less and
must focus more on domestic consumption. And we in the United
States must also export more.
So these are opportunities of win-win before us that can
actually have United States companies exporting more to China
and, certainly, meeting the needs of both the Chinese leaders
and the people of China.
There's a great hunger and a great demand for things that
are made and produced in America, from services to products to
agriculture. And just in the last year alone, United States
exports to China, goods rose by 32 percent, whereas, across the
United States, exports to other countries grew on average 17
percent. Our exports to China are growing at a faster rate, by
roughly 50 percent, than elsewhere to the rest of the world.
And we are seeing movement on the currency. China has
recognized it needs to allow its currency to float more freely.
We, of course, think that it should float more and faster. But
when you also combine the effect of inflation in China in the
last year, we've seen the movement of the currency by roughly
10 percent. Obviously, we still want more.
We have a variety of different fora, whether it's the
Strategic and Economic Dialogue, as well as the Joint
Commission on Commerce and Trade, where we address these very
specific as well as global issues. We have made progress, but
we have to make sure that we monitor the progress of China,
make sure that they adhere to their commitments, whether it's
on intellectual property--the Chinese have a campaign right now
that's supervised by the State Council Vice Premier Wang
Qishan. That campaign has been extended to really ensure that
the Government agencies and state-owned enterprises purchase
legitimate software. But we've got to monitor that, and we're
demanding and insisting on accountability and audits to make
sure that the Chinese follow through.
But, still, it's a very important relationship, and
certainly one in which we need to convey to the Chinese that it
is in their mutual self-interests to engage in free and fair
trade, and to also, as you indicated earlier, not just abide by
international norms and institutions, but be a world player and
help lead and help solve some of the many issues facing the
world.
The Chairman. Well, let me come to that for a minute.
Obviously, everybody understands that the Chinese leadership
and people are smart, very analytical, very capable of defining
what they see as their interests. I wonder, given the fact that
you constantly hear from them the refrain about,
notwithstanding their wealth that has been created on one side
of the ledger, they still have 450, 500 million people--perhaps
twice the size of the United States even, to try to bring into
a more urban/industrial standard of living out of agrarian
roots. That's the constant challenge.
There's a unique focus, as you're well aware, among Chinese
leadership on their internal challenges. We talk about their
interests, we want to persuade them to see that their interests
are also served by an outward focus. How do you do that, in
your judgment? What is it that you think they're missing,
conceivably, when they see their interests as being very
specifically focused on this internal struggle?
Secretary Locke. Well, their interests, and with respect to
some of their internal challenges, focus, for instance, on
food, feeding a growing population, shortages of food,
insufficient energy--in recent days, you've seen reports of
limitations or reductions in electricity available for
factories and even households--to the health and welfare of
their citizens.
And there is a great desire, given the contact with the
West, given the ability of the people of China to either visit
and see what other developing countries are enjoying, to even
seeing American life on television shows, there is a hunger for
greater prosperity and a higher standard of living. And the
Chinese Government is very concerned about making sure that
there is stability within the country.
And these are the areas in which the United States
companies and the United States Government can help meet those
needs of both the Chinese leaders and the aspirations of the
Chinese people that can, for instance, help reduce our trade
deficit; help American companies sell more of their American-
made goods and services, including agriculture, to China; and
to meet those objectives of the Chinese people and leaders.
Those are just--we need to convince and inform both the
leaders of China and the people of China that America stands
willing to help, and it can result in a mutually beneficial
relationship.
The Chairman. Well, let me just ask one last question with
respect to that, sort of hone in on China's interests.
When we met with President Hu here, I raised, and I think
some other people raised, the question with him about their
efforts with respect to North Korea. They tell us that they
don't want a nuclear North Korea, that North Korea's current
activities are contrary to China's interests, and they voted
with us, obviously, in the U.N. to impose sanctions. But
despite the, sort of, public affirmations of being with us in
terms of our goals, the methods they adopt, and even the
enforcement, often takes a very different track.
A recent U.N. report faulted China for not adequately
enforcing the sanctions against North Korea. We know that the
North Korean leader Kim Jong-il is in Beijing, I think right
now, as we're here, focusing on the economic ties between the
two countries.
How do we get China to exert what we believe is greater
leverage with respect to North Korea's behavior, particularly
their aggressive behavior toward the South, and some of the
dangerous moments that have been created in the last few years
as a consequence of that? You would sort of think there was a
greater ability. Are we misjudging their capacity, or are they
judging their interests differently?
Secretary Locke. No, I don't think that we're misjudging
their capacity. In fact, China has been a vital partner in the
six-party talks, and China has a very unique role, given its
influence and its ties with North Korea.
We, obviously, urge China to do more to influence North
Korea's behavior. And I think that the recent provocations by
North Korea and the reaction by the South is giving China pause
and causing China to realize that it has to step up to diffuse
the situation, to make sure that no further provocations occur,
which could then result in retaliatory actions by South Korea,
which would simply destabilize the entire region.
So I think that there's a greater urgency and understanding
of how delicate the situation is, and how North Korea must be
brought back to the six-party talks, and how, simply, they must
abandon their nuclear aims and objectives. I think that China
understands that.
The Chairman. Do you think China can do more?
Secretary Locke. China can definitely and must do more.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Lugar.
Senator Lugar. Secretary Locke, as I mentioned in my
opening statement, I remain concerned, as do many Americans,
that while we have welcomed the building of 70 Confucius
Centers in the United States, China has authorized only five
American Centers to be built on Chinese soil. I want to focus
for just a moment to get your views on public diplomacy as it
pertains to our relationship with China.
In addition to this problem, recent budget prioritization
efforts have rendered it likely that we are to see the Voice of
America ending its effort to jam shortwave radio broadcasts but
with a refocus on the Internet instead. Additionally, I'm
pleased the Broadcasting Board of Governors received an
additional $10 million recently to help circumvent what's known
as the Great Firewall.
The administration's efforts to get more American students
to China through the 100,000-strong program are certainly
laudable but remains very badly underresourced. Meanwhile,
China's largest state-run media, Xinhua, opened its new office
in Times Square just last week.
These are just fragments of the problem, but
nevertheless,how do you perceive American diplomacy being
pushed, so that we are able to get an audience with the Chinese
people themselves, in addition to the conversations we've been
having with the Chinese leadership?
Secretary Locke. Well, I think it's very important that we
engage with the Chinese people directly. It's not enough just
to talk with the Chinese leaders, because the appetite for more
freedom and democracy among the Chinese people rests with the
people themselves. The more exposure we can give them to
American values, freedoms, democracies, the more interaction
they have with Americans, whether it's American tourists,
American students in China, or even Chinese tourists and
Chinese businesspeople coming to the United States, will I
think promote those democratic reforms and the appetite for
greater liberties and freedom.
Obviously, the State Department would welcome more funding
for many of these programs of diplomacy, but I think we also
need to be aware of the new methods by which people communicate
with each other over the Internet. And so we will continue what
Ambassador Huntsman did in terms of blogging and messages over
the Internet to the Chinese people.
But I also believe that, as I have experienced as Governor,
we want to continue reaching out to the Chinese people using
radio and television shows, and their versions of almost like
Oprah, which reach hundreds of millions of people, which are
repeated over and over and over again.
And so those are the types of mechanisms and media
strategies that we would like to deploy.
Clearly, we need to--I believe that there is a growing
interest among America's young people to study in China. We
need to encourage more exchange programs by American colleges,
universities, and just encouraging more semesters and years
abroad. And that's how we can also help fulfill the President's
goal of having at least 100,000 American students studying in
China.
Senator Lugar. Well, when you become our Ambassador and you
have boots on the ground over there, I hope you will stay in
touch with our committee and with those of us who are deeply
interested in this, because, as you say, there are going to be
budget problems. These are problems that Congress must face, as
well as our Embassy in Beijing. I'm just hopeful that this will
be a major focus of yours, as you've outlined very cogently
this morning.
I would also hope that you will be a champion for
intellectual property rights. This issue challenges many
American companies in China, as well as American individuals.
What new lessons do you believe you've learned in improving the
property rights situation during your time as Secretary of
Commerce as these issues have come before you in that forum.
And how do you think we might make progress, if you are in
China?
Secretary Locke. I think we certainly need to interact with
not just the leaders of China but also businesses of China and
especially the young people of China, the students in the
colleges and universities there. Because as they begin to
innovate, as they begin to engage in cutting-edge research,
they also need to understand that, without intellectual
property rights protection, their discoveries, their hard-
earned work, could be for naught.
I believe that we simply must convey the message that it is
in the economic self-interests of the Chinese people and the
Chinese Government to have strong intellectual property rights.
And without strong IPR, innovation will either occur elsewhere
or not at all within China.
And with state-owned enterprises or with government support
of R&D, if there's not a strong intellectual property rights
regime, those investments could be stolen, could be
appropriated by others. And that's not in the self-interests of
either Chinese entrepreneurs, Chinese companies, or the Chinese
Government.
We're already beginning to see some increase in enforcement
and strengthening of intellectual property rights. And we have
many exchanges through Commerce Department, Justice Department
and even American Bar Association groups traveling to China to
help develop a rule of law.
But we must continue to push these issues, as we have in
the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, and even in our Joint
Commission on Commerce and Trade, cochaired by the Commerce
Secretary and our U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Kirk.
I can tell you that in this most recent JCCT meeting, the
Chinese agreed to extend their campaign on legitimate software
among government agencies, national and at the subregional
level. We need to hold their feet to the fire. We need to make
sure that there are audits that we can all depend on. And, in
fact, the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, reiterated that support
in his visit to the United States this past January.
It is a very important, high-priority topic for the U.S.
Government as a whole. It has been for me as Commerce Secretary
and will continue to be a top priority as the Ambassador to
China.
Senator Lugar. Let me just ask one further question,
without speculation that is undue, but many believe that
inflation in China is picking up steam--at least many Chinese
leaders seem to indicate that, in fact, a so-called bubble
might form in the Chinese economy. This has many greater
dangers than bubbles forming elsewhere, because of the enormity
and the credit position we talked about earlier today, in which
the Chinese are financing through sovereign funds a good part
of our budget, as well as other countries'.
What role, in your view as potential Ambassador to China,
do you believe we can play in being helpful in that situation?
Because this could be of great consequence to us, to Europe,
and to the world, if for some reason the Chinese do have an
inflationary bubble and a recession that markedly changes the
current trends in international matters.
Secretary Locke. I think that, clearly, there--we need to
help open up the Chinese market to some of our services,
whether it's in insurance, whether it's in pensions and other
areas of the financial services market. We also need to help
lend our expertise to China as they deal with some of these
economic issues.
But I really believe that the key is the rebalancing of the
world economy, in which they are not so dependent on exports
but also focusing more on domestic consumption.
Of course, if they have a recession, that could have an
impact on that type of domestic consumption. But it's something
that we're going to have to watch very, very carefully, and we
are going to have to encourage even more exchanges and
deliberations between our top financial services sector, as
well as our financial institutions and our Government
officials. Secretary Geithner has a whole host of
collaborations and exchanges with his counterparts in China.
Let me just also add that 70 percent of Treasuries are
actually held by domestic companies; 70 percent of our
Treasuries are held by domestic entities. And of the 30 percent
remaining held by other entities, China has about a third of
that. And so China's hold on, or ownership of, our securities
really is only 8 percent of our total debt, and in no way does
China's position in any way influence U.S. foreign policy.
Senator Lugar. Thank you very much.
Senator Webb.
Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Locke, I would like to congratulate you on your
nomination, and I know how great a moment this must be--not
only for you--but for your family. We wish you the best in this
assignment. I want you to know that I appreciate your having
come by my office for the extensive discussions that we were
able to have.
I have three questions that I would like to get your
thoughts on today. The first is: I held a hearing, in my
capacity as the chair of East Asia Subcommittee on this
committee regarding the consistency and, lack thereof, in our
characterization of governmental systems rather than human
rights, per se.
We talk about human rights. ``Human rights'' is something
of an amorphous term when you're looking at relations with
different countries. It's important, but for instance you could
characterize, even in a country like the United States with a
free and open governmental system, someone could allege that a
first amendment violation is a human rights violation, or an
eighth amendment violation is a violation of someone's human
rights. But when you get to countries such as China, what we
really have is a fundamental difference in governmental systems
that rarely gets discussed when we're in hearings like this.
They do not have democratic systems and they don't have
elections, as we understand them.
The Freedom House evaluations of freedom of the press rate
China at the bottom among the 40 countries in the Asia-Pacific,
other than Burma and North Korea, in terms of basic freedoms of
the press.
So we are, on the one hand, in an environment where we do
want to push our economic interests forward, and we do want to
ensure that there aren't misunderstandings in terms of security
issues. And we want to work toward a time when those can be
resolved for the stability of the region. But we're still
talking about two completely different systems of government.
What are your thoughts about the challenges of that, and
what the future holds?
Secretary Locke. Well, obviously, there are major
differences between our histories as countries; our cultures,
our values; and, certainly, our governmental systems.
As you note, there's been much criticism of human rights
issues and freedom of the press issues in China.
Notwithstanding that, I believe that there's a great appetite
and a hunger by the Chinese people for information as to what's
happening all around the world. And the Chinese people are able
to obtain much of that information. And what we must do as a
country is to engage with the Chinese people directly and to
convey the values that America stands for and our views on
various issues.
And while much of the press is controlled by China, there
is also a growing movement for greater freedom among the press.
I think that it's incumbent upon the Ambassador and other
American Government officials who operate in China, whether
it's from our Embassy or even visiting Members of the Congress,
to take advantage of those different mechanisms of talk shows,
radio shows, meeting with students, using the Internet to
communicate and to express the values for which we stand.
Senator Webb. Thank you. My second question relates to the
concern that I and many people have regarding the role that the
Chinese Government should be playing in assisting in the
resolution of challenges--a role that is more at a level of its
emerging power around the world. You mentioned some cooperation
in the areas of Iran, Burma, and North Korea in your opening
remarks. There are other issues where I think we could
encourage the Chinese to become more visible and proactive in
the international environment as we reach towards solutions.
I've held two hearings on sovereignty issues, different
kinds of sovereignty issues, both of which, I believe, we
really could benefit from a more overt participation from the
Chinese.
The first are the sovereignty issues in the South China
Sea--the Spratly Islands, the Senkakus, the Paracels--where the
position of China has been that they will only negotiate in a
bilateral environment, which makes it impossible to solve those
issues, quite frankly.
The other hearing, as I discussed with you when you visited
my office, was on the issues of downstream water rights--the
Mekong River particularly, but also the Red River that goes
into the north of Vietnam. China is one of the few countries in
the world that does not recognize riparian water rights
downstream. With these hydroelectric dams being built, there
are serious potential environmental consequences in the Lower
Mekong and also in the northern part of Vietnam.
What can we and you do to encourage the Chinese to
participate in finding solutions to these sovereignty issues in
other than a bilateral environment?
Secretary Locke. I think that we need to impress on China
that stability of the Asian region is, obviously, in the
interests of not just the other countries but also China; and
that, therefore, engagement on these issues is in its self-
interest as well, dealing with water, dealing with disputed
territorial claims; and that they should be addressed in a
peaceful, collaborative way that adheres to international norms
and rules.
Senator Webb. Thank you. The final question I have is with
respect to China's continued status as a developing country in
terms of per capita income, which allows their Government to
receive billions of dollars in multilateral assistance and
concessional lending for a lot of their development projects at
a time when they're sitting on trillions of dollars of surplus,
because of their trade balances. What would your comment be on
that?
Secretary Locke. Well, I think that there needs to be a
more frank recognition that while China is considered a
developing country, it is more developed than most other
countries, and that various international mechanisms must
recognize that.
For instance, that's the position of the United States in
the current negotiations over the Doha Round. There are degrees
of developing countries, many that are more developed than
others, and that not all should be lumped in the same
categories. And I think that applies with some of these same
issues that you've just raised.
Senator Webb. Thank you very much.
Senator Lugar. Senator Webb, Chairman Kerry has asked that
the gavel be handed to you, as chairman of the subcommittee, at
this juncture, and I'm pleased to yield that gavel to you to
continue the hearing.
Senator Webb. All right, I will continue on. Thank you very
much, Senator Lugar.
Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for your service to our country.
It's been exceptional, and I appreciate it very much.
This is an incredibly important position that you have been
nominated to, and I have three lines of questioning that I will
pursue: one is on Taiwan; one is on Iran; and the other is
intellectual property issues.
I cochair the Senate Taiwan Caucus, and I am extremely
concerned about the military imbalance in the Taiwan Strait.
Successive reports issued by both Taiwanese and U.S. defense
authorities clearly outline the direct threat faced by Taiwan
as a result of China's unprecedented military buildup. And
experts in both our country and in Taiwan have raised concerns
that Taiwan is losing the qualitative advantage in defense arms
that has served as its primary military deterrent against
China. To counter this buildup, the Taiwanese have sought to
modernize their fighter fleet, which I believe, in terms of
Taiwan's defense and deterrent capacity, is in the U.S.
national security interest, as well as is promoted and
compelled by the Taiwan Relations Act.
Later today, I'll be sending a letter to the President,
along with 44 Members of the United States Senate, requesting
that the administration accept Taiwan's letter of request and
move quickly to notify Congress of the sale of F-16s.
Could you share with me your view on the question of the
military balance in the Taiwan Strait? And do you believe that
the United States should proceed with the sale of 66 F-16s to
Taiwan?
Secretary Locke. Let me first say that the United States
remains committed to our one-China policy based on the three
joint communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act. We believe that
the cross-strait issues must be resolved peacefully, in a
manner that is acceptable to the people on both sides of the
strait. And the administration will continue to follow the
Taiwan Relations Act and make available to Taiwan defense
articles and services necessary to enable them to have a
sufficient self-defense capability. We also believe that China
must reduce its military deployments aimed at Taiwan.
Having said that, no decision has been made with respect to
further sales of defensive items to Taiwan. That is under
review, and that is being evaluated by both others within the
Defense Department and the State Department.
Senator Menendez. I expected that formal answer. Let me go
further, since you are going to be the United States Ambassador
to China. I understand the one government policy, but you can
be devoured if you do not have the ability to defend yourself.
Is it going to be very clear, from your position, should you be
confirmed, that Taiwan has, within the one China structure, the
continuing right to exist and to make its own self-
determinative efforts there?
Secretary Locke. Well, that is a fundamental part of our
one-China policy, that the United States stands with Taiwan to
ensure that it can defend itself and that its self-defense
capabilities are never eroded.
Senator Menendez. The problem is that Taiwan has been
seeking this help since 2006, which precedes this
administration. We are going to close down the F-16 line, if we
do not make this sale, leaving Taiwan in a position that is
indefensible, at the end of the day. And to me, that will only
exasperate matters for the one-China policy.
So I do hope that, within the administration, you'll
advocate for making sure that balance is retained, which
ultimately is in our collective interest. I mean, it is very
rare that we get 44 Members, in a bipartisan way, of the U.S.
Senate to join together to send a message to the
administration.
Second, on Iran, there is a long history of Sino-Iranian
relationship and nuclear cooperation. And both parties remain
keen on enhancing their political and economic relationships.
My concern is that the Chinese continue to share sensitive
ballistic missile, chemical, and nuclear weapons technology
with Iran.
As a matter of fact, last month, Jane's Defense Weekly
reported that the Chinese inaugurated a missile plant in Iran.
Given this history, what steps will you take, as Ambassador, to
address with the Chinese Government the serious concerns held
by the United States, as well as the international community,
about its support and engagement with Iran?
Secretary Locke. Well, first of all, we note that China has
actually played a very important role in diplomatic efforts to
address the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program and was
instrumental in helping craft the U.N. resolution. But we've
also said that we're very concerned that China and Chinese
companies not backfill, especially in the energy sector where
other companies from around the world are leaving or departing
Iran, because we know that, certainly, if other companies from
China are engaged in helping develop Iran's energy sector, that
will provide income, which can then be used to help develop and
further develop Iran's nuclear capability, and that we very
much oppose.
So we very much believe that China can and must do more.
And, of course, we have, in the United States, passed our own
set of sanctions and legislation. And I want to inform you and
reiterate that on Tuesday, the State Department announced
various proliferation-related sanctions against several
companies and individuals from around the world, including
three Chinese companies and one Chinese individual.
So we take what China is doing and what Chinese companies
are doing very, very seriously. Any proliferation and
additional work by Iran on nuclear arms is of paramount
importance and of concern to the United States. And we believe
that China can and must do more to not only abide by the U.N.
resolution but help enforce it, and also to understand the
position of the United States, even with respect to our
sanctions policies.
Senator Menendez. So you will do that robustly as the
Ambassador?
Secretary Locke. Very much so, sir.
Senator Menendez. Finally, intellectual property
infringement--you have been at the forefront of trying to
promote America's opportunities to send its products and
services abroad. But I know that you know that the U.S.
International Trade Commission just released a 332-page report
on IPR infringement and its effect on U.S. competitiveness.
That report suggests that the losses to U.S. industry are
valued at $48 billion, resulting in over 2 million lost jobs.
When President Hu visited President Obama in early January,
there were high hopes that the special intellectual property
rights campaign would yield results, but we haven't seen any
dramatic changes in China. One aspect of this issue that hits
close to home in New Jersey, is the online journal piracy
conditions that have not improved on the ground--we have a
company in New Jersey with 50,000 workers in the United States
and over 3,000 in my home State, that consistently finds itself
with direct IPR violations where Chinese libraries consume the
intellectual property rights of its medical and other journals.
Will you vigorously, as our Ambassador, impress and pursue
the Chinese to seek enforcement of these intellectual property
issues, both in the online context and in the broader context?
Secretary Locke. That was one of my top priorities as
Commerce Secretary, and, perhaps, once a Commerce Secretary,
always a Commerce Secretary. It's certainly a top priority for
the United States Government, period. And that includes my work
as Ambassador, if I'm confirmed.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Webb, you can continue to chair. I'm
here just for a few minutes. I have another meeting to go to,
so I apologize. I wanted to come back and tell Secretary Locke
I wasn't racing away, but we have competing Finance Committee
and a couple other things going on. I apologize.
Senator Webb [presiding]. All right.
Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, you certainly have a challenging job in
front of you. There are lots and lots of different issues, and
a lot of them have been aired here, and I'm not going to go
over all of them.
But one of the things that is important to me, and I think
important to all Senators, and this is particularly true for my
service on the Intelligence Committee and on this committee, is
that the United States has a policy of trying to contain both
Iran and North Korea, and contain their nuclear ambitions.
And, of course, the only way countries like this can pursue
their nuclear ambitions is to have very sensitive and highly
technical materials that they buy from somewhere. And we all
know that the United States is very diligent in containing the
products that are produced here from winding up in the hands of
either the Iranians or the North Koreans.
Unfortunately, we do find that there are Chinese products
that wind up there. And China says the right things. It,
publicly, takes the position that they don't support that. And
yet, it is Chinese companies that are doing business through
the back door, or the black market, or what have you, that do
allow certain technological equipment to get in the hands of
both North Korea and to Iran.
And so, I want to encourage you, in the strongest terms, to
reinforce with the Chinese our concern about that, and how you
can't talk about it in one setting and yet turn a blind eye in
the other setting, as your companies profit from helping arm
these particular countries. So that's as much a statement as it
is a question, and I know you've talked about it a little bit,
but I'd appreciate, perhaps, if you could enhance your
testimony in that regard.
Secretary Locke. Well, again, in both North Korea and in
Iran, China played a very constructive role in helping pass and
formulate the U.N. resolutions----
Senator Risch. And we appreciate that.
Secretary Locke [continuing]. That imposed sanctions on
both North Korea and Iran. But it's important, as you
indicated, that those obligations be enforced throughout the
world.
And that's why, for instance, on Tuesday the State
Department announced proliferation-related sanctions against
several companies, including Chinese companies and Chinese
individuals, in addition to entities from elsewhere around the
world.
Stopping proliferation is the utmost priority of the United
States Government, and that includes the Ambassador to China.
And we need to convey to the Chinese people and to the leaders
of China that it's also in their national security interests to
avoid proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the
nuclear capability of both North Korea and Iran, and that
whatever commercial benefits some of their companies may obtain
by continuing to sell or transfer technology to North Korea or
Iran, that the risks and the potential destabilizing order in
the world are not outweighed, that peace and security for the
entire world outweigh any potential commercial advantages
gained by few companies or individuals.
Senator Risch. And I think that's an important point to
make, is that the profits are very modest compared to the harm
that can be done internationally and overall, by putting these
highly sensitive products that have been developed by a very
sophisticated people into the hands of those who want to use it
not for good. So I think that's a very important argument, and
I appreciate that.
Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you.
Senator Webb. Thank you, Senator Risch.
Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Do you----
Senator Webb. I have a follow-on question. I'm acting now
in my capacity as chair of the East Asia Subcommittee. I know
you outrank me. If you want the gavel, you got it, but I've
still got one more question. [Laughter.]
Senator Cardin. No, I----
Senator Risch. Maybe we can have an election over there.
You know, I can help. [Laughter.]
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that
very much, Chairman Webb.
I want to follow up on a couple points that were raised by
my colleagues.
And, Secretary Locke, it's a pleasure to have you here, and
I just personally want to thank you for your willingness to
allow your name to come forward for this position. Your
background and training is what we need representing our Nation
in China. And your record in Commerce I think will be very
valuable to your role as Ambassador. So I thank you, and I
thank your family, for your willingness to continue in this
role.
I want to follow up on points raised by several of my
colleagues on commerce issues, starting first with intellectual
property. I know Senator Menendez just questioned on that.
I just want to underscore the importance to American
manufacturing and to American production that we impress upon
the Chinese their international responsibilities on enforcement
of intellectual property issues. It's in the manufactured
products; it's in creative products; it's in so many different
areas that China has been a major abuser of allowing products
to be manufactured or stolen in their country, violating U.S.
intellectual property issues.
I just really wanted to underscore that point. And I heard
your response to Senator Menendez, and I just want to encourage
you to make this a very high priority.
I want to talk a little bit about China as it relates to,
also, the currency manipulation issue. You and I have had a
chance to talk about that. But if there is one issue that
probably is the most dominant, as far as a level playing field
for U.S. manufacturers and producers and farmers, it's having a
level playing field on currency. And I would hope that you
would make that also a top priority on your portfolio.
China has made some progress recently, only because they
felt it was in their direct economic interest to do that. That
seems to be the way that they move forward. They don't do it
because of respect for a level playing field. And I would hope
that our policy would be very clear that they must allow their
currency to float, reaching its economic balance and not an
arbitrary balance.
Those two, I guess, are my principal economic issues that I
would hope that you would take forward and move forward on, and
I would be glad to get your response.
Secretary Locke. Again, intellectual property rights in
China remains very problematic. It's a top priority for the
United States Government. It was a top priority for me in all
of my discussions with Chinese officials as Commerce Secretary
and even before joining the United States Government, even as a
lawyer on behalf of U.S. companies helping open markets for
U.S. companies in China. It will be a top priority for me as
Ambassador to China, if confirmed by the Senate.
And we know that the inability or the lack of China's
currency floating and being set by market forces puts American
companies at a disadvantage and at an unfair position.
All of our work at the Department of Commerce, which will
continue as Ambassador to China, if confirmed, is to ensure
that American companies have fair and open access to China. And
that includes nontariff barriers. It includes currency. It
includes a level playing field. It also includes intellectual
property rights, because as the recent report that Senator
Menendez indicated, U.S. companies are losing tens of billions
of dollars because of violations of intellectual property
rights. That's of great concern to us in the United States
Government and will continue as Ambassador to China.
Senator Cardin. One final point and that is that China is
becoming a more interesting country, as it relates to our
policies in the Middle East. We've seen recent events between
Pakistan and China indicating that they're becoming more
interested in that region. China, of course, holds one of the
permanent seats in the United Nations and, obviously, we have
to work with China in that regard.
I would just like to get your assessment as to where we
think we can make advancements in China's help as it relates to
our policies in Iran or Pakistan or Afghanistan, in the region,
as to how China could be a more constructive partner for the
United States.
Secretary Locke. The United States and China actually have
collaborated on a whole host of issues, including countering
terrorism. And, of course, that's of great interest and of
particular importance in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And so we
share interests in stability in that region, and in countering
terrorism.
And we, therefore, are encouraging China, given its
alliances with, for instance, Pakistan, to do more in the area
of countering terrorism. And I believe that because Afghanistan
and Pakistan are so close and part of the region bordering
China that they have deep interests in ensuring stability in
that region as well.
So we need to really partner with them and urge China to do
even more in helping promote and using the alliances that they
have to promote that stability.
Senator Cardin. Well, thank you. I know they since you have
taken on the position in the Cabinet, you have been living in
the State of Maryland. We welcome you in Maryland any time. We
hope that you will come back soon, and we're very proud of your
nomination.
Secretary Locke. We've been very, very pleased to live in
Maryland.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Senator Webb. As a Senator from Virginia----
[Laughter.]
Senator Webb [continuing]. Let me just say, we have pretty
nice neighborhoods in Virginia as well.
Senator Cardin. He made the right choice.
Secretary Locke. Let me just say, it was a tough choice----
[Laughter.]
Secretary Locke [continuing]. No, honestly--between the
great school systems in Virginia and in Maryland.
Senator Webb. The thing I learned in politics is, quit
while you are ahead. [Laughter.]
Maryland has good places, too.
Let me first just say, as a quick follow-on to something
Senator Cardin said. I mentioned in a hearing about a week ago,
when we had General Jones, that, in context of what we were
discussing a little while ago, and then Senator Cardin raising
it with the Afghanistan region, we tend to examine and debate
the Afghanistan situation moving laterally out into Afghanistan
to Pakistan, and Pakistan to India. But, I believe the movement
toward resolution in that part of the world could give China a
major opportunity to demonstrate that it can assume some
leadership with a country that it has had a special
relationship for a long time. And I would hope that you would
find a way to encourage that.
I want to ask you a question about the transshipment of
arms. This is particularly troubling with respect to China's
relationship with North Korea, and some allegations that have
been made.
Last week, China blocked the release of a United Nations
report by a seven-member panel tasked with monitoring sanctions
against North Korea. The report concludes that North Korea has
been exporting missiles and technology in violation of U.N.
sanctions, with diplomats saying that these shipments were
transiting China to Iran.
We have other allegations over the past year or so with
respect to Burma, Congo, and Burundi. All of them go back to
that fact that at some places in China there were
transshipments, usually from North Korea, but not exclusively.
One commentator a couple days ago said: ``Many analysts
argue that China is committed to upholding its U.N.
obligations, but it has a problem of lax export-control
enforcement. But while China cannot marshal the resources to
prevent the transshipment of North Korean weapons, it can
commit 300,000 Internet police to monitor online traffic and
stifle free speech.''
What is the State Department's policy on this issue, and to
what degree do you believe it is a priority issue in terms of
our future relations?
Secretary Locke. Well, we're very, very concerned about
these allegations of transshipment, and we believe that the
reports should be released so that there can be greater
transparency and scrutiny on what is happening by North Korea.
And getting back to the issue of the region itself, and the
special relationships that China has developed with several of
these countries, we believe that China should use its influence
as a source for stability and security and prosperity for the
entire region. And we will be encouraging China to use that
special relationship to increase that security and stability of
the region.
That also applies to North Korea. We're very, very deeply
concerned about transshipment of weapons systems material from
North Korea to other parts of the world.
Senator Webb. Thank you. Could you provide us with the
State Department policy on this issue of the transshipment?
We've had some difficulty getting a clear statement from the
State Department on transshipment, per se.
Secretary Locke. I will try to do that, sir.
[The written information from Secretary Locke follows:]
Stopping the transshipment of North Korean weapons is a high-
priority issue. The United States has strongly urged all member states,
including China, to implement U.N. Security Council Resolutions
(UNSCRs), 1718 and 1874 in a full and transparent manner. We have
regularly communicated our concerns to the Chinese Government that
North Korea may seek to use Chinese airports or seaports to transship
items and technology that are banned for transfer to other states under
UNSCRs 1718 and 1874 and reminded China that UNSCR 1874 calls upon
States to inspect all cargo to and from North Korea in their territory,
including seaports and airports, where there are reasonable grounds to
believe that the cargo contains items that are banned for sale or
transfer under the resolutions.
We have ample ground for concern that these sorts of transactions
have occurred. For example, the May 2010 report of Panel of Experts set
up to advise the UNSCR 1718 (North Korea) Sanctions Committee stated
that a shipment of T-54/T-55 tank parts and other military goods bound
for the Republic of Congo and seized by South African authorities was
transshipped via the port of Dalian in China.
The United States has urged China to be more vigilant in its
enforcement of both UNSCR 1718 and UNSCR 1874, as well as its own
national export control laws, including through greater scrutiny of
North Korean cargoes transshipping via Chinese ports. We continue to
urge China to inspect North Korean cargoes and, if items prohibited
under these UNSCRs are found, to seize and dispose of those items as
required by UNSCR 1874. We routinely raise these concerns in our
regular dialogues with China, and we have also offered to provide
technical assistance to Chinese authorities to improve customs and
other export control enforcement activities.
Most recently, during the Dubai Transshipment Conference, Acting
Assistant Secretary of State Vann Van Diepen announced a series of 10
best practices that we would urge all states, including China, to adopt
in order to better regulate the transshipment of sensitive items. As
China is a key transshipment hub, we will continue to encourage China
to adopt these measures and to increase its vigilance against North
Korea proliferation activities.
Senator Webb. Thank you. And with respect to your comment,
and my follow-on to Senator Cardin on Pakistan, I again
reiterate that I think this is a major opportunity for United
States-China relations. If the Chinese were able to step in,
given their history with Pakistan, to assist in a solution in
that part of the world that they're going to benefit from it,
quite frankly, with the increased stability in the region and
their economic interests. It would be a great signal to be able
to send in terms of cooperation between our two countries.
Senator Risch, did you have a follow-on question?
Senator Risch. Thank you very much.
Senator Webb. I am instructed by Chairman Kerry to indicate
that the hearing record will remain open for 48 hours for any
Senator who wishes to make a further statement or ask questions
for the record.
Other than that, I, again, would congratulate you on your
nomination, and I know what a special thing this must be for
your family and also for those who went before you. It was very
touching to hear about your father during your testimony this
morning. And I wish you the best of luck.
And the hearing is now closed.
Secretary Locke. Thank you very much, Senator.
[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record
Responses of Gary Locke to Questions Submitted by Senator John F. Kerry
Question. North Korea.--North Korea's development of nuclear
weapons and long-range ballistic missiles represents a critical test of
our ability to work together on matters critical to the security of
both nations.
Over the past 2 years, what specifically has China done to
help restrain North Korea and maintain stability on the Korean
Peninsula?
Answer. China is an important partner in regional diplomacy and in
maintaining regional stability. Given its unique history and
relationship with North Korea, China is well positioned to use its
influence with North Korea. The administration has discussed with China
on a regular basis the steps it can and should take to reduce
provocations by North Korea. In June 2009, China's vote was critical
for the adoption of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1874, which
imposed additional sanctions on North Korea. The United States has
called on all members of the U.N. Security Council and all U.N. Member
States, including China, to fully and transparently implement U.N.
sanctions and to urge North Korea to refrain from further provocations.
We have been disappointed by China's insufficient reaction to
provocative and irresponsible North Korea behavior in the past, but
welcomed the progress made on North Korea during the January 2011
summit between President Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao. During
the summit President Obama told President Hu that North Korea's nuclear
and ballistic missile program is increasingly a direct threat to the
security of the United States and our allies and expressed appreciation
of China's role in reducing tensions on the Korean Peninsula.
Furthermore, in the Joint Statement issued by both countries during
President Hu's visit to Washington in January 2011, the United States
and China ``expressed concern regarding the DPRK's claimed uranium
enrichment program,'' ``opposed all activities inconsistent with the
2005 Joint Statement and relevant international obligations and
commitments,'' and ``called for the necessary steps that would allow
for the early resumption of the six-party talks process to address this
and other relevant issues.'' We welcome these statements and continue
to look to China to take similar and additional positive steps to help
maintain stability and prevent provocative actions by North Korea.
Question. If confirmed, how would you seek to convince China that
its own desire for stability on its borders requires it to do more to
rein in its unruly neighbor?
Answer. The United States and China share common goals of peace and
stability on the Korean Peninsula and its denuclearization. We have
continually discussed with China how it can and should best use its
influence with the North, including during President Hu's January 2011
state visit and the recently concluded Strategic and Economic Dialogue.
During President Hu's state visit, the United States and China
emphasized the importance of achieving an improvement in North-South
relations and agreed that sincere, constructive inter-Korean dialogue
is an essential step. The United States and China also expressed
concern regarding North Korea's claimed uranium enrichment program.
Both sides oppose all activities that are inconsistent with the 2005
Joint Statement and relevant international obligations and commitments.
We will continue to make North Korea one of the top items on the United
States-China agenda and to press China to work toward advancing our
shared goal of a denuclearized Korean Peninsula.
Question. Does China's growing economic support for North Korea
undercut U.N. sanctions designed to put pressure on the government of
Kim Jong-il? What is the rationale behind China's investment?
Answer. U.S. officials have repeatedly discussed with Chinese
counterparts the importance of full and transparent implementation of
U.N. Security Council resolutions related to North Korea. Despite a
common concern with North Korean nuclear activities, China continues to
give North Korea a significant role in its regional strategic security
calculus. As such, ensuring North Korea does not collapse and
maintaining regional stability appear to remain top priorities for
Beijing, and China's ongoing economic aid and investment support those
goals. I cannot speak on behalf of China, but Chinese officials have
stated that they believe North Korea's economic development is a key
step toward stabilizing the region.
Question. Role in Afghanistan.--China is playing an active role in
Central Asia through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, expanding
trade and security ties with nations that used to be under the shadow
of the former Soviet Union. Next door in Afghanistan, China has focused
on the narrow objective of extracting raw materials and minerals,
despite the concerted efforts of Special Envoy Holbrooke and others to
convince the Beijing Government to do more to promote peace and
sustainable development.
If confirmed, what steps would you take to encourage China
to invest not only in Afghanistan's resources, but also the
country's long-suffering people?
Answer. The administration believes that there is a role for China
to play in helping the international community deal with the challenge
of peace and stability in Afghanistan and in addressing the economic
challenges that country faces. We have already discussed with the
Chinese the importance of generating local employment in Afghanistan
that creates self-sustaining economic development to replace aid with
trade. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Secretary's
Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan to promote effective United
States-Chinese cooperation in the region.
Question. Human Rights.--I am troubled by China's recent crackdown
against dissidents, lawyers, artists, bloggers, and democracy
advocates--seemingly anyone who dares to criticize the government or
question the Communist Party's supremacy. Some dissidents have simply
disappeared after being taken into custody by plain-clothes security
personnel. China's security services tightly control access to
information and the use of the Internet, including new social media.
China's leaders seem determined to preempt any move toward a
``Jasmine'' democracy movement. At the Strategic and Economic Dialogue
(S&ED) and the U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue last month, the United
States made it clear that China is ``backsliding'' on human rights.
If confirmed, will you make human rights a clear high-level
priority with China? What steps will you take to integrate this
issue into other aspects of this vast relationship such as
economics, the environment, and consumer product safety, to
name just a few areas?
Answer. Promoting human rights--including freedom of religion,
speech, and assembly--is a central objective of U.S. diplomatic
engagement with China. If confirmed, I will make it a top priority to
continue to urge China to uphold its internationally recognized
obligations to respect universal human rights, including the freedoms
of expression, association, assembly, and movement.
The U.S. Government believes that by adhering more closely to
international human rights standards, creating greater access to
justice, and strengthening rule of law, the Chinese Government would
help create the conditions necessary for greater long-term social
stability. To emphasize that message, the administration has
incorporated human rights into discussions with Chinese officials on a
range of issues, including economic and environmental issues. If
confirmed, I will ensure that U.S. human rights concerns are raised
regularly, broadly, and at all levels.
Question. What impact do you think the Arab Spring might be having
in China? What is your assessment of the risk of major social unrest?
Answer. The Arab Spring demonstrates to the world the universal
desire for freedom and opportunity. The United States continues to
stress to our Chinese counterparts that by adhering more closely to
international human rights standards, creating greater access to
justice, and strengthening rule of law, the Chinese Government would
help create the conditions necessary for greater long-term social
stability.
Our message is simple: A nation must respect its citizens'
fundamental rights, just as prosperous modern economies require rule of
law, open information flows, and a vibrant civil society. Expansion of
civil and political rights would ultimately be a source of stability in
Chinese society.
Question. What should the United States do to support greater
Internet freedom in China? Do you support U.S. Government investments
in circumvention technologies? What about broadcasting?
Answer. The U.S. Government remains deeply concerned by China's
efforts to censor the Internet. Last month's announcement that a new
``State Internet Information Office'' has been established to direct,
coordinate, and supervise online content management, as well as to
investigate and punish illegal Websites, runs counter to our view that
Internet freedom is an extension of the freedoms of speech, assembly,
and expression.
Governments that use security as a pretext for clamping down on
free expression are making a mistake. In the long run, they are
limiting their political and economic development. Censorship is
ultimately unsustainable.
The U.S. Government strongly supports increased freedom of
expression in China, including on the Internet. As part of our ongoing
dialogue with China, we have emphasized to the Chinese Government our
view on the importance of an open Internet. The ability to operate with
confidence in cyberspace is critical in a modern society and modern
economy.
The administration speaks out clearly and presses China to cease
its censorship of its people. U.S. officials regularly urge China to
respect internationally recognized fundamental freedoms, including
freedom of expression, and the human rights of all Chinese citizens.
The Internet should be available to all, and the administration will
continue to push China to expand opportunities for its citizens to
connect online domestically and globally.
The State Department supports a number of organizations committed
to Internet freedom. Enabling access for citizens in closed societies
is a priority for the Department.
Question. How will you approach individual cases of political
dissidents such as Nobel Laureate Liu Xiaobo, respected human rights
lawyer, Gao Zhisheng, and artist, Ai Weiwei? What are your views on the
case of U.S. geologist, Xue Feng, who as you know, has been imprisoned
under China's expansive ``state secrets'' law?
Answer. The U.S. Government is deeply concerned by the trend of
extralegal detentions, arrests, and convictions of lawyers, activists,
and other individuals for exercising their internationally recognized
human rights. The President and Secretary Clinton have specifically
called for the release of Liu Xiaobo; U.S. officials have also urged
the release of other political prisoners in China, including those
under house arrest and those enduring enforced disappearances, such as
Gao Zhisheng. Regarding Ai Weiwei, the United States continues to be
deeply concerned by his detention, which is inconsistent with China's
commitments to respect the fundamental freedoms and human rights of all
Chinese citizens.
If confirmed, I will continue to press for the individual release
of Liu Xiaobo, Gao Zhisheng, Ai Weiwei, and other individual prisoner
cases of concern. I will also engage with the Chinese people directly
to convey the human rights values for which America stands.
The U.S. Government has been closely involved in Dr. Xue's case
since he was detained more than 3 years ago. The Embassy has conducted
40 consular visits to Dr. Xue to monitor his welfare and deliver
messages from his family, with the most recent visit on May 19, 2011.
If confirmed, the Embassy under my leadership will continue to visit
Dr. Xue regularly and press China to release him on humanitarian
grounds and immediately return him to the United States.
Question. Tibet.--A visit to Tibet by staff of the Senate Committee
on Foreign Relations last year found a mixed picture: Economic
development has improved the lives of many Tibetans. But they are also
often discriminated against in employment and economic opportunities.
Moreover, economic development is occurring against a backdrop of
political repression, with intrusive Chinese controls on freedom of
speech, freedom of association, and freedom of religion. China resists
any effort by the United States to take an interest in Tibetan affairs.
But it seems to me that it must be possible for us to find a way to
work together on this issue as we do on other sensitive matters.
How can we work with China to ensure that the Tibetan people
can enjoy the benefits of economic development while protecting
their fragile environment and preserving their rich culture?
Answer. The administration has not shied away from seeking
opportunities to raise candidly with China's leaders our concerns about
the poor human rights situation in Tibet, while at the same time
recognizing there are benefits of economic development in Tibetan
areas. If confirmed, I will continue to support further dialogue
between China and the representatives of the Dalai Lama to resolve
concerns and differences, including the preservation of the religious,
linguistic, and cultural identity of the Tibetan people.
______
Responses of Gary Locke to Questions Submitted by
Senator Richard G. Lugar
addressing potential conflicts of interest
Question. Prior to your service as Secretary of Commerce, you led
the China practice of a major U.S. law firm. What steps do you intend
to take to avoid any appearance of favoritism or conflict of interest
with respect to former clients of yours if confirmed as Ambassador to
China?
Answer. If confirmed as U.S. Ambassador to China, I will strictly
adhere to all ethics requirements and regulations. In all that I do, I
will also behave in way that this committee, the White House, and the
American people expect that I should.
With regard to my former employer and clients before government
service, I resigned from Davis Wright Tremaine LLP in March 2009 when I
was confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve as Secretary of Commerce. I
severed all connections with the firm, financial and otherwise, upon my
appointment.
As Secretary of Commerce, I complied not only with the 1-year
regulatory recusal period but also with the 2-year recusal period of
the President's ethics pledge during which I was prohibited from
participating in certain particular matters related to my former
employers or former clients. If confirmed as U.S. Ambassador to China,
on an ongoing basis I will continue to recuse myself from any
particular matters involving the firm or a former client if I believe
that to act otherwise would give rise to an appearance of partiality or
impropriety in the eyes of a reasonable person.
trade and commerce
Question. As Secretary of Commerce, what is the process by which
you have evaluated the effectiveness of the International Trade
Administration related to the promotion of U.S. exports?
Answer. The Department of Commerce, particularly the International
Trade Administration (ITA), has been leading implementation of
President Obama's National Export Initiative (NEI). Expanding U.S.
exports is important to our Nation's economic recovery and long-term
economic growth.
Exports contributed greatly to growing our economy in 2010, and
supported over 9 million U.S. jobs. U.S. exports of goods and services
in 2010 increased nearly 17 percent over 2009--the largest year-to-year
percentage change in over 20 years. This puts us on pace to achieve
President Obama's goal of doubling exports by the end of 2014.
ITA supports the NEI by directly working with U.S. companies to
expand their exports overseas, address trade barriers, and ensure a
level playing field for U.S. exporters through trade enforcement and
compliance. As Chair of the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee, I
have also worked to strengthen interagency cooperation between the
multiple federal agencies engaged in trade promotion. I am pleased to
report that the National Export Strategy, which will be delivered to
Congress shortly, will include for the first time cross-cutting NEI
metrics to better evaluate the Federal Government's efforts as a whole
to expand U.S. exports.
The reality is that only 1 percent of U.S. companies are currently
exporting and, of that 1 percent, 58 percent are exporting to one
overseas market only. As Secretary of Commerce, I directed ITA to focus
their efforts on helping this 58 percent--typically small- and medium-
sized companies--export to additional countries.
ITA's effectiveness is measured by the Government Performance
Results Act, which includes the priority goal of increasing the number
of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that ITA assists in
exporting to a second or additional country by 40 percent from 2009 to
2011. In addition to these measures, I receive quarterly updates on the
effectiveness of our core trade promotion programs-trade missions, the
International Buyer Program, and advocacy.
Followup Question. How did you evaluate how effectively ITA
promoted U.S. exports?
Followup Answer. Working with ITA, I set annual goals and received
quarterly updates on the effectiveness of our core trade promotion
programs-trade missions (including the number of participants and value
of exports), the International Buyer Program (including the number of
foreign buyers recruited to the United States and the number of U.S.
companies participating in matchmaking activities with foreign buyers
and value of U.S. exports facilitated), and advocacy (focused on the
value of U.S. export content facilitated through government-led
advocacy on behalf of U.S. companies competing for foreign
procurements). Results from these evaluations are discussed in my
original response to your third question for the record.
In addition, to promote U.S. exports to China, it was the first
country on my May 2010 clean energy trade mission, the first cabinet-
level trade mission of the Administration. On a trade mission, I act as
a force multiplier for ITA's efficacy as an export promotion agency.
Question. According to the evaluation process, what are the strong
points of present U.S. trade promotion efforts through the Commerce
Department and what are areas where additional attention should be
focused?
Answer. ITA continues to deliver high-value export promotion
services and counseling to U.S. businesses, allowing them to take
advantage of the 95 percent of consumers located outside the United
States. Businesses often report that ITA's global footprint is
important to ITA's effectiveness in ensuring access to overseas markets
and proximity to local U.S. companies. ITA is located in 108 offices in
the United States and over 125 offices in over 75 countries.
During calendar year 2010, ITA helped over 5,500 U.S. companies
export for the first time or expand their exports overseas, 85 percent
of which were SMEs. ITA's Advocacy Center, which helps level the
playing field for U.S. companies competing for foreign government
procurement contracts, was particularly successful. In 2010, the
Advocacy Center helped U.S. companies export $18.7 billion of U.S.
content overseas, a 212-percent increase over 2009. ITA's International
Buyer Program also performed well, recruiting nearly 13,000 foreign
buyers to attend trade shows in the United States, a 43-percent
increase over 2009 resulting in sales by U.S. companies of $818
million. This program is particularly important for small- and medium-
sized companies who are export-capable, but do not have the resources
to travel overseas to connect with foreign buyers.
While our trade missions team had a strong year recruiting over 400
companies to participate in 35 trade missions, the value of export
successes achieved fell short of our goal. To address this issue, I
have asked the team to increase the followup they do with participating
U.S. companies to better understand and evaluate our services.
To maximize limited resources to assist U.S. companies to expand
their exports and create jobs here at home, the Department of Commerce
is focusing on leveraging technology and expanding partnerships.
Export.gov is the Federal Government's Website to provide U.S.
companies access to all export information from market research and
export financing to addressing issues of intellectual property rights
protection and understanding foreign regulations. While I am proud of
some initial steps we have taken to ensure that information is more
accessible and user-friendly, additional focus on strengthening and
customizing content will help the Department of Commerce deliver
relevant information to U.S. companies seeking to export. Similarly,
additional attention to expanding and strengthening our partnerships
with state and local governments, trade associations, and the private
sector will help ensure that more U.S. companies can compete and win in
the global marketplace.
Question. What specific steps will be included in your efforts to
double U.S. exports to China as part of President Obama's initiative?
What is the base line export figure (and date of its issuance), used by
the Department of Commerce which must be doubled to meet the
President's initiative as relates to China?
Answer. We are actively engaged in helping U.S. exporters to China
through advocacy, commercial diplomacy, policy discussions, and trade
promotion. We participate with China in the Strategic & Economic
Dialogue (S&ED) and Cochair the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade
(JCCT). Our policy efforts aim to open China's market to U.S. exports
and reduce the incidence of intellectual property rights infringement.
In the United States, we work closely with State and local partners and
support trade missions hosted by the Department of Commerce's
commercial section in the U.S. Embassy in China. In China we also
recruit delegations of buyers to attend major trade shows held in the
United States. We also work with other Department of Commerce units,
such as the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), which are colocated in
the commercial section.
Ensuring that U.S. companies and workers have the opportunity to
compete on a level playing field is critical to advancing business
competitiveness in the United States and abroad, and is a key component
of the NEI. The goal of the NEI is to double the annual value of U.S.
exports of goods and services from the baseline level of $1.57 trillion
in calendar year 2009 to $3.14 trillion in calendar year 2014. The
baseline number comes from the Bureau of Economic Analysis' estimate of
Trade in Goods and Services available at: http://bea.gov/international/
index.htm#trade. In 2010, exports to China rose nearly 32 percent,
almost double the rate of increase for the rest of the world. As a
result of last year's strong performance by U.S. exporters, we are on
track to meet the goal of doubling exports.
Accordingly, a key focus of our efforts in the Department of
Commerce is strong enforcement of our unfair trade laws. Foreign
government subsidies can also have a debilitating effect on U.S.
exporters' competitiveness abroad. ITA's subsidies enforcement
activities help prevent or remedy the harm that foreign government
subsidies cause to U.S. businesses and workers. The Department of
Commerce also regularly advocates on behalf of U.S. exporters that are
subject to foreign trade remedy (antidumping, countervailing duty, or
safeguard) actions, in part by ensuring that the nations that pursue
these actions do so in accordance with their WTO commitments.
Question. As Commerce Secretary, you are most familiar with
intellectual property right challenges for U.S. companies in China.
What specific lessons have you learned which will assist in improving
the IPR situation with China?
Answer. During my tenure at the Department of Commerce, I believe
that our progress on IPR issues has come from persistence and
consistent pressure. On key issues, such as software legalization, we
have made progress by consistently raising the issue at every
opportunity, including this year's S&ED, President Hu's state visit,
and at the JCCT. Apart from these high-level bilateral engagements, we
maintain consistent pressure through the work of the International
Trade Administration and U.S. Patent and Tradmark Office. ITA maintains
a Website that provides live and archived webinars on important Chinese
IPR issues affecting U.S. businesses and a China specific toolkit. PTO
has two IPR attaches stationed in China, with a third on their way.
Additionally, the JCCT IPR Working Group, cochaired by PTO, regularly
discusses IPR challenges with the Chinese Government.
Question. What progress in China, if any have you observed in the
areas of data protection and counterfeiting?
Answer. The Department of Commerce has been actively engaged in
addressing counterfeit medicines and pharmaceutical data protection
with the China State Food and Drug Administration (SFDA) and other
ministries under the U.S.-China JCCT.
The United States continues to advocate for effective
pharmaceutical data protection in bilateral discussions with China
under the JCCT. Over the past few years, China has increased its
engagement in these discussions. In September 2009, the Department of
Commerce and SFDA organized a workshop on pharmaceutical data
protection to exchange views and information on how China and several
other trading partners, including the EU, Japan, and the United States,
protect pharmaceutical data against unfair commercial use. SFDA
recently commissioned a study and is expected to amend Chinese data
protection regulations in the coming years. As part of its JCCT
commitments, China agreed to hold further discussions on pharmaceutical
data protection in 2011. The Department of Commerce is working with
other agencies and industry to advance progress on improving the data
protection system in China.
Although much remains to be done, China has made some progress in
addressing the production, distribution, and export of counterfeit
medicines. In 2009, China set up the Interagency Coordination
Conference for Fighting the Production and Sale of Counterfeit Drugs
(ICC) comprised of 13 Chinese ministries. Surveillance of counterfeit
pharmaceutical ingredients sold on the Internet and advertised at trade
shows has been elevated. In 2009, SFDA and the Public Safety Bureau
reported concluding over 20 major counterfeiting cases with seized
goods valued at over 250,000 RMB (US$38,600) and 231 suspects
apprehended. China has increased penalties and punishment for
counterfeiting and begun exposing persons or organizations involved in
counterfeit medicines activities in the media. SFDA has also set up a
Counterfeit Medicines Complaint Center, which is expected to be fully
operational this summer. In addition, China has increased its technical
capacity for detecting counterfeits, such as investing in mobile drug
detection laboratories.
Question. How are China's restrictions on the Internet affecting
the operation of U.S. business related to China?
Answer. U.S. companies have reported to the Department of Commerce
a number of restrictions on the Internet that affect their business
operations in China, including Website blocking and mandatory
installation of Internet filtering software.
A number of U.S. companies have reported that their Websites are
inaccessible to Web users from within China, and they are frustrated by
the loss of potential online business. Google, for instance, reported
experiencing technical blocking of access to an entire Website service
(e.g., search engine, online store). In July 2010, Google announced
that the Beijing Government had renewed its license to operate a
Website in mainland China, allowing them to offer products that do not
require any censorship. Under the new arrangement, Google users on the
Chinese mainland must deliberately click on a link to the Hong Kong
search engine in order to access the uncensored Hong Kong domain. The
U.S. Government will continue its efforts to engage the Chinese
Government to allow U.S. companies to compete effectively in China's
growing online service market.
In June 2009, the U.S. information technology industry raised
concerns regarding the Ministry of Industry and Information
Technology's Circular 226, mandating all computers sold in China be
preinstalled with Green Dam Internet filtering software as of July 1.
Industry reported on the software's numerous technical problems as well
as the adverse competitive impact of the technology mandate. Mandating
the software risked the loss of billions of dollars of immediate and
future revenue to U.S. computer manufacturers, because the technically
flawed Green Dam software would have led to computer crashes, including
screen blackouts, and sullied the reputation of major U.S. brands.
After a 3-week period of escalating high-level U.S. Government
engagement with China, MIIT indefinitely postponed the implementation
of Circular 226.
Question. The Economic Espionage Act of 1996 was established to
protect trade secrets including proprietary information of U.S.
companies. Based upon your tenure as Commerce Secretary would you
recommend changes to the original legislation to enhance its intended
effectiveness?
Answer. As Commerce Secretary I am committed to protecting the U.S.
economic sector, including U.S. businesses working in China, and to
ensuring that the United States has implemented the strongest possible
safeguards to prevent economic espionage. If confirmed, I will work
diligently with my staff at the Embassy to ensure that everything
possible is being done in this important area. It is most important
that we use all the tools at our disposal to prevent economic
espionage, including those set forth in the Economic Espionage Act. I
defer to the Department of Justice, which can conduct prosecutions
under the act, as to whether or not the act could be changed to enhance
its intended effectiveness.
Question. What are the primary sector targets of economic espionage
originating in China directed at U.S. business and industry?
Answer. Foreign collectors continued to target a wide variety of
unclassified and classified information and technologies in a range of
sectors. With regard to China, the FBI has reported that in 2010 they
prosecuted more Chinese espionage cases than at any time in our
Nation's history.
Today, foreign intelligence services, criminals, and private sector
spies are focused on American industry and the private sector. Their
efforts compromise intellectual property, trade secrets, and
technological developments that are critical to national security. If
confirmed, I will work diligently with my staff at the Embassy to
ensure that we use all the tools at our disposal to prevent economic
espionage.
Question. It is essential that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
contain strong intellectual property provisions, including those in the
pharmaceutical area. As you know, the TPP will be viewed as a model on
IP by some countries. Have you had opportunity as Commerce Secretary to
provide input on this topic to U.S. officials involved with the TPP
discussions?
Answer. The Department has provided and continues to provide input
on the intellectual property provisions of the TPP, including providing
expert technical advice to the U.S. Trade Representative, who is the
lead negotiator.
Question. On May 10, 2011, in closing remarks made after the
conclusion of the 2011 U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue with
Secretaries Clinton and Geithner, Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan
stated ``The United States commits to accord China fair treatment in a
reform of its export control regime, [and] relax high-tech exports
control towards China [.]''
What specific commitments have been made by the
administration to the PRC and in connection with which
technologies under the accord announced by Vice Premier Wang?
Answer. In the U.S.-China S&ED Economic Track Joint Outcomes
Document, the United States and China agreed to the following
statement: ``The United States commits to give full consideration to
China's request that it be treated fairly as the United States reforms
its export control system. The United States will continue discussions,
including technical discussions, on the export control status of
designated parts, components, and other items of interest. Both sides
agree to work through the U.S.-China High Technology Working Group
(HTWG) to actively implement the Action Plan for U.S.-China High
Technology Trade in Key Sectors Cooperation, hold U.S.-China fora on
high-tech trade on a regular basis, and discuss high-tech and strategic
trade cooperation through the HTWG.''
The United States has not committed to relax high-tech export
controls toward China, nor has the United States made any other
commitments beyond those in the Joint Outcomes Document.
What specific commitments have been made by the
administration to the PRC and in connection with which
technologies under the accord announced by Vice Premier Wang?
How does the administration's export control reform initiative
take into account existing and future risks of diversion of
U.S. technology and data to Chinese military end uses,
particularly in space-related technologies, to include each of
the following:
(a) Chinese development of counter-space systems,
including anti-satellite weapons (ASAT);
(b) Chinese development of area-denial weapons;
(c) Chinese development of offensive space capabilities;
(d) Chinese development of improved capabilities to limit
or prevent the use of U.S. space-based assets during times
of crisis or conflict;
(e) Enhanced Chinese C4ISR, including space-based sensors,
which could enable Beijing to identify, track, and target
military activities deep into the western Pacific Ocean.
Answer. In the U.S.-China S&ED Economic Track Joint Outcomes
Document, the United States and China agreed to the following
statement: ``The United States commits to give full consideration to
China's request that it be treated fairly as the United States reforms
its export control system. The United States will continue discussions,
including technical discussions, on the export control status of
designated parts, components, and other items of interest. Both sides
agree to work through the U.S.-China High Technology Working Group
(HTWG) to actively implement the Action Plan for U.S.-China High
Technology Trade in Key Sectors Cooperation, hold U.S.-China fora on
high-tech trade on a regular basis, and discuss high-tech and strategic
trade cooperation through the HTWG.
The United States has not committed to relax high-tech export
controls toward China, nor has the United States made any other
commitments beyond those in the Joint Outcomes Document.
human rights
Question. China continues to imprison Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu
Xiaobo and harass his wife. Former colleagues have been arrested. Human
rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng has also been detained. These are only two
of so many individuals who disappeared or been detained. Likewise,
China has the dubious distinction of being tied with Iran for the
number of journalists imprisoned.
Answer. I am deeply concerned by the trend of extralegal
detentions, arrests, and convictions of lawyers, activists, and other
individuals for exercising their internationally recognized human
rights. President Obama and Secretary Clinton have specifically called
for the release of Liu Xiaobo; the administration has also urged the
release of other political prisoners in China, including those under
house arrest and those enduring enforced disappearances, such as Gao
Zhisheng. Chinese Government actions against family members and
associates of activists are also very troubling. The State Department
remains concerned that Liu Xiaobo's wife, Liu Xia, is being confined to
her home in Beijing and her movements are being restricted. The
Department has called on the Chinese Government to respect her rights,
in accordance with Chinese law and international norms, and to allow
her to move freely without harassment.
The Department of State has urged China to respect internationally
recognized conventions that guarantee freedom of the press and freedom
of expression and has called for the rights of journalists to report in
China to be respected and protected. If confirmed as Ambassador, I will
continue to press the Chinese Government on these issues and to urge
China to respect the universal right to freedom of expression and to
freedom of association and assembly.
Question. Religious leaders are routinely detained and services
disrupted by security forces. Internet freedom activists and even
ordinary citizens find themselves jailed for even the most innocuous
statements regarding their government. With all of this, which cases
will you be placing as a priority and how will you raise them with the
Chinese Government? It has not been uncommon in the past for U.S.
Ambassadors to publicly stand with dissidents living under repressive
regimes. If confirmed, do you view yourself as having a similar role in
China?
Answer. Promoting human rights--including freedom of religion,
expression, and assembly--is a central objective of our diplomatic
engagement with China. The U.S. Government's priority is to ensure that
China respects the rights of all of its citizens in accordance with its
own constitution and international norms. Our message is simple: a
nation must respect its citizens' fundamental rights, just as
prosperous modern economies require rule of law, open information
flows, and a vibrant civil society. Expansion of civil and political
rights would ultimately be a source of stability in Chinese society. If
confirmed as Ambassador, one of my key roles would be that of a
spokesman for America and America's values, including the freedoms that
are the foundation of our great Nation. I will raise human rights at
every opportunity and continue to raise specific cases with Chinese
officials. I will also support and promote our human rights agenda in
the many dialogues we maintain with China, such as the Human Rights
Dialogue and the Strategic and Economic Dialogue.
Question. Xue Feng is an American businessman unjustly convicted of
trafficking in state secrets. His case has been repeatedly raised by
senior administration officials, including the President, and by many
Members of Congress, to no avail. Your predecessor, Ambassador
Huntsman, made it a practice for either he or his Deputy Chief of
Mission to pay monthly visits to Xue.
If confirmed will you continue this practice? What other
steps will you take to make sure Mr. Xue is released and
returned to his family in Houston at the earliest possible
date?
Answer. The U.S. Government has been closely involved in Dr. Xue's
case since he was detained more than 3 years ago. We have no higher
priority than the protection of American citizens' rights. The Embassy
has conducted 40 consular visits to Dr. Xue to monitor his welfare and
deliver messages from his family, including the most recent visit of
May 19, 2011. If confirmed, I will ensure that Embassy officials
continue to visit Dr. Xue regularly and will press China to release him
on humanitarian grounds and immediately return him to the United
States.
Question. The United States and China have been holding human
rights dialogues since 1991. China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has
shown itself to be increasingly unwilling to discuss cases of
individuals jailed for the nonviolent expression of their political and
religious beliefs. The Ministry has also refused to provide information
on them, insisting that the cases like those of Liu Xiabao and detained
artist Ai Weiwei ``have nothing to do with human rights.''
If in fact China is unwilling to address our concerns over
what is happening to these people do you favor continuing the
policy of holding human rights dialogues with China? Are you
concerned that by continuing this policy we are providing cover
to the Chinese Government in its relentless crackdown on
activists, journalists, artists, lawyers, and worshipers in
house churches?
Answer. Promoting human rights is a central objective of our
diplomatic engagement with China. We used the most recent Human Rights
Dialogue to express our deep concerns about the deteriorating human
rights situation in China, press for systemic changes, and raise
individual cases. Although I am concerned about China's crackdown and
the recent escalation in human rights cases, I also favor continuing
our human rights dialogues. These dialogues provide the U.S. Government
with an opportunity to engage in an in-depth dialogue on key human
rights issues with a large number of Chinese ministries. This provides
an important opportunity to advocate that China adhere to international
human rights standards, create greater access to justice, and
strengthen rule of law in order to create the conditions necessary for
greater long-term social stability. But this is just one forum in which
we raise our concerns over human rights. The U.S. Government raises
such concerns regularly and at high levels. For example, the Secretary
and Vice-President Biden also raised our human rights concerns at the
Strategic and Economic Dialogue in May 2011.
Question. Since October 2010, a Protestant house church leader, Fan
Yafeng and his family have been subjected to house arrest while being
denied access to legal counsel. Have U.S. officials expressed concern
to Chinese authorities about this case? What is their response?
Answer. The Department of State and Embassy Beijing are well aware
of the case of Dr. Fan, and many others who, like him, have been
subjected to extrajudicial punishments for exercising their universal
rights. U.S. officials regularly raise our concerns about these cases
with our counterparts, both in Beijing and in Washington.
Unfortunately, to date, the Department has not received satisfactory
answers from our interlocutors regarding the reasons or legal basis for
these actions.
Question. In addition to Falun Gong and Christian practitioners in
China, what are other groups, organizations or religions that are
targeted by the Government of China for ongoing harassment and
persecution?
Answer. There are several known groups of religious practitioners
that are subject to official harassment based on their beliefs. These
include several groups that, like Falun Gong, are designated
``illegal'' by the Chinese Government, including the Guan Yin (also
known as Guanyin Famin or the Way of the Goddess of Mercy) and the
Zhong Gong (a qigong exercise discipline). The government also
considers several Protestant Christian groups to be ``evil cults,''
including the ``Shouters,'' Eastern Lightning, the Society of Disciples
(Mentu Hui), Full Scope Church, Spirit Sect, New Testament Church,
Three Grades of Servants (or San Ban Pu Ren), Association of Disciples,
Lord God Sect, Established King Church, Unification Church, Family of
Love, and the South China Church. If confirmed, I will continue to urge
the Chinese Government to respect its citizens' right to religious
freedom. In the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region and Tibetan areas,
government authorities conflate separatism and religious extremism with
peaceful religious practice and place severe religious restrictions on
Uighur Muslims and Tibetan Buddhists. We express our concerns that
these restrictions are unacceptable, alienating, and have a
destabilizing effect.
Question. Chinese authorities continue to use the children and
grandchildren of Rebiya Kadeer as pawns in an effort to silence her
criticism for their continuing persecution of the Uyghur people.
Chinese authorities cut off her family phone lines so she can no longer
contact her children and grandchildren who are not in prison. Ms.
Kadeer also believes she is under active surveillance of the Chinese
Government in the United States.
Will you press within the State Department for high-level
engagement with Rebiya Kadeer and would you make raising the
cases of her sons a priority in your engagement with the
Chinese Government?
Answer. Department of State officials regularly hold meetings with
individuals whose work supports enhanced freedom of expression,
expansion of civil society, and democratic development, including Ms.
Kadeer. The State Department continues to raise the cases of Ms.
Kadeer's two incarcerated sons, most recently at the U.S.-China Human
Rights Dialogue in April 2011. If confirmed, I will raise these cases
and other cases of prisoners of conscience.
north korean refugees
Question. In the past, North Korean refugees have approached U.S.
Government facilities in China, seeking asylum, protection, or
resettlement to the United States. If confirmed, what will be your
instructions to all U.S. officials in China should they be approached
by North Koreans seeking assistance? What is the guidance? Will you
issue any other instructions?
Answer. The Department of State annually issues formal guidance to
all overseas posts regarding individuals presenting themselves at a
U.S. Government facility seeking asylum. The Department has also issued
specific guidance for North Korean asylum seekers; this guidance is
regularly updated and reissued to all relevant posts. I have been
briefed by the Department's experts on the situation of North Korean
refugees in China, on the Department's guidance on handling North
Korean asylum seekers, and on the role of Mission China as it pertains
to these issues. If confirmed, I will ensure that all Mission China
employees are aware of this guidance and follow it carefully. If
confirmed, I will also review the guidance with my staff upon arrival
in China. I would be happy to ask the Department to schedule a
classified briefing for you or your staff on the details of the
guidance.
Question. What will be your recommendations to officials of U.S.-
related nongovernment interests in China; e.g., schools or corporations
in the event they are approached by North Korean refugees seeking
assistance? What is the guidance? What would you say to Americans (a
U.S. company, for instance) in China if NK refugees seek assistance
from them?
Answer. The Department of State annually issues guidance to all
overseas posts regarding individuals presenting themselves at a U.S.
Government facility seeking asylum. The Department has also issued
specific guidance for North Korean asylum seekers; this guidance
includes provisions for U.S.-related nongovernment property. I have
been briefed by the Department's experts on the situation of North
Korean refugees in China, on the Department's guidance on handling
North Korean asylum seekers, and on the role of Mission China as it
pertains to these issues. If confirmed, I will ensure that all Mission
China employees are aware of this guidance and follow it carefully. If
confirmed, I will also review the guidance with my staff upon arrival,
including how Mission China works with nonofficial Americans and
American institutions on these sensitive issues. I would be happy to
ask the Department to schedule a classified briefing for you or your
staff on the details of the guidance.
Question. Chinese officials have rejected a recommendation to allow
the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to establish
an operation within China to receive North Korean refugees for
resettlement to a third country. Will you encourage Chinese officials
to allow UNHCR to establish a presence within their country for this
purpose?
Answer. China is one of the only Asian parties to the 1951 Refugee
Convention and its 1967 Protocol. We encourage China to fulfill its
obligations under the Convention and to cooperate with the U.N. High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and enable it to exercise its mandate
without undue interference. We urge the Chinese Government to uphold
the principles of international protection and to allow UNHCR to
exercise its mandate fully, and free from government influence or
pressure. We will continue to support efforts by the UNHCR to establish
a presence in China, especially in the northeastern provinces.
united states-china public diplomacy
Question. As mentioned earlier, I remain deeply concerned by the
Chinese Government's refusal to allow us to open more American Centers
in China while they have more than 70 ``Confucius Centers'' here. Why
have U.S. officials not pressed the Chinese more on allowing equal
consideration?
Answer. The State Department also shares your concern about the
obstacles we face in establishing American cultural centers in China.
The barriers to the establishment of ``American Corners'' at public and
university libraries--which the United States enjoys in almost every
other country in the world--have effectively prevented us from similar
operations in China. There are, however, alternative methods of
creating places for Chinese audiences to learn about the United States
and several options are being vigorously pursued. Recently, a number of
U.S. universities such as Arizona State University, New York
University, and University of Southern California, have entered into
partnerships with Chinese universities to establish university-
sponsored American cultural centers on Chinese campuses. This is an
encouraging trend. The Department hopes to see the establishment of
additional American cultural centers in China.
Discouraging Confucius Institutes in the United States would not
lead to progress on our own cultural spaces in China. Confucius
Institutes are the result of agreements between the Hanban, a quasi-
private entity with close ties to the Chinese Ministry of Education,
and individual U.S. universities and answer a growing demand from
Americans to learn Chinese.
Question. Please provide a list, by all State-owned news outlets,
of the number of journalists working for state media presently
accredited to work in the United States. Please identify in which city
or media market they are working. How many Voice of America and Radio
Free Asia reporters have the Chinese Government granted visas to and
where do they work?
Answer. A total of 209 accredited Chinese journalists have
voluntarily registered with the State Department's Foreign Press
Centers in Washington, DC, New York, and Los Angeles. There are 101
registered in New York, 89 in Washington, and 19 in Los Angeles.
Because registration with the Foreign Press Center is voluntary, the
list is not necessarily exhaustive for the entire United States.
Voice of America currently has two fully accredited journalists
working in Beijing: one from VOA Mandarin and one from VOA's news room.
There are no RFA journalists accredited to work inside China. Most of
the major privately owned U.S. and international media organizations
have correspondents accredited to work in China; we estimate that there
are 200 correspondents and producers in China. We have raised our
concerns regarding the VOA's difficulty in obtaining visas with the
Chinese, and intend to continue doing so in the future.
The following is a list of accredited Chinese journalists by media
outlet.
Accredited Chinese Journalists by Media Outlet Registered with the
Foreign Press Centers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization Media type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York:
1. 21st Century Business Herald................. NEWSPAPER
2. 21st Century Business Herald................. NEWSPAPER
3. Beijing Review............................... MAGAZINE
4. Beijing Review............................... MAGAZINE
5. Beijing Review Magazine...................... MAGAZINE
6. Caijing Magazine............................. MAGAZINE
7. CCTV......................................... TV
8. China Business News.......................... NEWSPAPER
9. China Central Television..................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
10. China Central Television (CCTV)............. TV
11. China Central Television (CCTV)............. TV
12. China Central TV............................ TV
13. China Daily................................. NEWSPAPER
14. China Daily USA............................. NEWSPAPER
15. China Economic Daily........................ NEWSPAPER
16. China News Service.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
17. China News Service.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
18. China News Service.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
19. China News Service.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
20. China News Service.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
21. China News Service.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
22. China Radio International................... RADIO
23. Economic Daily.............................. NEWSPAPER
24. Economic Daily.............................. NEWSPAPER
25. Jiefang Daily............................... NEWSPAPER
26. Jiefang Daily............................... NEWSPAPER
27. New Tang Dynasty............................ TV
28. People's Daily.............................. NEWSPAPER
29. People's Daily.............................. NEWSPAPER
30. People's Daily.............................. NEWSPAPER
31. People's Daily.............................. NEWSPAPER
32. Phoenix Satellite Television (US) Inc....... TV
33. Science & Technology Daily.................. NEWSPAPER
34. Shanghai Oriental Morning Post.............. NEWSPAPER
35. Sina........................................ WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
36. Sing Tao Chinese Radio/Daily................ NEWSPAPER
37. South China Morning Post.................... NEWSPAPER
38. Wen Hui Daily............................... NEWSPAPER
39. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
40. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
41. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
42. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
43. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
44. Xinhua News Agency.......................... NEWSPAPER
45. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
46. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
47. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
48. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
49. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
50. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
51. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
52. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
53. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
54. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
55. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
56. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
57. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
58. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
59. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
60. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
61. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
62. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
63. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
64. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
65. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
66. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
67. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
68. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
69. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
70. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
71. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
72. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
73. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
74. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
75. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
76. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
77. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
78. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
79. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
80. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
81. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
82. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
83. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
84. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
85. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
86. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
87. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
88. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
89. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
90. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
91. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
92. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
93. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
94. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
95. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
96. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
97. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
98. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
99. Xinhua News Agency.......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
100. Xinhua News Agency......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
101. Xinhua News Agency......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
Los Angeles:
102. Caijing Magazine........................... MAGAZINE
103. China Central Television (CCTV)............ TV
104. China News Service......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
105. China News Service......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
106. China Television Company (CTV)............. NEWSPAPER
107. Economic Daily............................. NEWSPAPER
108. Geo TV..................................... TV
109. People's Daily............................. NEWSPAPER
110. People's Daily / Global Times.............. NEWSPAPER
111. Sing Tao Daily............................. NEWSPAPER
112. The China Press............................ NEWSPAPER
113. TTV - Taiwan Television.................... TV
114. TVBS....................................... NEWSPAPER
115. TVBS; Radio Free Asia...................... TV
116. Xin Min Evening News....................... NOT DETERMINED
117. Xin Min Evening News....................... NOT DETERMINED
118. Xinhua News Agency......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
119. Xinhua News Agency......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
120. Xinhua News Agency......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
District of Columbia:
121. 21st Century Business Herald............... NEWSPAPER
122. 21st Century Business Herald............... NEWSPAPER
123. Beijing Daily.............................. NEWSPAPER
124. Beijing Youth Daily........................ NEWSPAPER
125. Caixin Media............................... MAGAZINE
126. Caixin Media............................... NEWSPAPER
127. China Business News........................ NEWSPAPER
128. China Central Television (CCTV)............ TV
129. China Central Television (CCTV)............ TV
130. China Central Television (CCTV)............ TV
131. China Central Television (CCTV)............ TV
132. China Central Television (CCTV)............ RADIO
133. China Central Television (CCTV)............ TV
134. China Central Television (CCTV)............ TV
135. China Central Television (CCTV)............ TV
136. China Central Television (CCTV)............ TV
137. China Central Television (CCTV)............ TV
138. China Central Television (CCTV)............ TV
139. China Central Television (CCTV)............ TV
140. China Central Television (CCTV)............ TV
141. China Central Television (CCTV)............ TV
142. China Central Television (CCTV)............ TV
143. China Central Television (CCTV)............ TV
144. China Central Television (CCTV)............ TV
145. China Central Television (CCTV)............ TV
146. China Central Television (CCTV)............ TV
147. China Central Television (CCTV)............ TV
148. China Central Television (CCTV)............ TV
149. China Central Television (CCTV)............ TV
150. China Central TV America................... TV
151. China Central TV America................... TV
152. China Central TV America................... TV
153. China Daily................................ NEWSPAPER
154. China Daily................................ NEWSPAPER
155. China Daily................................ NEWSPAPER
156. China News Service......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
157. China News Service......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
158. China Radio International.................. RADIO
159. China Radio International.................. RADIO
160. China Radio International.................. RADIO
161. China Radio International (CRI)............ RADIO
162. China Youth Daily.......................... NEWSPAPER
163. China Youth Daily.......................... NEWSPAPER
164. China Youth Daily.......................... NEWSPAPER
165. Economic Daily............................. NEWSPAPER
166. Feature Story News (FSN)................... TV
167. Global Times............................... NEWSPAPER
168. Guang Ming Daily........................... NEWSPAPER
169. Guang Ming Daily........................... NEWSPAPER
170. Humphrey Fellow............................ MAGAZINE
171. Legal Daily................................ NEWSPAPER
172. Legal Daily................................ NEWSPAPER
173. Liberation Daily........................... NEWSPAPER
174. People's Daily............................. NEWSPAPER
175. People's Daily............................. NEWSPAPER
176. People's Daily............................. NEWSPAPER
177. People's Daily............................. NEWSPAPER
178. People's Daily............................. NEWSPAPER
179. People's Daily............................. NEWSPAPER
180. People's Daily............................. NEWSPAPER
181. Science & Technology Daily................. NEWSPAPER
182. Science & Technology Daily................. NEWSPAPER
183. Shanghai Media Group....................... TV
184. Shanghai Wenhui Daily...................... NEWSPAPER
185. Shanghai Wenhui Daily...................... NEWSPAPER
186. The China Press............................ NEWSPAPER
187. The Economic Observer...................... MAGAZINE
188. Xinhua News Agency......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
189. Xinhua News Agency......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
190. Xinhua News Agency......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
191. Xinhua News Agency......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
192. Xinhua News Agency......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
193. Xinhua News Agency......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
194. Xinhua News Agency......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
195. Xinhua News Agency......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
196. Xinhua News Agency......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
197. Xinhua News Agency......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
198. Xinhua News Agency......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
199. Xinhua News Agency......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
200. Xinhua News Agency......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
201. Xinhua News Agency......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
202. Xinhua News Agency......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
203. Xinhua News Agency......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
204. Xinhua News Agency......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
205. Xinhua News Agency......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
206. Xinhua News Agency......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
207. Xinhua News Agency......................... WIRELESS NEWS AGENCY
208. Xinhua News Agency......................... NEWSPAPER
209. Xinhua News Agency......................... TV
------------------------------------------------------------------------
adoptions
Question. As you are aware, many Americans are interested in
international adoptions. China has reduced the number of children
available for adoption internationally, leading to wait times of 5
years or more. Is this change due in part to the consequences of
China's one-child policy? Also, there are reports that China may be
making it more difficult to relinquish children resulting with more
children being abandoned often leading to their death. Are you familiar
with these issues and will you raise these points with Chinese
officials if confirmed?
Answer. China is party to the ``Hague Convention on Protection of
Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption.''
Therefore, all adoptions between China and the United States must meet
the requirements of the Convention and U.S. law implementing the
Convention. For example, the Convention requires that China attempt to
find a permanent family in-country before determining that a child is
eligible for intercountry adoption. China's rapid economic development
and other socioeconomic factors, including the one-child policy, have
led to greater availability of domestic options for adoption. This may
contribute to longer wait times for parents seeking an intercountry
adoption of children without special needs from China. The United
States has an excellent working relationship with the Chinese Central
Authority, the China Center for Children's Welfare and Adoptions and
will continue to work to facilitate adoptions from China pursuant to
the requirements of the Hague Intercountry Adoption Convention.
If confirmed, I will examine these issues in more depth with
Embassy consular affairs officers to determine how we may best work
with the Chinese to facilitate ethical and transparent adoptions by
American parents. I will be sure to discuss American interest in
adopting from China as opportunities arise.
This is an area of personal interest for me, as well. When I was
Governor of Washington State, I helped several families from the
Pacific Northwest navigate the adoption process so they could adopt
children from China.
tibet
Question. Have you read the bipartisan committee staff report on
Tibet that was published earlier this year? Do you agree with all the
recommendations for administration action and will you endeavor to
carry them out? Will you commit to travel to Tibetan areas, including
outside of Lhasa, to seek accurate information about these areas, which
are among the few in China where foreigners do not have free access?
Answer. The Department of State, including the Special Coordinator
for Tibetan Issues, has reviewed and briefed me on the contents of the
report. I welcome its analysis and recommendations for action. The
Department continues to work steadily to help sustain Tibet's unique
religious, linguistic, and cultural heritage. Among the report's
recommendations, and consistent with the Tibet Policy Act, the
Department continues to urge the Chinese Government to engage in a
substantive dialogue with the representatives of the Dalai Lama that
will achieve actual results. In addition, Department officials also
have urged China to relax restrictions on movements of U.S. Government
officials, journalists, and Tibetan pilgrims to and from Tibetan
regions. Travel to Tibetan areas, including outside of Lhasa, is an
important priority for our Embassy in Beijing, and if confirmed I look
forward to continuing to press for the opportunity to travel to the
Tibet Autonomous Region and other Tibetan areas.
Question. Currently there is great concern over the events at Kirti
Monastery, in the Tibetan part of Sichuan province, where a young monk
immolated himself earlier this year. This prompted an unprecedented
crackdown in April, when the Monastery was forcibly taken over by
security forces; 25 monks remain in detention; 300 other monks have
reportedly been taken away for ``patriotic education''; and two
laypeople were reportedly killed by security forces. How will you
respond to this situation if you are confirmed?
Answer. The Department of State is closely following developments
at Kirti Monastery. Department officials have expressed deep concern
about reports that Chinese authorities forcibly removed 300 monks from
the Kirti Monastery, sentenced two other monks to 3 years of
imprisonment without due process, and that the whereabouts of 25
detained monks and laypeople are still unknown. Assistant Secretary
Posner discussed our concerns about Kirti Monastery and China's
counterproductive policies in Tibetan areas of China during the most
recent Human Rights Dialogue. If confirmed, I will continue to raise
our concerns with the Chinese Government and urge China to respect the
human rights, including religious freedom, of the members of the Kirti
community and all Chinese citizens.
china and development
Question. What steps is the United States taking, or should
additionally take, to encourage China to disclose its lending to
developing countries? Following years of debt relief from the
multilateral financial institutions and bilateral donors for poor
countries, many are concerned that those same poor countries are
becoming increasingly indebted to China.
Answer. For developing countries, China's assistance is welcomed as
additional resources to complement those from other donors. However,
over the past decade, China's ``foreign assistance''--a mixture of
trade, loans, investment and aid--has raised governance and
sustainability concerns, from both the traditional donor community and
aid recipients. In addition, China remains reluctant to engage
energetically on global development issues with the United States and
other key donors.
In order to improve the transparency and effectiveness of China's
development activities in third countries, USAID has been engaging
China in dialogue on overseas development assistance and is seeking to
create a number of cooperative development projects with China in
several African countries.
If confirmed, I will continue to support and encourage more
collaborative efforts and call for China to join multilateral groups of
donor nations in devising and adopting best practices that address
development challenges aimed at benefiting the poorest of the poor in
developing countries.
sanctions
Question. Earlier this week, the Department of State announced
sanctions on four Chinese firms and individuals over trade links with
Iran, Syria, and North Korea in goods or technology that may be used
for missiles or weapons of mass destruction. How does the
administration view Chinese cooperation on sanctions implementation,
particularly since the passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929
last June?
Answer. The prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons and related
technologies is one of the Obama administration's highest priorities.
Iran and North Korea were key topics of President Obama's talks with
Chinese President Hu Jintao during his January 2011 visit. The
administration will continue to uphold U.S. law and impose sanctions as
necessary and warranted. Most recently, the United States imposed a
number of sanctions under the Iran, North Korea, and Syria
Nonproliferation Act (INKSNA) against Chinese firms and individuals
that engaged in proliferation-related transfers with Iran.
China has played an important role in the diplomatic efforts to
address the threats from Iran and North Korea. China, as part of the
P5+1 and U.N. Security Council, contributed to the crafting of U.N.
Security Council Resolution 1929 and plays an important role in efforts
to reach a resolution of the international community's serious concerns
about Iran's nuclear program. In the January 19, 2011, United States-
China joint statement, both sides called for full implementation of all
relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. We have been pleased with
the unity that China and other P5+1 partners have maintained in our
negotiations with Iran, and we continue to jointly insist that Iran
comply with its international obligations. China has stated that it is
committed to implementing Resolution 1929 and the other resolutions on
Iran fully and faithfully, but China has stated that it does not
support sanctions beyond those contained in UNSCR 1929 and previous
UNSCRs on Iran. China agrees with the United States that a nuclear-
armed Iran would pose a grave regional and international threat;
however, we do not necessarily agree on the timeframe or method to
solve the problem. We have worked closely with the Chinese on this
issue, and will continue to raise this issue at all levels in meetings
with Chinese officials.
As Secretary Clinton has said, if we have information about
technology transfers that we believe is inconsistent with Security
Council resolutions and Chinese laws, we bring such information to the
attention of the Chinese Government and request that it investigate and
take appropriate action to prevent any prohibited transfers.
Furthermore, we will not hesitate to enforce our sanctions laws, as the
most recent imposition of sanctions against Chinese entities and
individuals under INKSNA demonstrates. Chinese controls over such
transfers remain inhibited by an as yet underdeveloped export control
apparatus and an apparent continued lack of political will to develop a
comprehensive control system.
During their January 2011 meetings with President Hu, President
Obama and Secretary Clinton both stressed the need for continued
Chinese restraint in Iran's energy sector, by slowing existing
activities and by not concluding any new deals. The administration has
also pressed China not to ``backfill'' by assuming the business of
other firms that have responsibly departed Iran's energy sector. We
have seen some evidence in open sources that China has exercised some
restraint in this area, but we continue to monitor closely China's
activities in the energy sector. As Secretary Clinton has said, this
administration will enforce the law with respect to Chinese firms. The
United States and China share the same goal, and we need to work
together to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state.
The administration also discusses on a regular basis with China how
it can and should best use its influence with North Korea, given its
unique history and relationship with the DPRK. In June 2009, China
voted in favor of adoption of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1874,
which imposed additional sanctions against the DPRK. The United States
has called on all members of the U.N. Security Council and all U.N.
Member States, including China, to fully and transparently implement
these sanctions and to refrain from further provocations.
______
Responses of Gary Locke to Questions Submitted by Senator James E.
Risch
Question. Over the years, China's support of both conventional
weapons transfers and Pakistan's nuclear and missile programs have
caused concern. Recently, China has reached out to Pakistan to offer
deeper relations as an alternative to the West. Given the instability
in Pakistan, do you believe these overtures are helpful? What will you
do to help the Chinese understand that instability in a nuclear-armed
Pakistan does not promote stability?
Answer. The administration believes that there is a role for China
to play in helping the international community deal with the challenge
of peace and stability in Afghanistan and in cooperating to allow
Pakistan to strengthen its democracy and to deal with the economic
challenges that country faces. If confirmed, I will work closely with
the Secretary's Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan to promote
effective United States-Chinese cooperation in the region.
Question. Recently, in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee
Lieutenant General Carlisle said: ``You need only look across the
Pacific and see what [China] is doing, not just their air force
capability, but their surface-to-air [missile] capability, their
ballistic missile capability, their antiship ballistic missiles. All of
those things are incredibly disturbing to us for the future.''
Do you believe China's military buildup is benign or should
it be cause for U.S. concern? Do you agree with General
Carlisle's assessment?
Answer. China has embarked on a comprehensive effort to transform
its military into a modern force capable of conducting a growing range
of military operations. The administration is mindful of China's
military modernization plans and, in particular, the lack of
transparency surrounding them. We monitor carefully China's military
developments and, in concert with our allies and partners, will adjust
our policies and approaches as necessary.
Both President Hu and President Obama have stressed that a healthy,
stable, and reliable military-to-military relationship is an important
component of our overall bilateral relationship. President Obama told
President Hu that we need to develop a military-to-military dialogue
that is ongoing and sustainable even in the face of the inevitable ups
and downs of the overall relationship. We have now made progress in
resuming military-to-military dialogue, which we believe can help to
build trust and reduce misunderstanding, misperception, and
miscalculation.
Question. China's neighbors are deeply concerned about China's
assertion of sovereign control over the entire South China Sea. How
should the United States deal with this issue? Do you think we could
see another ``Mischief Reef'' scenario by the Chinese to assert its
control over the sea? What should we do about similar Chinese
assertions in the East China Sea?
Answer. As Secretary Clinton stated in Hanoi at the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Regional Forum (ARF) last year, the
United States shares a number of national interests with the
international community in the South China Sea. These interests include
regional peace and stability, freedom of navigation, respect for
international law, and unimpeded commerce under lawful conditions. We
urge that all claimants exercise restraint in dealing with these
competing claims. We support a collaborative and peaceful diplomatic
process by all claimants to resolve the various territorial and
maritime disputes without coercion, and we call on all claimants to
conform all of their claims--both land and maritime--to international
law. To advance these goals, the United States supports the ASEAN-China
declaration on the conduct of parties in the South China Sea and
encourages the parties to reach a full code of conduct. With regard to
a Mischief Reef scenario, I would not want speculate about hypothetical
situations. We believe territorial claims in the East China Sea should
also be resolved peacefully and in accordance with international law.
We oppose the use or threat of force by any claimant. The United States
does not take sides in territorial disputes in the South China Sea or
East China Sea.
Question. Given how much U.S. debt is owned by the Chinese, will
you let these economic issues, become an obstacle to addressing issues
like human rights, political reforms, Chinese military buildup, or
other substantive issues?
Answer. Approximately 70 percent of U.S. Treasury securities are
held by domestic investors or the U.S. Government, with only 30 percent
of U.S. debt held by foreign entities. Externally owned U.S. debt is
held by a diversified group of countries, and we are not overly reliant
on any one overseas holder of U.S. Treasury securities. China's
holdings represent only about 8 percent of U.S. Treasury securities
outstanding.
While China has a strong interest in the stability of our debt, as
a creditor China's holdings of Treasury securities have no effect on
any U.S. foreign policy decisions.
Question. Your predecessor Ambassador Huntsman set a good standard
with human rights outreach in China. He spoke publicly and privately
about these issues, met with dissidents and families, cultivated
independent Chinese media outlets, and took other critical steps to
create a climate of support for these issues within the Embassy and
reiterated the importance to Chinese interlocutors.
Do you see this as a floor or a ceiling in terms for
ambassadorial human rights advocacy?
Answer. The protection and the promotion of liberty and freedom are
fundamental tenets of American foreign policy. Promoting human rights--
including freedom of religion, speech, and assembly--is a central
objective of our diplomatic engagement with China. U.S. officials will
continue to make very clear both publicly and privately our concerns
about the deteriorating human rights situation in China. If confirmed,
I will be a forceful advocate with the Chinese Government and the
Chinese people for promoting the respect of universal human rights in
China.
Question. Will you continue the practice of meeting with dissidents
in and outside of China? What other kinds of initiatives do you
envision taking to engage directly with Chinese people and promote
universal values? Will you attend any part of dissident trials like
other ambassadors?
Answer. The Embassy maintains a wide variety of contacts within
Chinese society, including with activists who work on a range of
issues, and if confirmed I intend to continue such meetings but also to
engage in broad outreach to both Chinese officials and the Chinese
people to convey the human rights values for which America stands.
Promoting human rights--including freedom of religion, speech, and
assembly--is a central objective of our diplomatic engagement with
China. Although the Embassy has submitted requests for permission to
attend the trials of known activists, none has been granted to date. If
confirmed, the Embassy under my leadership will continue to press for
permission to attend such trials.
Question. A number of U.S. NGOs work in China or provide financial
support to Chinese NGOs working on areas considered sensitive by the
Chinese Government, such as human rights NGOs and those working in
Tibet. In recent years, many of these groups and their domestic
partners have come under pressure from the Chinese Government,
particularly those who have a U.S. Government funding source, such as
organizations that work with the National Endowment for Democracy and
its affiliates, and U.S. NGOs working in Tibetan areas.
Will you be willing to meet and consult with the U.S. NGOs
doing sensitive work in China on how the Embassy can best
support their efforts?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will consult with a wide range of
American citizens and organizations that deal with the many aspects of
United States-China relations, including human rights. The State
Department's Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor supports
many active and important programs in the rule of law and civil society
development, among others. I have already met with Assistant Secretary
Michael Posner to discuss his views on human rights in China, and if
confirmed, will continue to conduct further consultations, including
with NGOs, to learn more about programs and how to promote our common
objectives in China.
______
Responses of Gary Locke to Questions Submitted by
Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.
Question. Under the Obama administration, China's record of blatant
disregard for World Trade Organization (WTO) rules has remained
abysmal, if not worsened.
Secretary Locke, can you explain how your leadership at
Commerce has helped address any of the major trade problems we
continue to have with China, including currency, rampant
intellectual property rights (IPR) theft, and massive
industrial subsidies?
Answer. I fully appreciate your concerns regarding the currency
practices of China. This is an important issue for me and the Obama
administration. As you know, the authority to monitor and report on
currency manipulation is delegated by law to the Department of
Treasury. However, in all my meetings with Chinese officials I have
repeated the administration's call for reform of Chinese currency
practices. As the Secretary of Commerce, I have been steadfast in my
commitment to vigorously enforce the U.S. trade remedy laws to ensure
that U.S. workers and industries have the opportunity to compete on a
level playing field. In every instance that a domestic industry filed
an antidumping duty (AD) or countervailing duty (CVD) petition that met
the statutory requirements for initiation, we initiated investigations.
While the Department of Commerce has yet to receive a CVD allegation
regarding China's currency that has met the statutory requirements for
initiation, the Department has countervailed a variety of subsidy
programs involving a wide range of imports from China and have placed
duties to offset these unfair subsidies. Based on 2010 trade data,
roughly $11.6 billion, or 3.2 percent, of imports from China were
covered under orders in effect that year. At the end of 2010, there
were 108 orders in place against Chinese products.
On IPR, we have made significant progress with China during my
tenure, but we must continue to push China to do more. At the 2009
Joint Commission on Commerce & Trade (JCCT), China committed to
clamping down on Internet piracy, strengthening the protection of IPR
at state-run libraries, and addressing concerns over a Ministry of
Culture circular relating to online music distribution.
During the 2010 JCCT, China announced that it would take
significant steps to ensure that software used on government computers
is legitimate and promote legal software use in enterprises, while the
judiciary would undertake a study that would lead to a judicial
interpretation on Internet infringement liability. Also, cooperation
between the United States and China would continue on strengthening IPR
protection at libraries and discussions would continue on patents and
standards issues. Furthermore, China would clarify the responsibilities
of market managers and landlords, and China would not adopt or maintain
measures that make the location of the development or ownership of
intellectual property a direct or indirect condition for eligibility
for government procurement preferences for products and services.
At the 2010 JCCT and during President Hu's state visit to
Washington, DC, in January 2011, we pushed China to commit to
announcing more specific plans on software legalization and eliminating
discriminatory innovation policies that take into account where IPR is
developed when making government procurement decisions. China's
commitments are only credible if they deliver results. We will be
holding a JCCT midyear review to press for full implementation of
China's 2010 JCCT commitments.
Regarding industrial subsidies, the administration is committed to
vigorously challenging any Chinese subsidies that are inconsistent with
China's WTO obligations, whether through multilateral action at the WTO
or the strong enforcement of U.S. trade laws to remedy unfairly
subsidized and injurious Chinese imports. Addressing unfair and harmful
Chinese Government subsidies has been a key priority during my tenure
at the Department of Commerce. Indeed, trade compliance and enforcement
are key components of the administration's National Export Initiative.
One of the ways we have pursued these efforts is through the Department
of Commerce's strong enforcement of the CVD law which provides U.S.
industries and workers with a reliable process to obtain effective
relief from the injurious effects of imports from China benefiting from
Chinese Government subsidies. Moreover, the Department of Commerce has
a strong subsidies enforcement program which devotes considerable
resources to identifying and addressing potentially harmful Chinese
Government subsidies that may impact our exports abroad. We are thus
engaged in a wide range of activities that seek to confront harmful
Chinese Government subsidies, and thereby promote a level playing field
for American companies and its workers.
Question. Senator Wyden and his staff estimate that only 1 percent
of all countervailing and antidumping duties are collected, with the
majority of evasion coming from China. What has the Commerce Department
done under your leadership to deal with this problem?
Answer. The Department of Commerce's role in detecting and
deterring circumvention of antidumping and countervailing duties is
addressed in section 781 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act). If the
Department of Commerce determines that an order is being circumvented,
Commerce directs U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend
liquidation of the entries and require a cash deposit of estimated
duties on all unliquidated merchandise determined to be circumventing
the order.
The Department of Commerce is currently investigating six
allegations of circumvention of Chinese antidumping and countervailing
duty orders. These include orders on steel wire garment hangers,
laminated woven sacks, small diameter graphite electrodes, glycine,
tissue paper, and cut-to-length carbon steel plate.
In the tissue paper inquiry, for example, the Department of
Commerce recently made a preliminary determination that certain tissue
paper processed and exported to the United States by a Vietnamese
company was circumventing the AD order on tissue paper from China.
Commerce directed CBP to suspend liquidation and collect cash deposits
at a rate of 112.64 percent for all exports from the Vietnamese company
retroactive to the date we initiated the circumvention inquiry. We will
be considering comments from interested parties prior to making a final
determination in this case in August.
In addition to the authority to address circumvention that is
specifically prescribed to the Department of Commerce by statute,
Commerce works in close cooperation with CBP, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Justice to assist them in
responding to allegations of duty evasion, transshipment, and fraud
that fall with within their jurisdiction.
Over the past several years, Commerce and CBP have been working to
improve communications between the two agencies in order to strengthen
enforcement of the AD/CVD laws. Cooperation among IA, CBP, ICE, and the
Department of Justice has resulted in indictments, convictions, and
prison sentences for evaders of AD/CVD orders. To cite just one
example, our interagency cooperation led to the indictment in 2010 of
Alfred L. Wolff Gmbh, a German food conglomerate, and 10 executives for
conspiracy to illegally import more than $40 million of honey from
China between 2002 and 2009 and avoid paying nearly $80 million in AD
duties.
The Department of Commerce is committed to robustly enforcing the
trade remedy laws in order to ensure that American businesses and
workers have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field
against their foreign competitors. The Department of Commerce will
continue to work intensively to ensure the AD and CVD orders are not
circumvented and will actively coordinate with its sister agencies to
minimize evasion of AD and CVD duties.
Question. Do you support Senator Wyden's bill, ``The Enforce Act,''
introduced last Congress, to enhance Custom's ability to enforce duty
collection?
Answer. The administration has taken no official position with
respect to Senator Wyden's bill. Nevertheless, we stand ready to work
with you and other Members of Congress--as well as with the Department
of Homeland Security--to take appropriate measures that ensure all
countervailing and antidumping duties imposed are properly collected
and duty evasion schemes are rightfully prosecuted.
Question. China's currency manipulation practices remain of serious
concern. The Treasury Department's February 2011 report on
international economic and exchange rate policies of U.S. major trading
partners cited the need for greater flexible from China, noting that
the Chinese currency remains ``substantially undervalued.'' However,
diplomatic efforts to push China to allow the Chinese yuan to
appreciate more quickly have achieved little progress to date.
As Ambassador to China, what ``creative diplomatic'' steps
will you take to encourage the Chinese Government to end the
unfair manipulation of its currency?
What impact do you foresee potential currency manipulation
legislation having on U.S. efforts to address this serious
concern?
Answer. As President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner have
clearly stated, China's decision to increase flexibility of its
exchange rate will help safeguard global recovery in the wake of the
financial crisis, and contribute to a balanced global economy. If
confirmed, I will continue to press China to move forward in
implementing an exchange rate policy that will be beneficial to both
the global and domestic Chinese economy.
Question. Most trade experts believe that China is in the process
of backsliding from the commitments it has made since joining the WTO.
Do you agree with this assessment? If so, how will you use
your new role as Ambassador to work to defend what is left of
the U.S. manufacturing base?
Answer. China's efforts to implement its WTO commitments since its
2001 accession have led to increased exports and opportunities for U.S.
companies. However, in some areas, China has yet to fully implement
some of its commitments. We have also been seeing a troubling trend in
recent years toward increased government intervention in China's
economy. While bilateral trade with China continues to grow, a number
of American businesses continue to face significant market access
barriers and preferential policies that favor Chinese firms, especially
SOEs. China must address these concerns, and if confirmed, I will work
in concert with USTR to press the Government of China to fully
implement and adhere to its WTO commitments. If dialogue fails, I am
fully supportive of the administration using the full range of
enforcement options, as it has been doing. We have been by far the most
active--and successful--WTO Member in bringing WTO dispute settlement
cases against China.
Question. The Strategic and Economic Dialogue has failed to create
any meaningful progress on important trade and economic issues in our
relationship with China. As Ambassador, how will you work to boost the
effectiveness of this dialogue?
Answer. As Secretary Clinton has stated, the Strategic and Economic
Dialogue is the premier forum in a bilateral relationship that is as
important and complex as any in the world.
The three rounds of the S&ED demonstrate the importance of this
forum for advancing our most important policy objectives with China. We
use the S&ED to expand the areas where we cooperate and to narrow the
areas where we diverge, while holding firm to our values and interests.
We also employ the S&ED to form habits of cooperation that will help us
work together more effectively to meet our shared regional and global
challenges and also to weather disagreements when they arise.
This year's S&ED produced 48 concrete outcomes on the Strategic
track. We announced, among other outcomes, the creation of the new
U.S.-China Strategic Security Dialogue, the U.S.-China consultation on
the Asia/Pacific, and announced new areas of cooperation in areas
ranging from energy and environmental cooperation to scientific
cooperation and people-to-people exchange. In the Economic Track, the
United States secured important commitments to level the playing field
for U.S. companies and workers, shift the orientation of China's
economy toward domestic demand-led growth, improve IP protection, and,
in the process, promote greater U.S. exports to the large and rapidly
growing Chinese market. We are already working to make sure China
implements these important commitments in an effective and decisive
manner. If confirmed, I will do my utmost, working with my colleagues
at the Departments of State, Treasury, Commerce and other agencies, to
continue to utilize the S&ED to make further progress on critical
issues.
Question. In a letter to President Obama in January, I outlined the
very real difficulties many Pennsylvania companies and workers face due
to China's lack of enforcement of intellectual property rights. For
example, C.F. Martin & Co.--
a world-renowned Pennsylvania guitar manufacturer--has been fighting to
register its mark with the Chinese Government since 2005. According to
the company, a Chinese individual has been illegally registering the
mark in order to produce and sell counterfeit guitars of low quality.
The lack of protection on the part of the Chinese harms not only C.F.
Martin & Co., but also countless other Pennsylvania companies and
workers--and American exports more broadly. I have urged the
administration to work with the Chinese to address concerns over
intellectual property rights infringement.
As Ambassador, how will you address the very real threat
that Chinese intellectual property infringement poses to
American businesses and workers?
Answer. Improving the protection and enforcement of IPR remains a
top priority for this administration. U.S. trade losses due to
counterfeiting and piracy in China remain unacceptably high. In
addition, a strong intellectual property regime is critical to ensuring
safe products for both U.S. and Chinese citizens.
At the December Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade, we made
progress in ensuring the use of legitimate software in Chinese
Government agencies and delinking the source and origin of IP from
Chinese Government procurement preferences. During the January visit by
President Hu, China further agreed to strengthen its efforts to protect
IPR, including by conducting audits to ensure that government agencies
at all levels use legitimate software and by publishing the auditing
results as required by China's law.
The specific case you mention with C.F. Martin & Co. is an example
of trademark ``squatting.'' Unlike laws in most other countries,
including the United States, Chinese law has a ``first to file'' system
that requires no evidence of prior use or ownership, leaving
registration of popular foreign marks open to third parties. Under
Chinese law, these third parties (squatters) may then bring an
infringement action or seek payment from the true brand owner if the
owner attempts to use its brand in China. If confirmed as Ambassador, I
will work with Chinese officials to update their laws to conform to
international norms and alleviate this problem.
More broadly, I am committed to protecting U.S. business interests
and will continue to work within established fora such as the Joint
Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) and the Strategic and Economic
Dialogue (S&ED) to engage the Chinese on protecting and enforcing
intellectual property rights in accordance with internationally
recognized standards and their World Trade Organization (WTO)
commitments.
Question. I believe a top priority in our relationship with China
should be the Chinese Government's enforcement of international
sanctions against Iran. It is no secret that while China eventually
supported U.N. sanctions on Iran, it did so reluctantly and only after
it succeeded in significantly watering down the sanctions. According to
the State Department's Special Advisor for Nonproliferation and Arms
Control, Bob Einhorn, Iran continues to use Chinese companies to
procure proliferation-sensitive equipment for its nuclear and missile
programs.
What diplomatic tools does the United States have to press
China to reduce its relationship with Iran? As Ambassador, how
will you encourage timely responses from the Chinese Government
to U.S. requests to stop specific shipments of proliferation
concern? As Ambassador, how will you work to convince China to
implement stricter export regulations to prevent the
proliferation of sensitive items to countries of concern? What
steps will you take to convince relevant Chinese companies to
sever business ties with Iran?
Answer. The prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons and related
technologies is one of the Obama administration's highest priorities.
Iran and North Korea were key topics of President Obama's talks with
Chinese President Hu Jintao during his January 2011 visit, and we
continue to raise the issue at the highest levels. We will also
continue to uphold U.S. law and impose sanctions as necessary and
warranted. Most recently, the United States imposed a number of
sanctions under the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act
(INKSNA) against Chinese firms and individuals that engaged in
proliferation-related transfers with Iran. In addition, we will
continue to implement the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability
and Divestment Act (CISADA), and in that regard, we have urged China to
exercise restraint and refrain from making any investments in Iran's
energy sector.
China shares the international community's serious concerns about
Iran's nuclear program, and has played an important role in the
diplomatic efforts to address this threat. China, as part of the P5+1
and U.N. Security Council, contributed to the crafting of U.N. Security
Council Resolution 1929. In the January 19, 2011, U.S.-China joint
statement, both sides called for full implementation of all relevant
U.N. Security Council resolutions. We have been pleased with the unity
that China and other P5+1 partners have maintained in our negotiations
with Iran, and we continue to jointly insist that Iran comply with its
international obligations. China has stated that it is committed to
implementing resolution 1929 and the other resolutions on Iran fully
and faithfully, but China has stated that it does not support sanctions
beyond those contained in UNSCR 1929 and previous UNSCRs on Iran. China
agrees with the United States that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a
grave regional and international threat; however, we do not necessarily
agree on the timeframe or method to solve the problem. We have worked
closely with the Chinese on this issue, and we will continue to raise
it at all levels in meetings with China. We continue to emphasize the
need for greater urgency in responses to this threat.
Question. The United States has sanctioned 21 Iranian banks for
providing financing for Iran's nuclear and missile programs. However,
as Acting Treasury Undersecretary David Cohen noted, ``Iran has a well-
established practice of migrating illicit financial activities from one
bank to another to facilitate transactions for sanctioned banks.'' As
international banks throughout Europe are severing their ties with
Iranian financial institutions, Iran has turned to Turkish, Emeriti,
and Chinese banks to evade international sanctions--and there are
ongoing reports that Chinese banks knowingly continue to do business
with Iran likely in violation of U.S. sanctions.
What is your assessment of reports that Chinese banks
continue to facilitate Iranian financial transactions, in
violation of U.S. sanctions? As Ambassador, what will you do to
encourage the Chinese financial industry to sever its ties with
Iranian firms?
Answer. As Secretary Clinton has said, if we have information about
technology or financial transfers that we believe is inconsistent with
Security Council resolutions and Chinese laws, we bring such
information to the attention of the Chinese Government and request that
it immediately investigate and take appropriate action to prevent any
prohibited transfers. Furthermore, we do not hesitate to enforce our
sanctions laws, as the most recent imposition of sanctions against
Chinese entities and individuals under the Iran, North Korea, and Syria
Nonproliferation Act (INKSNA) demonstrates. Chinese controls over such
transfers remain inhibited by an as yet underdeveloped export control
apparatus, weak financial industry controls, and an apparent continued
lack of political will to develop a comprehensive control system.
President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and other administration officials
regularly stress to the Chinese the need for continued Chinese
restraint in Iran's energy sector and urge that they slow down existing
activities and not conclude any new deals. The administration has also
pressed China not to ``backfill'' by assuming the business of other
firms that have responsibly departed Iran's energy sector. We have seen
some evidence in open sources that China has exercised some restraint
in this area, but we continue to monitor China's activities in the
energy sector. As Secretary Clinton has said before, this
administration will enforce the law with respect to Chinese firms. If
confirmed, I will continue to press these issues in my discussions with
Chinese officials.
Question. According to human rights activists in Washington, the
Chinese Government's recent crackdown on dissidents is the biggest they
have seen in more than 20 years. I welcomed Secretary of State
Clinton's May 10 statement denouncing China's human rights abuses and
brutal crackdown on antigovernment protesters, which is in large part a
response to the wave of unrest that has spread across the Middle East
and North Africa. Beijing's detainment of lawyers, artists, and
activists serves to highlight the government's ongoing lack of
commitment to upholding internationally recognized human rights.
If confirmed, what steps will you take the encourage China
to uphold its human rights commitments and end its brutal
crackdown on prodemocracy activists? How does this fit in with
the broader United States-China relationship, given China's
important role as a trade partner and main holder of U.S. debt?
Answer. The administration has made clear that we have a
fundamental commitment to the universal rights of all people, including
those in China. Human rights is a central part of our United States-
China bilateral relationship. The United States and China can cooperate
on critical global challenges, such as producing balanced global
growth, as well as on our bilateral economic and trade concerns, while
having candid and direct discussions about the issues where we do not
see eye to eye, such as human rights. If confirmed, I will forcefully
advocate for the Chinese Government to respect the universal human
rights of all its citizens, including those who advocate peacefully for
reform.
Question. What signals can the United States send to Chinese
dissidents to assure them of our steadfast commitment to universal
human rights?
Answer. The U.S. Embassy in Beijing maintains a wide variety of
contacts within Chinese society, and if confirmed I intend to engage in
broad public outreach to both Chinese officials and the Chinese people
and to convey the human rights values for which America stands.
Promoting human rights--including freedom of religion, speech, and
assembly--is a central objective of our diplomatic engagement with
China. If confirmed, I will be a forceful advocate for promoting the
respect of universal human rights in China.
______
Responses of Gary Locke to Questions Submitted by
Senator James M. Inhofe
freedom of religion and house churches
Question. The persecution of ``House Churches'' has recently come
to our attention. Chinese house churches are a religious movement of
unregistered assemblies of Christians in the People's Republic of
China. They are also known as the ``Underground'' Church or the
``Unofficial'' Church. They are called ``house churches'' because as
they are not officially registered organizations, they cannot
independently own property and hence they meet in private houses, often
in secret for fear of arrest or imprisonment. Because house churches
operate outside government regulations and restrictions, their members
and leaders are frequently harassed by local government officials. This
persecution may take the form of a prison sentence or, more commonly,
reeducation through labor. Heavy fines are also not unusual.
Do you believe that the opposition of house churches by
government officials arises from an ideological opposition to
religion and support of atheism or more out of fear of
potential disturbances to orderly society from mass
mobilization of believers, similar to the Tiananmen Square
protests of 1989, and mass protests of Falun Gong members in
Beijing in 1999? Do you believe the administration has taken a
strong enough approach in integrating religious rights at a
systematic and structural level or will our current approach
only lead to antipathy and further delays in cooperation on
other issues?
Answer. With respect to religious freedom in China, the Secretary
of State has designated it a ``country of particular concern'' every
year that such designations have been made. We continue to engage China
on its poor religious freedom record, including during the most recent
U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue and the Strategic and Economic
Dialogue. The State Department raises cases of concern, including about
individual incidents like the Shouwang Church in Beijing, on a regular
basis at senior levels in both Washington and Beijing. If confirmed, I
will continue to press the Chinese Government to respect all of its
citizens' right to religious freedom, including for House church
practitioners.
Question. If confirmed what will you do to ensure that freedom of
religion is assured for Chinese citizens?
Answer. If confirmed, one of my primary roles would continue to be
that of a spokesman for America and America's values, including the
freedoms that are the foundation of our great Nation. That includes
religious freedom. I will continue to advance the administration's
policy of pressing China to improve its record on religious freedom and
to respect the right to religious freedom of all its citizens.
china and taiwan relations
Question. Presently China has over 1,400 short-range missiles
pointed at Taiwan. This explicit threat from the Communist Chinese
mainland was foremost in my mind when I addressed a letter to the
administration, prior to the visit of President Hu Jintao early this
year. In this bipartisan letter, signed by myself and 25 other
Senators, I reminded the President of the U.S. commitment to Taiwan's
defense under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979.
What assurances can you give me that will ensure that the
Communist Chinese Government fully understands not only the
legal ramifications but the moral commitment the United States
has to guarantee the ability of Taiwan to defend itself?
Answer. First let me note that this administration welcomes the
impressive steps both sides of the Taiwan Strait have taken in
improving relations. We hope these efforts will continue and expand.
The U.S. Government is committed to our one China policy based on the
Three Joint Communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act. Our one China
policy has been consistent for the past eight U.S. administrations and
will not change. If confirmed, I will continue to advance that policy
in my interactions with Chinese officials.
The United States has consistently told our Chinese counterparts
that, in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States
makes available to Taiwan defense articles and services necessary to
enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability. We have
also consistently said that cross-strait issues should be resolved
peacefully in a manner acceptable to people on both sides of the strait
and that we oppose unilateral actions by either side to alter the
status quo. We urge China to reduce military deployments aimed at
Taiwan and to pursue a peaceful resolution to cross-strait issues.
Question. There are rumors that the present Taiwan Government may
not fully purchase all items previously agreed for sale by the United
States. Should this sale go through to completion however, how will
this affect the United States-China relationship, since the Chinese
Government reacted so negatively when the arms sales list to Taiwan was
announced last year?
Answer. I would prefer not to speculate on the hypothetical. I
would simply note that China and Taiwan have made considerable progress
in improving cross-strait relations and that we support these efforts
and encourage both sides to continue these discussions, and that in
accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act, the United States makes
available to Taiwan defense articles and services necessary to enable
Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability. That policy
has provided a basis for maintaining security and stability across the
Taiwan Strait for decades. Decisions to make available to Taiwan
defensive arms and services are considered through an interagency
process based solely upon an evaluation of Taiwan's defensive needs.
china and africa
Question. Africa is the world's second-largest and most-populous
continent. Comprised of 53 nations and over 900 million people, it is
both rich in minerals and oil. This has not gone unnoticed by the
Chinese Government. China has stepped into somewhat of a vacuum,
currying favor in both political and strategic alliances across the
African Continent
To what extent do you see China furthering its exploration
into the African Continent and to what ends?
Answer. China's overall trade with Africa exceeded $100 billion
last year, with about 89 percent of its imports from Africa consisting
of oil, minerals, and other raw materials. With our Chinese
counterparts, we have discussed how to diversify and sustain trade,
which would not only help Africa but also serve China's own interests.
Question. Is the Chinese interest in Africa purely for the survival
and economic interest of the Chinese and not the economic emancipation
of Africa?
Answer. China's presence in Africa reflects the reality that it has
important and growing interests in Africa including access to resources
and markets and development of diplomatic ties. These objectives are
not inherently incompatible with U.S. priorities. As the President and
Secretary Clinton have both made clear, we do not see power and
influence in zero sum terms, and that is true in Africa as well. The
United States and other donors are concerned, however, that China's
foreign assistance and investment practices in Africa have not always
been consistent with generally accepted international norms of
transparency and good governance. Despite differences of opinion on
certain issues, we believe it is important that our two governments
remain engaged and work together to meet the development objectives of
African countries. Our approach has been to demonstrate that, through
greater cooperation on a wide range of issues affecting Africa, China
can meet its responsibilities as a Security Council member in the U.N.
while also meeting its economic goals.
china and africa
Question. Use of soft power diplomacy will continue to be a key
driver of China's strengthened relations with Africa and likely to
propel China to higher global economic and military influence than it
currently commands. The outcome of the growing China-Africa relations
is the construction and reconstruction of infrastructure especially
roads, water works, and hospitals. China is hand cementing and
expending its relations with Africa.
How far do you think the use of soft power can propel China?
Answer. China enjoys a degree of influence which one might expect
from a major trading nation with significant economic ties to most of
sub-Saharan Africa. The United States and China have sought to increase
our dialogue about Africa in order to improve understanding and seek
tangible ways to cooperate through our Africa subdialogue under the
Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED). We have also instructed our
missions in Africa to reach out to their Chinese colleagues to explore
potential areas of cooperation and assess China's overall role in their
respective countries.
Question. Does China support African led efforts to develop sound
governance and sustainable development throughout the continent?
Answer. The United States and other donors have concerns that
China's ``no strings attached'' practices in Africa have not always
been consistent with its commitment to adhere to international norms of
transparency and standards of good governance. China adheres to the
Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and Accra Agenda for Action. We
have made these concerns known to China, including through our Africa
subdialogue under the Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED).
human rights and china
Question. I am concerned about the worsening human rights situation
in China. In light of the ongoing crackdown on Chinese journalists,
dissidents, and intellectuals, I remain disappointed that the
administration has failed to integrate these issues into its policy at
a systemic and structural level. It is often in the area of economics
that human rights concerns are marginalized. Your background gives you
a unique opportunity to help broaden the discourse with Chinese
interlocutors on the need for political reform.
What is your view of the language that the administration
has used to discuss human rights issues?
Answer. I fully support the administration's candid discussion of
the inadequacies that we see in China's human rights record. Both
publicly and privately, the administration has been consistent in
stating our concerns about the deteriorating human rights situation in
China, pressing China to respect its citizens' fundamental rights, and
stating that expansion of civil and political rights would ultimately
be a source of stability in Chinese society.
Question. How will you contribute to efforts to incorporate human
rights concerns into the relationship across the board, including on
economic issues?
Answer. I am committed to pursuing a positive, cooperative, and
comprehensive relationship with China that is grounded in reality,
focused on results, and true to our principles and interests. To keep
our relationship on a positive trajectory, however, we must be honest
about our differences. We can cooperate on critical global challenges
such as producing balanced global growth, while having candid and
direct discussions about the issues where we do not see eye to eye,
including human rights. If confirmed, I will address sensitive issues
in the bilateral relationship and will raise human rights issues and
individual cases with Chinese Government officials at the highest
levels. If confirmed, I will also be a forceful advocate for promoting
the respect of universal human rights in China.
Question. How will you bring other agencies into this discussion?
Answer. Human rights played an important role in both our public
and private meetings during the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic
Dialogue in May, which included nearly every element of the interagency
community. If confirmed, I will continue to support the
administration's efforts to make very clear across all the agencies our
concerns about the deteriorating human rights situation in China.
Question. Will you work with like-minded governments on these
issues, particularly our European and Asian friends and allies?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to work with allies and
partners to address the inadequacies that we collectively see in
China's protection of human rights.
Question. Your predecessor Ambassador Huntsman set a good standard
in terms of human rights outreach in China. He spoke publicly and
privately about these issues, and met with dissidents and their
families, cultivated independent Chinese media outlets, and took other
critical steps to both create a supportive climate for these issues
within the Embassy and reiterate the importance of these issues to
Chinese interlocutors. It should be done even when it seems futile and
seems to invite repercussions. Chinese Government intimidation should
not cause you to substitute your judgment for that of Chinese
dissidents regarding the dangers they are willing to expose themselves
to.
Will you commit to continuing the practice of meeting with
dissidents in China and outside of China?
Answer. The U.S. Embassy in Beijing maintains a wide variety of
contacts within Chinese society, including with activists who work on a
range of issues, and if confirmed I intend to continue such meetings
but also to engage in broad outreach to both Chinese officials and the
Chinese people to convey the human rights values for which America
stands. Promoting human rights--including freedom of religion, speech,
and assembly--is a central objective of our diplomatic engagement with
China. If confirmed, I will be a forceful advocate for promoting the
respect of universal human rights in China.
Question. What other initiatives do you envision taking to engage
directly with Chinese people and promote universal values?
Answer. If confirmed, one of my top priorities will be to engage in
direct outreach to the Chinese people, including to underscore the
importance of respect for universal rights and freedoms. The objective
of our public diplomacy is to reach out directly to the Chinese public
to promote universal values. If confirmed, I will work closely with the
Department's Bureau for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs and our
Mission China officers to ensure that our message reaches the widest
possible range of Chinese society.
Question. I am concerned about the dozens of individuals who have
disappeared or been detained and sentenced to political crimes because
they advocated that the Chinese people should enjoy universally
accepted freedoms. There are several cases that have come to my
attention, because of the nature of the accused or the charges against
them, should be given particular attention. In addition to Nobel Prize
winner Liu Xiaobo and artist Ai Weiwei.
Will you raise the following cases in your testimony before
the committee and when you meet with Chinese officials as
examples of individuals of concern?
Hada: http://en.rsf.org/china-authorities-holding-hada-s-
wife-10-05-2011,402
53.html
Shi Tao: http://en.rsf.org/china-information-supplied-by-
yahoo-06-09-2005,
14884.html
Huang Qi: http://en.rsf.org/china-cyber-dissident-huang-
qi-kidnapped-12-06-2008,27465.html
Tan Zuoren: http://en.rsf.org/china-as-china-justifies-
online-10-06-2010,377
06.html
Answer. State Department officials raise individual cases of
concern frequently and at all levels, in both Washington and at our
Embassy in Beijing and our Consulates General throughout China. The
Department urges the Chinese Government to treat detainees and
prisoners humanely and in accordance with international standards and
to release those detained unjustly. We press upon China the importance
of affording all prisoners the protections of due process and
transparent and fair legal proceedings. If confirmed, I will continue
to emphasize the administration's message calling for the release of
prisoners of conscience. I will also speak directly to Chinese leaders
and call for the individual release of prisoners such as Liu Xiaobo,
Gao Zhisheng, Ai Weiwei, and others such as those mentioned above. I
will also engage with the Chinese people directly to convey the
universal values for which America stands.
china and tibet
Question. Tibetans have been enduring an intensifying crackdown
since March 2008, exemplified by the crisis at Kirti Monastery in
Sichuan province. Last month, the monastery was forcibly taken over by
security forces; 25 monks remain in detention; 300 other monks have
been taken away for ``patriotic education''; and two laypeople were
killed by security forces.
Will you commit to travel to Tibetan areas, including beyond
Lhasa, to seek accurate information in these closed-off areas,
and to advocate for the religious, cultural, and human rights
of Tibetans?
Answer. The Department of State has urged China to relax
restrictions on movements of U.S. Government officials, journalists,
and Tibetan pilgrims to and from Tibetan regions. Travel to Tibetan
areas, including outside of Lhasa, is an important priority for our
Embassy in Beijing, and, if confirmed, I will continue to press to have
an opportunity to do so.
Question. Will you continue efforts to establish a U.S. consulate
in Lhasa, which was established by the State Department as a priority
in 2008?
Answer. The United States and China currently have six diplomatic
posts in the other's country. Future post openings are subject to host
government agreement, per the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
and our bilateral agreement with China.
The Department sent diplomatic notes in 2008, expressing reciprocal
interest in expanding U.S. diplomatic presence in China, with Lhasa at
the top of the U.S. list. To date, the Chinese have not responded. The
Department remains committed to pursuing a post in Lhasa as a priority,
and if confirmed I will continue to work on this objective.
Question. Will you work with the Special Coordinator for Tibetan
Issues and her office to ensure that U.S. policy and communications to
the Chinese Government are consistent and respect the longstanding two-
track U.S. policy of (1) supporting dialogue between the Chinese
Government and the Dalai Lama and his representatives; and (2)
supporting efforts to preserve the unique cultural, religious and
linguistic heritage of the Tibetan people?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Special
Coordinator for Tibetan Issues and her office to ensure that Tibetan
issues are raised frequently and candidly with China's leaders. The
Department of State is deeply concerned by the human rights situation
in Tibetan areas and by the lack of progress during nine rounds of
talks between the Chinese Government and the Dalai Lama's
representatives. If confirmed, in consultation with the Special
Coordinator, I will support further dialogue between China and the
representatives of the Dalai Lama to resolve concerns and differences,
including the preservation of the religious, linguistic and cultural
identity of the Tibetan people.
china and travel
Question. I am troubled with the across-the-board restrictions and
policy of selective access that China has applied to travel within
China by U.S. diplomats and visiting U.S. Chinese officials have the
ability to travel anywhere they want in the United States, and have the
freedom to engage in a broad range of Chinese cultural promotion
activities on American soil.
Will you push for greater freedom of movement for U.S.
diplomats in China, including travel to ``sensitive'' areas
such as Tibetan areas and East Turkestan?
Answer. I will continue to advocate for greater freedom of movement
for U.S. diplomats everywhere in China. The United States can only
generate accurate information on developments in China by traveling
frequently to all parts of the country and engaging with the people
there. With the notable and unfortunate exception of Tibet and some
Tibetan areas at ``sensitive'' times, Embassy officers generally face
few restrictions on travel within China. However, they are generally
unable to meet with provincial and local Chinese officials or
institutions (including universities) unless they obtain approval from
the Foreign Ministry and its local offices. U.S. diplomats regularly
visit the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region and Tibetan areas outside
of the Tibet Autonomous Region to advance the full range of U.S.
interests in those areas--particularly the safety and welfare of U.S.
citizens. Charge d'Affaires Robert Wang visited Xinjiang in May. None
of these visits were officially approved, and hence U.S. diplomats
could not engage with provincial and local officials or universities
during their visits.
Travel to the Tibet Autonomous Region is restricted by the Chinese
Government, and our official visits are approved on a case-by-case
basis and then only rarely. Although then-Ambassador Huntsman was
allowed to travel there in September 2010, many other requests have
been denied. Visits to Tibetan areas of Sichuan are often denied on the
ground by local police although the area is open in principle. This is
a serious problem that I will seek to address. The U.S. Government has
long pressed for free and full access to the Tibet Autonomous Region
for American diplomats and also for Members of Congress and foreign
journalists. If confirmed, I will continue to raise this issue at high
levels.
Question. How do you plan to push back on Chinese restrictions on
legitimate U.S. cultural and educational activities in China?
Answer. Despite some opening up over the last few decades, China
remains a challenging environment for the United States to conduct
public diplomacy, due in large part to the Chinese Government's ongoing
attempts to control the dissemination of information in China. In
particular, in recent months, various Chinese authorities cancelled
certain planned U.S. mission outreach activities. The Department of
State has expressed our objections to these measures to senior Chinese
officials on multiple occasions, and has emphasized how such actions
impede our stated intention to improve people-to-people ties between
our two countries. There has been a resumption of some of these
activities in recent weeks.
To address these challenges, the State Department has been pushing
for greater access and programming, using the opportunities we find,
and protesting obstacles we encounter.
The Embassy has raised this issue repeatedly in meetings with
Chinese leaders and other officials, including in both sessions of the
U.S.-China High-Level Consultation on People-to-People Exchange (in May
2010 and April 2011). I would also encourage congressional leaders to
raise this issue in contacts with Chinese officials as well. If
confirmed, I will ensure that we continue to raise the issue. But just
as important, I will continue promoting the development of new and
innovative programming tools and platforms for reaching out to the
Chinese people.
china and ngos
Question. There are a number of U.S. NGOs that work in China or
provide financial support to Chinese NGOs working on areas considered
sensitive by the Chinese Government, such as human rights NGOs and
those working in Tibet. In recent years, many of these groups and their
in-country partners have come under pressure from the Chinese
Government, particularly those who have a U.S. Government funding
source, such as organizations that work with the National Endowment for
Democracy and its affiliates, and U.S. NGOs working in Tibetan areas.
Will you be willing to meet and consult with the U.S. NGOs
doing sensitive work in China on how the embassy can best
support their efforts?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will consult with a wide range of
American citizens and organizations that deal with the many aspects of
United States-China relations, including human rights. The State
Department's Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor supports
many active and important programs in the rule of law and civil society
development, among others. I have already met with Assistant Secretary
Michael Posner to discuss his views on human rights in China, and if
confirmed, will continue to conduct further consultations, including
with NGOs, to learn more about programs and support our common
objectives in China .
Question. Should you be confirmed, will you meet with American
organizations and individuals that work on human rights in China before
you take up your post in Beijing?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will consult with a wide range of
American citizens and organizations that deal with the many aspects of
United States-China relations, including human rights.
china, the macau special autonomous region and the expropriation of
u.s.-owned viva macau airlines by the government of macau on march 28,
2010
Question. The Chinese Communist Government has taken steps over the
last decade to encourage the Macau Special Autonomous Region to open
itself to foreign investment, to diversify its local economy, and serve
as a platform for trade between China and the West. As a result of
these initiatives, Macau has received billions of dollars in foreign
investment and expertise from the United States, the largest source of
foreign direct investment for Macau. This has all helped Macau expand
its economy beyond the gaming industry.
However, actions taken in recent months by the Macau Government
appear to signal a troubling downward trend in the treatment of U.S.
investors. This raises serious questions about the Macau Government's
attitude toward foreign investors and the ability of foreign companies
to protect their investments. Most glaring among these is the
expropriation of U.S.-owned Viva Macau Airlines by the Government of
Macau on March 28, 2010.
This expropriation, apparently the first by the Macau Government
against property owned by American investors, was recognized in the
State Department's March 2011 Report on U.S. Citizen Expropriation
Claims and Certain Other Commercial and Investment Disputes and
represents not only a serious downward turn for the treatment of
investors from the United States in Macau, but also a disregard for
international aviation norms.
Viva Macau was denied legal recourse for over 11 months, but
Macau's Court of Last Instance has finally ordered a hearing on the
merits of Viva Macau's case against the Macau Government; though a fair
trial is far from guaranteed. During those 11 months, I along with
other Members of Congress have pushed the Chinese Central Government in
Beijing and the Government of Macau to respect the rule of law and
ensure that such expropriations not occur with such impunity.
Although the United States has limited leverage over the Government
of Macau, the Chinese Communists Government obviously does. They
oversee Macau's affairs through the State Council's Office of Hong Kong
and Macau Affairs and the Foreign Ministry. In particular, I understand
that Wang Guangya, the newly appointed Director of the State Council's
Office of Hong Kong and Macau Affairs and China's former Ambassador to
the United Nations, is the key policymaker with day-to-day
responsibility for Macau.
In my letter of February 10, 2011, to Secretary Clinton on this
matter, I asked that Ambassador Huntsman raise the Viva Macau cause
with Wang Guangya to ensure that American interests in Macau are
protected. I believe several other Members of Congress interested in
protecting the interest of U.S. businesses and seeking to promote a
mutually beneficial United States-China trade relationship have sent
similar letters.
In your potential new role as U.S. Ambassador to China, will
you be vigilant in protecting the commercial interests of U.S.
businesses injured by Chinese and Macau Government action,
including ensuring those U.S. entities seeking remedies before
local courts are given a fair trial?
Answer. Developing commercial cooperation with China has been a
focus of mine for more than a decade. If confirmed, helping U.S.
companies do more business in China and ensuring that Chinese
Government policies and actions create a level playing field for U.S.
businesses will be a major part of what I do every day as Ambassador.
As the second largest foreign investors in Macau after Hong Kong,
U.S. businesses have invested more than $8 billion in Macau over the
past 6 years. As a result, protecting U.S. business interests in Macau
is one of the U.S. State Department's top priorities. Regarding Viva
Macau, State and Commerce Department officials have met with MKW
Capital Management's (MKW) partners and their Washington-based legal
advisors Patton Boggs (PB) on numerous occasions since April 2010. U.S.
diplomats at our Consulate General in Hong Kong continue to raise the
matter with Macau Government officials on a regular basis, including
with Macau's Chief Executive. In all such meetings, we have stressed
the importance of transparency and due process for U.S. investors in
Macau.
The State Department continues to monitor developments in this case
closely and understands that Macau's Court of Final Appeal ruled in
Viva Macau's favor on February 23 by returning the case to the Court of
Second Instance. That Court will have to decide whether there was an
administrative act from the government instructing Air Macau to revoke
Viva Macau's air operator certificate and, if so, if such an act was
legal. State Department officers have explained to MKW that Viva Macau
should continue to pursue all local remedies available.
Longstanding U.S. policy toward the Macau Special Administrative
Region of the People's Republic of China is to support ``one country,
two systems'' and Macau's autonomy under the Basic Law. Under the Basic
Law, Macau has jurisdiction over commercial/economic, legal, and all
other matters outside national security and foreign affairs.
Question. Will you commit to raising the Viva Macau issue with the
Chinese Government, including with Wang Guangya, and communicating the
U.S. Government and Congress' interest in ensuring that Viva Macau is
treated fairly by the government and courts of Macau?
Answer. Protecting U.S. business interests in Macau is one of the
U.S. State Department's top priorities. Nonetheless, involving the
Government of the People's Republic of China in Beijing in the Viva
Macau case would, in our view, run counter to longstanding U.S. policy
toward Macau, which is to support ``one country, two systems'' and
Macau's autonomy under the Basic Law. Under the Basic Law, Macau has
jurisdiction over commercial/economic, legal, and all other matters
outside national security and foreign affairs. Therefore, we continue
to believe that the best channel for expressing U.S. concerns to the
Government of Macau is through the U.S. Consulate General in Hong Kong,
which has responsibilities for Macau. U.S. diplomats at our Consulate
General in Hong Kong continue to raise the viva Macau case with Macau
Government officials on a regular basis, including Macau's Chief
Executive.
Question. Will you ensure that a representative of the U.S.
Government attends any future court hearings related to this case to
help further stress our interest in this matter?
Answer. State Department officials have met with MKW Capital
Management's (MKW) partners and their Washington-based legal advisors
Patton Boggs (PB) on numerous occasions since April 2010. U.S.
diplomats at our Consulate General in Hong Kong continue to raise the
matter with Macau Government officials on a regular basis, including
with Macau's Chief Executive. In all such meetings, officers have
stressed the importance of transparency and due process for U.S.
investors in Macau.
The State Department continues to monitor developments in this case
closely and understands that Macau's Court of Final Appeal ruled in
Viva Macau's favor on February 23 by returning the case to the Court of
Second Instance. That Court will have to decide whether there was an
administrative act from the government instructing Air Macau to revoke
Viva Macau's air operator certificate and, if so, if such an act was
legal. State Department officers have explained to MKW that Viva Macau
should continue to pursue all local remedies available.
Question. Should you be confirmed, would you be willing to meet
with representatives of Viva Macau Airlines before you depart for
Beijing in order to receive a better understanding of its case?
Answer. Longstanding U.S. policy toward the Macau Special
Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China is to support
``one country, two systems'' and Macau's autonomy under the Basic Law.
Under the Basic Law, Macau has jurisdiction over commercial/economic,
legal, and all other matters outside national security and foreign
affairs. The U.S. Consul General in Hong Kong, Ambassador Stephen
Young, has chief of mission authority for Macau and is the appropriate
person to address issues concerning Viva Macau.
______
Response of Gary Locke to Question Submitted by Senator John Barrasso
Question. As you know, many U.S. industries have expressed a wide
variety of concerns surrounding China's trade practices. Wyoming's soda
ash and beef producers are prime examples of industries that have been
battered by unfair trade policies.
China continues to provide a 9 percent rebate on its 17 percent
value-added tax (VAT) for soda ash exports in an attempt to give their
producers an advantage in the international marketplace at the expense
of U.S. producers. As a result, I would like to see the Department of
Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative's Office raise this specific
issue at the highest levels with Chinese officials at the JCCT meetings
this year.
In addition, China's continued ban on U.S. beef imports has allowed
Australia to take our place as the leading foreign beef supplier to
China by value. The market that was once the 10th-largest for U.S. beef
exports has disappeared.
If confirmed, will you work with the U.S. Trade
Representative, Secretary of State, and Chinese Government
officials to address these issues?
Answer. I share your concern about the potential detrimental
effects of China's export promotion practices.
Soda ash is one of the United States more significant chemical
exports, and the issues you have raised are important ones. I concur
that these Chinese VAT rebate policies can adversely affect the ability
of our producers to compete in third-country markets. Moreover, I
appreciate that natural soda ash production processes, such as those
that dominate in the United States, are more environmentally friendly
and less energy-intensive than the processes used in some countries
such as China.
Regarding beef, China's restrictions on U.S. beef are inconsistent
with the recommendations of the World Organization for Animal Health.
The U.S. Government is in dialogue with the Chinese Government to agree
on a beef protocol that is consistent with international standards and
is commercially viable. Reopening beef trade with China is a top
priority for U.S. ranchers, and we continue to work on resolving this
issue.
If confirmed, I will work closely with the U.S. Trade
Representative, the Secretary of State and Chinese officials to resolve
our concerns with China's export policies and to support the interests
of U.S. exporters, including soda ash and beef producers.
NOMINATIONS
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
Jeanine E. Jackson, of Wyoming, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of Malawi
Geeta Pasi, of New York, to be Ambassador to the Republic of
Djibouti
Donald Koran, of California, to be Ambassador to the Republic
of Rwanda
Lewis Lukens, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Republic of
Senegal and to serve concurrently as Ambassador to the
Republic of Guinea-Bissau
Ariel Pablos-Mendez, of New York, to be Assistant Administrator
of the United States Agency for International
Development
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Christopher
A. Coons, presiding.
Present: Senators Coons and Isakson.
Also present: Senators Michael B. Enzi and John Barrasso.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER A. COONS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE
Senator Coons. I'd like to call the subcommittee to order.
I'm honored to chair this hearing for the nominees to serve as
United States Ambassadors to Rwanda, Djibouti, Malawi, Senegal,
and Guinea-Bissau, and the USAID Assistant Administrator for
Global Health.
Today's nominees bring to the table a vast array of
experience, specifically in Africa and serving our Nation
around the world, and I look forward to hearing their vision
for advancing U.S. interests and policy priorities.
Before we begin, I'd like to reflect briefly on my very
recent trip to West Africa with Senator Isakson. Traveling in
Nigeria, Ghana, and Benin over the past week, we witnessed
first-hand the implementation of critical food security, global
health, and development programs, in addition to United States
policy aimed at making critical improvements in governance,
transparency, and sustainable economic growth.
At each step, we met with elected officials, the U.S.
Ambassadors, Embassy teams, Peace Corps Volunteers, and
representatives from USAID, and I am proud and grateful for
their service and commitment to diplomacy and impressed more
than ever with the central role that our ambassadors play
around the world.
As Senator Isakson noted during our trip, Africa's vast
array of potential opportunities makes it the continent of the
21st century for the United States. During this nomination
hearing, I look forward to continuing that conversation. I was
grateful to Senator Isakson and his staff and the staff of this
committee for putting together a very, very meaningful trip for
all of us to West Africa.
Our first nominee today is Donald Koran to be Ambassador to
Rwanda, which has emerged from the shadows of the genocide of
1994 to make progress in economic reform and health. Today
Rwanda has one of the fastest growing economies in Africa, and
United States policy encouraging economic liberalization while
focusing on needed improvements to democracy and governance is
essential to its future.
Mr. Koran is a career Foreign Service officer currently
serving as the Director of Africa Analysis in the Bureau of
Intelligence and Research at State, and his previous relevant
assignments include Division Chief for West and Southern
African Affairs in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research;
Deputy Chief of Mission in Kigali, Rwanda; and desk officer for
the DRC, Cameroon, and Equatorial Guinea.
Geeta Pasi is the nominee to be Ambassador to Djibouti, a
key strategic ally in the region and home to the U.S. Combined
Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa at Camp, I believe, Lemonnier.
Djibouti is a valuable partner when it comes to combating
piracy and other sources of instability in Somalia and the
Horn, and I look forward to hearing from Ms. Pasi on balancing
U.S. strategic interests in Djibouti with a broader set of
regional concerns, including promoting democracy, good
governance, and human rights.
Ms. Pasi is a career member of the Foreign Service and
currently serves as Director of the Office of East African
Affairs in the Bureau of African Affairs. Her other relevant
experiences include posts as political-economic and
international relations officers in Ghana, Cameroon, and West
African Affairs.
Ms. Jeanine Jackson is the Ambassador nominee for Malawi.
Malawi has made recent progress combating corruption and
developing its largely agriculturally based economy, though
many challenges still remain. In April, our country signed a
$350 million Millennium Challenge Corporation compact with
Malawi. I look forward to hearing about what steps are being
taken to ensure the government does not pursue deeply
concerning new laws aimed at restricting human rights and media
freedom.
Ms. Jackson is a career member of the Foreign Service,
currently serving as the Minister Counselor for Management at
the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, and in addition to several posts
coordinating diplomatic activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, Ms.
Jackson previously served as U.S. Ambassador to Burkina Faso.
Lewis Lukens is the nominee to be U.S. Ambassador to
Senegal and, concurrently, Guinea-Bissau. He's a career member
of the Foreign Service, currently serving as Executive Director
of the Secretariat of the State Department. He previously
served as Consul General in Vancouver, Executive Secretary in
Baghdad, and Senior Director for Administration at the National
Security Council in addition to tours in Cote d'Ivoire, China,
and Australia.
Senegal is a moderate and largely secular democracy, which
has experienced economic growth over the past decade but still
faces challenges alleviating poverty and disease. And I look
forward to hearing from Mr. Lukens about how the United States
can promote growth in Senegal, including through the MCC, while
combating drug trafficking in the region, in particular Guinea-
Bissau.
Finally, we will hear from Dr. Ariel Pablos-Mendez, the
nominee to be Assistant Administrator for Global Health at
USAID. Dr. Pablos-Mendez currently serves as managing director
of the Rockefeller Foundation, where he works to develop
initiatives to address the global challenge of health systems,
including the role of the private sector in health systems in
the developing world.
His work in global health spans two decades, including as a
researcher and physician focusing on multi-drug-resistant
tuberculosis, developing public-private partnerships to combat
disease, and delivery mechanisms for HIV/AIDS treatments to
mothers and families.
And I look forward to hearing from him about his plans for
integrating global health programs, and transitioning authority
for GHI, the Global Health Initiative, from State to USAID, as
envisioned in the QDDR, or the Quadrennial Diplomacy and
Development Review.
This is a critical moment for USAID to demonstrate
leadership over U.S. health programs globally, and Dr. Pablos-
Mendez will sit at the helm of this historic and important
change.
I look forward to hearing about plans for meeting the
benchmarks in the QDDR and to better integrating GHI, so we can
effectively promote global health.
I'm very pleased to, thus, welcome all of today's
distinguished nominees. I look forward to your opening
statements. But first, I will turn it over to Senator Isakson
for his opening statement and then to Senators Barrasso and
Enzi, who have joined us to introduce Jeanine Jackson.
Senator Isakson.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to
Senator Enzi and Senator Barrasso.
Ms. Jackson, you've been bragged about extensively in some
of the meetings I've had with both these gentlemen already, so
you do not come unnoticed, and you're very welcome to have you
today, as we are all of the nominees for ambassadorship and
USAID.
I've had the privilege of being in both Rwanda and
Djibouti, both of which are significant countries for the
United States of America.
President Kagame in Rwanda has done a remarkable job in
transforming a nation from genocide to democracy, and in
improving the health and the future of those people. And
Djibouti is one of the most significant unknown investments of
the United States of America there probably is on any continent
in the world. And having visited our troops there, and the many
things they do there on the Persian Gulf and on the East
African coast are very much appreciated.
I have not been to Guinea-Bissau, but, as the chairman
said, we just returned from Benin and Ghana and from Nigeria,
and many of the things that are going on in those three
countries are pretty much germane to Guinea-Bissau, in
particular with USAID.
We had the privilege of participating in a signing of a
memorandum of understanding where a United States NGO, through
USAID, is developing a critical maternity ward in the largest
maternity hospital in Accra, Ghana, and really going to develop
a better chance for babies born at risk to actually survive.
And it's a great investment of private United States money
coordinated by USAID and the people of Ghana.
We also had the privilege to work with USAID on a project
in northern Ghana, or the north of capital, in their biggest
agricultural asset, which is pineapple. Because of what's
happened with Millennium Challenge investment and the
assistance of USAID, we've turned some difficult situations for
the farmers to actually make a living to where they now have a
cooperative, like many in the United States. And through the
investment of Millennium Challenge, we are working ourselves
out of foreign assistance, because they are now profitable and
productive in that product. And we're grateful for what USAID
does in on a day-in-day-out basis, in terms of coordinating
those events in Africa.
But I do welcome all of you, and thank you very much for
your willingness to serve in some very difficult parts of the
world.
And again, as the chairman has said, welcome Senator Enzi
and Senator Barrasso to our hearing.
Senator Coons. Thank you very much, Senator Isakson.
And we'd now like to invite both of the Senators from
Wyoming to make some introductory comments about Jeanine
Jackson, the nominee to serve as Ambassador to Malawi.
Following their comments, I'll invite Ms. Jackson to give
her opening statement, if I might.
Senator Barrasso. I'm sorry, Senator Enzi.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL B. ENZI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Enzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's my privilege
and honor to be able to recommend to you the nomination of
Jeanine Jackson to be the United States Ambassador to Malawi. I
strongly support her nomination. She's an excellent candidate
for this important diplomatic position, and she has the
distinction of being from Sheridan, WY, where Diana, my wife
who is also here today in support, and I graduated from high
school along with Jeanine, although I graduated quite a while
before Jeanine did.
But my wife and Jeanine were classmates. They were best
friends. They were fellow church members and fellow American
Legion Girls State delegates.
I'm proud that an outstanding Wyoming native, who I've
known for decades, has been nominated to contribute to this
important foreign-policy goal of the United States in Africa.
I introduced Jeanine to this committee 5 years ago when she
was nominated to be the Ambassador to Burkina Faso. That was
also a country that, with her help, got a Millennium Challenge
grant. And at this post she'll be able to work with a country
that has one as they complete the tasks on that.
She excelled in her role in Burkina Faso, and she had the
distinction at that time of being Wyoming's first career
Foreign Service officer to be an ambassador. Today I introduce
her as the first Wyomingite ever to have a second
ambassadorship.
Ambassador Jackson's experience is extensive. She's a
career senior Foreign Service officer and also served 30 years
in the military and retired as a full colonel. She and her
husband, Mark, have served together in the Army and the Foreign
Service. Mark is now retired and will serve in an unpaid role
of ambassador spouse, which also benefits our country and
Malawi, so you could say we're going to get two for the price
of one.
Ambassador Jackson has served our country with the military
in Vietnam, Germany, and Korea, and in the Foreign Service,
she's been in Switzerland, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Hong Kong,
Kenya, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Burkina Faso.
Currently, she's completing 26 months as the Senior
Management Counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, by far the
largest, most complex embassy in the world. She's leading all
support-related planning and implementation to continue the
efficient functioning of our Embassy in Iraq after the U.S.
military completes its drawdown later this year.
You can tell that Ambassador Jackson doesn't shirk hard
assignments. We watched through her eyes and through her
explanation, as she's lived around the world. She's helped us
to understand the world and around the world. In 2001, she
became the first senior U.S. diplomat to serve in Afghanistan
after the fall of the Taliban. In Kenya, in the years after al-
Qaeda bombings, she played a major role in rebuilding the
staff, operations, and infrastructure. In Hong Kong, she
protected the interests of the U.S. Government agencies and
employees at the time of the reversion to Chinese sovereignty.
And here's one of the most fascinating ones to me, when the
Soviet Union dissolved, she managed the establishment of U.S.
embassies in 14 new countries.
The United States faces diverse and dynamic challenges and
opportunities in Malawi. Promoting development includes an
emphasis on the elimination of poverty, transparent governance,
economic reform, anticorruption practices, and greater
political and economic participation.
She was able to do those things in Burkina Faso, where she
had to speak French. Here she gets to speak English.
Individuals like Jeanine Jackson understand these
complexities, and they'll help the United States to achieve its
goal. Because of her diverse experience, she can evaluate and
persuade. She understands cultural differences and can adapt
her approach.
Ambassador Jackson and Mark have taken on some very
challenging assignments around the world and often enjoy
driving to their new posts, once even driving from their post
in Switzerland to the new post in Nigeria across the Sahara
Desert. Nearly every weekend when I'm in Wyoming, I drive
hundreds of miles across the State to visit my constituents.
Ambassador Jackson probably has driven close to 20,000 miles
across Africa. The deserts and mountains of Wyoming are a long
way from Malawi, but I know that Ambassador Jackson's childhood
in Wyoming has prepared her for the adventures and challenges
of serving in Africa.
It's a proud day for Diana and I. It's a proud day for
Sheridan. It's a proud day for the State of Wyoming. And I want
to enthusiastically endorse Jeanine Jackson on her nomination
for Malawi.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Coons. Thank you very much, Senator Enzi.
Senator Barrasso.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Senator Isakson. And I, too, want to add my congratulations as
well as my support, along with that of Senator Enzi.
And I want to take just a moment to speak in recognition
and support of the nomination of Ambassador Jeanine Jackson to
be the United States Ambassador to Malawi. She is an excellent
nominee. She will bring a tremendous amount of knowledge,
experience, and energy to this position.
As you know, she's a native of Sheridan, WY, and I'm really
pleased to have such a highly qualified, skilled individual
from Wyoming to be nominated to serve the United States in this
important diplomatic position.
She's currently serving as Minister Counselor for
Management at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq. And I've had
the pleasure of meeting with her, as well as her husband, at
the Embassy in Baghdad during visits there. She's demonstrated
to me her knowledge, her focus, and her determination. So I'm
very grateful for her willingness, as well as that of her
husband, to serve our country and provide strong leadership in
implementing the foreign-policy goals of the United States.
Based on our discussions together and her extensive
background in Africa, I'm confident that she grasps the
opportunities and the challenges facing both Africa as well as
Malawi. It is clear that she will make her family, as well as
the people of Wyoming and our Nation, very proud. So I add with
Senator Enzi my wholehearted endorsement and recommendation of
her nomination to the committee and the full Senate.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Coons. Thank you very much, Senator Barrasso.
I think Senator Isakson would also like to add a comment.
Senator Isakson. Senator Enzi, is Diana in the room?
Senator Enzi. Yes.
Senator Isakson. Where is Diana?
Diana, stand up, would you? Don't sit down yet.
You know, an awful lot of times, the spouses of U.S.
Senators get no attention at all. I have traveled with Diana to
India and to Sri Lanka to see a demonstration of the mine-
sniffing dogs that she has provided to countries around the
world to save children from losing limbs or losing their lives.
So a lot of times, we get all the pictures and the
publicity and the attention, but this lady is exemplary of the
other wives and spouses of Members of the Senate who also do
their part to make this country a better country and the world
a better world, and I commend you, Diane, for what you do.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Senator.
And thank you, Diane, for being with us.
And Senator Enzi and Senator Barrasso, thank you very much
for joining us today. Understanding your schedules may require
you to be at other events, I'd welcome you to excuse yourselves
at this point, if that's more convenient for you.
Ms. Jackson, if I might encourage you to begin with your
opening statement, and then we'll go through the rest of the
nominees.
And I would encourage all of the nominees to introduce your
families, who should be recognized along with you for the great
sacrifices they have made to support your commitments to public
service, whether the military, the State Department, AID, or
elsewhere.
Ms. Jackson.
Ambassador Jackson. Mr. Chairman----
Senator Coons. I'm sorry, and I'll invite the other
nominees to come forward to the table as well at this time.
Forgive the interruption, Ms. Jackson.
Thank you. Ms. Jackson.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEANINE E. JACKSON, OF WYOMING, TO BE
AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF MALAWI
Ambassador Jackson. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Isakson, it is a
great honor and privilege to appear before you today as
President Obama's nominee to be the United States Ambassador to
the Republic of Malawi.
I appreciate the confidence the President and Secretary
Clinton have placed in me by putting my name forward for your
consideration. I'm also deeply grateful for the support of
Senator Enzi; his wife, Diane; Senator Barrasso; and my
husband, Mark; as well as the terrific support of the State
Department's Africa Bureau.
Having served as Ambassador to Burkina Faso, I'm aware of
the importance, if confirmed, of working with this committee
and the Congress in order to advance United States interests in
Malawi, including strengthening its democratic institutions,
encouraging economic diversification, and building its health
and education capacity.
Since joining the Foreign Service in 1985, I have held
numerous positions overseas and in Washington. This experience,
in addition to my military service, impressed upon me a clear
understanding of the critical role that interagency cooperation
plays, both in U.S. missions and here in Washington, in
developing and implementing U.S. foreign policy.
My expertise with U.S. Government agencies is invaluable in
my current assignment as Management Counselor of the United
States Embassy in Baghdad. I lead large teams of U.S.
Government civilians and military personnel to provide, in a
hostile environment, the support platform for the world's
largest embassy and the 35 U.S. Government agencies represented
in our country team in Iraq.
Malawi, from its independence in 1964 until 1994, was a
one-party state under authoritarian rule. Since 1994, when the
people of Malawi voted in their first democratic, free, and
fair elections, Malawi has strengthened its democratic
institutions and has undergone peaceful transfers of power
among political parties. The people of Malawi are proud that
women comprise 22 percent of Parliament.
The economy of this small, landlocked country is heavily
dependent on agriculture. This creates challenges, but the
Malawian Government has taken steps to greatly increase
productivity. Mineral deposits were recently discovered, which
may present opportunities for Malawi to diversify its economy.
If confirmed, I look forward to assisting Malawi in
addressing some of its most pressing needs with a focus on
strengthening its health systems, providing quality education,
and further developing democratic processes. The United States
has active U.S. Agency for International Development, Centers
for Disease Control, and Peace Corps programs, many of which
are supported through PEPFAR. Malawi was the first country to
sign a PEPFAR partnership framework and was selected to be one
of eight Global Health Initiative Plus countries.
This year, the Millennium Challenge Corporation signed a
$350 million compact with Malawi to improve access to
electrical power and which should enable further economic
gains.
Malawi maintains good relations with the United States. It
was the first southern African nation to receive United States-
sponsored peacekeeping training and recently contributed troops
to the U.N. operation in Cote d'Ivoire.
Malawi's cooperation on many issues is welcome, but we
still have concerns. We are sensitive to the need for
individual freedoms, including individual preferences. And we
support a political space that is open to all.
If confirmed, I would work to support such a space for all
Malawians.
Although Malawi is a small country, it remains one of the
most underdeveloped. It is, nonetheless, a strategic partner of
the United States. Despite ongoing challenges, Malawi holds
great promise. If confirmed, I would look forward to working
with the Government of Malawi and its people on mutual goals of
a healthier, better educated, more prosperous citizenry that
embraces democratic values.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to appear
before you today. I will be happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Jackson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeanine E. Jackson
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a great honor and
privilege to appear before you today as President Obama's nominee to be
the United States Ambassador to the Republic of Malawi. I appreciate
the confidence the President and Secretary Clinton have placed in me by
putting my name forward for your consideration. I am also deeply
grateful for the support of my husband Mark, a retired Foreign Service
officer.
Having previously served as Ambassador to Burkina Faso, I am aware
of the importance, if confirmed, of working with this committee and the
Congress in order to advance U.S. interests in Malawi, including
strengthening its democratic institutions, encouraging economic
diversification, and building its health and education capacity.
Since joining the Foreign Service in 1985, I have held numerous
positions overseas and in Washington. This experience, in addition to
my military service, impressed upon me a clear understanding of the
critical role that interagency cooperation plays both in U.S. missions
and here in Washington in developing and implementing U.S. foreign
policy. My expertise with U.S. Government agencies is invaluable in my
current assignment as Management Counselor of the U.S. Embassy in
Baghdad. I lead large teams of U.S. Government civilians and military
personnel to provide, in a hostile environment, the support platform
for the world's largest Embassy and the 35 U.S. Government agencies
represented on its country team.
From its independence in 1964, Malawi was a one-party state under
authoritarian control. Since 1994, when the people of Malawi voted in
their first democratic, free, and fair elections, Malawi has
strengthened its democratic institutions and has undergone peaceful
transfers of power among political parties. The people of Malawi are
proud that women comprise 22 percent of the Parliament.
The economy of this small, landlocked country is heavily dependent
on agriculture. This creates challenges but the Malawian Government has
taken steps to greatly increase productivity. Mineral deposits were
recently discovered which may present opportunities for Malawi to
diversify its economy. If confirmed, I look forward to assisting Malawi
in addressing some of its most pressing needs with a focus on
strengthening its health systems; providing quality education; and
further developing democratic processes. The United States has active
U.S. Agency for International Development, Centers for Disease Control
and Peace Corps programs, many of which are supported through PEPFAR.
Malawi was the first country to sign a PEPFAR Partnership Framework,
and was selected to be one of eight Global Health Initiative Plus
countries. This year, the Millennium Challenge Corporation signed a
$350 million compact with Malawi to improve access to electrical power,
which should enable further economic gains.
Malawi maintains good relations with the United States. It was the
first southern African nation to receive U.S.-sponsored peacekeeping
training and recently contributed troops to the U.N. Operation in Cote
d'Ivoire.
Malawi's cooperation on many issues is welcome, but we still have
concerns: we are sensitive to the need for individual freedoms,
including individual preferences, and we support a political space that
is open to all. If confirmed, I would work to support such a space for
all Malawians.
Although Malawi is a small country and remains one of the most
underdeveloped, it is nonetheless, a strategic partner of the United
States. Despite ongoing challenges, Malawi holds great promise. If
confirmed, I would look forward to working with the Government of
Malawi and its people on mutual goals of a healthier, better educated,
more prosperous citizenry that embraces democratic values.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you again for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I will be happy to answer any
questions.
Senator Coons. Thank you very much, Ms. Jackson.
Now if we might go to the other end of the panel and work
our way down.
Ms. Pasi.
STATEMENT OF GEETA PASI, OF NEW YORK, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE
REPUBLIC OF DJIBOUTI
Ms. Pasi. Thank you, Chairman Coons, Ranking Member
Isakson, members of the committee. It's an honor to appear
before you today as the nominee to be the next United States
Ambassador to the Republic of Djibouti.
I'm grateful for the confidence the President and Secretary
of State have shown by nominating me to this position and for
the support of Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Johnnie
Carson.
First, Mr. Chairman, please allow me to acknowledge my
family members who are here today. My sisters, Usha Pasi and
Rita Pasi; my brother, Peter Pasi; and his wife, Halley Lewis,
have all joined me this morning.
Mr. Chairman, please allow me to tell you a little bit
about myself. My career has included challenging assignments
that required me to adapt to rapidly changing environments.
I've served in several countries in transition and was in Ghana
during its first democratic elections and Romania shortly after
the fall of Nicolae Ceausescu. During a state of emergency, I
helped steer Bangladesh toward democratic elections.
In Washington, I served in several positions, including as
the Afghanistan desk officer, where I was working on September
11, 2001.
I currently serve as office director for East African
Affairs and have policy and program responsibility for 11
countries in East Africa.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I look forward to leading
Embassy Djibouti in advancing U.S. interests. Our main
interests in Djibouti are peace and security, good governance,
and economic development.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, we share important interests and
goals with Djibouti, an area of relative calm in a turbulent
region, and an important partner in the fight against
terrorism. Djibouti is surrounded by Eritrea, Ethiopia, and
Somalia, and is less than 18 miles from Yemen. It has a
strategic position at the Bab el Mandeb Strait, which joins the
Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, and through which some 40 percent
of the world's shipping passes.
If confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reinforce
our bilateral relationship, as well as contribute to efforts to
promote a stable, functioning, and peaceful Somalia, in
coordination with our mission in Nairobi.
Djibouti hosts the only United States military forward-
operating site in sub-Saharan Africa, Camp Lemonnier, the
headquarters for the Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa,
or CJTF-HOA, and approximately 3,000 troops. I understand that
you, Senator Isakson, and Senator Inhofe have visited Camp
Lemonnier. If confirmed, I will continue to expand cooperation
and coordination between Embassy personnel and Camp Lemonnier
and its tenant commands.
If confirmed, I will also ensure that CJTF-HOA programming
in Djibouti fits within the framework of U.S. Government
priorities to advance our key interests.
Mr. Chairman, Djibouti's Presidential election in April
underscored the importance of democracy and governance reforms,
including enlarging space for media and civil society. If
confirmed, I commit to work with our Djiboutian partners on
these issues.
On the economic front, Djibouti's leadership has privatized
its excellent deepwater port and airport, reducing corruption
and increasing revenue flows. Construction of a new port
facility is underway and will dramatically increase capacity.
Djibouti remains very poor, however, ranked 149 out of 177
countries on the UNDP Human Development Index. In addition,
less than 5 percent of the land is arable. Our small USAID
mission in Djibouti focuses on governance and democracy; health
and education, particularly to combat low life expectancy;
maternal and child mortality; and infectious disease. The
United States also responds to food insecurity needs. If
confirmed, I will make these programs a priority.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, my highest priority
will be the protection of Americans and American business
interests, including mission personnel living and traveling in
Djibouti. In the fall, the mission will move to a new Embassy
compound, meaning that all mission personnel will work in the
safest and most secure facilities available. I am committed to
good stewardship of this significant U.S. Government
investment.
Mr. Chairman, I believe my prior experience in the Foreign
Service has prepared me to serve as Ambassador to Djibouti. If
confirmed by the Senate, I look forward to working closely with
you and other members of the committee, and would hope to
welcome you during my tenure.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the honor to appear
before the committee today. I would be happy to take any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Pasi follows:]
Prepared Statement of Geeta Pasi
Chairman Coons, Ranking Member Isakson, Members of the Committee,
it is an honor to appear before you today as the nominee to be the next
United States Ambassador to the Republic of Djibouti. I am grateful for
the confidence the President and Secretary of State have shown by
nominating me to this position, and for the support of Assistant
Secretary for African Affairs Johnnie Carson.
First, Mr. Chairman, let me acknowledge several family members and
colleagues here today. My sister, Rita Pasi, brother, Peter Pasi, and
his wife, Hallie Lewis, have all joined me. I am pleased to appear
before you on this panel with my three colleagues, Don Koran, Lewis
Lukens, and Jeanine Jackson.
Mr. Chairman, please allow me to tell you about myself. My career
has included challenging assignments that required me to adapt to
rapidly changing environments. I have served in several countries in
transition and was in Ghana during its first democratic elections and
Romania shortly after the fall of Nicolae Ceaucescu. During a state of
emergency, I helped steer Bangladesh toward democratic elections. In
Washington, I served in several positions, including as the Afghanistan
Desk Officer where I was working on September 11, 2001. I currently
serve as Office Director for East African Affairs and have policy and
program responsibility for 11 countries in East Africa.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I look forward to leading Embassy
Djibouti in advancing U.S. interests with our team of Foreign and Civil
Service personnel, military staff , and local employees. Our main
interests in Djibouti are peace and security, good governance, and
economic development.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, we share important interests and goals
with Djibouti. An area of relative calm in a turbulent region and an
important partner in the fight against terrorism, Djibouti is
surrounded by Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Somalia, and is less than 18 miles
from Yemen. It has a strategic position at the Bab el Mandeb Strait,
which joins the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, and through which some 40
percent of the world's shipping passes. If confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I
will continue to reinforce our bilateral relationship as well as
contribute to efforts promoting a stable, functioning, and peaceful
Somalia in coordination with our mission in Nairobi.
Djibouti hosts the only U.S. military forward operating site in
sub-Saharan Africa, Camp Lemonnier, the headquarters for the Combined
Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) and approximately 3,000
troops. I understand that you, Senator Isakson, and Senator Inhofe have
visited Camp Lemonnier. If confirmed, I will continue and expand
coordination and cooperation between Embassy personnel and Camp
Lemonnier and its tenant commands, including the CJTF-HOA contingent.
If confirmed, I will also ensure that CJTF-HOA programming in Djibouti
fits within the framework of U.S. Government priorities to advance our
key interests.
Mr. Chairman, Djibouti's Presidential election in April underscored
the importance of democracy and governance reforms--including enlarging
space for media and civil society groups that face constraints. If
confirmed, I commit to work with our Djiboutian partners on these
issues.
On the economic front, Mr. Chairman, Djibouti's leadership has
privatized its excellent deep-water port and airport, reducing
corruption and increasing revenue flows. Construction of a new port
facility is underway and will dramatically increase capacity. Making
Djibouti an attractive place for investment and center for regional and
international trade is essential for its economic development. Djibouti
remains very poor, ranked 149 out of 177 countries on the UNDP Human
Development Index. Less than 5 percent of its land is arable. The small
USAID mission in Djibouti focuses on governance and democracy, health
and education, particularly to combat low life-expectancy, maternal and
child mortality, and infectious disease. The United States responds to
food insecurity through support for the Famine Early Warning Network
office in Djibouti, as well as through USG-funded Food for Peace and
Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance programs. The United States has
also been the leading donor in the area of democratic reform and good
governance. If confirmed, I will continue to make these programs a
priority.
Djibouti's sole troubled relationship in the region is with
Eritrea. Although Qatar's mediation efforts alleviated the conflict,
the countries have not yet addressed the substantive issues of border
demarcation. If confirmed, I will support international efforts to
resolve this conflict peacefully and restore the border to the status
quo ante.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, my highest priority will be
the protection of Americans and American business interests, including
mission personnel, living and traveling in Djibouti. With only a few
private Americans in-country, I would, if confirmed, remain in frequent
contact with them, on consular and security issues but also to benefit
from their wisdom. In the fall, the mission will move to a new Embassy
compound, meaning that all mission personnel will work in the safest
and most secure facilities available. Maintaining this technologically
advanced building in Djibouti will be a challenge, but I am committed
to good stewardship of this significant USG investment.
Mr. Chairman, I believe my prior experience in the Foreign Service
has prepared me to serve as Ambassador to Djibouti. If confirmed by the
Senate, I look forward to working closely with you and other members of
the committee, and would hope to welcome you during my tenure.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the honor to appear before the
committee today. I would be happy to take any questions you may have.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Ms. Pasi.
Mr. Koran.
STATEMENT OF DONALD KORAN, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO
THE REPUBLIC OF RWANDA
Mr. Koran. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is
an honor to have been nominated by President Obama to be the
next United States Ambassador to Rwanda and to appear before
you today.
Here with me today are my wife, Cindy, and my daughter,
Laura.
Rwanda is known by most Americans for the 1994 genocide,
which left the country and its people ravaged. I saw this
legacy firsthand when I served there from 1999 to 2001. Since
then, Rwanda has made great strides in rebuilding the country,
as well as playing a positive role in the region and beyond.
The United States works closely with Rwanda to advance these
positive endeavors.
With the assistance of the United States and other donors,
the Rwandan Government has made remarkable progress in
improving the living standards of its people, primarily through
education and infrastructure development. It has improved the
business climate, as evidenced by Rwanda's dramatic improvement
in the World Bank's ease of business doing business index.
If confirmed, I plan to promote economic development in
Rwanda, as well as opportunities for American trade and
investment. The United States and Rwanda signed a bilateral
investment treaty in 2008, now pending advice and consent of
the Senate, which would further improve the investment climate
and provide additional protection to United States investors.
We also support Rwanda's leadership in the East Africa
community and its efforts to promote development and economic
integration. Development assistance can have a great impact in
Rwanda, due to the government's strong track record in
implementing programs. That strong track record, along with
remarkable results, contributed to its selection as a Global
Health Initiative Plus country.
The United States has been at the forefront of combating
HIV/AIDS and malaria, and helping improve food security in
Rwanda through the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief,
the President's Malaria Initiative, and the Feed the Future
Initiative. Peace Corps returned to Rwanda in 2009 and
currently has some 130 volunteers working in health and
education programs.
The advancement of democracy and human rights are important
components of our policy toward Rwanda, and one which the
United States and Rwanda are committed to working closely
together to achieve. We believe it is important for Rwanda to
continue to develop and strengthen its democratic institutions
to ensure political space for the opposition and to promote a
strong, independent media.
In this context, I look forward, if confirmed, to build on
and expand our mutual efforts with Rwanda on these important
issues. Through our USAID mission, we have funded democracy and
governance programs to strengthen the justice sector, media,
and civil society.
My past experience in Rwanda, and as desk officer for the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, has given me a deep
appreciation for the importance and complexity of the
relationship between those two countries. Their rapprochement
in 2009, which put an end to years of conflict by proxy, has
been the cornerstone of recent improvements in regional
stability. Peace and security in the eastern Congo remain
elusive, however, and we believe that Rwanda continues to have
a critical and proactive role to play in stabilizing the
region.
We strongly support the International Conference on the
Great Lakes Region's recent declaration committing the DRC,
Rwanda, and the Congo's other neighbors to addressing the
illegal trade in minerals, and we commend the steps Rwanda is
undertaking to ensure the trade continues only through legal
and certified channels. The Democratic Forces for the
Liberation of Rwanda, or FDLR, remains a violent threat to
civilians in eastern Congo, though Rwanda continues to provide
for the reintegration of FDLR members who demobilize.
Rwanda is an increasingly important partner
internationally. It has over 3,000 peacekeepers in Darfur and
some 250 troops elsewhere in Sudan who have benefited from U.S.
military's Africa Contingency Operations and Training
Assistance program. It also has almost 200 police assigned to
the peacekeeping mission in Haiti.
President Kagame was among the strongest voices in the
international community supporting action to prevent a massacre
in Libya earlier this year.
If confirmed as Ambassador to Rwanda, I will continue
United States efforts to support economic and political
progress. Rwanda's development and stability are essential for
its citizens and critical to the stability of central Africa.
I look forward to working closely with you, Mr. Chairman,
and with the committee in this important endeavor, should I be
confirmed. Thank you again, Chairman Coons and members of the
committee, for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
welcome any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Koran follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donald W. Koran
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is an honor to have
been nominated by President Obama to be the next United States
Ambassador to Rwanda and to appear before you today.
Rwanda is known by most Americans for the 1994 genocide, which left
the country and its people ravaged. I saw this legacy first-hand when I
served there from 1999 to 2001. Since then, Rwanda has made great
strides in rebuilding the country, as well as playing a positive role
in the region and beyond. The United States works closely with Rwanda
to advance these positive endeavors.
With the assistance of the United States and other donors, the
Rwandan Government has made remarkable progress in improving the living
standards of its people, primarily through education and infrastructure
development. It has improved the business climate, as evidenced by
Rwanda's dramatic improvement in the World Bank's ease of doing
business index. If confirmed, I plan to promote economic development in
Rwanda, as well as opportunities for American trade and investment. The
United States and Rwanda signed a Bilateral Investment Treaty in 2008,
now pending advice and consent of the Senate, which would further
improve the investment climate and provide additional protections to
U.S. investors. We also support Rwanda's leadership in the East African
Community and its efforts to promote development and economic
integration.
Development assistance can have great impact in Rwanda due to the
government's strong track record in implementing programs. That strong
track record, along with remarkable results, contributed to its
selection as a Global Health Initiative Plus country. The United States
has been at the forefront of combating HIV/AIDS and malaria, and
helping to improve food security in Rwanda through the President's
Emergency Plan For Aids Relief, the President's Malaria Initiative, and
the Feed the Future Initiative. Peace Corps returned to Rwanda in 2009
and currently has some 130 volunteers working in health and education
programs.
The advancement of democracy and human rights are important
components of our policy toward Rwanda, and one which the U.S. and
Rwanda are committed to working closely together to achieve. We believe
it is important for Rwanda to continue to develop and strengthen its
democratic institutions, to ensure political space for the opposition
and to promote a strong independent media. In this context, I look
forward, if confirmed, to build on and expand our mutual efforts with
Rwanda on these important issues. Through our USAID mission we have
funded democracy and governance programs to strengthen the justice
sector, media, and civil society.
My past experience in Rwanda and as desk officer for the Democratic
Republic of the Congo has given me a deep appreciation for the
importance and complexity of the relationship between those two
countries. Their rapprochement in 2009, which put an end to years of
conflict by proxy, has been the cornerstone of recent improvements in
regional stability. Peace and security in the eastern Congo remain
elusive, however, and we believe that Rwanda continues to have a
critical and proactive role to play in stabilizing the region. We
strongly support the International Conference on the Great Lakes
Region's recent declaration committing the DRC, Rwanda, and the Congo's
other neighbors to addressing the illegal trade in minerals, and we
commend the steps Rwanda is undertaking to ensure the trade continues
only through legal and certified channels. The Democratic Forces for
the Liberation of Rwanda, or FDLR, remains a violent threat to
civilians in eastern Congo, though Rwanda continues to provide for the
reintegration of FDLR members who demobilize.
Rwanda is an increasingly important partner internationally. It has
over 3,000 peacekeepers in Darfur and some 250 troops elsewhere in
Sudan who have benefited from U.S. military's Africa Contingency
Operations and Training Assistance (ACOTA) program. It also has almost
200 police assigned to the peacekeeping mission in Haiti. President
Kagame was among the strongest voices in the international community
supporting action to prevent a massacre in Libya earlier this year.
If confirmed as Ambassador to Rwanda, I will continue U.S. efforts
to support economic and political progress. Rwanda's development and
stability are essential for its citizens and critical to the stability
of Central Africa. I look forward to working closely with you, Mr.
Chairman, and with the committee in this important endeavor, should I
be confirmed.
Thank you again Chairman Coons and members of the committee for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I welcome any questions that
you might have.
Senator Coons. Thank you.
Mr. Lukens.
STATEMENT OF LEWIS LUKENS, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE
REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL AND TO SERVE
CONCURRENTLY AS AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF
GUINEA-BISSAU
Mr. Lukens. Mr. Chairman, Senator Isakson, I'm honored to
appear before you today. I wish to thank President Obama and
Secretary Clinton for the trust and confidence they have placed
in me as their nominee for Ambassador to the Republic of
Senegal and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce my family. My wife,
Lucy, and our daughters, Lallie and Leeza, have lived on five
continents with me and have been exceptional representatives of
the United States overseas. My Aunt Emily and my mother-in-law,
Anne Buxton, are here today, and my parents, Alan and Susan
Lukens, are here.
My father served this country for 36 years as a diplomat,
mostly in Africa, including in Dakar. In fact, he appeared
before this subcommittee 27 years ago as nominee for U.S.
Ambassador to Congo Brazzaville.
For the past 22 years, I've dedicated my career to serving
the United States through various positions at the White House,
the State Department, and overseas. If confirmed, it would be a
great honor and privilege to serve our country in this
important post.
The United States and Senegal share a long, bilateral
relationship. As a critical partner in Francophone Africa,
Senegal is a key ally in the fight against terrorism and
narcotics, and has been an important player on regional and
international issues.
Senegal is one of the few African countries to have never
experienced a coup d'etat and prides itself as a religiously
tolerant nation. However, Senegal does face economic,
governance, and press freedom challenges that threaten its
democratic and development future. Senegal suffers from a
crippling energy crisis that causes frequent power outages and
has weakened economic growth. Senegal would like to emerge as a
regional economic hub. And, if confirmed, I will work with the
government to encourage enactment of economic reforms necessary
to attract investment and expand market access.
Senegal will host Presidential and legislative elections
next February. These elections are important to the country's
democratic future. Concerns about democratic backsliding and
corruption have tarnished Senegal's longstanding democratic
reputation.
If confirmed, I will work with President Wade and the
Government of Senegal in their efforts to prepare for
transparent, fair, and credible elections.
Senegal is a recipient of U.S. foreign assistance programs,
most notably a $540 million Millennium Challenge Corporation
Compact. The United States Government must be accountable to
American taxpayers, and, especially in this difficult economic
client, we'll ensure that every dollar is effectively used.
If confirmed, I will work closely with our strong partners
in Senegalese civil and religious society and with the
government to ensure that Senegal continues to improve on all
of its indicators.
The small, former Portuguese colony of Guinea-Bissau is one
the world's poorest countries with an economy based on almost
entirely on cashew production. Its poverty, its geography, and
its historic instability have contributed to a flourishing
narcotics trade that has compromised many elements of its
military and civilian leadership.
U.S. law enforcement agencies have identified, and are
currently working closely with, credible government
counterparts. Through a memorandum of understanding signed with
Portugal, we will have a United States diplomat placed in the
Portuguese Embassy in Guinea-Bissau. This will help us increase
our knowledge of the narcotics-trafficking situation and
encourage the host government to raise its profile on this
important issue.
U.S. goals there are to promote sustainable democratic
political development, combat narcotics trafficking, and lay
the foundations for economic growth. We are currently running
successful, cost-effective programs that feed 50 percent of
this country's school-aged children and that destroy unexploded
ordnance and landmines laid since Bissau's war for
independence.
To its credit, Guinea-Bissau recently held free and fair
elections, is working to stabilize its economy, and recently
qualified for debt relief by implementing fiscally sound
policies.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your continued interest in the
United States relations with Africa. If confirmed, I look
forward to working with you, your committee, and other Members
of Congress in representing the interests of the American
people in Senegal and Guinea-Bissau. I would be happy to answer
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lukens follows:]
Prepared Statement of Donald W. Koran
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is an honor to have
been nominated by President Obama to be the next United States
Ambassador to Rwanda and to appear before you today.
Rwanda is known by most Americans for the 1994 genocide, which left
the country and its people ravaged. I saw this legacy first-hand when I
served there from 1999 to 2001. Since then, Rwanda has made great
strides in rebuilding the country, as well as playing a positive role
in the region and beyond. The United States works closely with Rwanda
to advance these positive endeavors.
With the assistance of the United States and other donors, the
Rwandan Government has made remarkable progress in improving the living
standards of its people, primarily through education and infrastructure
development. It has improved the business climate, as evidenced by
Rwanda's dramatic improvement in the World Bank's ease of doing
business index. If confirmed, I plan to promote economic development in
Rwanda, as well as opportunities for American trade and investment. The
United States and Rwanda signed a Bilateral Investment Treaty in 2008,
now pending advice and consent of the Senate, which would further
improve the investment climate and provide additional protections to
U.S. investors. We also support Rwanda's leadership in the East African
Community and its efforts to promote development and economic
integration.
Development assistance can have great impact in Rwanda due to the
government's strong track record in implementing programs. That strong
track record, along with remarkable results, contributed to its
selection as a Global Health Initiative Plus country. The United States
has been at the forefront of combating HIV/AIDS and malaria, and
helping to improve food security in Rwanda through the President's
Emergency Plan For Aids Relief, the President's Malaria Initiative, and
the Feed the Future Initiative. Peace Corps returned to Rwanda in 2009
and currently has some 130 volunteers working in health and education
programs.
The advancement of democracy and human rights are important
components of our policy toward Rwanda, and one which the U.S. and
Rwanda are committed to working closely together to achieve. We believe
it is important for Rwanda to continue to develop and strengthen its
democratic institutions, to ensure political space for the opposition
and to promote a strong independent media. In this context, I look
forward, if confirmed, to build on and expand our mutual efforts with
Rwanda on these important issues. Through our USAID mission we have
funded democracy and governance programs to strengthen the justice
sector, media, and civil society.
My past experience in Rwanda and as desk officer for the Democratic
Republic of the Congo has given me a deep appreciation for the
importance and complexity of the relationship between those two
countries. Their rapprochement in 2009, which put an end to years of
conflict by proxy, has been the cornerstone of recent improvements in
regional stability. Peace and security in the eastern Congo remain
elusive, however, and we believe that Rwanda continues to have a
critical and proactive role to play in stabilizing the region. We
strongly support the International Conference on the Great Lakes
Region's recent declaration committing the DRC, Rwanda, and the Congo's
other neighbors to addressing the illegal trade in minerals, and we
commend the steps Rwanda is undertaking to ensure the trade continues
only through legal and certified channels. The Democratic Forces for
the Liberation of Rwanda, or FDLR, remains a violent threat to
civilians in eastern Congo, though Rwanda continues to provide for the
reintegration of FDLR members who demobilize.
Rwanda is an increasingly important partner internationally. It has
over 3,000 peacekeepers in Darfur and some 250 troops elsewhere in
Sudan who have benefited from U.S. military's Africa Contingency
Operations and Training Assistance (ACOTA) program. It also has almost
200 police assigned to the peacekeeping mission in Haiti. President
Kagame was among the strongest voices in the international community
supporting action to prevent a massacre in Libya earlier this year.
If confirmed as Ambassador to Rwanda, I will continue U.S. efforts
to support economic and political progress. Rwanda's development and
stability are essential for its citizens and critical to the stability
of Central Africa. I look forward to working closely with you, Mr.
Chairman, and with the committee in this important endeavor, should I
be confirmed.
Thank you again Chairman Coons and members of the committee for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I welcome any questions that
you might have.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Lukens.
Dr. Pablos-Mendez.
STATEMENT OF ARIEL PABLOS-MENDEZ, OF NEW YORK, TO
BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Dr. Pablos-Mendez. Chairman Coons, Senator Isakson, good
morning, and thank you for the opportunity to testify before
you today and for your longstanding, bipartisan support for
global health. It is an honor to appear before you as President
Obama's nominee for the position of Assistant Administrator for
Global Health at the United States Agency for International
Development.
If confirmed, I will have the even greater privilege of
serving the American people in fostering a healthier, safer,
and more prosperous world.
USAID makes a profound statement about what America stands
for. I am humbled by the trust and confidence that President
Obama and Administrator Shah have placed in me, and I'm
grateful to have the support of Secretary Clinton.
If confirmed, it will be a privilege to work under their
leadership and with USAID's talented and dedicated staff to
reaffirm the agency's status as the premier development
institution in the world.
I would like to recognize USAID's Susan Brems, the Senior
Deputy Assistant Administrator, and Amie Batson, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, for their leadership to date in the
Bureau for Global Health and the Global Health Initiative.
I also wish to acknowledge the support and love of my
family and friends, including my wife, Mercedes, and three of
my children, Ariel, Fernando, and Alejandra, who are with me
here today.
I am a physician. Over the last 25 years, my career in
academic medicine has been inspired by the lives of my
patients, and the potential of the medical students and
residents that I had the opportunity to teach. I am also a
public health professional who, through research on
tuberculosis, entered into the exciting arena of global health.
I have dedicated my professional career to science and
humanity, working with Columbia University, the New York City
Department of Health, the United Nations, and the Rockefeller
Foundation. My engagement with the Federal Government has until
now been in an advisory capacity. If confirmed, I very much
look forward to the opportunity to serve actively.
I grew up in Mexico in the 1960s, in an area where green
revolution research, supported by USAID and the Rockefeller
Foundation, transformed agricultural production and directly
improved the lives of millions, my family included.
I trained in internal medicine in New York in the late
1980s. During those years, I watched young lives ravaged by
HIV/AIDS before the advent of life-saving treatment and saw the
threat of tuberculosis reemerge and intensify through multidrug
resistance. These experiences made a strong impression on me
and have shaped my career.
Recognizing that infectious diseases do not respect borders
and that effective responses here at home largely depend on
what happens in other countries, I ventured into global health.
In this sphere, I have been fortunate to work in a range of
initiatives, including the development of innovative public-
private partnerships for new drugs and vaccines for the poor,
like the Global Alliance for TB Drug Development; mobilizing a
research coalition together with the NIH and other partners to
scale up full treatment of HIV-positive mothers and their
families--a prelude to PEPFAR; working with the World Health
Organization to bridge the ``know-do'' gap with information
technology or e-Health; and since returning to the Rockefeller
Foundation, leading the initiative on the transformation of
health systems in Africa and Asia.
If confirmed, I will draw upon these diverse experiences to
provide leadership for evidence-based innovations, public-
private partnerships, and interagency collaboration to promote
access to proper health services at an affordable cost,
especially for the world's poorest and most vulnerable people.
As we enter the second decade of the new millennium, global
health has never been more central to the development agenda,
and the United States is a leader in both. Thanks to the
foresight and leadership of members from both sides of the
aisle, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the
President's Malaria Initiative, and the Global Alliance on
Vaccines and Immunization, as well as working in women's
health, we have saved millions of lives and reestablished hope
for the future, especially in Africa.
I have been a witness and a partner to this work, which is
having an impact similar to the agricultural green revolution
three generations ago. The American people can be very proud of
these accomplishments.
President Obama's Global Health Initiative, GHI, signals
the next phase of American leadership in world health and
charges USAID to work with other agencies and partners to
crystallize that vision. GHI will consolidate the fight against
diseases of poverty while strengthening country-led health
systems, with a focus on women and children. We expect by the
year 2016 to contribute to save the lives of 3 million
children, prevent more than 12 million HIV infections, and
avert 700,000 malaria deaths. This is an ambitious agenda,
commensurate with the extraordinary challenges faced by poor
and vulnerable people in the world, and requiring both our
commitment and new ways to solve problems.
Mr. Chairman, there cannot be a better time to join USAID
and serve the American people. I am humbled to be considered
for this position. If confirmed, I will be honored and excited
to contribute, under the guidance of Congress, to realizing
these mandates and those in the future fitting a changing
world. Thank you very much for your consideration, and I look
forward to your questions and recommendations.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Pablos-Mendez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ariel Pablos-Mendez
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished members of the
committee, good morning and thank you for the opportunity to testify
before you today and for your longstanding, bipartisan support for
global health. It is an honor to appear before you as President Obama's
nominee for the position of Assistant Administrator for Global Health
at the United States Agency for International Development. If
confirmed, I will have the even greater privilege of serving the
American people in fostering a healthier, safer, and more prosperous
world.
USAID makes a profound statement about what America stands for. I
am humbled by the trust and confidence that President Obama and
Administrator Shah have placed in me and am grateful to have the
support of Secretary Clinton. If confirmed, it will be a privilege to
work under their leadership and with USAID's talented and dedicated
staff to reaffirm the Agency's status as the premier development agency
in the world.
I would like to recognize USAID's Susan Brems, the Senior Deputy
Assistant Administrator, and Amie Batson, the Deputy Assistant
Administrator, for their leadership to date in the Bureau for Global
Health and the Global Health Initiative. I also wish to acknowledge the
support and love of my family and friends, including my wife and
children, who are with me here today.
I am a physician. Over the last 25 years, my career in academic
medicine has been inspired by the lives of my patients and the
potential of the medical students and residents I have had the
opportunity to teach. I am also a public health professional who,
through research on tuberculosis, entered into the exciting arena of
global health. I have dedicated my professional career to science and
humanity, working with Columbia University, the New York City
Department of Health, the United Nations and the Rockefeller
Foundation. My engagement with the Federal Government has until now
been in an advisory capacity. If confirmed, I very much look forward to
the opportunity to serve actively.
I grew up in Mexico in the 1960s, in an area where green revolution
research--supported by USAID and the Rockefeller Foundation--
transformed agricultural production and directly improved the lives of
millions, my family included. I trained in Internal Medicine in New
York in the late 1980s. During those years, I watched young lives
ravaged by HIV/AIDS before the advent of life-saving treatment and saw
the threat of tuberculosis reemerge and intensify through multidrug
resistance. These experiences made a strong impression on me and have
shaped my career.
Recognizing that infectious diseases don't respect borders and that
effective responses here at home largely depend on what happens in
other countries, I ventured into global health. In this sphere, I have
been fortunate to work in a range of exciting initiatives, including:
(1) developing innovative public-private partnerships for new drugs and
vaccines for the poor, like the Global Alliance for TB Drug
Development; (2) mobilizing a research coalition together with the NIH
and other partners to scale up full treatment of HIV-positive mothers
and their families--a prelude to PEPFAR; (3) working with the World
Health Organization to bridge the ``know-do'' gap with information
technology or e-Health; and (4) since returning to the Rockefeller
Foundation, leading the initiative on the transformation of health
systems in Africa and Asia.
If confirmed, I will draw upon these diverse experiences to provide
leadership for evidence-based innovations, public-private partnerships,
and interagency collaboration to promote access to appropriate health
services at an affordable cost, especially for the world's poorest and
most vulnerable people.
As we enter the second decade of the new millennium, global health
has never been more central to the development agenda--and the United
States is a leader in both.
Thanks to the foresight and leadership of Members from both sides
of the aisle, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the
President's Malaria Initiative, the Global Alliance on Vaccines and
Immunization and work in women's health have saved millions of lives
and reestablished hope for the future, especially in Africa. Public-
private partnerships are no longer seen as optional, but rather as
essential to achieving long-term strategic goals.
I have been a witness and a partner to this work, which is having
an impact similar to the agricultural green revolution two generations
ago. The American people can be very proud of these accomplishments.
President Obama's Global Health Initiative, GHI, signals the next
phase of American leadership in world health and charges USAID to work
with other U.S. Government agencies and partners to crystallize that
vision.
GHI will consolidate the fight against diseases of poverty while
strengthening country-led health systems, with a focus on women and
children. At a time of financial constraint, GHI calls for better
evidence, game-changing innovation, integrated services and novel
partnerships to take on grand challenges.
As stated by Administrator Shah, by building country-led health
systems, harnessing new technologies and improving the efficiency of
our efforts, we can save the lives of 3 million children, prevent more
than 12 million HIV infections, and avert 700,000 malaria deaths by
2016. We can also ensure 200,000 pregnant women give birth safely,
prevent 54 million unintended pregnancies and cure nearly 2.5 million
people infected with tuberculosis.
This is an ambitious agenda, commensurate with the extraordinary
challenges faced by poor and vulnerable people in the world, and
requiring both our commitment and new ways to solve problems.
Mr. Chairman, there could not be a better time to join USAID and
serve the American people. I am humbled to be considered for this
position. If confirmed, I will be honored and excited to contribute,
under the guidance of Congress, to realizing these mandates and those
in the future fitting a changing world.
Thank you very much for your consideration. I look forward to your
questions and recommendations.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Doctor.
And I'd like to thank all five of our nominees for your
concise, yet broad opening statements that give both of us a
strong sense of your background and skills, and the challenges
that you will face in your countries or areas of appointment.
I'd like to begin our first round of questions, if I might.
I'm going to ask a very broad question and then invite each of
the five of you, in turn, to answer, to the extent it's
directly relevant to your service.
As you know, we in Washington and in our country face
unprecedented budgetary challenges. We have record deficits and
a record national debt, and are making some very tough choices
going forward about spending. What, in your view, are the
principal goals of U.S. assistance in your country of
appointment or in your area of intended work? And how can we
report back to the people we represent that these investments
make good sense for the United States, from a strategic
perspective, a humanitarian perspective, a development
perspective?
And then if I could, just a subquestion: We just visited
the West Africa Trade Hub in Ghana--2 days ago? I've lost track
of time. And economic development and the potential of trade
was an issue in all three countries. To what extent has your
country of potential appointment taken advantage of AGOA?
There's about to be another AGOA conference. And what more
could we be doing to encourage trade and trade as a means
towards development?
So what impact do you believe our investment in U.S.
assistance in your country of appointment may make? What role
do you see development playing in that?
If I might invite Ms. Pasi to begin and then the members of
the committee, for the rest of my time.
Ms. Pasi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As far as the budget is concerned, the money that we're
spending in Djibouti on assistance is really very targeted on
quality of life, life expectancy, and is being put to excellent
use. The U.S. Government is leading the way in providing food
assistance to rural areas in Djibouti. We feed about 40,000 or
50,000 Djiboutians every day. The population is about 850,000
people, so that's quite significant.
Second, the life expectancy in Djibouti is very low, only
about 56 years for women, 53 for men. And many of the projects
that we're involved in through USAID focus on maternal health,
child health.
Also, interestingly, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, Djibouti has an excellent port, and that port serves
Ethiopia, primarily for food aid and other products that are
headed to Ethiopia. Truck drivers who come from Ethiopia drive
up a corridor toward the port, and that area has now become an
area where HIV has become increasingly prevalent.
So the money we receive, which is fairly limited, goes both
to provide education to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, as well
as to treat those who are affected. And Djibouti has the
highest HIV-infection rate in the Horn, including the Arabian
Peninsula.
As far as AGOA and trade, Djibouti has very little in terms
of agriculture, because of the lack of arable land. Where their
economic strength actually lies, I think, is extending services
through the port. The port is doing an excellent job, and the
Government of Djibouti hopes to expand it.
So our focus, in addition to democracy and governance, is
on basic support for people to ensure they have a reasonable
life, to try to assist them to get an education, and then to
help them find employment in a country which has limited
natural resources but has an extremely strategic location.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Ms. Pasi.
Mr. Koran.
Mr. Koran. Thank you. Rwanda has an aid program of roughly
$210 million for fiscal 2010. The bulk of that, by far, is in
health, about $164 million. And there's been remarkable success
in a number of areas. I think Dr. Pablos-Mendez could probably
address it better than I could, but let me just give you one
statistic, that from 2005 to 2008, the infant mortality rate
was reduced from 86 to 62 per thousand live births, so that's a
pretty dramatic and concrete effect of our assistance.
The next big chunk of our assistance is in education.
Rwanda has aspirations to move to middle-income status within a
generation, and, to do that, they need an educated population.
And both USAID but also Peace Corps are working in that area.
Your question about the development of trade is
particularly pertinent because Rwanda just recently has
received substantial U.S. investment related to the export of
coffee and tea by U.S. companies. And as I mentioned in my
statement, there's a bilateral investment treaty pending before
this committee--I believe there's actually going to be a
hearing on it this afternoon--which would provide legal
protections to United States companies and help foster greater
United States investment in Rwanda. Thank you.
Senator Coons. Thank you.
Mr. Lukens.
Mr. Lukens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Most of the aid that
goes from the United States to Senegal is focused on two areas:
health and agricultural development.
The $540 MCC compact is being spent to develop road
networks and also irrigation in both the north and south of the
country to enable Senegal to boost its agricultural production.
Senegal currently imports 70 percent of its food needs, which
is a higher level than any other country in sub-Saharan Africa,
so a lot of our development assistance is aimed at helping them
to become more self-sufficient in the area of food.
The other part of our assistance falls under the health
category. We have a very strong program there helping them
combat malaria, and we have also developed health clinics to
assist with prenatal and then mother and infant health care.
On trade, there's not a lot of Senegalese trade coming to
the United States. Where we have worked with the Senegalese
Government--and if confirmed, I'll continue to work with them--
is to ensure that they develop trade policies that allow for
transparency of trade and for businesses doing business there.
That allows them to have a good sense of what the situation is
there.
Thank you.
Dr. Pablos-Mendez. Thank you very much.
The goal of the Global Health Bureau at USAID is to save
lives, particularly the poor and most vulnerable people in the
world, and to strengthening country-led health systems, both to
contribute to a safer and more prosperous world.
The Global Health Initiative, as a whole-of-government
initiative, is indeed trying to find efficiencies across the
many health programs in the U.S. Government through interagency
collaboration, through procurement reforms and harmonization,
through smart service integration, game-changing innovation
such as eHealth-Rwanda's going to be a fantastic laboratory for
eHealth in coming years--as well as a relentless pursuit of
results through proper learning and evaluation.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Doctor.
Ms. Jackson.
Ambassador Jackson. Thank you, Senator. The assistance
programs in Malawi really need to stay the course in that very
poor country.
If our goal is a stable and democratic world, we need to
stay the course in education and health, as a country that has
better educated, healthy people is more likely to be democratic
and treat its citizens with great respect.
As with the other countries, our programs there are focused
on health and education. I'm very excited about the Global
Health Initiative, because it integrates all the different
health programs and better uses resources.
Our PEPFAR program has made an impact, and it has decreased
the prevalence of HIV/AIDS, particularly in the group of ages
15 through 26, which is a significant group. And the education
has focused on girls.
Malawi has exported a lot of goods through AGOA. It's
anxious to do more. I intend, if confirmed, to work with them
on their strategic plan to develop other ideas for exports, but
also to encourage policies and actions that will encourage
private investment, that will allow for that. The Millennium
Challenge Corporation energy sector reform project will help a
long way toward economic growth in Malawi.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Ms. Jackson.
Senator Isakson.
Senator Isakson. Well, I'm going to follow the same line
that the chairman started with, because the biggest challenge
we're going to have as a committee is to be able to sustain
United States investment in foreign assistance at a level where
it makes sense and it makes a difference.
Ms. Jackson made a statement in her opening statement about
the importance of coordinating interagency roles in foreign
countries, and I think coordination of that and the funding
that funds those rules is a part of that program.
And, Dr. Pablos-Mendez, you've been published a couple of
times talking about the importance of integration of global
health initiatives. You talk about coordination and you talk
about integration; to me, that says you're looking at things in
a global perspective and trying to prioritize the money that's
spent, and make sure we don't have duplication or redundancy in
terms of programs.
So let me start by asking Ms. Jackson first, and then Dr.
Pablos-Mendez, what have you done, such as your role in the
Baghdad Embassy, or what you have done in terms of health, to
maximize the return of invested dollars and find savings, or
coordination of those dollars to increase the benefit to the
people it's intended?
Ambassador Jackson. Senator, thank you. There are two parts
to that question: one is operations; one is programs. My
expertise at this time is on administrative operations. And
both in Malawi and in Embassy Iraq, and throughout the world,
the State Department has integrated administrative services at
embassies, and that has provided significant savings.
Additionally, we have done a lot of off-shoring of
administrative services that allows for fewer people to be at
an embassy at any given location, and particularly in Baghdad.
In terms of health, the Embassy in Malawi has already begun
the process of integrating its programs, and I look forward to
working with USAID, CDC, and Peace Corps in doing that. I think
it has a lot of potential for making a bigger impact at the
local level, and it's really at the local level that it is
accountable.
Thank you.
Dr. Pablos-Mendez. Thank you. There are many specific
opportunities that are taking place as we speak. Duplication
and waste, certainly we don't want any of that. The portfolio
review process that the Global Health Initiative is conducting
is allowing us to see exactly who is doing what where, to make
sure that we are maximizing the value of our dollars.
When it comes to the integration, the smart integration of
services, a couple of examples may be illustrative. In Mali,
the distribution of vitamin A, as well as the fight against
neglected tropical diseases, deworming parasites, intestinal
worms, have been put together now. And this has allowed the
Government of Mali to scale up nationally with the same
resources that they were doing before in just a couple of
districts.
In Kenya, the integration of HIV/AIDS services with
maternal-child services has also allowed the Government of
Kenya, with the same resources invested by USAID, to scale up
from three to eight provinces.
So there are many opportunities in working with our mission
staff to look exactly at how we can bring that about. It's not
automatic. It has to be really put together, but I'm very, very
confident of the resourcefulness we have seen already. And we
would like to make this systematic throughout all of our
investments.
Senator Isakson. Well, I think the stewardship of the
United States taxpayers' money, in terms of foreign assistance
and foreign service, is going to be--not that we haven't been
good stewards, but it's even more important now, given the
difficult pressure on the budget, that we demonstrate how we
are finding savings or efficiencies, and improving the return
on our investments, such as Millennium Challenge.
The second thing I'll talk about real quickly, for Mr.
Lukens, Mr. Koran, and Ms. Pasi, after you get past that
importance, the second biggest challenge for all of us is to
get our arms around corruption in Africa and the importance of
those governments to reduce corruption.
Chairman Coons and I saw a demonstration. I'm not going to
get into which country; all the countries we visited had ports,
so that won't identify them. But we saw one country where you
had to pass through 17 checkpoints to get from the port to the
next country, and at each checkpoint, you had to pay somebody
off to get to the next checkpoint.
That type of situation is a great depressant, in terms of
U.S. investment and, for that matter, European investment or
any other investment in a foreign country. So I'd like to know
from the three of you, to the extent that you're familiar with
it or would want to work on it, what will you do to help raise
the importance of reducing corruption in the countries you'll
go to in Africa?
Mr. Lukens.
Mr. Lukens. Senator Isakson, thanks for that question.
This is an issue that we follow very closely in Senegal,
and I will just say that I think the MCC has been a very
effective tool in raising the awareness of the local population
on corruption issues.
As you know, countries have to meet certain standards to
qualify for MCC. And in the case of Senegal, those standards,
their rankings on international lists has been slipping, and
it's created a great deal of attention in Senegal because we
hold them to these standards.
The way that we run the MCC there, we run it through
programs that require strict accountability and transparency
and serve as a role model for government dealings in the rest
of country. So it's certainly an issue that we're aware of and
that we will continue to follow, and use MCC as an example to
promote transparency and anticorruption efforts.
Mr. Koran. Rwanda rates as generally one of the least
corrupt countries in Africa. It ranks, as I mentioned, very
high or very favorably on the transparency international index.
As I mentioned, it's made dramatic improvement in the World
Bank ease of doing business index.
That said, obviously, it could do better, as any country
could. And I think, if confirmed, some of the areas I would
look at in particular are building strong institutions,
fostering rule of law, and good governance.
One area that I think is particularly interesting in Rwanda
is USAID would like to do more programs through the government,
provide the government money in order to build a road as
opposed to directly contracting with it. And as part of this,
USAID would work with the Rwandan Government to improve its
government procurement system, so it meets international
standards. Obviously, you can't run our tax dollars through the
government if you're not confident that it'll be done correctly
and with minimal or no corruption. And so this will be an
interesting test case, I think one of the first in the world,
that will be piloted in Rwanda.
Senator Isakson. Thank you.
Ms. Pasi.
Ms. Pasi. Thank you, Senator Isakson.
In a way, I feel that Djibouti has made a very positive
step in the area of dealing with corruption by modernizing and
improving the port and putting the port under management that
is considered world-class. It's an excellent port.
Of course, much remains to be done, and corruption
continues to be an issue there. If confirmed, it would
certainly be something I would follow closely.
And another angle of looking at it, I think, would be
coordinating with other donors. This gets back to the earlier
question about how we're going to manage our limited funds to
make sure that all the funds that are being given to Djibouti,
whether by us or other partners, are being used efficiently and
effectively. Thank you.
Senator Isakson. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Senator Isakson.
I have a whole series of questions here now that are
individual to your specific countries and roles, so please, if
we could keep--I'll try to keep the questions short. If you can
keep the answer short, that would be constructive as well.
Ms. Pasi, if I could, if confirmed as Ambassador, what
steps would you take to ensure better coordination with the
commander at Camp Lemonnier, and what degree of oversight will
your post, in particular, require, given you've got 3,000 DOD
personnel on the ground.
Ms. Pasi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There is already an excellent working relationship between
the current Ambassador and the head of Camp Lemonnier,
something I would plan to continue.
The Horn of Africa contingent of CJTF-HOA has
representatives all over East Africa in each of our embassies.
So I would see my role, if confirmed as Ambassador, to
coordinate on regional projects, since there bilateral
coordination going at each embassy, and to make sure that we
are working closely and collaboratively. That is going on now,
and I would plan to continue it.
Thank you.
Senator Coons. In the most recent elections, I think they
were in April, President Guelleh was elected for another term.
But there were some real questions about whether those
elections were really fair and open, given the arrest of
opposition figures and the expulsion of some U.S.-funded
monitors in the lead-up. What could you do, what could the post
do, what can the Nation go, to more effectively advocate for
democratic reform within the Guelleh administration or in
partnership with them?
Ms. Pasi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You're right that President Guelleh was elected with 80
percent of the vote in April. The opposition figure received 20
percent of the vote. That said, we're working toward and
continue to use our limited funding for democracy and
governance to create space for the opposition, to ensure a
level playing field so that in the future, the opposition
members will feel comfortable running, will have access to
media. It's something that we continue to work on.
The issue of democracy and governance is a top priority for
us in Djibouti and we work closely with the Djiboutians.
The government did invite Democracy International, a U.S.
Government NGO, to leave over what they----
Senator Coons. They invited them to leave or they told him
to leave?
Ms. Pasi. They told them to leave, yes.
Senator Coons. Very diplomatic.
Ms. Pasi. They told them to leave, because they explained
that they were dissatisfied with the actions of a fairly junior
member of Democracy International.
We were, naturally, disappointed, but we were very pleased
that Djibouti agreed to welcome any other U.S. NGO to work in
Djibouti, and we're currently looking to find another NGO that
would be able to continue the work.
We view our involvement--it's going to take time in
Djibouti. I think democracy is not made in a day, but it's
certainly a top priority. Thank you, sir.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Ms. Pasi.
Mr. Koran, what's your assessment of the state of democracy
in Rwanda? And do you consider the Rwandan Government tolerant
of dissent? And what's your assessment of their elections? I
think they were in August 2010.
Mr. Koran. The elections were peaceful and orderly. But as
the White House statement on the elections highlighted, there
were a number of issues with the registration of political
parties, arrests of journalists, arrests of political party
leaders. So I think, if confirmed, one of my top priorities
would be working with the Rwandan Government to ensure that
both local and international NGOs and the media are allowed to
operate freely.
Senator Coons. There are also two last things, if I might.
There was some leadership taken by Rwanda in the U.N. on some
difficult issues around tolerance and orientation. How do you
plan to encourage that? It's rare on that continent. And then
last, the relationship with the DRC is very complex, as you
referenced in your opening statement. And what do you see as
the path forward in terms of strengthening Rwanda's role in
stabilizing the DRC.
Mr. Koran. Your first question, I think, refers to the
Human Rights Council in Geneva discussions on LGBT rights.
Senator Coons. That's right. That's correct.
Mr. Koran. Rwanda has stood out on the continent to some as
advocating a very tolerant position on that. And as far as I
can tell in my research, there's no issue in Rwanda with LGBT
rights. They're quite in contrast to some of their neighbors on
that. I'm not sure what motivates it, but it's certainly a
positive development.
On the Congo, I think relations are probably better now
than they have been any time in the last probably 17, 18 years.
When I served in Rwanda before, it was occupying about a third
of the Congo. As I mentioned in my statement, Rwanda and Congo
have now reached a rapprochement, and they're working very well
together to deal with common security threats in the eastern
Congo.
Senator Coons. Thank you.
Mr. Lukens, thank you to you and your extended family, your
wife and your father, for apparently two generations of service
to our Nation.
There have been some real concerns, as you mentioned, about
the gradual erosion of good governance and transparency in
Senegal. What are your assessments of these trends? And what
would you do, if confirmed as Ambassador, in terms of advancing
tolerance and the strength of democratic institutions in
Senegal?
Mr. Lukens. Thank you, sir.
If confirmed, I'll continue to work with our agencies at
post and with the Government of Senegal to encourage them to
stay on the path that they really have been on for over 4 years
of a moderate, democratic nation.
There are elections, as you know, in February, coming up in
February. While no candidates have officially declared yet,
there are many testing the waters, and there's great
expectation that President Wade will run again. There are
currently 166 opposition parties in Senegal, so it's a very
thriving democracy, but that poses its own challenges.
So we will continue to work with the Government of Senegal,
with civil society to ensure voter registration, and really
work altogether to encourage free and transparent elections.
Thank you.
Senator Coons. I'll simply mention, as I wrap up and hand
the microphone over to Senator Isakson, that in Nigeria, in
particular, I was quite impressed with the chairman of their
national electoral commission, and with the constructive role
that SMS technology played in allowing a rapid vote tabulation
that was then deemed an independent and fair way of evaluating
the effectiveness of the voting process.
We also saw a demonstration, I think it was Ghana, if I'm
not mistaken, of SMS technology assisting smallholder farmers
in getting access to information about market conditions and
pricing. It's really striking what technology is doing for both
economic development as well as democracy.
I will continue with a few more questions, but I'll defer
to Senator Isakson at this point.
Senator Isakson. Mr. Koran, when I was in Rwanda a few
years ago, I guess it was 2008, I was struck by the things that
President Kagame did to take that nation from genocide to
democracy and stability. One of the things that impressed me
was, I believe I'm right, it's pronounced Umuganda Sunday. Are
you familiar with what that is?
Mr. Koran. It's a voluntary workday.
Senator Isakson. Right, where you had one Sunday a month,
they shut down the roads. They close everything and everybody
works on community projects that they jointly decide are
necessary.
In fact, Senator Corker and I helped dig up a stump in a
village somewhere in Rwanda. I still don't remember the name of
the village today.
But he did a lot of things to bring people together and get
a sense of community. With that said, I read recently of some
arrests of journalists, and difficulties in terms of opposition
leaders and things of that nature, that are little inconsistent
with the Rwanda that I saw when I was there. Is there any
deterioration in terms of that, or were those just isolated
instances?
Mr. Koran. Well, certainly areas of concern, but,
obviously, Rwanda, as you said, has come a long way since 1994.
It's remarkable what they've done.
I think President Kagame, in particular, has focused quite
correctly on the economy, with the idea that if you can have a
growing economy, opportunities for everybody, you're going to
reduce these ethnic and political tensions. And Rwanda has been
quite successful at that, enjoying real gross domestic product
growth rates of 5 to 6 percent over the last 15 years.
But there have been incidents in the past. I wouldn't say
it's necessarily a trend getting worse, because you're seeing
incidents happening on occasion, going back for 10 or 15 years.
And it's obviously something we're concerned about.
I think one of the issues which, if confirmed, I would hope
to work with Rwanda on, or continue working, because I think
the Embassy is doing quite a job on it already, are the laws
against divisionism or genocide denial, which are somewhat
ambiguous. And while I appreciate the logic behind the laws,
their interpretation is sometimes vague and ambiguous and can
at times be used to stifle legitimate political discourse.
So I think it's a question of clarifying those laws, so
that they address the very real issues of concern but without
going beyond those issues.
Senator Isakson. Mr. Chairman, I really don't have another
question. If I have anything specific, I'll submit it for the
record.
But I do have a comment to make to each of you. Each of you
has accepted a responsibility to go to a place few Americans
will ever see, and many Americans have never even heard of, but
are very important in terms of our country and the future of
our country. So when you're on duty in a place that few people
are paying attention to back home, remember that the chairman
and I on this committee are a line of communication. If there's
some way that we can help and support your effort, or get
information to the attention of people higher than ourselves,
we consider that part of our responsibility and hope you will
keep in contact with our offices throughout your terms of
service in each of the countries and, in your case, in terms of
USAID.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Senator.
I just have one more question each for the remaining three,
if I could, and then I think we'll conclude.
I just want to associate myself with Senator Isakson's
comments, in terms of our being available to you as a resource.
I think it is very challenging service on which you embark. We
noted, in our most recent trip, as I have in another trip I've
taken as a Senator, just the critical role that Ambassadors
play, and how difficult, at times, it can be to have clarity of
direction, to have unity of effort, across many different
agencies. And what a difference it makes when there is a well-
functioning and well-led Embassy.
So I'm grateful for your service and appreciate your
willingness to stay in touch with us, to the extent there are
things that we need to be informed about.
If I might, Mr. Lukens, I just wanted to also ask about
Guinea-Bissau. I'm very concerned about what I read in the
backgrounder about narco-trafficking and emerging criminality,
and the real challenges at the very highest level of
government, in terms of our engagement with them. And I'd be
interested in how you see the challenge of the limitations of
our engagement with Guinea-Bissau; how having an officer in the
Portuguese Embassy is going to work; and then what sort of
additional resources, training, skills you're going to need to
reach out to from other agencies in order to be effective in
this sort of malleable structure, where you're an Ambassador in
Senegal, in charge of Senegal and so forth, but also
responsible for our relations with a country that poses some
real threats to our interests in the region and the world.
Mr. Lukens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I intend to fully
engage on the issues to do with Guinea-Bissau and travel there
frequently. As you mentioned, and as I mentioned in my
statement, having a full-time State Department officer actually
living and working in Guinea-Bissau will help us tremendously,
as we try to learn more about the situation there and how we
might better help the government there, and help us to identify
factions within the government that we can trust, and work with
them to solidify rule of law and antinarcotics trafficking
efforts.
The agreement we have is that the diplomat, our Foreign
Service officer, will live and work out of the Portuguese
Embassy. We also have leased office space there that is used
for temporary visitors, and there's a continual flow of
visitors from different government agencies that have a stake
in the economic development and anticorruption efforts in
Guinea-Bissau. So our officer there will be able to assist
other agency temporary duty personnel as they come through. I
think that'll give us much greater insight than we have had up
until now into the key players in the government and the
situation on the ground, and also help us to--quarterly visits
by the U.S. Ambassador can help. But I think having someone
there full time, really getting to know people in the
government, will really help us to send a strong message of
what our values and priorities are.
Senator Coons. Thank you. Good luck on that very difficult
mission. I look forward to hearing back from you about some of
the challenges.
Dr. Pablos-Mendez, as I referred to in the opening, the
QDDR suggests that GHI should be transferred largely from State
to AID. And this is, I think, in some ways may be a challenging
undertaking. How do you assess USAID's ability to meet the
benchmarks that are outlined in the QDDR and what do you think
are the challenges in continuing this sort of dual role, where
there is still oversight from State's Office of Global AIDS
Coordinator and yet actual execution through USAID on the
overwhelmingly majority of the actual funds and activity under
PEPFAR, for one example?
Dr. Pablos-Mendez. Thank you. As you point out, the QDDR
already specifies a transition of the leadership of the Global
Health Initiative to USAID. This is specified over a period of
18 months to conclude in September 2012, after meeting a set of
benchmarks, a set of 10 or so of them, including program
reviews by areas, country plans, evaluation plans, and so on,
that already crystallize the vision of GHI as a whole-of-
government integrated approach to global health.
These exercises are being conducted already, and, indeed,
half of them are already quite along the way. I feel very
confident of the teams involved across the U.S. Government to
crystallize these in the remainder of the time. During this
transitional period, Secretary Clinton has appointed Lois Quam
as executive director to facilitate the coordination in this
transition period.
If confirmed, this is one of my priorities. I know that
this has created some confusion or lack of clarity, but
there's, I think, an understanding among all the parties
involved, all the agencies, to get there, and the sooner, the
better. As a priority for USAID, if we can accelerate this
process of benchmarks in the next 12 to 15 months, we will do
so.
The final determination, of course, is that of Secretary
Clinton, and we will be working closely with the Secretary of
State, in this regard. PEPFAR, itself, which is another whole-
of-government initiative that has been quite successful in the
last 10 years or so, and a large percent of that already is
implemented through USAID. To some extent, many of the major
initiatives are already implemented through USAID across the
U.S. Government and in an integrated fashion in country
missions.
So I feel very confident, if confirmed, that we can get
there. If we can do it faster than specified, I'll be very
happy.
Senator Coons. And so would we.
Ms. Jackson, thank you for your service, and your
husband's. And I was intrigued by the trip across the Sahara,
as we were speaking before.
As you know, the United States recently signed a $350
million MCC pact with Malawi, but it was delayed for several
months over concerns about press freedoms, and basic human
rights respect, and the criminalization of homosexuality, among
other things. But this is a critical investment, as you
referenced in your opening, in the electricity sector, and
could contribute dramatically to Malawi's economic development.
What steps do you intend to take to ensure that those
issues don't reemerge as major problems in Malawi, that they're
not sort of backsliding on human rights or democracy? And what
do you see as the major challenges to successfully implementing
the MCC?
Ambassador Jackson. Thank you, Senator.
The $350 million compact for the energy sector is a very
important one for Malawi. It was put on hold due to amendments
to two of 197 penal codes in the Malawi Constitution, the first
one dealing with the government potentially being able to stop
publication of material that was contrary to public interest.
The Government of Malawi publicly and repeatedly reaffirmed its
constitutional press freedoms, and I will, if confirmed,
continually remind them of that. They do have a very vibrant
media.
The second related to the threat of the rights to lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgendered individuals has caused a
vibrant and very public debate, which, heretofore, has not
occurred in Malawi. So just the press freedom and being allowed
to express people's opinions on that particular issue validates
that MCC's stand on the case was very, very important.
Malawi truly understands that if there is a criminal
punishment against an individual, that MCC will immediately
take action to investigate for suspension or termination of the
MCC compact.
I carry with me the MCC indicators, and I'm constantly
using those as a means to remind governments--I did this in
Burkina Faso, and I intend to do in the Malawi--that the MCC
indicators are a representative of U.S. Government values, and
that we are very serious about them.
Thank you.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Ms. Jackson.
I'd like to thank all five of our nominees who testified
today.
Senator Isakson, you have no further questions?
Senator Isakson. No.
Senator Coons. I will state that we're going to leave the
record open until the close of business tomorrow, Wednesday,
June 8, to the extent there are other members of the committee
who were not able to join us here today but wish to submit
additional questions, or if there are any additional
amplifications you choose to submit.
But I am grateful for your testimony. I'm grateful for your
service. And I think Senator Isakson and I both expressed our
enthusiasm for finding opportunities to come visit you in the
field and to be a resource to you, should there be challenges
that arise in your service.
Thank you very much. This concludes today's hearing.
[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record
Responses of Dr. Ariel Pablos-Mendez to Questions Submitted by
Senator John F. Kerry
Question. Please differentiate between your role, if confirmed, and
that of the Executive Director of the Global Health Initiative (GHI).
Answer. As set forth in the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development
Review (QDDR), pursuant to the direction of the Secretary of State and
the GHI Operations Committee (USAID Administrator, Global AIDS
Coordinator, and Director of the Center for Disease Control and
Prevention), the Executive Director of GHI was appointed by the
Secretary of State to facilitate the coordination of agency programs to
meet GHI goals, including the transition of GHI leadership to USAID
upon completion of the benchmarks, and support the objectives for
global health.
If confirmed, I look forward to working with Administrator Shah,
the other members of the Operations Committee and the GHI Executive
Director to meet GHI goals. My unique role is to ensure that all
USAID's work embraces GHI's seven principles and that USAID's
programming contributes optimally to achieving GHI's ambitious health
targets in a whole-of-government mode.
If confirmed, I will also work to ensure the effective transition
of GHI leadership to USAID within the next year, as mandated in the
QDDR. I will do this by ensuring that USAID is poised to lead GHI
inclusively. I will continue to implement and strengthen USAID
processes for broad evidence-based consultations to ensure that our
investment portfolio, funding decisions and country health plans are
aligned to achieve maximum health impact.If confirmed, I will also
ensure that USAID is leading an effective GHI interagency
communications strategy, and streamlining information management to
focus on accountability for performance. I will promote a culture in
USAID of interagency collaboration that leverages domestic government
capacity to achieve global health impact; and work to ensure country
ownership of USAID's efforts under GHI. To do this, I will work closely
with the Executive Director and the members of the GHI's Operations
Committee.
______
Responses of Dr. Ariel Pablos-Mendez to Questions Submitted by
Senator Richard G. Lugar
Question. Next week, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and
Immunizations (GAVI) will hold their first ever pledging conference.
The United States has played a huge role in the creation of GAVI. As a
strong supporter of vaccines, I have closely followed the rollout of
the pneumococcal vaccine. Should the United States make a multiyear
pledge to GAVI; and if so, how much should the United States commit?
Answer. On June 13, 2011, at the GAVI Pledging Conference in
London, USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah announced a $450 million
commitment from the United States over 3 years (FY 2012-14), subject to
congressional appropriation. With this pledge, the United States
surpassed $1 billion in commitments to GAVI for the purchase of
vaccines. In his statement, Dr. Shah said ``I am pleased to announce
that the United States will continue one of the best, most cost-
effective life-saving investments we have ever made. Over the next 3
years, subject to congressional approval, we will devote $450 million
to GAVI's mission, which seizes upon the opportunity to save 4 million
lives by 2015 . . . This multiyear commitment leverages the billions of
dollars that other donors have committed to GAVI, multiplying the
impact of our funding more than eightfold. At a time when budgets
around the world are being scrutinized, this partnership with donor and
host country governments, civil society and private sector partners
ensures our development dollars have the greatest impact. Not only is
our commitment inspiring the generosity of other donors, it helps
ensure the quantities of vaccine needed to obtain lower prices,
allowing us to save even more lives.'' USAID plays a critical
leadership role on the GAVI Board of Directors and the GAVI Executive
Committee. If confirmed, I will ensure that USAID continues to work
closely with GAVI so that this investment is implemented effectively,
efficiently, and sustainably.
Question. With USAID being the lead agency on the Administration's
Global Health Initiative, how does it work that the bulk of the funding
comes through the global HIV/AIDS under the jurisdiction of the State
Department? Also, what role do you envision playing in the
implementation of the program with the director of GHI being housed
within State?
Answer. Upon meeting the requirements laid out in the QDDR, USAID
will be tasked with being the lead agency of GHI. However, USAID will
not lead alone. USAID will lead inclusively with its partner agencies,
building consensus and forging ahead with mutual respect and a reliance
on the expertise of each agency.
Effectively implementing the GHI principles will require thinking
beyond purely budgetary terms. Through GHI, USAID, the State Department
and CDC are all constantly looking at ways to gain synergy and
efficiency by linking their programs. USAID relies on a deep
institutional capacity to respond to dynamic conditions and on an
expertise throughout U.S. programmatic focus areas. USAID implements a
large proportion of PEPFAR with the State Department, and the
President's Malaria Initiative with CDC, giving USAID strong
institutional links across GHI.
The Executive Director of GHI was appointed by the Secretary of
State to facilitate the coordination of agency programs to meet GHI
goals and support the objectives for global health set forth in the
Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), pursuant to the
direction of the Secretary of State and the GHI Operations Committee
(USAID Administrator, Global AIDS Coordinator, and Director of the
Center for Disease Control and Prevention).
If confirmed, I look forward to working with Administrator Shah,
the other members of the Operations Committee and the GHI Executive
Director to meet GHI goals. My unique role will be to ensure that all
USAID's work embraces and drives GHI's principles and that USAID's
programming contributes optimally to achieving GHI's ambitious health
targets in a whole-of-government mode.
Question. In his annual letter, Bill Gates spoke of vaccination
programs and polio eradication as being a priority of his foundation
for the coming year. At the World Economic Forum meetings earlier this
year in Davos, Switzerland, Mr. Gates announced an additional $102
million commitment to polio eradication efforts. Rotary International
and UNICEF are also active in this area. What is the United States role
in the polio eradication, especially in Pakistan and Afghanistan where
the United States has such a large economic investment?
Answer. Since the launch of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative
(GPEI) in 1988, the global number of polio cases has reduced by over 99
percent. The United States is the largest donor to the GPEI,
contributing over 30 percent of the overall $7.5 billion effort. In
Pakistan, the United States plays a low visibility but highly important
role in polio eradication. I understand the objective is to ensure that
this is seen as a Pakistani-led and implemented program--building local
ownership, providing safe passage for vaccinators, and avoiding
sparking antivaccination rumors often linked to the United States.
Through the World Health Organization and UNICEF, the United States
provides funding and technical support for the implementation of the
Emergency Action Plan. This focuses on improved Union Council level
surveillance, immunization campaign planning, monitoring and
evaluation, and communication to increase community participation and
demand for polio and other vaccinations. Currently, the United States
supports cross-border immunization posts at 11 formal border crossings
between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Further, the United States provides
technical support through surveillance training, CDC-detailed
personnel, USAID participation on interagency committees, and USAID and
CDC participation technical advisory groups and program evaluations.
In Pakistan, between 1995 and 2000, polio incidence fell tenfold.
Success in many areas demonstrates that the country has the technical
capacity to complete national eradication. However, polio in Pakistan
is being fueled by a small number of geographic areas and by migrant
groups. So far in 2011, there have been 49 cases reported--which is
more than double the number reported in the same period of 2010.
The United States plays a similar low visibility but highly
important role in Afghanistan. Again, the objective is to ensure that
polio eradication is seen as an Afghan-led and implemented program.
Through WHO and UNICEF, the United States provides funding and
technical support for the implementation of the National Polio
Eradication Plan and 13 district high-risk plans. USAID supports
improved immunization campaign planning, monitoring and evaluation, and
communication to increase community participation and demand for polio
and other vaccinations. Through the Basic Primary Health Services
(BPHS) NGOs USAID supports, polio campaigns are implemented in the
high-risk areas. USAID participates on interagency committees, and
USAID and CDC participation technical advisory groups and program
evaluations. President Karzai has often launched the polio campaigns
and has a dedicated Special Advisor on Polio Eradication who
facilitates with the Ministry of Health and Partner organizations,
including the U.N., Canada, ICRC, and BPHS NGOs. Most importantly,
USAID is the lead agency for negotiating ``Days of Tranquility'' or
``De-conflicting'' (the terminology preferred in Afghanistan) with
NATO/ISAF and U.S. Special Forces and Afghan National Army and Police.
In February 2011, the USAID Polio Coordinator provided a briefing at
the daily Commander's Update Briefing and highlighted the success of
this coordination in reaching more children in previously security-
inaccessible areas and received renewed commitment to continue the
collaboration in the future. As of June 8, 2011, Afghanistan has only
four confirmed cases of polio.
______
Responses of Dr. Ariel Pablos-Mendez to Questions Submitted by
Senator Robert Menendez
Question. Dr. Ariel Pablos-Mendez, with your impressive medical and
leadership credentials, you are expected to boost USAID's profile on
the Global Health Initiative. The U.S. global health approach has
suffered from a lack of coordination, which affects patients' ability
to access treatment at the clinic level. We have heard a lot of
officials say the right things about a whole-of-government approach.
But the Global Health Initiative has 15 agencies involved, and no one
seems to be in charge. The QDDR claims that USAID will take the lead in
coordinating the GHI starting in 2012. Can you attest to how you will
ensure this transition takes place?
Answer. Appendix 2 of the QDDR outlines the proposal to transition
the leadership of the GHI to USAID upon its achievement of defined
benchmarks aimed at ensuring USAID has the capacity and structures to
lead a coordinated, inclusive, whole-of-government effort. The
Secretary of State will make the final determination on transitioning
the Global Health Initiative to USAID, drawing on the assessment and
recommendation of the GHI Executive Director and Operations Committee.
I understand that USAID has undertaken a comprehensive program to
successfully meet the 10 benchmarks within the defined period. USAID
has made significant progress. For example, USAID has conducted
inclusive portfolio reviews of its major health programs with the
participation of experts from sister agencies, research centers,
foundations and other partners. The extensive discussions in this
process, among outside experts, stakeholders, and USG staff engaged in
health programs, are being documented in reports on the adjustments
being made in USAID strategies and plans, and in coordination with
partners. Another criterion is being actively pursued through
interagency planning and review of GHI strategies for country programs,
eight of which have been approved. In addition, through an effort
called BEST, USAID has prepared 25 and reviewed 17 5-year integrated
action plans for family planning, maternal and child health, and
nutrition to ensure that under the Global Health Initiative, USAID will
focus on state-of-the-art, evidence-based programming. The joint State-
USAID efforts to streamline information flows have resulted in several
recent, concrete changes consistent with the QDDR criteria. The recent
USAID policy on Monitoring and Evaluation also addresses a QDDR
requirement. If confirmed, I will continue the drive to meet the
benchmarks and demonstrate USAID's readiness to lead the whole-of-
government approach to health in development.
Question. Noting the recent cuts to U.S. foreign assistance and the
fact that procuring and delivering vaccines to the developing world is
a proven, cost-effective way of meeting a number USAID's global health
goals, how do you plan to work with mechanisms such the Global Alliance
for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) to leverage and extend their
impact?
Answer. On June 13, 2011, at the GAVI Pledging Conference in
London, USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah announced a $450 million
commitment from the United States over 3 years (FY 2012-14), subject to
congressional appropriation. With this pledge, the United States
surpassed $1 billion in commitments to GAVI for the purchase of
vaccines. In his statement, Dr. Shah said ``I am pleased to announce
that the United States will continue one of the best, most cost-
effective life-saving investments we have ever made. Over the next 3
years, subject to congressional approval, we will devote $450 million
to GAVI's mission, which seizes upon the opportunity to save 4 million
lives by 2015 . . . This multiyear commitment leverages the billions of
dollars that other donors have committed to GAVI, multiplying the
impact of our funding more than eightfold. At a time when budgets
around the world are being scrutinized, this partnership with donor and
host country governments, civil society and private sector partners
ensures our development dollars have the greatest impact. Not only is
our commitment inspiring the generosity of other donors, it helps
ensure the quantities of vaccine needed to obtain lower prices,
allowing us to save even more lives.''
The cost-effectiveness of vaccines becomes especially important in
a constrained budget environment. In addition, the USG is committed to
certain child mortality reductions under the Global Health Initiative,
and vaccines must be an essential part of our strategy in attaining
those goals. GAVI's structure as an alliance of the public, social, and
for-profit private sector partners means that global vaccine supply
efforts are appropriately coordinated. Moreover, the dialogue with the
for-profit private sector has resulted in innovative financing
mechanisms that provide the right incentives to develop the right
vaccines at the right prices for use in the developing world. Finally,
GAVI's approach actively serves several of the GHI principles,
including coordination and leveraging of partner resources.
It is my understanding that USAID will continue to use its voice on
both the GAVI Executive Committee and the GAVI Board to ensure that
there is alignment of the Board, the new CEO, and the new Board
Chairman to ensure quality, cost-effective programs are implemented,
and that GAVI continues to conduct business in a transparent,
responsible, and efficient manner. It is also my understanding that
USAID will continue to work with its GAVI partners across sectors so
that vaccine policy is correctly formulated, strategies make sense,
good pricing is obtained, and efforts are coordinated. Finally, they
will ensure that their maternal and child health work within USAID
properly supports GAVI where there are efficiencies or economies of
scale to be found through strengthened immunization programs. If
confirmed, I will support and ensure USAID continues these endeavors,
to maximize our impact.
Question. Past experience has shown that the most effective way to
increase accountability and prevent corruption is to support the
efforts of local civil society. For example, between 2008 and 2009,
civil society groups in Malawi were able to bring down the rate of
medicines going missing from 70 percent to 25 percent. They did it by
asking community members to send a SMS text message when basic
medicines weren't available at the clinic. In countries like Malawi and
Uganda, civil society watchdogs are having great success in preventing
corruption and ensuring the supply of key medicines. How is the Global
Health Initiative planning to leverage civil society to be not just
service deliverers, but advocates for better health care?
Answer. One of USAID's most important contributions to improving
health in developing countries is the engagement of civil society
through both local governance mechanisms and civil society
organizations. The GHI principle to encourage country ownership and
invest in country-led plans explicitly includes civil society
organizations among the partner country components in which the USG
should invest. Numerous USAID programs currently embrace this principle
and assist civil society to advocate for improved health care.
One example has been the systematic involvement of women's groups
and the ``women's panchayat'' (the one-third of local government in
India seats reserved for women) to push for health services in rural
communities. In Nigeria, in support of that country's democratic
transition, USAID has actively promoted the engagement of citizen's
groups to work with authorities in Local Government Areas to improve
health services. In Guatemala, USAID has supported the formation and
activity of both women's advocacy groups and groups of indigenous
women. Both these groups are organized from community to national
level, and have been a major force in getting the national government
to provide a budget line item and assure services for reproductive and
maternal health. The indigenous women's groups operate under the
oversight of the national Procurator of Human Rights; in this capacity,
they are authorized to enter health facilities and identify problems of
care and service quality for indigenous women. These examples show the
power of mobilizing the nonhealth civil society sector in support of
better health services for women, children, and vulnerable populations.
Family planning and reproductive health: USAID assistance for
family planning and reproductive health routinely engages civil society
groups and individual actors to promote improved gender norms,
increased access to services, and accountability from service
providers.
Some of the civil society engagement activities focus specifically
on enabling women to be effective champions for family planning.
Following an advocacy skills-building workshop, one champion from
Nigeria pioneered the creation of a contraceptive security revolving
fund and oversight committee within the Usmano Danfodiyo University
Teaching Hospital and sits as first chair of the committee. In Uganda,
a champion successfully advocated to reduce the cost of injectable
contraceptives from 80 Ksh to 50 Ksh.
HIV/AIDS: As leaders shaping community values and behaviors,
community-based organizations can promote healthy behavior, reduce
stigma, and motivate communities to support and utilize HIV/AIDS
services. USAID has a longstanding history of working with civil
society organizations to advocate for and shape community knowledge of
HIV prevention, care, and treatment services. USAID, through PEPFAR,
supports Partnership Frameworks to support and strengthen national HIV/
AIDS strategies and focus on building strategic partnerships with both
government and civil society to secure long-term sustainability of HIV/
AIDS programs.
In Malawi's Partnership Framework, USAID is helping to build
capacity of professional and lay counselors and organizations in public
sector and civil society implementing the National AIDS Framework. The
Government of Malawi intends to partner with PEPFAR, the U.N. family,
and others to build the technical, financial, and management capacity
of civil society and the private sector. USAID will continue to provide
capacity-building technical assistance to grant-recipient organizations
implementing the National AIDS Framework, as well as to grantmaking
organizations. Additionally, the Government of Malawi will build
capacity of leaders and communities to speak against harmful practices
and norms. Among other linkages, referrals will be strengthened,
diverse and include linkages to civil society organizations.
NOMINATIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
D. Brent Hardt, of Florida, to be Ambassador to the Co-
operative Republic of Guyana
James H. Thessin, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Republic
of Paraguay
Jonathan D. Farrar, of California, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of Nicaragua
Lisa J. Kubiske, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Republic
of Honduras
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:36 p.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert
Menendez, presiding.
Present: Senators Menendez, Rubio, and Inhofe.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Menendez. Good afternoon, everyone. The hearing
will come to order.
Today the Senate Foreign Relations Committee considers four
nominations: Jonathan Farrar to be the Ambassador to Nicaragua,
James Thessin to be the Ambassador to Paraguay, D. Brent Hardt
to be the Ambassador to the Co-operative Republic of Guyana,
and Lisa Kubiske to be the Ambassador to the Republic of
Honduras.
Let me welcome all of the nominees and their families
I will make some brief introductory remarks before I turn
to Senator Rubio who is on his way from a vote on the floor,
and then we will have an opening statement from each of you and
time for questions.
Let me first say that the work that you are being asked to
do, should you be confirmed, is of vital importance to the U.S.
Government. If confirmed, you will not only be the
representative of the President in your country of assignment,
but of the American people. And that is why we take our task of
advice and consent very seriously.
The range of countries you are being called to represent is
as diverse as the challenges and opportunities in the Western
Hemisphere, and I am one of those who remains hopeful, while at
the same time concerned about the future of Latin America.
Economic growth in the hemisphere and declining poverty
indicate that the hemisphere's trajectory is positive. At the
same time, sustained income inequality threatens to
disenfranchise the many who are not sharing in these economic
gains, and fuels the plagues that keep the hemisphere from
reaching its full potential--drug trafficking, organized crime,
money laundering, and corruption.
As we celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Inter-American
Democratic Charter, which celebrates the victory of democracy
throughout the hemisphere in all but one notable country, I am
concerned about a trend toward autocracy that threatens many
nations in the hemisphere under which there is a guise of
political and democratic elections, but elections in and of
themselves are not the fulfillment totally of democracy.
In November, Nicaragua will hold Presidential and
parliamentary elections under a cloud of suspicion about its
adherence to the democratic principles enshrined in the Inter-
American Democratic Charter. President Ortega seems determined
to subjugate the country's courts and constitution to the will
of one man, whose desire for power exceeds his interests in a
stable, democratic future.
Honduras, which after overcoming challenges to its
democracy, was last week welcomed back to the Organization of
American States. They face enormous challenges from organized
crime, drug traffickers, and others who have capitalized on
political uncertainty to grow their trade. The homicide rate in
Honduras is now an astounding 75 per 100,000 people, the
highest in the world outside of war zones.
In Guyana, we engage a regime that is as much Caribbean as
it is South American, and that continues to seek its place in
the politics and economy of the region. And in Paraguay, people
face their own challenges in strengthening their democratic
form of government, combating corruption, and growing their
economy. Like other governments in the region, they also face a
growing narcotics problem highlighted by last week's seizure of
$131 million in cocaine.
So, the challenges each of you face vis-a-vis your host
governments will be unique. If confirmed, you will play a vital
role in the work that builds on our common successes and works
to combat some of today's most pressing challenges.
I will give a moment to Senator Rubio and recognize him at
this time.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Rubio. Thank you. I apologize. I still get lost in
the hallways here, but we found our way over. And I appreciate
it very much.
Congratulations to all of you. I look forward to learning
more about you all in today's hearing.
And at an important time, as we look to the United States
vision toward the region, a critical time in the region as we
see decisions being made across the region about which
direction they want to go, both economically and politically.
I think that obviously the United States has been
preoccupied with some pretty important issues around the world
over the last 10 to 12 years. But what happens in the Western
Hemisphere is of critical importance to our future, not from a
defensive standpoint, but from an offensive standpoint, from an
opportunity standpoint.
We have the ability, if there is more development and
growth economically in the Western Hemisphere, to have more
clients for the things we make and sell, and vice versa. And
so, the development and growth of democratic institutions, but
also of upward mobility and economic progress is of great
promise to the United States with regard to the Western
Hemisphere. And anything we can do to promote that is
important.
So, each of you will be traveling to your posts at a key
moment in our Nation's history with regard to the Western
Hemisphere in general and many of these nations in specific.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding these hearings. I
think this is our third hearing already, which is as many as
this committee had over a 2- or 3-year period before you took
over.
And with that, I look forward to hearing from the nominees.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Senator Rubio.
I am going to introduce each of you now, and then in the
order in which I introduce you, I would ask you to start your
statements.
So, Mr. Farrar is well known to those of us who follow
Cuban issues. He is the chief of mission of the U.S. Interest
Section in Havana. He is a career member of the Senior Foreign
Service, having begun with the State Department as an economic
officer in 1980.
In addition to serving as the Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor,
and as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement, he has also served
in a variety of posts in Latin America, including Mexico,
Belize, Uruguay, and Paraguay.
Mr. Farrar has a B.A. from California State Polytechnic
University, an M.A. from the Industrial College of the Armed
Forces, and today we review his nomination to be Ambassador to
Nicaragua.
Ms. Kubiske is the deputy chief of mission in Brasilia. She
was the deputy chief of mission of the Dominican Republic, has
served in Mexico, Shanghai and Hong Kong. At the Department of
State, she has served as the Western Hemisphere Economics
Director in the Operations Center on the Secretariat staff. She
has also served as an investment director and negotiator at the
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
She has a bachelor's degree from Brandeis University, a
master of science in Foreign Service from Georgetown.
Mr. Thessin is the Acting Legal Advisor to the Department
of State. He provides advice to the policy officials of the
Department and other government agencies on international
issues and on other legal aspects of the Department's work,
including requests by Congress. He has been with the Department
of State since 1982 when he served as attorney/advisor for
Political Military Affairs.
He received a J.D. cum laude from Harvard Law School in
1974, worked for the Federal Trade Commission, worked as
counsel for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and was the
senior litigation attorney for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission before joining the Department of State. We welcome
you back to the committee and to this hearing.
Mr. Hardt is a career Foreign Service officer currently
serving as charge d'affaires at the Embassy for Barbados in the
eastern Caribbean. His other postings include Berlin, The
Hague, and the Holy See.
Mr. Hardt has a bachelor's of history degree from Yale
University, master's and doctorate degrees from the Fletcher
School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. And given his
wide range of assignments, he speaks Italian, Dutch, German,
and French. Perhaps it is befiting that he be called upon as
our envoy to Guyana, a country surrounded by Dutch, Portuguese,
and Spanish speakers. But we look forward to your testimony
today in English.
So, with that, in the order I have introduced you, Mr.
Farrar, you are up first.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN D. FARRAR, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE
AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF NICARAGUA
Mr. Farrar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Distinguished members of the Senator Foreign Relations
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
to appear before you as the President's nominee to be the next
United States Ambassador to Nicaragua. I am deeply grateful to
the President and to the Secretary of State for their trust and
confidence.
I would like to introduce the members of my family who are
with me today and mention those who are not. First, my wife,
Terry, who has been with me every step of the way through 30
years of Foreign Service life, and who has made innumerable
personal sacrifices along the way. Also with us today are my
daughter, Melissa, and our son-in-law, Jason; our son,
Jonathan, and our daughter-in-law, Leigh. Our youngest son,
Nathaniel, is studying in Nanjing, China, and could not join us
today.
As a career member of the Foreign Service, I have had the
privilege to serve my country in various capacities, covering
the Western Hemisphere over the past 30 years. My career has
taken our family throughout the Americas--North America,
Central America, South America, and the Caribbean.
In Washington, I have had the opportunity to work on Latin
American policy and programs, on human rights, democracy, law
enforcement, trade, investment, nonproliferation, and other
areas.
But my interest in Latin America truly began in 1973 in
Jalapa, Veracruz, on a sister city student exchange program. It
was a life-changing experience for me. Today, 38 years later, I
still am in touch with the family who took me in and taught me
more about Mexico than I ever could have learned in a textbook.
If confirmed as Ambassador of the United States to
Nicaragua, I would be a credit to the government. But the most
important ties between our countries are those forged between
our citizens. If confirmed, I would bring to our mission my
experience working with civil society in Latin America and an
unwavering commitment to finding avenues to connect with the
Nicaraguan people, to advance United States interests, and
reflect United States values.
If confirmed, my highest priority will be the protection of
U.S. citizens, including the Embassy community. I would work
diligently with U.S. businesses to promote their exports and
protect their investments. I will bring to that challenge my
experience from three assignments as an economic and commercial
officer overseas.
Bilateral trade between the United States and Nicaragua has
grown by two-thirds in the 5 years since the Central America-
Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement went into effect. Yet,
Nicaragua has a more than $1 billion trade surplus with the
United States. If confirmed, I will work with U.S. business,
small, medium, and large, to increase U.S. exports to help
redress that imbalance.
Nicaragua's Presidential elections are scheduled for this
November. The United States and others in the international
community have encouraged Nicaragua to facilitate observation
of those elections by credible, domestic and international
organizations. If confirmed, I would look forward to working
with members of this committee and your colleagues in the
Congress to shape appropriate U.S. policies, both in the lead
up to those elections and afterward.
Along with the rest of Central America, Nicaragua faces
considerable challenges in combating illegal drug trafficking.
Our Central America Regional Security Initiative and other
bilateral programs offer tools to work with the Nicaraguan
Government, private sector, and NGOs to combat these
challenges.
In a prior assignment, I had the honor of participating in
the signing of our Bilateral Agreement to establish the
International Law Enforcement Academy in El Salvador. If
confirmed, I will bring my experience with law enforcement and
counternarcotics programs in Latin America and adapt it to the
particular environment in Nicaragua.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the honor of appearing
before the committee today. Should I be confirmed, I pledge to
serve our country to the best of my ability, and thus repay in
at least a small way the many benefits which it has bestowed
upon me and my family.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Farrar follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jonathan D. Farrar
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you as the
President's nominee to be the next United States Ambassador to
Nicaragua. I am deeply grateful to the President and to the Secretary
of State for their trust and confidence.
I would like to introduce the members of my family who are with me
today, and mention those who are not. First my wife, Terry, who has
been with me every step of the way through 30 years of Foreign Service
life, and who has made innumerable personal sacrifices along the way.
Also with us today are our daughter, Melissa, and son-in-law, Jason,
and our son, Jonathan, and daughter-in-law, Leigh. Our youngest son,
Nathaniel, is studying in Nanjing, China and could not join us.
As a career member of the Foreign Service, I have had the privilege
to serve my country in various capacities covering the Western
Hemisphere over the past 30 years. My career has taken our family
throughout the Americas. In Washington, I have had the opportunity to
work on Latin American policy and programs on human rights, democracy,
law enforcement, trade, investment, nonproliferation, and other areas.
My interest in Latin America truly began in 1973 in Xalapa,
Veracruz, on a sister-city student exchange program. It was a life
changing experience. Today, 38 years later, I still am in touch with
the family who took me in and taught me more about Mexico than I ever
could have learned in a textbook.
If confirmed as Ambassador of the United States to Nicaragua, I
would be accredited to the government. But the most important ties
between our countries are those forged between our citizens. If
confirmed, I would bring to our mission my experience working with
civil society in Latin America and an unwavering commitment to finding
avenues to connect with the Nicaraguan people to advance U.S. interests
and reflect U.S. values.
If confirmed, my highest priority would be the protection of U.S.
citizens, including the Embassy community. I would work diligently with
U.S. businesses to promote their exports and protect their investments,
and would bring to that challenge my experience from three assignments
as an economic and commercial officer overseas. Bilateral trade between
the United States and Nicaragua has grown by two-thirds in the 5 years
since the Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement went
into effect, yet Nicaragua has a more than $1 billion trade surplus
with the United States. If confirmed I would work with U.S.
businesses--small, medium, and large--to increase U.S. exports to help
redress that imbalance.
Nicaragua's Presidential elections are scheduled for this November.
The United States and others in the international community have
encouraged Nicaragua to facilitate observation of those elections by
credible domestic and international organizations. If confirmed, I
would look forward to working with members of this committee and your
colleagues in the Congress to shape appropriate U.S. policies in the
leadup to those elections and afterward.
Along with the rest of Central America, Nicaragua faces
considerable challenges in combating illegal drug trafficking. Our
Central America Regional Security Initiative and other bilateral
programs offer tools to work with the Nicaraguan Government, private
sector, and NGOs to combat these challenges. In a prior assignment, I
had the honor of participating in the signing of our bilateral
agreement to establish the International Law Enforcement Academy in El
Salvador. If confirmed, I would bring my experience with law
enforcement and counternarcotics programs in Latin America and adapt it
to the particular environment in Nicaragua.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the honor of appearing before the
committee today. Should I be confirmed, I pledge to serve our country
to the best of my ability and thus repay in at least a small way the
many benefits which it has bestowed upon me and my family.
I would be pleased to answer any questions which you may have.
Senator Menendez. Thank you.
Ms. Kubiske.
STATEMENT OF LISA J. KUBISKE, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO
THE REPUBLIC OF HONDURAS
Ms. Kubiske. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
committee. Thank you for granting me the opportunity to appear
today as President Obama's nominee to be the next Ambassador to
Honduras. It is a tremendous honor and responsibility, and I,
like my colleagues, I am deeply grateful to the President and
to Secretary Clinton.
If confirmed, of course, I look forward to working closely
with you and with your colleagues to advance the interests of
the United States.
I would also like to take a moment, Mr. Chairman, to
acknowledge my family, my husband, Dan. They are all on the
third row on this side. My husband, Dan, our boys, Philip and
Adam, my stepdaughter, Jessica, and her husband, Kevin, and my
sister, Alex. And I also have a friend here as well--Ann
Sacclaris. Each of these people has been a deep source of love
and support during my diplomatic career, or as you said, our
diplomatic career.
I would also like to acknowledge my parents who, in
addition to offering me love, have been hugely influential in
providing the values I hold today, and in encouraging me to
pursue my professional dreams.
I have spent my career serving the United States in the
Department of Agriculture and the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative, and in the Department of State. Many of my
overseas postings have been in Latin America, most recently in
Brazil where we have a 1,100-person mission, and working with
relations with Brazil at a very interesting, important time. I
have also worked, as you mentioned, in the China area.
As I have understood since I studied in Peru as an
undergraduate, Latin America, including Honduras, is a region
that has a tangible impact on United States domestic interests,
be it via the flow of people, or trade, or illicit activities.
And this makes it a core interest for us.
Our economic relationship is very important. We have some
200 companies in Honduras. Almost half the Honduran imports
come from the United States. And we have a trade surplus with
Honduras, or at least we did based on data in 2009.
Having served as the State Department's Western Hemisphere
Economic Policy director and as a negotiator at USTR, I am very
aware, as Senator Rubio mentioned, that expanding our economic
relationship can help Honduras develop and grow while creating
jobs in the United States.
And one promising area, just as an example, is Honduras'
alternative energy sector. In January, Honduras began
construction on the largest windfall in Central America. And it
will bring cheap, clean energy to a very poor country. And I am
very happy to be able to say that the turbines are being
manufactured in Pennsylvania, and that means jobs.
I also hope to build on the strong cultural and bilateral
ties between our countries. We have 15,000 American citizens in
Honduras. There are 100,000 Americans who visit Honduran
beaches and Mayan ruins every year. In the United States--
depending on the statistics you read--almost a million
residents of Honduran origin. And the money that those
residents of Honduras--Hondurans send back to Honduras accounts
for fully a quarter of Honduras' economy.
U.S. Government investments in Honduras are also
transformative. Honduras' Vice President called the Millennium
Challenge Corporation Compact that completed in September the
most successful development project in Honduras' history.
Honduran governments, including the current Lobo
administration, have recognized the value of our close ties.
Beyond the economic area, we are working to address an alarming
rise in gang activity that has burdened Honduras with one of
the highest homicide rates that the chairman mentioned earlier.
Gang activity is a threat to U.S. national security, and so
working to reverse its growth would be one of my priorities.
I also look forward to assisting our joint effort to
address the underlying causes of insecurity, building on the
work of U.S. Government agencies, like the Peace Corps, USAID,
and nongovernmental organizations that demonstrate every day
the generosity of the American people.
Two years ago, Honduras was racked by a political crisis
that resulted in its suspension from the Organization of
American States, or OAS. And just a week ago, as you mentioned
earlier, a special session of the OAS lifted that suspension,
which was a tribute to President Lobo's effort to promote
national reconciliation.
Our continued engagement remains essential to strengthen
Honduras' democratic institutions, and to--continuing to
support the Honduran government's efforts to strengthen the
respect for human rights, their efforts having included
creation of a ministry of justice and human rights and the
establishment of a police unit aided by the United States for
victims of human rights violations.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I deeply value
the potential opportunity to serve the United States in this
capacity, and I thank you again. I would be pleased to answer
any questions you and your colleagues may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kubiske follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lisa J. Kubiske
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for granting
me the opportunity to appear before you today as President Obama's
nominee to be the next United States Ambassador to Honduras. This is a
tremendous honor and responsibility for which I am deeply grateful to
President Obama and Secretary Clinton. If confirmed, I look forward to
working closely with you and your colleagues to advance the interests
of the United States.
I would like to take a moment, Mr. Chairman, to acknowledge my
husband, Dan, our boys, Philip and Adam, my stepdaughter, Jessica, and
my sister, Alex. Each has been a source of love and support during my
diplomatic career. I'd also like to acknowledge my parents, who have
been hugely influential in providing the values I hold today and
encouraging me to pursue professional opportunities.
After studying in Massachusetts and here in Washington, I have
spent my career serving the United States, in the Department of
Agriculture, the U.S. Trade Representative's Office, and the Department
of State. Many of my postings have been in Latin America, most recently
in Brasilia, where I served as deputy chief of mission at a mission
with over 1,100 employees at a pivotal moment in U.S. relations with
Brazil. I have also worked in Shanghai and Hong Kong.
As I have understood since I studied in Peru as an undergraduate,
Latin America is a region of core interest to the United States, where
the domestic impact of our foreign policy is tangible. Our actions have
a direct impact on the lives of United States citizens, and the flows
of migrants and illegal drugs to our borders.
Having served as the Department of State's Western Hemisphere
economic policy director and as a negotiator at the United States Trade
Representative's Office, I am acutely aware of the economic
opportunities in Latin America for the United States. Our economic
relationship is especially important with Honduras. To date, 200 U.S.
companies operate in Honduras. Nearly half of Honduran imports
originate in the United States. Our trade surplus with Honduras was $60
million in 2009.
We can strengthen our economic ties while helping Honduras develop
and grow. One promising area is Honduras' alternative energy sector. In
January, Honduras began construction on the largest wind farm in
Central America, which will bring cheap, clean energy to a very poor
country. I am proud to report that the turbines are being manufactured
in Pennsylvania, helping to create jobs in the United States.
I also look forward, if confirmed, to building on the strong
cultural and bilateral ties between the United States and Honduras.
Fifteen thousand American citizens live in Honduras, and 100,000
Americans visit Honduran cities, beaches and Mayan ruins every year. In
the United States, there are nearly 1 million residents of Honduran
origin. The money they send back to their families accounts for one-
quarter of Honduras' gross domestic product. U.S. Government
investments in Honduras are similarly transformative. Honduras' Vice
President has called the $205 million Millennium Challenge Corporation
Compact, completed last September, the most successful development
project in Honduras' history.
Honduran governments, including the current administration headed
by President Porfirio Lobo, have recognized the value of close ties.
Together, we are helping address the alarming rise in gang activity
that has burdened Honduras with one of the world's highest homicide
rates. At our Embassy in Tegucigalpa, officials from the Departments of
State, Homeland Security, and Justice work side by side with the
Honduran Government to disrupt the operations of drug trafficking
organizations. Reversing this trend, a threat to U.S. national
security, would be one of my top priorities. If confirmed, I would also
look forward to assisting our joint efforts to address the underlying
causes of insecurity, building on the work of U.S. Government agencies
such as the Peace Corps, USAID, and nongovernmental organizations that
daily demonstrate the generosity of the American people.
Two years ago, Honduras was wracked by a political crisis that
resulted in Honduras' suspension from the Organization of American
States (OAS). Just a week ago, a special session of the OAS lifted that
suspension, a tribute to President Lobo's efforts to promote national
reconciliation. Our continued engagement remains essential to
strengthen Honduras' democratic institutions and to continue supporting
the Honduran Government's efforts to strengthen respect for human
rights, which has included the creation of a Ministry of Justice and
Human Rights and the creation of a police unit, aided by the United
States, for victims of human rights violations.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I deeply value the
potential opportunity to serve the United States in this capacity, and
I thank you again for granting me the privilege of appearing before you
today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you and your
colleagues may have.
Senator Menendez. Thank you.
Mr. Thessin.
STATEMENT OF JAMES H. THESSIN, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO
THE REPUBLIC OF PARAGUAY
Mr. Thessin. Mr. Chairman, Senator Rubio, I appreciate very
much the opportunity to appear before this committee.
When in years past I was a staffer for this committee
sitting on your side of the dais, I did not expect that someday
I would be here as the President's nominee to be the United
States Ambassador to the Republic of Paraguay. Having served
the committee for several years, I continue to have the
greatest respect for this institution, and will carry that with
me in my new job if confirmed.
I would like first to introduce my family. With me is my
wife of 38 years, Marcia, our son, Jonathan, and his spouse,
Rebecca. Our daughter, Rachel, and her spouse, Will, are out of
town on business, and unfortunately not able to be with us
today.
I am proud of my wife and our children in so many ways,
including that all five have been working daily to make this
country stronger now and into the future. My wife, son, and
daughter are in public service, and our daughter-in-law and
son-in-law in universities.
I am very grateful and humbled that President Obama has
nominated me for this position and asked me to serve. You have
my commitment that if confirmed I would work tirelessly to live
up to the high standards that the administration has set for
its appointees, standards that I know this committee and the
American people expect as well.
I come before you today as a lifelong public servant in a
career that has spanned more than 35 years, working in two
branches of government and in various departments and agencies.
If confirmed, I will draw upon all the wisdom, knowledge, and
experience that I have learned during my government experience
in an effort to advance United States interests and our
important relationship with Paraguay. And if confirmed, I look
forward to working with the committee in this effort.
The relationship between the United States and Paraguay is
strong and mutually beneficial. The United States has a strong
interest in supporting Paraguay's efforts to deepen its
democratic structures, to advance human rights, to counter
narcotics trafficking and terrorism, to combat corruption and
the misuse of intellectual property, and to promote an
effective, transparent government and judicial system.
The people of the United States believe that these
principles are important, and, therefore, we have a strong
interest in their adoption by other countries. We benefit
directly when other countries make these principles their own.
Not only do our citizens receive fair treatment when abroad and
find a safe and welcoming environment there, but our businesses
are able to invest in trade in a marketplace that is fair and
predictable, placing United States firms in a better position
to contribute to the economic prosperity of the United States
as well as that of Paraguay.
Paraguay stands at an important juncture where the United
States can help make a difference. Paraguay is less than 25
years away from a period when one person ruled the country for
some 35 years. And there is significant work yet to do.
During this historic period of its bicentennial, Paraguay
is looking at the lessons of its past and is working to design
the blueprint for its future, especially as it approaches
Presidential and legislative elections.
For its part, the United States has established programs to
help Paraguay institute democratic reforms, disrupt criminal
organizations, develop its counter terrorism capabilities,
fight corruption, and promote good governance and economic
development.
If confirmed, I would give the highest priority to ensuring
the well-being and safety of Americans living and traveling in
Paraguay. I would also seek opportunities for trade between the
United States and Paraguay, specifically promoting United
States exports to Paraguay as well as advocating for United
States firms doing business in that country.
If confirmed, I look forward to working with you, your
distinguished colleagues, and your staffs to advance our
priorities with the Republic of Paraguay.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today. I
welcome any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thessin follows:]
Prepared Statement of James H. Thessin
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate very much
the opportunity to appear before this committee today. This is a great
honor for me. When in years past I was a staffer for this committee,
sitting on your side of the dais, I did not expect that someday I would
be here as the President's nominee to be the United States Ambassador
to the Republic of Paraguay. Having served the committee for several
years, I continue to have great respect for this institution and will
carry that with me in my new job if confirmed.
I am very grateful and humbled that President Obama has nominated
me for this position and asked me to serve. You have my commitment
that, if confirmed, I will work tirelessly to live up to the high
standards that the administration has set for its appointees; standards
that I know this committee and the American people expect of nominees
as well.
With the chairman's permission, I would first like to introduce my
family. With me is my wife of 38 years, Marcia. We are delighted at the
prospect of working to advance U.S. interests in Paraguay, if I am
confirmed. Also with us are our son, Jonathan, and his spouse, Rebecca.
Our daughter, Rachel, and her spouse, Will, are not able to be with us,
being out of town on business. I am proud of my wife and our children
in so many ways, including that all five have been working daily to
make this country stronger now and into the future. My wife, son, and
daughter have been in public service, working respectively as a
demographer, an attorney, and an engineer. Our daughter-in-law and our
son-in-law have been working in universities to help build a stronger
foundation in this country for tomorrow, one training educators, the
other advancing science.
I come before you today as a lifelong public servant. My career
with the Federal Government has spanned more than 35 years working in
two branches of government and in various departments and agencies,
most recently as the Deputy Legal Adviser at the Department of State.
Before beginning with the Department in 1982, I had worked for this
committee for some 3 years in the late 1970s and early 1980s. I have
learned much during my government service, particularly while at the
Department and on the committee staff. If confirmed, I will draw upon
all this wisdom, knowledge, and experience in an effort to advance U.S.
interests in our important relationship with Paraguay. And if
confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee in this
effort.
The relationship between the United States and Paraguay is strong
and mutually beneficial. The United States has a strong interest in
supporting Paraguay's efforts to deepen its democratic structures, to
advance human rights, to counter narcotics trafficking and terrorism,
to combat corruption and the misuse of intellectual property, and to
promote an effective, transparent government and judicial system.
The people of the United States believe that these principles are
important, and therefore we have a strong interest in their adoption by
other countries. We benefit directly when other countries make these
principles their own. Not only do our citizens receive fair treatment
when abroad and find a safe and welcoming environment there, but our
businesses are able to invest and trade in a marketplace that is fair
and predictable, placing U.S. firms in a better position to contribute
to the economic prosperity of the United States as well as Paraguay. If
confirmed, I look forward to continuing the productive dialogue between
the United States and Paraguay and will work diligently to advance
these goals.
Paraguay stands at an important juncture where the United States
can help make a difference. Paraguay is less than 25 years away from a
period when one person ruled the country for some 35 years, and there
is significant work yet to do. During this historic period of its
bicentennial, Paraguay is looking at the lessons of its past and works
to design the blueprint for its future, especially as it approaches
Presidential and legislative elections. To help, the United States has
established programs to help Paraguay institute democratic reforms,
disrupt criminal organizations, develop its counterterrorism
capabilities, fight corruption, and promote good governance and
economic development. If confirmed, I look forward to working with
President Lugo, Foreign Minister Lara Castro, the Paraguayan
Government, the private sector, and civil society as we seek to advance
bilateral relations and strengthen the political, commercial, and
cultural ties that exist between our two countries.
If confirmed, I would also give the highest priority to ensuring
the well-being and safety of Americans living and traveling in
Paraguay. I would also seek opportunities for enhanced trade between
the United States and Paraguay, specifically, promoting U.S. exports to
Paraguay as well as advocating for U.S firms doing business in
Paraguay.
If confirmed, I look forward to working with you, your
distinguished colleagues, and your staffs to advance our priorities
with the Republic of Paraguay.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today. I welcome any
questions you may have.
Senator Menendez. Thank you very much. In typical legal
fashion, you have a full minute left. So, you synthesize very
well.
Mr. Thessin. I cede it back to the chair. [Laughter.]
Senator Menendez. The chair is grateful to you.
Mr. Hardt.
STATEMENT OF D. BRENT HARDT, OF FLORIDA, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO
THE CO-OPERATIVE REPUBLIC OF GUYANA
Mr. Hardt. Mr. Chairman, Senator Rubio, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today as President Obama's
nominee as the next United States Ambassador to the Co-
operative Republic of Guyana. I am grateful for the trust and
the confidence that the President and Secretary of State have
placed in me.
If confirmed by the Senate, I look forward to working
closely with this committee and your colleagues in Congress to
advance our Nation's many interests in Guyana and the broader
Caribbean region.
Before I proceed, I would like to acknowledge the
unflagging love and support throughout my career of my wife,
Saskia, and my three sons, who are unfortunately preparing to
leave post next week and could not be here with me today. But
they have supported me in the United States in many capacities
over the course of my career.
I would also like to acknowledge the care and nurture of my
mother, who awakened my curiosity in the world around me.
Mr. Chairman, I have had the privilege of serving our
country as a career Foreign Service officer for the past 23
years. This journey has taken me to the Western Hemisphere and
Europe, including four previous postings in the Caribbean. I
have worked with friends and allies to strengthen security
combat drug trafficking, promote democratic values and human
rights, combat HIV and AIDS, and encourage the exchange of
people and ideas.
In my current position as charge d'affaires in the eastern
Caribbean, I have led our Embassy team to rebuild confidence in
the United State as the region's partner of choice. I believe
these experiences have prepared me well to lead the U.S.
mission in Georgetown should I be confirmed.
Mr. Chairman, Guyana is a country of tremendous potential
with vast rain forests, productive agricultural lands, proven
mineral resources and potentially large oil and natural gas
reserves. But it is also a country facing considerable
challenges with poverty and HIV/AIDS epidemic, ethnic and
racial divisions, drug trafficking, and violent crime.
The United States has a strong interest in working with
Guyana, working in partnership to meet these challenges and
fulfill this potential.
If confirmed, I will work with the government and people of
Guyana to solidify gains in democratic governance, bolster
economic growth, and promote opportunity, especially for women
and young people.
The United States also has an interest in Guyana as a key
partner in strengthening regional security. Through the
President's Caribbean Basin Security Initiative, we are
intensifying our cooperation to counter threats of
transnational crime and terrorism. That security for the
citizens of the Caribbean is indispensable both to the region's
future and to our own interests. If confirmed, I will work with
all United States agencies active in the region to strengthen
our security cooperation with Guyana.
Guyana is a nation of enormous economic potential, but with
a per capita GDP of only $2,500, it is also one of the poorest
countries in the hemisphere. That is why USAID has been working
with the government and private sector to diversify the economy
and create new opportunities and in agribusiness, aquaculture,
wood products, and eco-tourism.
If confirmed, I look forward to continuing our mission's
efforts to strengthen Guyana's competitiveness, build its trade
capacity, and reduce constraints to doing business.
Guyana is also a leader in efforts to address global
climate change through its low carbon development strategy,
which seeks to preserve its rain forests. To support Guyana's
efforts, our Embassy is helping to develop sustainable forestry
and host country governance capacity.
In the face of a debilitating AIDS epidemic in Guyana, the
United States has made major investments in combating this
disease through the President's emergency plan for AIDS relief.
Our $145 million investment since 2004 has paid clear dividends
in meeting this challenge. Guyana's prevention and care
programs, its lab, and its state-of-the-art logistics system
are models for HIV programs in the region. If confirmed, I will
work with the government and other health partners to achieve
enduring country ownership and sustainability of these life-
saving advances in public health.
Mr. Chairman, Guyana is poised for elections later this
year that can build on progress it has made as an emerging
democracy. International observers deemed its 2006 Presidential
elections to be free, fair, and transparent, and for the first
time independence, they were also peaceful. It is important
that Guyana continue along this path in the elections scheduled
to take place later this year. If confirmed, I will work with
the government and civil society to help strengthen democracy
and governance, promote constructive political dialogue, and
encourage greater citizen participation in the political
process.
The United States has a special link to Guyana through the
many Guyanese who live in our country. I will look to work with
this talented and hardworking diaspora to find ways that they
can contribute to building a more stable and prosperous Guyana.
Mr. Chairman, these are some of the opportunities and
challenges that await the next United States Ambassador to
Guyana. They are challenges and opportunities I welcome. If
confirmed and entrusted with this office, I look forward to
working with you and your colleagues in Congress to forge a
close and productive partnership between the United States and
Guyana. I assure you that I will seek to represent the
President and the American people with creativity, with
dedication, and with dignity.
Thank you, and I would be pleased to answer any questions
you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hardt follows:]
Prepared Statement of D. Brent Hardt
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today as President Obama's nominee to
serve as the next United States Ambassador to the Cooperative Republic
of Guyana. I am grateful for the trust and confidence President Obama
and Secretary of State Clinton have placed in me.
If confirmed by the Senate, I look forward to working closely with
this committee and with your colleagues in Congress to advance our
Nation's many interests in Guyana and the broader Caribbean region.
Before I proceed, I would like to acknowledge the unflagging
support throughout my career of my wife, Saskia, and my three sons, who
have served the United States in many capacities during our many
overseas assignments.
Mr. Chairman, I have had the privilege of serving our country as a
career Foreign Service officer for the past 23 years. This journey has
taken me to the Western Hemisphere and Europe, including four previous
postings in the Caribbean. I have worked with friends and allies to
strengthen security, combat drug trafficking, promote democratic values
and human rights, combat HIV and AIDS, and encourage the exchange of
people and ideas. In my current position as Charge d'Affaires in the
Eastern Caribbean, I have led our Embassy team to rebuild confidence in
the United States as the region's partner of choice. I believe these
experiences have prepared me well to lead the U.S. mission in Guyana,
should I be confirmed.
Mr. Chairman, Guyana is a country with tremendous potential, with
vast pristine rain forests, productive agricultural lands, proven
mineral resources, and potentially large oil and natural gas reserves.
It is also a country facing considerable challenges from poverty, an
HIV/AIDS epidemic, ethnic and racial divisions, drug trafficking and
violent crime. The United States has a strong interest in working in
partnership with Guyana to meet these challenges and fulfill this
potential. If confirmed, I will work with the government and people of
Guyana to solidify gains in democratic governance, bolster economic
growth, and promote opportunity, particularly for young people and
women.
The United States also has an interest in Guyana as a key partner
in strengthening regional security. Through the President's Caribbean
Basin Security Initiative we are intensifying our cooperation to
counter the threats of transnational crime and terrorism. Together we
are strengthening maritime interdiction capabilities, professionalizing
law enforcement agencies, reforming the juvenile justice sector, and
providing new opportunities for at-risk youth. Better security for the
citizens of the Caribbean is indispensible both to the region's future
stability and prosperity and to our interests. If confirmed, I will
work with all U.S. agencies active in the region to strengthen our
security cooperation with Guyana.
Guyana is a nation of enormous economic potential. Its natural
resource endowment includes gold, bauxite, diamonds, and timber.
Experts estimate a 50-percent probability that the Guyana-Suriname
Basin holds 15 billion barrels of oil and 42 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas. With exploratory drilling anticipated later this year, we
are helping prepare the ground for sound development of these resources
through technical assistance of the Energy Governance Capacity
Initiative (EGCI).
With a per capita GDP of only $2,500, Guyana is also one of the
poorest countries in the Hemisphere. That is why USAID has been working
with the government and private sector to diversify the economy and
create new opportunities in agribusiness, aquaculture, wood products,
and ecotourism--a program singled out by the President of Guyana as a
model for other donors. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing our
mission's efforts to work with the government and private sector to
strengthen Guyana's market competitiveness, build its trade capacity,
and reduce legal constraints to doing business.
Guyana is also a leader in efforts to address global climate change
through its low carbon development strategy, which is helping to
preserve its vast, untouched rain forest. To support Guyana's interest
in utilizing the country's abundant forests as a development tool, our
Embassy is engaged in developing sustainable forestry, ecotourism, and
host country capacity to implement the Reduced Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) initiative.
In the face of a debilitating AIDS epidemic in Guyana, the United
States has made a major investment in combating this disease through
the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Our $145
million investment since 2004 has paid clear dividends in responding to
Guyana's HIV/AIDS epidemic. Guyana's prevention and care programs,
central laboratory, and state-of-the-art logistics system are models
for other HIV programs in the region. Life-saving antiretroviral
treatment has been provided to 89 percent of HIV positive patients in
need of treatment--a sixfold increase. HIV testing among pregnant women
has increased by 360 percent, and treatment of HIV-positive women
increased from 57 percent in 2006 to 93 percent by the end of 2010.
PEPFAR has also had a profound impact on Guyana's health systems,
enhancing the country's laboratory capacity, ability to store and
distribute medicines, and management of broader health services. As a
result of these U.S. Government investments, Guyana now is able to take
on more of the responsibility for this response. If confirmed, I will
work with the government and other health partners to achieve enduring
country-ownership and sustainability of these important life saving
advances in public health.
Mr. Chairman, Guyana is poised for elections later this year that
can build on progress it has made as an emerging democracy.
International observers deemed its 2006 Presidential elections to be
free, fair and transparent and, for the first time since independence,
they were also peaceful. It is important that Guyana continue along
this path in the elections scheduled to take place later this year. If
confirmed, I will work with the government and civil society to help
strengthen democracy and governance, promote constructive political
dialogue, and encourage greater citizen participation in the political
process. To this end, I will also encourage the government to hold
local elections, which have not been held since 1994.
The United States has a special link to Guyana through the many
Guyanese who live in our country, many of whom are dual nationals and
who maintain close ties with family in Guyana. In fact, over 70 percent
of Guyana's citizens have family living in the United States. If
confirmed I will look to work with this talented and hard-working
diaspora to find ways that their creativity can contribute to building
a more stable and prosperous Guyana.
As a Caribbean country geographically in South America, Guyana is
emerging as a bridge between the two regions. It hosts the Caribbean
Community (CARICOM) headquarters, and is currently serving as the chair
for UNASUR, which seeks greater integration of South American nations.
If confirmed, I will also be accredited to the Caribbean Community
(CARICOM), which brings together 15 Caribbean states to promote
regional integration and cooperation. CARICOM has a vital role to play
in building a secure and prosperous Caribbean, and, if confirmed, I
look forward to working with the Secretary General and CARICOM members
to advance our common interests in trade, investment, development, and
citizen security.
Mr. Chairman, these are some of the opportunities and challenges
that await the next United States Ambassador to Guyana. They are
opportunities and challenges I welcome. If confirmed and entrusted with
this office, I look forward to working with you and your colleagues in
Congress to forge a close and productive partnership between the United
States and Guyana. I assure you that I will seek to represent the
President and the American people with creativity, dedication, and
dignity.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Hardt. Thank you all for
your testimony. I welcome your family members and thank them
for being here.
Let me start off with a round.
Mr. Farrar, tell me about the situation in Nicaragua from
your perspective, as you approach the possibility of
representing the United States there. What is the political
landscape?
Mr. Farrar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would start by
saying that it is very clear that the United States and
Nicaragua have some significant differences in the area of
democratic governance and human rights. We and others in the
international community have joined in trying to encourage
strongly Nicaragua to allow international and domestic
observation of the upcoming elections. We are awaiting still
the outcome of our entreaties and those of others in the
international community.
There are also areas in which we are working together. I
would mention counternarcotics where the United States is
cooperating with certain entities in the Government of
Nicaragua that have a proven track record on interdiction,
particularly the Nicaraguan Navy.
And finally, as I mentioned in my opening statement, we are
working together under the Central America Free Trade Agreement
and NAFTA--excuse me, CAFTA--CAFTA-DR to--and trade has
expanded considerably.
But our No. 1 concern going forward would be the situation
domestically for the upcoming elections and whether or not
international and domestic observers will be allowed to observe
those.
Thank you.
Senator Menendez. What is your view of Mr. Ortega's ability
to run a second time?
Mr. Farrar. Yes. As you know, the Supreme Court in 2000--of
Nicaragua in 2009 issued a decision allowing reelection. I was
not working in Nicaraguan issues at that time, so I am not
privy to all of the considerations and background that went
into formulation of U.S. policy at that time. But it is my
understanding that the State Department issued a statement
following that decision pointing specifically at the lack of
transparency and the decisionmaking process that led to that,
and that that position was also echoed by our Embassy in
Managua.
Going forward, I think if confirmed, it would be important
for me and for Washington to be consulting closely so that as
the situation evolves on the ground, we would speaking with one
voice directly to the Government of Nicaragua to express our
concerns. Thank you.
Senator Menendez. This is what concerns me. Ambassador
Callahan had a very clear view. He said it was
unconstitutional. And since President Ortega got elected in
2006, he has methodically and shrewdly consolidated his
political power by subverting his country's democratic
institutions and his people's basic human rights, including
freedom of assembly. Now, he is in violation of the country's
constitution. He is pursuing a second consecutive and third
overall Presidential terms in national elections.
His electoral machination suggests he is taking no chances.
He and the Sandinista supporters are thwarting peaceful
demonstrations, silencing the business community, taking over
media outlets, politicizing government offices, and
expropriating public funds. In what is the second poorest
country in the Western Hemisphere, Ortega has clearly put his
own personal enrichment and empowerment over the welfare of the
Nicaraguan people.
Now, that is my view, but it is a far different view than
the one you expressed to me. And I am concerned, as I was
hoping to hear something different today. I am concerned that
if the major political view that you have on the landscape is
the question of election transparency and having observers,
there's far more than that going on here. And for my own sake
in terms of being supportive of a nominee to go to this post, I
want to see someone who is going to make sure that civil
society has the support of the U.S. Government in a way that
protects them from this regime and gives the wherewithal, the
space, the openness, to be able to choose a really transparent
democratic opportunity for their country.
And that is why I gave you an open question, to get a sense
of what your view is. My concern also stems also from your time
at the U.S. Interest Section in Cuba, because Cuban dissidents
have said to me that during the time you have been the Interest
Section there, it has been the least open to their cause and
concerns. And now you are going to a country that ultimately
has a lot of issues that are also about democracy and human
rights.
Can you assuage my concerns?
Mr. Farrar. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that it
is essential for the United States to stand up for our
democratic principles, whether we are talking about Nicaragua,
Cuba, or anywhere else in the world. And as we do that, it is
essential as well that we speak with one voice, whether it is
from Havana or in Managua, with Washington, so that our message
is clear, and it is one message and one message only. We have
to be able to do that directly and clearly.
We also have to be able to defend the programs that we run
that stem from our principles. And over the past 3 years in
Havana, I have had the opportunity to develop, implement, and
carry forward a broad range of programs to support civil
society and the free flow of information to, from, and within
Cuba. Facing at times substantial obstacles, we have managed to
implement some very innovative programs to support civil
society in Cuba. And if given the opportunity, we would
certainly--I would certainly make that my top priority as well.
I am looking forward to serving in Nicaragua because I
recognize that in the runup period to the election and then
afterward, the role of civil society is going to be crucial.
And our programs can be a limited, but significant, part of
protecting civil society, protecting its role, and preserving
democratic institutions. And that is something that has been a
top priority of mine in Havana, and if confirmed, would be in
Managua as well.
Senator Menendez. One final followup before I turn to
Senator Rubio. Do you share any of the concerns that I
expressed a minute ago in Nicaragua?
Mr. Farrar. Yes. I think we are quite concerned with the
trends in Nicaragua. If you look at last year's human rights
report, for example, it says that respect for human rights has
deteriorated in Nicaragua, and it focuses particularly on some
of the concerns that you mentioned--freedom of assembly,
freedom of the press, respect for independent media. Yes, on a
personal level and as an administration, we share some of those
concerns.
Mr. Menendez. Senator Rubio.
Senator Rubio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Farrar, let us
begin. I have been in the Senate now 5 months. I was not here
during most of your role in Havana. And I want to study that a
little bit because I think you are going into a potentially
similar situation in Nicaragua.
I would start by just asking, what is your view or what was
your view going in to your post in Havana, the role of the U.S.
Interest Section in Cuba? What did you see as the mission
statement for the Interest Section?
Mr. Farrar. I would say going in, our No. 1 priority was
support for civil society and to expand freedom in Cuba.
Together with that, it would be protecting American citizens,
which is our No. 1 priority, around the world.
Before going to Havana, I did extensive consultations here
up on Capitol Hill. The one area of consensus that I found was
that the Interest Section also needed to expand its contact
with all levels of Cuban society. And we have tried to
implement programs to carry that out as well.
Senator Rubio. As you I am sure are aware, before you were
at that post, the Interest Section had developed in a very
different direction. Decisions were made that you undid. There
was the infamous news ticker, the Christmas decorations. In
addition to that, there were numerous complaints from
dissidents and others about your reluctance to interact with
them. I know in September 2009, you hosted a reception where
there were regime personnel who attended, yet members of civil
society in Cuba were excluded.
Were those the decisions that you made, and what was the
thought process behind some of those decisions, because it took
the Interest Section in a different direction than it had been
going previously. What led to those decisions? How were they
made? Were you involved in making them? What was the rationale?
Mr. Farrar. Thank you, Senator. Over the past 3 years, I
would say what we have done is build upon some of the programs
that were already in place and expand them and implement new
ones. As an area where we built upon existing programs, I would
cite the training program for independent journalists. It is
run by Florida International University, where we recently
graduated our 500th student from those courses.
We run two Internet resource centers, one of which we
rebuilt from the ground up last year. They are the largest
sources of uncensored free Internet in Cuba.
We have gone beyond that by instituting basic computer
courses for Cuban civil society, classes in blogging. Once we
received permission from the Department of Commerce, we began
preparing and distributing DVDs with free software and monthly
updates to help people be able to connect.
We created a distance learning center. We had no facility.
We constructed this distance learning center using a railroad
shipping container that we have converted into a center that
now has DVC capability, Internet stations, computers, so that
students in Havana can take college level courses in Spanish at
our distance learning center.
The reason we did that was shortly after I arrived in 2008,
we tried to begin a scholarship program for Cuban students to
study in the United States, two programs, one a leadership
program in the summer and the second a year at a community
college. We advertised that program as you only can in Cuba,
through word of mouth, by passing out leaflets on the street,
giving leaflets to other people to pass on to friends and
acquaintances. We had over 700 students apply for those
scholarships from around Cuba. We selected the 27 best. None of
them received exit permits to depart Cuba from the government,
so we had to find other ways to connect, which we did.
We have begun training classes for English teachers and
English language students. The median age of learning English
language classes is 23. We are connecting with college level
students in Cuba today, I would say, for the first time.
In the past year, we have nominated and she won the prize
as one of the International Women of Courage, Yoani Sanchez. We
recently nominated the Damas de Blanco, and they received the
Global Human Rights Defenders Award from the State Department
for 2010. When it came time for both to receive their awards,
none of them received permission to leave Cuba to accept those
rewards. So, we put on ceremonies for them in Havana so that
they could receive their prizes.
Last month's ceremony with Damas de Blanco was the first
time that the 12 75ers who were released over the past year
were all gathered together. And since that time, we have
gathered them together again several other times, and they have
met on their own.
Senator Rubio. I apologize. I do not want to interrupt
because this is a list of accomplishments, and those are
significant, and we can talk about those. I think we will have
a second round and however else the chairman wants to proceed.
But I think the question was really related to the nature of
the Interest Section and its mission.
Before you arrived, the Interest Section was viewed as
having a more adversarial--would you concede that it was
considered more adversarial by the regime before your arrival?
Mr. Farrar. I don't want to characterize how it was before
I arrived, but what I would say is the Interest Section has,
is----
Senator Rubio. The Interest Section changed after you
arrived. And the changes that you made, specifically some that
I outlined, but its view, its mission statement, would you not
concede that its mission changed, the way it conducted business
changed in terms of its interaction with the government?
Mr. Farrar. I think the mission statement support for civil
society and in democratic progress did not change. What changed
was we tried to expand the ways that we go about doing that.
Senator Rubio. OK, the way that you went about doing that,
right. And so, would you characterize the way they used to do
things before as more aggressive? You know, obviously the
ticker, the Christmas decorations, things that clearly
antagonized the Cuban Government. You took the Interest Section
in a different direction in terms of its tactics. My question
is, What was the thought process behind using these different
tactics? Well, why did you decide to go in that direction after
the Interest Section had been going in the other direction? I
just want to know the thought process behind it, the
justification. You know, what prompted you to go that route?
Mr. Farrar. Yes. I would say that our goal was to support
civil society in Cuba and to expand the Interest Section's
contacts with all levels of Cuban society. And in order to do
that, we had to come up with new programs that we could use to
reach out, to reach out more broadly than we had done in the
past. And that is the direction that we went.
Senator Rubio. But was it your view that by taking down
some of these programs that antagonized the regime that you
would have more space to carry out these programs? Was the
thought that if we do not go over the top--if we do not offend
or try not to offend the regime, we will have more space to
carry out our mission. Was that your view?
Mr. Farrar. No. I think we were looking for the programs
that would be most effective. If I could go back for just a
second to the distance learning program. We did not have any
facility in order to implement such programs. We had to get
this shipping container moved on to the premises of the
Interest Section, which took a long time, but we were able to
do.
Subsequent to that, I have been called into the Foreign
Ministry four times for their presentations on how this program
violates the Vienna Conventions, a view with which we
completely disagree. But our No. 1 concern is not what the
possible effect might be on the Government of Cuba. It is what
will be most effective in terms of supporting civil society and
expanding the free flow of information to, from, and within the
island.
Senator Rubio. OK. You know, there were--and I know I have
gone over time, so we can come back to this or we can move on
in a second. But your relationship and your description of
dissidents and the dissident movement on the island has been
described as reluctance and disinterest. What is your view and
what was your thought process regarding dissidents on the
island and your relationship with them in comparison to that of
your predecessors at the mission?
Mr. Farrar. I think we--and I--have a long and deep
relationship with civil society in Cuba. And if anything, it is
a broader relationship than it has been in the past. Civil
society in Cuba knows that the Interest Section is the bulwark
of support, that we have the interests of the Cuban people at
heart. And the programs we have, the outreach that we do, is
all aimed at that.
I think events, such as the one that I described, where we
gave the award to the Dames de Blanco for the global human
rights defenders. And we brought together in one room them and
their relatives who had been released, and provided a venue
frankly for them to begin to talk with one another and to see
how, now that they have reincorporated themselves into daily
life, how they want to go about promoting civil society in
Cuba. That is something that the Interest Section can offer and
probably there is no other institution in Havana that can do
so.
Senator Rubio. My last question on this round, and it goes
directly to this point. There is a press report that on April
2009 and dispatch that you signed, you said that Cuba's pro-
democracy activists and their focus on human rights did not
resonate with Cubans, who are more concerned about having
greater opportunities to travel freely and live comfortably.
Does that remain your view, that Cuba's pro-democracy activists
and their focus on human rights does not resonate with Cubans?
Mr. Farrar. Yes. I am not sure of the source of that quote.
If it is--has to do with WikiLeaks, we of course cannot comment
on the validity or not of a source such as that.
I have said many times that our No. 1 objective in Havana
has been support for civil society, expanding their operating
space, and trying to improve the information flow and out of
the island. At other times I have said that they are the
conscience of Cuba, and I stand on that. Thank you.
Senator Menendez. We will do a second round here. I will
get to some of you. I do not want you to feel left out of the
process. I know you would rather have questions than not have
questions.
But I just have one more followup, Mr. Farrar. This is the
nature of the challenge here. When I hear you respond to
Senator Rubio, you talk about broader civil society, and that
is admirable. But every time our questions are about human
rights activists and political dissidents, your responses are
of broader civil society. Why is it that human rights activists
and political dissidents inside Cuba who I have talked to,
including during a recent trip to Spain where I met 50 of those
who were released from Cuban jails, say they feel that there
was less engagement, less access from the Interest Section
during your tenure.
I do not believe having your political affairs director
smoking a cigar with a narcotics trafficker is reaching out to
civil society. If you were going to some other country, maybe
this would not be an issue. But many of us on this committee,
and certainly I as the chairman of the subcommittee, have
serious concerns about where Nicaragua is headed.
So the ability to engage not just with civil society, but
with human rights activists and political dissidents
languishing inside of their country to create the space that is
necessary for the proper democratic process to take place is
very important. That is why it is critically important for us
to understand where you came from so we can know what to expect
of you in your next post.
I want to give you the chance to give me some sense of how
you will engage differently in Nicaragua. And maybe your answer
is there is no difference, in which case, you know that would
be it.
Mr. Farrar. Senator and Mr. Chairman, I share your concern
about strengthening and supporting civil society. That is what
we have endeavored to do over the past 3 years.
If I may go back to the example of Damas de Blanco, after
our ceremony presenting them with the Global Human Rights
Defenders Fund Award, 2 weeks later we brought back the former
75ers to give them 2 days of intensive training on computers,
on the world that had passed them by during their 8 years in
Cuban prisons.
We are engaged in looking for practical ways that we can
help human rights activists, civil society members, get their
message out and engage better to advance the cause of democracy
and human rights. And it is that same mission of trying to find
ways that will work that I would, if confirmed, look to carry
forward in Nicaragua.
Senator Menendez. Thank you for your answer. Ms. Kubiske,
let me ask you, President Zelaya has returned to Honduras. That
was part of the condition for Honduras' return to the OAS,
along with assurances of the government that his political
allies would be allowed to participate in politics.
Can you comment on what you view as the political climate
in Honduras and the meaning of Zelaya's return for the
stability of the Lobo government?
Ms. Kubiske. I think in the first instance, it was quite a
triumph that Honduras, with the help of neighbors in the
hemisphere, were able to get to the point where Honduras could
be brought back into the OAS. And so, they are now in a
position to move forward.
Having said that, I understand that the atmosphere
continues to be fragile and polarized. There is no question
about that.
As part of the project of national reconciliation as you
mentioned, Mr. Chairman, there was a condition of Zelaya's
return. And so, we hope and we urge--I hope and I urge--if I
were confirmed, that he would play a constructive role.
Senator Menendez. What do you think is the stability of the
Lobo government?
Ms. Kubiske. I think they have--I am going to answer it
indirectly to be frank. They have taken many important steps
forming a unity government that has opposition members in it
and establishing a truth and reconciliation commission to go
over what happened in the past and to try to make
recommendations for how to prevent it.
I think I would see my role as putting a lot of priority on
strengthening democratic institutions because there is an issue
of having a system that will avoid a political crisis, such as
the one that occurred in 2009.
Senator Menendez. Let me ask you a question that is local
in nature, but I would like to get your commitment should you
be confirmed to work with me on this.
In May of last year, a constituent of mine, Joe Dunsavage
disappeared off the coast of Honduras in his boat, and despite
extensive efforts, neither he nor his boat were recovered. His
brother, his wife, and his kids have been seeking a certificate
of presumptive death from the Department for more than a year
to no avail. Will you work with me in trying to help this
family come to a conclusion so that we can have them have a
measure of closure and be able to deal with the challenges of
their estate?
Ms. Kubiske. The short answer is absolutely. The longer
answer is what happens to American citizens is a core objective
of our foreign policy and taking care of people. I know that
the Embassy and the State Department both have worked hard on
the case, but I would welcome the opportunity, if I were
confirmed, to take a closer look and see if there is anything
more we can possibly do.
Senator Menendez. I appreciate that. We look forward to
doing that with you.
Mr. Thessin, with reference to Paraguay, I mentioned that
it captured an enormous amount, in monetary terms, of cocaine,
875 kilos. What do you view as the nature of our
counternarcotics cooperation with Paraguay? And how committed
do you think the Paraguayans are to a strong bilateral
relationship with the United States to control illicit activity
of that and other sorts in the Tri-Border region?
Mr. Thessin. Counternarcotics is an area that is obviously
a high priority for the United States Government--the
President, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the
country. And DEA has a very close working relationship with the
Paraguayan authorities. They have been training units to go out
and look for and seize narcotics that might be transiting the
country. They have reported to me that they have been receiving
good cooperation.
If confirmed, I would continue to make counternarcotics a
high priority. This is important to the United States. Beyond
that, the Tri-Border Area is an area of particular concern for
United States and Paraguayan law enforcement. The area is
notorious for corruption, for money laundering, for smuggling.
And whenever you have that kind of money floating around from
illicit gains, there is also concern then that it is used to--
some of it is going to fund terrorism in the Middle East, for
example.
There is no corroborated evidence that there is an active
terrorist cell in that area. But it is an area that we have
clearly in our focus, as do the Paraguayans, and the
Argentines, and the Brazilians. So, if confirmed, this is an
area we will give tremendous attention. We will work with the
Paraguayan government to build its democratic institution to
deepen its roots so that the government can deliver services
and be trusted by the people.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Mr. Hardt, let me just ask you, I know we often overlook
Guyana in the panoply of Latin American nations, but on the
economic front it has resources that are a basis for growth and
development. And I understand it has agricultural,
aquacultural, eco-tourism, mining, wood products, as well as
possible oil reserves offshore that could be as extensive as
those that are found in Angola.
What would you do if confirmed to help track U.S. foreign
investment to help develop these resources?
Mr. Hardt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If confirmed, I would
certainly look to continue the programs that we have ongoing in
Guyana already to foster economic growth and opportunity. The
areas you mentioned do have a lot of potential, but they also
have a number of obstacles. And through USAID programs, we have
been working to try to identify new markets, develop
institutions within each of these sectors to strengthen their
outreach to potential markets, and to create more opportunity
for these sectors, certainly on the oil and gas front, which is
a potential game changer in many ways for Guyana.
We are working through an energy governance capacity
initiative to build the government's ability, should this oil
prove to be as our geological surveys anticipate that they
would have the ability to manage it, to regulate it, and to
ensure that the oil goes to the development of the country and
the people of Guyana in a way that will raise them out of their
current level of poverty.
Senator Menendez. We are closing our USAID mission--in
Guyana. And we have programs like PEPFAR that we are closely
engaged in there. Since you are in Barbados now, do you think
that the mission in Barbados can be as effective in monitoring
the progress and coordination of those programs that we have
going with USAID?
Mr. Hardt. Well, I know that the mission in Barbados can be
very effective. I am pleased----
Senator Menendez. It was not a trick question----
[Laughter.]
Senator Menendez [continuing]. I am sure they are effective
in Barbados. The question is, Can they be as effective in
operating and overviewing what is going on in Guyana?
Mr. Hardt. Well, certainly I do not think it can ever be
said that you can be more effective than being on the ground.
That is going to be the most effective way to manage a program.
But obviously AID is making--is facing budget limitations, and
in the context they are seeking to reutilize some of their
efforts. We have excellent working relationships within the
region. We are working regionally on the PEPFAR program in the
partnership framework. We are working regionally on the
Caribbean Basin and Security Initiative. So, we have a pattern
of working regionally, and I think we can continue that. And,
you know, I look forward to engaging, you know, with our
Embassy in Bridgetown--when I am Georgetown, if confirmed, and
believe we can continue the good programs that we have ongoing
already.
Senator Menendez. Senator Rubio.
Senator Rubio. Thank you. And just to wrap up, Mr. Farrar,
and then I want to move to some other questions. First of all,
I did not thank you for your service to our country, a long
career, and to your family as well for doing that. And you and
I have never met. We have not spoken before on these issues,
and I look forward to talking to you more about these in the
future.
I just want to leave on the record what my concerns are,
not just specifically about the nomination, but in general
about the situation in Nicaragua. You have a government there
that's conducting an all-out assault on the constitutional
order and on the independence of government institutions. You
have a--Daniel Ortega, who is using his relationship with Hugo
Chavez not just for personal enrichment, but to create an
alternative basically government in terms of funding
mechanisms, for many things that are happening.
You have a government that is openly supporting Moammar
Gadhafi, openly supported Russia's invasion of Georgia, and the
creation of states out of that invasion.
And in the face of that, we have to send someone to be the
face of the United States in Managua. And I think that should
be someone who is going to be forceful. You are not going to
Luxembourg. It is not Lichtenstein. This is a place that is
headed in the wrong direction in a hurry, and America needs a
forceful presence there.
And I have to be honest. We do not know each other well. I
have only known about your record from what I have read in
preparing for this hearing today. But I am concerned about some
of the decisions that you made at the Interest Section in
Havana. We have complaints--numerous complaints from dissidents
and human rights activists. We have instances of invitations to
Castro regime officials at the expense of others in civil
society to be at certain events. Some other decisions--you
know, some of the things, talking about the Christmas tree and
the Christmas stuff that was taken down, the ticker. And these
may be symbolic, but they were certainly part of a forceful
presence in the area.
And then to top it all off, we have State Department
officials visiting Havana, and instead of staying at the
Interest Section, and maybe there is a good reason why they did
not stay there, they stayed at the Hotel Nacional, which in
addition to being an expropriated property, appears to me to be
a security risk to stay in a place like that in a country like
that.
Suffice it to say that it is my opinion, just from the
little I know, and I could be dissuaded--I mean, that is what I
want to hear today--that the strategy that you adopted at the
Interest Section was not to offend or to try to avoid offending
or being abrasive with the Castro government because you felt
perhaps it would give you more space to function and carry out
your mission.
Obviously you have the right to respond to that, and maybe
you view it very differently. But I am concerned about that
because it is not what I think I would like to see as the
strategy in Managua. And maybe there are distinctions, and
maybe you will handle that post differently. I would give you
the opportunity to respond to that. I do have questions for all
four panelists as well. But if you would like to respond to
that.
Mr. Farrar. Yes. Thank you, Senator I think I have a 30-
year record of service to the United States. My previous
position before going to Havana was as the Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights,
and Labor where I worked with civil society around the world.
While I was in the Bureau there, we developed some of the very
programs that we were then able to take advantage of and use in
Havana. I am talking about programs such as the Global Human
Rights Defenders Fund, which was created while I was in the
Bureau.
Civil society, human rights, is near and dear to my heart.
It has been part of my career for almost 30 years now. In
Havana, we have been trying to find the most effective ways to
communicate, to expand space for civil society.
The world changes, and we come up with new programs in
order to be able to connect. Some of those new programs are
ones that I described--the blogging classes, the computer
classes, distributing free software. We still do some of the
old methods as well. In the first 8 months of this fiscal year,
we distributed 21,000 copies of the El Nuevo Herald in Cuba.
Some of the old methods work, but we need to be innovative and
creative in trying to work with civil society, whether it is in
Cuba or whether it is Nicaragua or anywhere else around the
world. And that is truly what I have dedicated my time to.
Thank you.
Senator Rubio. OK. I have the same question for all four
panelists.
We are facing, as you all well know, fiscal constraints and
a great debate going on in this city about what America should
be spending money on, particularly when it comes to foreign aid
and foreign programs. Have you given thought to one
investment--if you were prioritize and come up here in your new
post a year from now, 6 months from now, make a recommendation
on one investment that you think would give us, for lack of a
better term, the most bang for our buck, in your particular
assignments, have you identified such a program? Have you given
some thought to which one program would give us the highest
rate of return on our investment in each of your respective
countries? It does not have to be a specific program. I mean,
it could be area of expenditure. Where should our focus be
basically when we spend money on foreign aid or other presences
in the different countries? And, I guess, Mr. Hardt, we will
hear from you.
Mr. Hardt. Certainly. Over the past few years I have been
working in the Caribbean to implement the President's Caribbean
Basin and Security Initiative. And I think that program is
ideally suited to the needs of the region. When we developed
it, it was based on listening to people in the region, hearing
what their concerns and priorities are, and trying to respond
to that. And it combines a nice mix of traditional support for
capacity building among law enforcement and military groups,
but also efforts to look at the root causes of crime in the
region and to support at risk youth and educational programs
for young people. And I think this balance is clearly what we
need to be doing. We need to obviously go after the drug
traffickers and the criminals, but we also need to deal with
the fertile ground that creates them. And certainly I would
hope that we would be able to keep that program strong.
Mr. Thessin. Senator, that is a very good question that I
have given a lot of thought to.
My procedure for doing--for looking at something like this
would be to talk to the country team and to talk more with
Washington about their experience on the programs because I am
not as familiar with them as they are.
But I think, though, when you look at what Paraguay needs
right now, it is to help institutionalize its democracy. That
is the kind of programs that the President in Paraguay has
asked for our help. And that includes things like helping to
fight corruption, helping to train the police, helping to make
the government deliver its services more effectively to the
people. And those are programs that I think pay off because
that may be the engine for starting a country that is less
corrupt, that has less corruption in it, that has better
government services, where the government is trusted, where
democracy takes deeper root. And I think that is very much in
our interests, and that is the first place that I would look to
try to protect.
Mr. Farrar. Thank you, Senator. I would cite areas that I
do not think would actually cost any more money. The first
would be looking ahead to the run up to the election in
November and beyond. I think we should examine the mix of civil
society programs for Nicaragua to make sure, together with the
Congress, that we have the right mix moving forward, depending
upon what the situation is on the ground there at that time.
The second I would mention would be in the area of
counternarcotics, to look at the agencies that we are working
with in Nicaragua, make sure we have the right ones there, but
also to encourage Nicaragua to take advantage, to use the
opportunity to train officials at the International Law
Enforcement Academy in El Salvador. They have access to that.
They are not using it. That is a space that could be utilized.
Thank you.
Ms. Kubiske. Senator, you have asked a very fair question.
I think the problems in Honduras interrelate. If you ask
Hondurans what is their top concern, it is insecurity and the
culture of impunity, and that is obviously an area that we need
to focus on.
If you look from the narrowest, most hard-nosed United
States perspective, you can say that we need to support helping
Hondurans have opportunities in Honduras so that they do not,
as somebody has pointed out, have choices between joining a
cartel and drugs or going illegally or sometimes legally to the
United States.
I cannot tell you one area because I think the way to
answer that question is to see what kind of assistance cannot
be provided from another source. But I would be happy to talk
with you later and to talk with others and give you a much more
specific, concrete example if that would help you.
I do have a very strong view that to have a successful
economy, you need to have opportunities for poor people. And
so, a big part of what I would like to see more of is support
for the kinds of programs that provide job-related skills to
Hondurans, or that connect Hondurans to markets. Hopefully,
those things would be win-win for both of us.
But as I said, it is very hard to disentangle the citizen
security part from the economic part.
Senator Menendez. Well, thank you all for your appearance
and your answers. Thank you for your service to our country,
each and every one of you, and for your willingness to serve.
Senator Inhofe has asked unanimous consent for a series of
questions to be included in the record. Without objection, they
are so ordered.
The record will remain open for 48 hours. During those 48
hours, I can assure you that there will be a series of
questions that will come forward, and I would urge each of you
to answer as quickly as possible since it will expedite the
consideration of your nomination.
Senator Menendez. With that, the committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:16 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record
Responses of D. Brent Hardt to Questions Submitted by
Senator Robert Menendez
Question. In November, Guyana will host Presidential and
parliamentary election. The election board, however, has expressed
concern that 49,000 voters have not claimed the registration cards that
allow them to cast ballots.
What steps is the government taking to address this issue?
What role will the United States and international community
play in ensuring that the elections are free and fair--both in
the lead up to the election and on election day?
Answer. Although the date for the 2011 national elections has not
been set, they are expected to be held between October and December. As
of June 4, 46,687 registration cards were unclaimed according to the
Public Relations Officer of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM).
The GECOM has a systematic plan to distribute the cards, which includes
advertising the availability of the cards on the radio and distributing
lists of individuals who have unclaimed cards to all political parties.
GECOM will soon begin delivering unclaimed cards to residents in remote
areas of Guyana via a network of temporary field offices. The
Government of Guyana intends to invite observers from the Caribbean
Community and the Organization of American States to monitor the
elections, but at this time, no formal invitations have been extended.
The Embassy, through USAID, is the most visible international
elections donor. It is working actively to ensure that the elections
are free and fair through technical assistance to GECOM, grants to
civic organizations and NGOs to promote voter participation and open
dialogue, including a program addressing first time voters, and a grant
to facilitate the participation of disabled persons in the election.
Question. Closure of USAID mission in Guyana. Last fall, USAID
announced plans to close its AID mission in Guyana. USAID's presence
has allowed it to coordinate PEPFAR programs in coordination with the
Centers for Disease Control. USAID has also been a key factor in
coordinating our aid with donors like the Inter-American Development
Bank (IDB), the British Department for International Development
(DFID), the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), and the
European Union.
What kind of message do we send to Guyana and to the
Caribbean region as a whole when we withdraw coordination of
much-needed programs in health care and disease prevention?
Will the mission in Barbados be as effective in monitoring
the progress and coordination of these programs?
Answer. In order to achieve its global sustainable development
objectives, USAID is consolidating resources in priority countries and
sectors. As a cost-saving measure, USAID plans to manage its Guyana
projects from its regional office in Barbados. USAID has determined
that it can manage and coordinate these activities from Bridgetown and
achieve cost savings.
USAID's Office in Barbados is a regional platform that already
manages an extensive and robust HIV/AIDS program in the Caribbean and
has a strong professional staff. Despite the pending closure of our
USAID office in Guyana, we have sought to assure the Government and
other health and civil society partners that USAID will remain active
in Guyana implementing our HIV/AIDS, CBSI, and economic growth
programs.
______
Responses of James H. Thessin to Questions Submitted by
Senator Robert Menendez
Question. Tri-border Region--International Terrorism: We don't hear
much about Paraguay. It's the size of California and has a population
of 6\1/2\ million people. It's tucked away between Bolivia, Argentina,
and Brazil. We share in interest with Paraguay in ensuring that this
Tri-Border Area does not become a nesting ground for narcotics or, even
worse, terrorist activities. There continue to be reports linking the
tri-border region to international terrorist groups, such as Hamas and
Hezbollah. A 2009 RAND study examined how Hezbollah has benefited from
film piracy proceeds in the tri-border and the State Department
terrorism report maintains that the United States remains concerned
that Hezbollah and Hamas sympathizers are raising funds among the
sizable Middle Eastern communities in the region. Hezbollah is also
linked to two bombings in Argentina: the 1992 bombing of the Israeli
Embassy in Buenos Aires that killed 30 people and the 1994 bombing of
the Argentine-Israeli Mutual Association (AMIA) in Buenos Aires that
killed 85 people.
Is it your sense that Paraguay is committed to a strong bi-lateral
relationship with the United States and to controlling illicit activity
in the triborder region? If confirmed, what priority would you place on
addressing the proliferation of illicit activities in the region and in
encouraging the regional governments to seriously address the panacea
of criminal activity that is known to occur in this area?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to make it a high priority of
Embassy Asuncion to work to counter terrorism, violent extremism, and
narcotics trafficking while addressing illicit activity in the Tri-
Border Area, including corruption, money laundering, and piracy of
intellectual property.
It is my sense that Paraguay is committed to a strong bi-lateral
relationship and to controlling illicit activity in the Tri-Border
Area. I will work with the Government of Paraguay to maintain this
strong relationship and to continue to support Paraguay's efforts in
this area. However, poverty, corruption, and the limited capacity of
Paraguay's security services all challenge its law enforcement efforts.
This is where the United States has the potential to do much to
help Paraguay strengthen its democratic institutions, including through
the continuation of our efforts in the areas of counternarcotics, money
laundering, law enforcement training, information-sharing, and
counterterrorism. As Ambassador to Paraguay, I will work hard to do
just that. I will also work with our country's leading experts in
Washington and our Ambassadors to Brazil and Argentina on how the
United States can best coordinate its work with Brazil, Argentina, and
Paraguay to control illicit activities in the Tri-Border Area.
Question. Counternarcotics: Last week, Paraguay captured a record
haul of 875 kilos or $131 million in cocaine. U.S. drug enforcement
agents were reportedly called in after workers at the private Phoenix
river port grew suspicious about rice from the Tri-Border region. What
is the nature of our counternarcotics cooperation with Paraguay and
other countries in the region? Are these countries sufficiently trained
and equipped to cope with those growing problem? To what extent is
corruption, particularly by officials, an issue with respect to the
trafficking of narcotics?
Answer. The recent seizure of 875 kilograms of cocaine in a
container of rice at a Paraguayan river port illustrates one of the
biggest law enforcement challenges facing Paraguay: the use of the
country as a transit route for Andean cocaine headed to Argentina,
Brazil, Europe, and elsewhere. Paraguay is also a source of marijuana
for neighboring countries.
Counternarcotics responsibilities are shared by Paraguay's Anti-
drug Secretariat (SENAD) and the Paraguayan National Police (PNP). The
leadership of both institutions strongly supports law enforcement
cooperation with the United States and regards illicit narcotics
trafficking as one of the most serious threats facing Paraguay. The
recent cocaine seizure you mention took place as a result of the fine
cooperation that exists between U.S. and Paraguayan authorities.
Corruption is a significant factor hampering Paraguayan law
enforcement, but progress is being made. Both SENAD and the PNP receive
financial and operational support from the U.S. Government. The U.S.
Drug Enforcement Administration supports sensitive investigative units
(SIUs) in both SENAD and the PNP, and those units have had several
successes in recent months, including the 875 kilogram seizure.
If confirmed, I would make it a high priority to support U.S.
counternarcotics efforts, including DEA's efforts to counter illicit
trafficking by land, air, and water and to improve controls in
Paraguay's container ports.
I appreciate your question regarding regional efforts to combat
narcotics trafficking. As with Paraguay, Brazil, and Argentina have
cooperated effectively with the United States on counter narcotics
matters. All three countries have had successes against narcotics
trafficking; all three have policies and programs designed to confront
official corruption. We believe that all three countries are committed
to advancing their ability to counter this serious problem.
______
Responses of Jonathan Farrar to Questions Submitted by
Senator Robert Menendez
Question. In many Latin American countries, there seems to be a
tendency toward autocracy and longevity in office. Different countries
handle the temptation differently. Mexico has one 6-year term. They
proclaim ``Suffragio Efectivo--No Reeleccion'' or Effective Suffrage--
No Reelection. It was adopted in their constitution as a result of 30
years of dictatorial rule and a revolutionary struggle that last over
10 years.
Many nations have held constitutional referendums or used other
means to remove limits on Presidential terms--to extend it to two
terms, in some cases three terms. In the case of Venezuela under
Chavez, term limits have been removed completely.
What is your sense of this trend toward autocracy?
Answer. The region's commitment to democratic development is
widespread and strong. This commitment gives Latin Americans a special
role in helping support other nations making the difficult transition
to democracy today. As Secretary Clinton has noted, ``This hemisphere
can do much more to guard against threats and challenges to democracy
closer to home. In some countries, insecurity and a lack of opportunity
remain real obstacles. In others, democracy is being rolled back rather
than strengthened. Cuba remains a glaring exception to the democratic
convergence. That is something that all of us have to face up to and
work toward dealing with.'' I share Secretary Clinton's commitment to
protecting fundamental freedoms and, if confirmed, I will work to
promote democracy and respect for human rights in Nicaragua.
The United States has expressed its concerns in Nicaragua regarding
the Supreme Court decision which cleared the way for President Ortega
to run for reelection. As Ambassador to Nicaragua, I would commit my
efforts and those of the Embassy to engaging with civil society, which
often serves as a bulwark against the future undermining of democratic
institutions.
Question. Since his reelection in 2006, Nicaraguan President Daniel
Ortega has methodically and shrewdly consolidated his political power
by subverting his country's democratic institutions and his people's
basic human rights, including the freedom assembly. Now, in violation
of the country's constitution, he is pursuing a second consecutive and
third overall Presidential term in national elections this November.
His electoral machinations suggest he is taking no chances. He and his
Sandinista supporters are thwarting peaceful demonstrations, silencing
the business community, taking over media outlets, politicizing
government offices, and expropriating public funds. In what is the
second poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, Ortega has clearly
placed his own enrichment and empowerment above the welfare of the
Nicaraguan people.
I hope that you will agree that the deteriorating political
situation in Nicaragua is alarming and likely to worsen without greater
international engagement. With Nicaragua's opposition party fractured,
civil society is the only meaningful check against this increasingly
authoritarian Ortega regime, and yet, civil society organizations are
operating with few resources and under constant threat from Sandinista
forces. Prodemocracy activists valiantly fighting to protect democracy
need greater U.S. support--both moral and financial.
Can you assure the committee that you will be an ally and
advocate for those brave men and women defending human rights
in Nicaragua, and in what ways do you believe we can step up
our support for civil society groups in Nicaragua?
Answer. I can assure the committee that I share its concerns about
the erosion of democratic institutions in Nicaragua. If confirmed, I
will continue to be a passionate advocate for human rights and
democracy and work with human rights defenders. I will be outspoken
about the importance of protecting fundamental freedoms and democratic
institutions, and urging greater respect for human rights,
transparency, and separation of powers. I have worked closely with
civil society in Latin America during a career that spans three
decades. Additionally, I will bring to bear my experience to ensure
that our efforts are the most effective possible in the environment
which prevails in Nicaragua today.
I will continue to advocate for the engagement of civil society at
the local and national level, a viable independent media, an informed
citizenry, strengthened local government, and effective political party
participation. All of the programs that further these goals are crucial
to building a sustainable democratic foundation in Nicaragua and must
be protected in the face of declining resource levels for U.S.
assistance.
Question. Mr. Ortega is illegally seeking another Presidential
term. What do you believe U.S. policy should be toward his candidacy?
Answer. The U.S. Government expressed its concern in 2009 about the
manner in which the Nicaraguan Supreme Court made its decision allowing
the reelection candidacy of President Ortega. The United States and
others in the international community are concerned that the upcoming
elections be a valid expression of the true will of the Nicaraguan
people. We must speak up in defense of our democratic principles and
convey our concerns about threats to democratic institutions as they
arise. For that reason, the United States has pressed for the presence
of credible domestic and international observers to enhance prospects
that the elections will be carried out in a free, fair, and transparent
manner and to provide effective witness if they are not.
We must be prepared to discuss our concerns directly with the
Nicaraguan Government, both in Washington and in Managua, in a
coordinated manner. If confirmed, I would do so vigorously.
Question. Mr. Ortega is not only seeking reelection; he is also
looking to secure 56 seats in the National Assembly--a supermajority
that would allow him to rule without any real checks on his power.
Understanding that time is running out for an effective domestic and
international election observation initiatives, what can the U.S.
Government and the international community do to persuade Mr. Ortega to
immediately accept independent election observers?
Answer. The administration has said clearly that the manner in
which the upcoming elections are held and observed will inevitably
affect Nicaragua's relationship with the international community,
including the United States. Allowing credible and timely domestic and
international observation of the upcoming elections would demonstrate
whether they represent a valid expression of the will of the Nicaraguan
people and assuage concerns of the international community.
Question. The current Government in Nicaragua, and the Government
in Cuba, where you served as chief of mission, are similar in many
respects, including their strong alliance with Hugo Chavez and their
hostility toward the United States. How would you describe U.S. policy
toward Cuba, before and after you becoming chief of the U.S. mission in
Cuba?
Answer. U.S. policy toward Cuba has consistently been to advance
the national interests of the United States by assisting the people of
Cuba to freely determine their own future. The policies and programs
that the Obama administration has put in place aim to advance those
vital objectives.
In January 2011, President Obama directed changes be made to
regulations governing travel, nonfamily remittances, and U.S. airports
providing licenses to charter flights between the United States and
Cuba. These measures were taken to support civil society in Cuba,
reduce the dependence of the Cuban people upon the state, and enhance
the free flow of information to, from, and within Cuba. President Obama
has stated that these steps, combined with the continuation of the
embargo's controls over trade and investment with Cuba, are important
steps in reaching the widely shared goal of a Cuba that respects the
rights of all of its citizens. These latest measures were undertaken to
build upon the President's April 2009 actions to help reunite divided
Cuban families, to facilitate greater communication between the United
States and Cuba, and to increase humanitarian flows to the people of
Cuba.
Question. Could you share with the committee the lessons you
learned in Cuba about how to deal with the Castros' regime and how you
would apply those lessons to your post in Managua, if confirmed?
Answer. My experience over the past 3 years in Cuba has reaffirmed
my conviction developed over 30 years in the Foreign Service with
regards to the essential role which the United States must play in
supporting those who are helping to build an independent civil society
in the face of severe government reprisals. This includes our support
for pro-democracy activists, human rights defenders, independent media,
and other courageous men and women who peacefully demand greater
respect for universal and basic rights such as freedom of association,
expression, and information. In Cuba, I have been persistent and vocal
in standing up for these rights and those who demand them, and creative
in supporting them, while responding to the evolving needs of those on
the ground who are leading the fight to exercise these fundamental
freedoms.
The position of the United States on the release of political
prisoners in Cuba has been clear and consistent: all political
prisoners should be released and be able to decide for themselves
whether to remain in Cuba. In the ceremony I held at the Interest
Section presenting the State Department Annual Human Rights Defenders
award to the Damas de Blanco, my remarks highlighted our common
commitment to see the day when there are no more political prisoners in
Cuban jails for nothing more than peacefully exercising their basic
rights.
In addition to the Damas, whom I nominated for the 2010 Human
Rights Defender Award, I also proposed that the Department recognize
Dr. Darsi Ferrer in 2009 for that year's award, and Yoani Sanchez for
the 2010 International Women of Courage Award. Sanchez won, while Dr.
Ferrer was one of the three runners up. I nominated these individuals
because I felt that publicly recognizing the valor and legitimacy of
independent activism, regardless of the Cuban Government's reaction, is
critical and an important element for promoting human rights and
democracy, particularly in countries which systematically violate human
rights like Cuba.
Moreover, during my 3 years at the Interest Section, I focused on
ensuring our commitment to human rights and democracy at the Interest
Section truly is missionwide, and I have not budged from our principled
stance, both in Havana and in Washington, even when those with whom we
work have come under attack. Our Foreign Service officers have been
harassed by government-sponsored mobs and media when carrying out their
duties of observing peaceful protests. In close coordination between
the Interest Section and Washington, we have answered our critics and
resisted Cuba's pressure to curtail our outreach activities and human
rights observation. Our Interest Section engages directly with civil
society activists, including members of Cuba's political opposition,
former political prisoners, human rights activists, and broader civil
society activists.
As noted in our most recent ``Human Rights Report,'' the United
States has serious concerns with the deterioration of the respect for
human rights and democratic institutions in Nicaragua, especially in
the areas of freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and respect for
independent media. Similar to what I did in Cuba, I will work with
friends and allies in the international community on the ground who
share our commitment to strengthening democratic institutions and be
ready to speak up in defense of our democratic principles and to convey
our concerns, both directly to the Government of Nicaragua and more
broadly, about any threats to democratic institutions.
At the same time, we must sustain consistent efforts to help
protect those who may be persecuted for their peaceful dissent and to
strengthen democratic institutions in Nicaragua regardless of the
outcome in November. If confirmed, I would look forward to working with
the committee and other Members of Congress in adopting the appropriate
policies for both the preelectoral period and beyond in order to ensure
that Nicaraguans don't follow the same lamentable fate as their Cuban
counterparts.
As I have noted elsewhere, the Interest Section recently began
Digital Video Conferences to connect human rights activists in Cuba
with their counterparts elsewhere in the region. One of our first
conferences linked Cuban human rights defenders with their counterparts
in Nicaragua. Helping to create such linkages is a vital part of the
mission of the Interest Section and of Embassy Managua, and one upon
which if confirmed I would seek to build in Managua.
Question. Do you believe that it is possible for U.S. policy to
embolden rather than discourage hostile actions by anti-American
regimes? Could you tell us what has been achieved by a policy of
``engagement'' with Havana? Do you think a similar policy of ``not
giving offense,'' in other words of curtailing U.S. efforts found
objectionable by the regimes, to be the proper formula in dealing with
Managua and Havana?
Answer. The administration has consistently stood up for democratic
principles in our policy toward Cuba, and the activities of the
Interest Section have been in pursuance of those principles. We have
made it clear to Havana that this is our guiding and nonnegotiable
stance, and that we will not waver under any circumstance in the
defense of democratic principles.
President Obama has made it clear that advances in bilateral
relations are not possible absent significant changes in Cuba. However,
the United States has engaged with Cuba in specific areas where it is
in our national interest to do so. In 2009, the United States resumed
biannual talks with Cuba on migration to ensure that migration from
Cuba is conducted in a safe, legal, and orderly manner. Without
exception, I have brought USG representatives together with Cuba's most
prominent and active human rights defenders, pro-democracy activists,
and other dissidents to learn from their experiences and to demonstrate
to the international community that Cuba's civil society is an
important interlocutor. We were unequivocal that we would not budge
from these activities, even if it led to the cancellation of the
discussions. This is the type of work that I had the honor of directing
while in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, and in which
the United States engages around the world. Cuba is no exception, and
neither would be Nicaragua.
The United States has implemented a broad range of strategies to
strengthen civil society, including human rights defenders, pro-
democracy activists, independent journalists and others in Cuba and to
defend those persecuted for their beliefs or for peaceful protest. We
have done so in the face of unrelenting Cuban harassment and propaganda
attacks, both in print and in television and radio, which have singled
out private Cuban citizens seeking to exercise their individual
freedoms, and the Interest Section and members of its staff for
supporting them. The staff of the Interest Section has been targeted
especially when observing peaceful protests in Havana, despite the fact
that such observation is a practice fully in accordance with diplomatic
practice under the Vienna Conventions. In coordination with Washington,
the State Department and the Interest Section have pushed back
vigorously and directly with the Cuban Government against such abuses.
As Ambassador to Nicaragua, I would continue to stand up for the
democratic principles of the United States as I have done throughout my
30-year career in the Foreign Service. Working with Washington, and in
consultation with Congress, I would endeavor to put in place in Embassy
Managua the most effective policies possible to advance U.S. national
interests and strengthen democratic institutions in Nicaragua. Working
in coordinated within the administration, I would address directly with
the Nicaraguan Government, and more broadly with the international
community when appropriate, bilateral disagreements as they arise from
our vital engagement on these issues.
Question. What do you see as the primary mission for the U.S.
Embassy in Nicaragua at this time? Is support for civil society actors
part of that mission? If yes, what is your specific plan to reach out
to and support civil society? What Embassy resources will you dedicate
to supporting civil society?
Answer. The primary mission for the U.S. Embassy in Nicaragua is to
promote U.S. national interests by assisting with Nicaragua's long-term
development as a democratic, prosperous, and stable partner for the
United States, to the benefit of the citizens of both countries. The
mission is focusing its efforts on assisting Nicaragua in developing
democratic governance, sustainable and broad-based economic growth, and
law enforcement. A vibrant civil society is vital to these goals, which
I would seek to engage fully, if confirmed.
During my time in Havana, we have found creative means to support
civil society in Cuba. Given the inability of many Cuban activists to
gain permission to travel outside the country, the Interest Section
uses Digital Video Conferences and other technology to help them build
relationships with their counterparts in the United States and
elsewhere in the hemisphere. Just recently we hosted digital video
conferences between human rights activists in Cuba and their
counterparts in other countries.
Unfortunately, most civil society groups in Nicaragua are woefully
short of resources, and many of the international donors on which those
organizations rely have pulled out of Nicaragua. We must endeavor to
maintain active and creative engagement with a beleaguered Nicaraguan
civil society. Embassy Managua has brought Nicaraguan journalists to
the United States on International Visitors Programs.
If confirmed, I will be outspoken about the importance of
protecting fundamental freedoms, democratic institutions, and urging
greater respect for human rights, transparency, and separation of
powers. I will bring my experience from years of work in the region to
lead Embassy Managua in its search for innovative means to engage with
civil society, and to continue efforts at the local level in Nicaragua
to engage with the development of a new generation of leaders.
Question. Are you concerned about efforts by the Government of
Nicaragua to undermine the integrity of the elections? Will you demand,
as forcefully as possible, the presence of international election
observers preceding and during the forthcoming elections? What Embassy
resources will you commit to monitoring direct and indirect efforts by
the Government of Nicaragua to undermine the integrity of the
elections? Will you work with other foreign embassies to observe the
elections and report on irregularities, including reporting to
international media on any such irregularities?
Answer. For elections to be truly democratic, they must be a valid
expression of the will of the people. For that reason, the United
States has pressed for the Nicaraguan Government to invite credible
domestic and international election observers to enhance prospects that
the elections will be carried out in a free, fair, and transparent
manner and to provide effective witness if they are not. If confirmed,
I would commit the entire Embassy, in coordination with our
international partners, to be actively engaged in monitoring and
reporting on the November elections. Such monitoring and reporting must
cover not just the election day and its aftermath but also the critical
period leading up to the actual voting. As always, I will be ready to
speak up in defense of our democratic principles and to convey our
concerns, both directly to the Government of Nicaragua and more
broadly, about any threats to democratic institutions.
Question. When President Carter visited Cuba he met with some
dissidents. Did you or your staff help with the list of invitees? Was
Martha Beatriz Roque, the former political prisoners and opposition
leader invited? If not, why not?
Answer. My USINT team and I welcomed and briefed President Carter
and his staff during his March 2011 visit to Cuba. Per requests from
President Carter's team, we shared a list with them of Cuba's most
prominent and effective civil society leaders that included former
political prisoner Martha Beatriz Roque. President Carter and his staff
organized their two meetings with civil society entirely on their own
and without USINT participation, and they selected those they wished to
meet. No USINT official was present at the meetings. Consequently, I
cannot verify whether Ms. Roque received an invitation to attend, or
attended, either of those meetings.
Question. Soon after you became chief of mission in Havana, some
dissidents made it known that their access to the USINT became more
limited? Was that your decision? How frequently did you personally
invite dissidents to the USINT?
Answer. My staff and I meet with Cuban civil society daily,
individually and in groups, both inside and outside the mission. In FY
2010, USINT officials held over 600 meetings with human rights
activists alone, many of them at USINT. In that same period, Cubans
made more than 13,000 visits to USINT's Internet centers to exercise
their right to freedom of information.
I frequently host representatives from Cuba's civil society in my
home, as do other officers in the mission. Members of Cuban civil
society know that they can count on our support for their efforts to
expand civil liberties and disseminate accurate information on
activities in Cuba. Representatives of civil society, including many
dissidents, are active participants in the various distance learning
and on-site courses USINT offers, including training for independent
journalists, librarians, and bloggers.
Question. How many U.S. diplomats work at the U.S. Interest
Section? How many Cuban nationals work there? How are they hired? Does
the Cuban Government play a role in who works at the Interest Section?
Does the Cuban Government receive payment for those workers? How much?
In your estimation are there any of those workers Cuban intelligence
officers? In addition to them, how many of the Cuban workers working at
the USINT are susceptible to pressure by the Cuban authorities to
gather information at the USINT?
Answer. The United States Interest Section (USINT) is limited by
the Cuban Government to no more than 51 permanent U.S. Government
employees. Similar to U.S. missions around the world, USINT also
employs local nationals, third-country nationals and eligible family
members (EFMs). Because of the limitation on permanent U.S. Government
employees, USINT employs relatively more EFMs and third-country
nationals than would other U.S. missions of similar size. USINT
currently contracts 297 local Cuban nationals. As is the case for all
foreign missions operating in Cuba, the Cuban Government Agency Palacio
de Convenciones (PALCO) must approve any Cuban national USINT plans to
hire. USINT pays a fee to PALCO for every Cuban employee. We paid PALCO
$988,867 in fees in fiscal year 2010 for this purpose. The strict
security procedures followed by USINT take into full account the
operating environment in Cuba, including the process by which local
nationals are hired.
Question. In both Cuba's and Nicaragua's case, did you meet with a
broad spectrum of the Cuban American and Nicaraguan communities in the
United States?
Answer. Prior to my arrival at the U.S. Interest Section in July
2008, I was serving as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of
State in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL). In
that capacity, I personally met with a broad spectrum of NGOs working
to bolster human rights, democracy, and the free flow of information
to, from, and within Cuba. My meetings included representatives of
those NGOs who were grantees of DRL programs and those who worked with
USAID and its programs, many of whom were leaders from the Cuban
American community. I also met with a broad spectrum of human rights
organizations, policy foundations, and academics working on issues of
human rights and democracy in Cuba.
Because I am still in my post as the chief of mission of the U.S.
Interest Section, I have not yet had the opportunity to undertake
similar consultations with the community in the United States engaged
on such issues regarding Nicaragua. If confirmed, I would look forward
to such consultations as a vital element in preparing myself to be the
next United States Ambassador to Nicaragua.
Question. One symbolic, nevertheless important efforts in previous
years were the Christmas decorations and the lights on the USINT
building in Havana that stood as a sign of hope in the mostly dark
oceanfront of the city. Why were those lights turn off? Were the Cuban
authorities pleased with the blackout? Did you try to turn the
Christmas lights back on during your time there?
Answer. Throughout my assignment in Havana, the U.S. Interest
Section has featured illuminated Christmas decorations on our grounds
and at my residence. Indeed, consistent with U.S. support for religious
freedom, I expanded USINT's holiday decorations to include lighted
displays honoring Chanukah and Ramadan. All of these displays remain
clearly visible at night from Havana's oceanfront during the
appropriate holidays. Reactions, or potential reactions, from the Cuban
authorities play no role whatsoever in these manifestations of the
support of the United States for religious freedom.
I take extremely seriously the promotion of international religious
freedom and strive to set a personal example. My wife and I have
attended religious services at 75 Catholic parishes, churches, and
chapels within the travel limits imposed upon the personnel of the
Interest Section by the Cuban authorities. I also have attended
religious services at various churches at the invitation of five
Protestant denominations as well as interfaith ecumenical services.
______
Responses of Lisa Kubiske to Questions Submitted by
Senator Robert Menendez
Question. In many Latin American countries, there seems to be a
tendency toward autocracy and longevity in office. Different countries
handle the temptation differently. Mexico has one 6-year term. They
proclaim ``Suffragio Efectivo--No Reeleccion'' or Effective Suffrage--
No Reelection. It was adopted in their constitution as a result of 30
years of dictatorial rule and a revolutionary struggle that last over
10 years.
Many nations have held constitutional referendums or used other
means to remove limits on Presidential terms--to extend it to two
terms, in some cases three terms. In the case of Venezuela under
Chavez, term limits have been removed completely. What is your sense of
this trend toward autocracy?
Answer. I am committed to protecting fundamental freedoms and, if
confirmed, I would continue to work to promote freedom and democracy
throughout the hemisphere. In Honduras, the constitution limits the
President to a single, 4-year term. The Honduran Congress has taken
steps that would permit amendments to that restriction through a public
consultation. Additionally, members of the Honduran Resistance are
advocating significant changes to the constitution. Ultimately, these
decisions rest with the Honduran people. From the U.S. Government
perspective, it is important that any reform process be transparent and
consistent with Honduran law, and that potential reforms adhere to
democratic principles.
Question. In May 2010, a constituent of mine--Joe Dunsavage
disappeared off the coast of Honduras in his boat. Despite extensive
search efforts neither he nor his boat were recovered. His brother,
wife, and kids, have been seeking a certificate of presumptive death
from the Department for more than a year to no avail. What assistance
can you provide to this grieving family? The Department has told the
family that they must file a request through the Honduran court system,
which will take at least another year to process. What reasonable steps
can be taken to expedite this process?
Answer. Assisting American citizens overseas is a core objective of
our foreign policy. At my June 8 hearing, I committed to working with
you to help this family. I stand by this commitment to take a closer
look to determine if there is anything more we could possibly do. If
confirmed, I would review the correspondence on this issue and consult
with U.S. and Honduran authorities to help this family obtain the
necessary document as quickly as possible.
Question. Honduras still has one of the highest murder rates. Press
reports have the official 2010 homicide total pegged at 6,236 deaths.
That would be a homicide rate of 75.6 per 100,000 people. Honduras has
also one of the highest rates of inequality in Latin America. With a
Gini coefficient rate of 53.8 in 2008, it is not far behind Haiti,
which was at 59.2 before the earthquake. As we make inroads in the
fight against drugs in Mexico, Honduras is one of the countries of the
northern triangle in Central America that is assaulted by drug-
trafficking organizations. How deficient are the resources and
institutional capacity of the government to counter the well-
established drug trade? What are the most important steps we can be
taking to help the government fight the narcotics trade?
Do you believe that we are presently investing sufficient resources
through CARSI to address the escalating citizen security and narcotics
issues in Honduras?
Answer. Threats to citizen security in the region are a serious and
growing problem, and the Honduran Government needs support in many
areas.
The U.S. Government appropriately buttresses the efforts of the
Government of Honduras to fight transnational organized crime by
strengthening the capabilities of the police and rule of law
institutions, while encouraging respect for human rights. It also
provides support to specific counternarcotics operations. Additionally,
U.S. Government programs supplement Honduran efforts to address the
root causes of crime, including the lack of economic opportunities,
because it is impossible to disentangle citizen security from economic
development. The U.S. Government also works with others in the
international community to identify who else can provide expertise and
resources in support of these efforts. It is vital to the security of
the Honduran people and to the United States that we do all we can to
continue to work in these areas.
Question. Presently in Latin America the Millennium Challenger
Corporation has just one compact in El Salvador. The Honduras compact
closed at the end of last year and the MCC board decided against a
second Honduras compact because Honduras did not meet the MCC's
controlled corruption indicators, based largely on the political events
in the country. Do you anticipate that the resolution on the political
crisis and Zelaya's return to Honduras will allow funding for a new
compact to proceed? Are you aware of any other reasons that MCC would
now decline to consider a new compact for Honduras?
Answer. Honduras performed admirably in implementing its 5-year
compact. However, it did not meet the selection criteria for a second
compact this year, having received a score on the Control of Corruption
indicator that fell just below the median for its peers.
The Government of Honduras is working to address this concern, and
the MCC is assisting Honduras in monitoring its reforms to provide
supplemental information for the MCC Board to consider at its next
meeting on country selection in December. For our part, the U.S.
Government is helping Honduras improve governance through programs
managed by several agencies, including USAID and the Departments of the
Treasury, Defense, and State. If confirmed, I would continue to support
this robust assistance to Honduras, including efforts to improve
respect for human rights, so that it might achieve its goal of
qualifying for a second compact.
Question. The State Department recently released a report that
lists those countries where U.S.-owned businesses have investment
disputes and, in some cases, expropriation claims against the host
government. Honduras is on that list. If confirmed, what kind of
priority will you devote to ensuring those claims are processed and
cleared?
Answer. Both at USTR and the Department of State, I have been
exposed to a number of investment disputes, and I developed a deep
respect for the enforcement of treaty obligations in this area.
There are several outstanding investment disputes in Honduras
involving American citizens. If confirmed, I would make appropriate
efforts to ensure the prompt resolution of these cases. This is not
only a question of basic fairness; if Honduras wants to succeed in
attracting foreign investment, it is imperative that it establish a
positive investment climate.
______
Responses of Jonathan Farrar to Questions Submitted by
Senator Marco Rubio
Question #1. A series of measures were taken during your time as
chief of mission in Havana--for example, taking down the news ticker
that ran across the facade of the U.S. Interest Section--that
significantly shifted U.S. policy in the island.
What was the reasoning behind the decision to end this
creative method of bringing uncensored information to the Cuban
people?
Were you asked for advice on this decision? If so, what was
your advice?
Answer. U.S. policy remains focused on the need for democratic
reforms and improved human rights conditions in Cuba. There has been no
shift in U.S. priorities with regard to our efforts to increase the
flow of uncensored information to, from, and within the island in order
to support the ability of the Cuban people to freely determine their
future.
The billboard was installed in January 2006 because of the Cuban
Government's restrictions on the free flow of information. By summer
2009, it had become evident that the electronic billboard had outlived
its usefulness. The billboard suffered numerous breakdowns and required
significant maintenance, and new and more effective outlets of
information for Cuban citizens had emerged. The Cuban Government placed
numerous obstacles in front of USINT to impede the ability of Cubans to
read the billboard. As a result, when the billboard became only partly
operational in June 2009, the administration decided to focus its
efforts to expand the free flow of information for Cubans in other,
more effective areas.
Since 2006, we have seen an increased flow of independent
information to and from Cuba as a result of USG training of independent
journalists and the emergence of bloggers in Cuba. Increased family
travel to Cuba and the increased availability of cell phones and other
communications devices in Cuba has contributed to improved access to
information. The administration announced new measures on Cuba on April
13, 2009, and again on January 14, 2010, including measures intended to
increase the free flow of information to Cuba.
Other, more effective methods of bringing uncensored information to
the Cuban people include more than 13,000 subscribed sessions at
USINT's two Internet centers; more than 30 courses and workshops
offered to groups such as independent journalists hosted by USINT;
regular DVCs with off-island interlocutors; the distribution of CDs,
DVDs, flash drives, laptops, and cameras, some loaded with free
(licensed) software, and the distribution of nearly 15,000 copies of
the Nuevo Herald and 16,000 copies of USINT's news clippings in FY 2010
alone. We also distribute thousands of books, magazines, and our own
newsletters to independent libraries and journalists throughout the
island.
Question #2. Prior to your assignment to Havana, a symbolic, but
nevertheless meaningful initiative, had been the Christmas decorations
that adorned the U.S. Interest Section building in Havana and stood as
a sign of hope in the mostly dark oceanfront of the city.
What policy considerations went into the decision to end
this initiative?
Did the State Department consider the potential reaction
from Cuban authorities?
If so, has the United States received any indication of the
reaction of the Cuban authorities to the blackout?
Answer. Throughout my assignment in Havana, the U.S. Interest
Section has featured illuminated Christmas decorations on our grounds
and at my residence. Indeed, consistent with U.S. support for religious
freedom, I expanded USINT's holiday decorations to include lighted
displays honoring Channukah and Ramadan. All of these displays remain
clearly visible at night from Havana's oceanfront during the
appropriate holidays. Reactions, or potential reactions, from the Cuban
authorities play no role whatsoever in these manifestations of the
support of the United States for religious freedom.
I take extremely seriously the promotion of international religious
freedom and strive to set a personal example. My wife and I have
attended religious services at 75 Catholic parishes, churches, and
chapels within the travel limits imposed upon the personnel of the
Interest Section by the Cuban authorities. I also have attended
religious services at various churches at the invitation of five
Protestant denominations as well as interfaith ecumenical services.
Question #3. As far as the end of distribution of shortwave radios,
was that the result of a recommendation from the U.S. Interest Section,
or an order from the Department? What was your advice on that policy
shift?
Answer. USINT's distribution pattern for material support to Cuban
civil society reflects a variety of factors, including available
funding for procurement; our ability to import materials; and a
shifting technological environment. Perhaps more importantly, our
material support for independent civil society is driven by the demands
of civil society itself.
The number of shortwave radios distributed has decreased in recent
years primarily due to changes in technology, which have changed the
way in which Cuban society accesses and disseminates information on
events on the island and abroad. These days, shortwave radios are not
as frequently requested as in the past. As a result, I have focused on
expanding the free flow of information for Cubans in other, more
effective and innovative ways. Instead, our contacts are making use of
the free, uncensored Internet access we provide through two Information
Resource Centers to exercise their rights of information and
expression, and to connect with larger audiences in real time and in
two-way exchanges. Independent journalists and other key elements of
civil society also appreciate our help in accessing the electronic
tools of today's journalistic trade. We offer daily news clippings and
copies of the Nuevo Herald, and monthly CDs and DVDs filled with
software updates, news, and other valuable information. We maintain Web
sites and Facebook pages in both English and Spanish on which we post
daily updates on U.S. policy and other initiatives. We also provide
distance learning courses in Spanish which offer information on
technology, civil organization, English teaching, and communication
skills.
Question #4. During a September 2009 visit to Cuba by then-Acting
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Bisa Williams, the U.S. Interest
Section in Havana hosted a reception where officials from the Cuban
regime were invited, but representatives of independent civil society
were excluded.
What role, if any, did you have in planning this event?
How many other events were held during your tenure in Havana
that followed this pattern of exclusion? What was their
purpose?
Answer. During her September 2009 visit to Cuba, Acting DAS
Williams cohosted with me a roundtable with independent civil society
members that included some of Cuba's best-known political dissidents.
In addition, she and a USINT official visited blogger Yoani Sanchez's
home, where Ms. Williams held discussions with Ms. Sanchez and other
prominent Cuban bloggers. During the visit, USINT also hosted a
reception for 55 members of civil society, including many dissidents.
USINT has maintained a robust civil society outreach strategy
during my tenure. We are the only foreign mission in Havana that
invites independent civil society representatives, including political
dissidents, to our national day celebration. Our last Fourth of July
official event, in 2010, included over 75 opposition activists, as well
as dozens of other representatives from broader independent civil
society. Every high-level State Department visitor to Cuba during my
assignment has had the opportunity to meet with and seek the views of
independent civil society members, including dissidents, despite
threats from Cuban Government officials to shut down the visits. I
frequently host these meetings, either at USINT or in my residence.
In addition, I have hosted numerous targeted events for other
sectors of civil society, such as for Cuba's religious and cultural
communities, a Human Rights Day/Nobel Peace Prize event, a Human Rights
Week film festival, and charity events for an independent NGO that
helps children with cancer, to name a few examples. I also hosted a
reception honoring the Damas de Blanco as the winners of the 2010 Human
Rights Defenders Award, a luncheon honoring Yoani Sanchez as a 2010
International Woman of Courage, and a 2009 reception honoring Dr. Darsi
Ferrer as the winner of an honorable mention for the 2009 Human Rights
Defenders Award--all independent civil society members who were
nominated by USINT during my assignment in Havana.
Question #5. Information from surveys done by internationally
recognized NGOs inside Cuba show that more than three-in-four Cuban
adults have expressed support for voting for fundamental political
change if given the opportunity.
As chief of mission, what was your assessment and advice to
the State Department regarding the relevancy of Cuban pro-
democracy organizations in relation to the views and priorities
of the Cuban population?
How did you arrive to these views?
Would you provide to the committee copies of any and all
communications you had with the State Department on this topic?
Given your experiences in Cuba, do you agree that a post-
Fidel Castro scenario, in which Raul Castro and the current
leadership of the Cuban regime maintains firm control of, is
against U.S. interests?
Answer. The past 3 years in Cuba has reaffirmed my experience from
30 years in the Foreign Service, including service during the prior
administration as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, of the vital role played
by civil society in building the elements of a democratic society. Pro-
democracy groups and human rights activists are the conscience of Cuba,
and deserve our support and that of the international community. I have
been outspoken about the important role these groups play and the need
to publically promote greater respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms. At the Interest Section, we have worked closely to support
the work of all elements of Cuban civil society, including pro-
democracy groups, human rights activists, independent journalists, and
many others working to expand freedoms and increase the flow of
information and reporting from Cuba. In doing so, we have built upon
existing programs and begun many new ones to reach out to additional
audiences, especially to the youth of Cuba.
As outlined in the response to question #7, the Interest Section in
a very challenging environment has undertaken a variety of programs,
such as Distance Learning courses, blogging courses, free software
distribution, and many others to reach out to new audiences and serve
long-time participants eager to learn new skills. At the same time, we
rebuilt from the ground up one of our two Internet Resource Centers and
have carried forward the Florida International University training
program for independent journalists which is held in our DVC
facilities. We recently graduated the 500th student from that
successful program.
The President has stated clearly that major changes would be
necessary in Cuba for there to be a significant change in our bilateral
relations. The continued denial of the ability of the Cuban people to
freely determine their own future clearly would not meet that standard.
The administration's policies and programs aim to support the
aspirations of the Cuban people to freely and democratically determine
their own future. As the chief of mission of the Interest Section, the
successful development and implementation of the democracy programs at
USINT has been and remains my priority.
Question #6. The Cuban Government requires Cubans to obtain an exit
permit, in addition to a valid Cuban passport and a foreign visa,
before allowing Cubans to travel abroad.
Are there Cuban families who have been granted U.S. visas,
stranded in Havana awaiting the Cuban regime exit permit?
How many are they, how long have they been waiting?
Answer. Yes. We track this issue closely and raise it with the
Cuban Government (GOC) during the Migration Accords Talks held
semiannually. The practice of denying exit permits denies these
families the right to leave any country, including their own, and
generates additional workload for USINT because we must reissue travel
documents to persons whose original documents expired due to denials.
Documented cases of exit permit denials continue to decline since
FY 2009, where USINT recorded 797 reported instances of exit permit
denials. In FY 2010, USINT documented 443 cases of exit permit denials.
We expect the downward trend to continue based on numbers so far this
fiscal year. In FY 2011 YTD, we have documented 155 new cases of exit
permit denials to principal and derivative visa applicants. At the same
time in FY 2010, we had documented 259 cases of permit denials. Thus in
FY 2011 YTD, we have witnessed an almost 40 percent drop in exit permit
denials over the same time in FY 2010.
Question #7. Following the detention and subsequent sentencing by
the Cuban regime of a USAID subcontractor in Cuba, the administration
has placed severe restrictions on U.S. democracy programs.
Have these restrictions improved the regime's record on
human rights or in any way encouraged it to directly engage
Cuba's independent civil society and pro-democracy
organizations in a dialogue toward greater political freedoms?
Answer. The U.S. Interest Section has not retreated from democracy
programs since the indefensible arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Alan
Gross. On the contrary, since December 2009, under hostile conditions
the Interest Section has successfully undertaken new initiatives and
expanded our existing programs including the following:
After the refusal of the Cuban authorities to give exit
permits to students chosen for scholarships to study in the
United States, the Interest Section constructed and inaugurated
a new Distance Learning Center to provide college-level courses
taught by U.S. professors in Spanish to students in Cuba.
The Interest Section began new programs to teach courses in
computing, blogging, the English language and other subjects.
After receiving clearance from Washington, the Interest Section
also began distributing free software with monthly updates to
assist Cubans to communicate with the outside world and among
themselves.
After soliciting volunteers from other American embassies in
the hemisphere, the Interest Section recently began Digital
Video Conferences to connect Cuban human rights activists with
their counterparts in other Spanish-speaking countries.
When one of our two Internet Resource Centers showed serious
signs of deterioration, we rebuilt it from the ground up into a
new facility to house this vital program.
The Interest Section remains firmly committed to the Florida
International University training program for independent
journalists which is held in our DVC facilities. We recently
graduated the 500th student from that successful program.
Cuba's human rights record remains poor, as evidenced in the
Department's most recent ``Human Rights Report.'' Programs such as
those described above are a vital part of our overall effort to assist
the Cuban people to prepare for the day when they can freely determine
their own future.
Following the arrest of Mr. Gross and the completion of GAO audits
which found weaknesses in the awarding and oversight of Cuba grants and
contracts in Washington, the administration strengthened its oversight
and management of those programs in close consultation with Congress.
Question #8. Remittances and travel are among the most important
sources of hard currency for the regime.
What would be the regime's response to a suspension of U.S.
remittances and travel until this American citizen is allowed
to return home, and every Cuban with a U.S. visa is allowed to
leave the country?
Answer. We have no way of predicting the response from the Cuban
regime to any number of variables. It has shown from its beginnings
that maintaining power is its paramount priority, and that all other
considerations, including actions taken by the United States, are
subordinate to this overriding objective.
We continue to call on the Cuban Government to immediately and
unconditionally release Alan Gross. We are deeply concerned about his
and his family's well-being. He should be reunited with his family to
bring an end to their long ordeal.
We also call on the Cuban Government, including during face-to-face
meetings at the Migration Talks, to respect the rights of its citizens
to leave any country, including their own.
Question #9. The current governments in Nicaragua and Cuba are
similar in many respects, including their strong alliance with Hugo
Chavez and their hostility toward the United States.
How would your experience in Cuba inform your work in
Nicaragua?
Answer. My experience of more 30 years in the Foreign Service,
including my tenure as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, underlies my core belief
in the critical role played by civil society in expanding and defending
democratic freedoms. My experience over the past 3 years in Cuba only
serves to reaffirm that belief, and the important role which U.S.
programs can play in building, strengthening, and defending civil
society. In developing such programs, we must be persistent and
creative, and listen to the needs of those on the ground leading the
fight to expand space for civil society and to increase the free flow
of uncensored information. As we have over the past 3 years, we must be
ready at all times to defend our policies and programs, both in-country
and in Washington, and to speak with one voice to our critics when we
do so.
I am as committed to engage the Nicaraguan civil society as I have
been with their Cuban counterparts during the last 3 years. If
confirmed, I will be outspoken about the importance of protecting
fundamental freedoms, democratic institutions and urging greater
respect for human rights, transparency, and separation of powers.
Unlike Cubans, Nicaraguans have been able to elect and openly
support the candidates of their choice. The role of civil society in
the 2011 elections and beyond will be crucial in sustaining Nicaragua's
democratic institutions. The United States has urged the Government of
Nicaragua to facilitate international and domestic observation of the
November elections, including during the registration and campaign
periods. In taking this stand, the United States is working with
friends and allies in the international community who share our
commitment to freedom and democracy. At the same time, we must take a
longer view and sustain consistent policies and programs that will help
to nurture and defend civil society in Nicaragua and strengthen
democratic institutions there regardless of the outcome in November. If
confirmed, I would work with the committee and other Members of
Congress in shaping the appropriate policies and programs for both the
preelections period and beyond.
Question #10. In Nicaragua, President Ortega continues to
aggressively undermine fragile Nicaraguan institutions to extend his
grip on power.
What is the administration's strategy to persuade Nicaraguan
officials to respect the constitutional order and the
independence of government institutions in Nicaragua?
What is your assessment of civil society groups within
Nicaragua?
If confirmed, what specific measures would you take to
actively work with civil society organizations in Nicaragua to
foster respect for independent, democratic institutions?
Answer. The administration is concerned about the apparent erosion
of democratic institutions in Nicaragua and is working with other
donors to coordinate international support for credible domestic and
international observers to monitor the preparations for and conduct of
the November elections. We are strong supporters of independent media
and civil society, including human rights organizations, and through
U.S. assistance we support technical assistance and training for
emerging democratic leaders and citizen groups in order to bolster
civil society engagement, and improve local governance. U.S. assistance
also strengthens the capabilities of the media to professionally and
accurately report about Nicaragua's deteriorating human rights and
democracy climate.
During my time in Havana, we have found creative means to support
civil society in Cuba. Given the inability of many Cuban activists to
gain permission to travel outside the country, the Interest Section
uses Digital Video Conferences and other technology to help them build
relationships with their counterparts in the United States and
elsewhere in the hemisphere. Just recently we hosted digital video
conferences between human rights activists in Cuba and their
counterparts in other countries.
Unfortunately, most civil society groups in Nicaragua are
woefully short of resources, and many of the international
donors on which those organizations rely have pulled out of
Nicaragua. We must endeavor to maintain active and creative
engagement with Nicaraguan civil society. Embassy Managua has
brought Nicaraguan journalists to the United States on
International Visitors Programs.
If confirmed, I will be outspoken about the importance of
protecting fundamental freedoms, democratic institutions, and
urging greater respect for human rights, transparency, and
separation of powers. I will bring my experience from Havana to
lead Embassy Managua in its search for innovative means to
engage with civil society, and to continue programs at the
local level in Nicaragua to engage with the development of a
new generation of leaders.
______
Responses of Lisa J. Kubiske to Questions Submitted by
Senator James M. Inhofe
I have written a letter to Honduran President Lobo Sosa and to
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) CEO Yohannes on behalf of CEMAR,
a cement company owned by American citizen Oscar Cerna that was
illegally expropriated by the Honduran Government in 2004. I share a
deep concern for the actions taken by the Honduran Government during
the Maduro Presidency, and perpetuated by subsequent Honduran
Governments regarding CEMAR and its legitimate claim to seek
compensation for this expropriation. To date, there has been no
substantive progress to compensate CEMAR's owner for this illegal
taking.
I have urged the Honduran Government and our State Department to
take action to ensure that this claim is satisfied. I am convinced that
if our Ambassador to Honduras addresses this claim with the Honduran
Government and makes it one of her highest priorities, Honduran
officials will settle this claim.
Question. Should you be confirmed by the Senate, will you make the
settlement of this claim one of your highest priorities?
Answer. I view the protection of U.S. investments as a core
function of the job. If I were confirmed as U.S. Ambassador to
Honduras, resolution of investment disputes would be one of my highest
priorities.
Although the U.S. Government does not take a position on the merits
of investment disputes, I would be happy to meet with Mr. Cerna upon
his request. If confirmed, I would monitor this case closely and
encourage the Honduran Government and Mr. Cerna to resolve their
dispute.
Question. Should you be confirmed, will you pledge that within 60
days of your arrival at post you will notify President Lobo Sosa and
his advisors that I, as a Member of both the Senate Foreign Relations
and Armed Services Committees, will make it a priority to prevent MCC
funding and other types of funding to Honduras, unless his government
reaches a settlement of the CEMAR claim?
Answer. If confirmed, I would convey your message to President
Lobo.
NOMINATIONS
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
Hon. Anne W. Patterson, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the
Arab Republic of Egypt
Michael H. Corbin, of California, to be Ambassador to the
United Arab Emirates
Matthew H. Tueller, of Utah, to be Ambassador to the State of
Kuwait
Kenneth J. Fairfax, of Kentucky, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of Kazakhstan
Susan L. Ziadeh, of Washington, to be Ambassador to the State
of Qatar
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John F. Kerry
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Kerry, Menendez, Cardin, Casey, Shaheen,
Coons, Udall, Lugar, and Corker.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
The Chairman. This hearing will come to order. Thank you
all for being here.
I need to go to the floor at about 10:15 on Libya with
Senator McCain. And during the time I'm not here, Senator Lugar
will continue the hearing. I hope to get back here as soon as I
can.
We're here this morning to consider the ambassadorial
nominations to five important countries, and we're going to
divide the hearing into two panels, beginning with Anne
Patterson, the President's choice to represent the United
States in Egypt.
As all of us know, Egypt has historically been the region's
most important incubator of ideas, and now it is at the
forefront of the new Arab Awakening. How Egypt manages its
transition from dictatorship to democracy, and how it
restructures its economy, will affect not only the country's 80
million citizens, but it's also going to affect millions of
others throughout the region.
I've said a number of times in various speeches and other
public fora that the fact that Egypt represents a quarter of
the world's Arab population, and that it is not as torn apart
by sectarian divisions as some other countries in the region,
and also has always had a very strong civic society, has always
been a place where even under the Mubarak regime there was this
current of civic engagement, discussion, all of those things, I
think, contribute significantly to the possibilities for
Egypt's contribution as we go forward.
Needless to say, its importance to regional strategic
issues, particularly to the peace process with Israel and
Palestine, can't be overstated. And so it is very, very
important that this process go forward as effectively as
possible.
Anne Patterson is one of our Nation's finest public
servants, and I've had the privilege of working with her very,
very closely when she served as Ambassador to Pakistan. Many
late-night meetings with various hot issues on the table, and I
watched her calm, professional approach to those challenges on
many different occasions.
I am greatly encouraged that the President has nominated
somebody of her caliber for the critical assignment of
Ambassador to Egypt at this obviously critical moment.
Egypt does face significant challenges as it tries to build
a new political order that is democratic and tolerant. I was
there about a month and a half ago now, I guess. I held a town
meeting. I was quite struck by the diversity of the people who
came to the town meeting: young women in traditional covered
garb and some in much more Western dress. Men in traditional
garb, men in Western suits. Some bearded, some not. Very
different backgrounds, but all with a very common sense of the
possibilities of this moment and of the future, all wanting to
express their citizenship and to be able to enjoy their rights
and freedom.
So this is an exciting moment, but a very, very challenging
one. I think when I was there, there was 2 percent occupancy in
the hotel we were in. I think that was true of almost every
hotel in the city. So there's been an enormous retrenchment
with respect to one of the main sources of revenue and currency
in the country.
There's little time to organize political parties before
this fall's elections. And those elections, obviously, need to
be fair and carefully monitored, or we may see a return to
Tahrir Square anyway, unless there is positive progress. But
certainly, the lack of a fair and accountable election would be
cause for such a redux.
The Egyptian Government needs to become more transparent
yet and more responsive to its citizens' needs. And questions
remain about the role of religious parties in Egyptian
politics, the stability of Muslim-Christian relations, and the
future of Egypt's approach to Israel.
Egypt is also wrestling with considerable economic
hardship. Forty percent of Egyptians live below the poverty
line, and the revolution has dealt a serious short-term blow to
the economy in other sectors than just tourism. One person
there mentioned to me how many businesspeople have simply not
returned or have left, some for fear of retribution, and that
affects the flow of capital.
Food and oil prices are up. Foreign investors have yet to
sense the confidence necessary to come back and invest. And the
Government has significantly depleted its reserves of hard
currency.
There is news, however, on the upside. There's positive
news. Assistance from the World Bank and the IMF, and the
United States and other countries, is starting to arrive. And
Egypt's economy actually does, notwithstanding these
challenges, appear to be beginning to stabilize. With prudent
policies, a return to higher GDP growth is possible in the near
term, certainly in the next year or two.
But the policies that are put in place need to benefit all
Egyptians. And as Egypt changes, our approach to aid must
change also.
Promoting economic recovery is not enough. International
assistance needs to also address Egypt's socioeconomic
divisions, expand its political space, and promote
transparency, legitimacy, and accountability.
To that end, the Obama administration has provided funds to
spur economic growth and assist with political transition. I've
introduced legislation with Senators McCain, Lieberman, and
Lugar that will promote entrepreneurship and job creation by
channeling investment directly to the private sector.
I've also been working with Senator McCain and others to
develop a creative public-private partnership that would
encourage United States corporations and others to invest in
Egypt.
In fact, this weekend, Senator McCain and I will travel to
Egypt, together with Jeff Immelt, the CEO of GE, and a group of
other chief executives, and we will meet with Egyptians in an
effort to try to help further develop this initiative.
And I appreciate Ambassador Patterson's help, which has
been significant leading up to this initiative. And certainly,
the sooner we can get her on the ground to help implement, the
better.
Obviously, we need to be realistic. Consolidating Egypt's
democratic advances and addressing its economic woes is
probably going to take a generation or so. But a recent poll
found that nearly 90 percent of Egyptians think their country
is headed in the right direction. And during my visit in March,
as I mentioned, the spirit of ordinary Egyptians that I met in
Tahrir Square and at other places was really contagious. I hope
that spirit can propel them through what may be turbulent,
difficult times ahead.
Ambassador Patterson, I'd like to just raise one last issue
with you before I recognize Senator Lugar.
Nearly 2 years ago, a Massachusetts constituent of mine,
Colin Bower, who I believe is somewhere here at this hearing,
had his sons, Noor and Ramsay, abducted from the United States,
from Massachusetts to Egypt, abducted by their mother, even
though he had full legal custody of those children, even though
our courts had already ruled, and, I might add, were abducted
with false visas, false passports, entered their country,
Egypt, under false pretense.
He has not even been able to see his children, Ambassador,
and he's had a couple of visitations prior to the Tahrir
Square. Since Tahrir Square gatherings, he has not seen them.
And I will tell you, I have raised this at any number of
levels with the Egyptians. It's no small fact that the last
conversation I had with President Mubarak, a relatively lengthy
conversation, was almost exclusively on this topic.
And I raised with him the legalities, the inhumanity, the
unfairness of what has happened, that a father would be
separated from his children, that a country would not care
enough to allow the father to be able to be part of those
children's lives. And I think all of us, you know, can
understand the frustrations that Colin and a lot of his friends
and family and others are feeling.
So my hope is that you can do what you can when you get
there to emphasize the importance of this. In a new Egypt,
hopefully the attitudes that allowed Colin to be stiffed,
literally, time and again, and to be maltreated and those kids
to be deprived of a father, I think, hopefully, can achieve a
higher order of priority.
So this morning we also welcome a second panel of nominees.
And I don't mean in any way to diminish the importance of any
of their countries in the time that we have spent on Egypt.
Each of them is going to be representing areas that are of
enormous consequence to the United States, where we have
critical relationships.
Michael Corbin, nominated to serve as Ambassador to the
United Arab Emirates, critical to a whole set of relationships
that we have, some of which will have an impact on Egypt and
some of which have an impact on our strategic presence in the
region.
Matthew Tueller, nominated to serve as Ambassador to
Kuwait, again a key player in our relationships and our
strategic interests in other countries in the region.
Susan Ziadeh, nominated to serve as Ambassador to Qatar.
The Emir was here recently. We had good meetings with him, and
he is deeply involved in these efforts with respect to Egypt.
And we hope to have positive things to announce with respect to
that in the short term. In fact, we may be stopping in Qatar
Sunday night with Senator McCain in order to discuss these
prospects.
And finally, Kenneth Fairfax, nominated to serve as
Ambassador to Kazakhstan.
All four extremely qualified nominees, and we congratulate
each of you and welcome you here today.
Senator Lugar.
Senator Lugar. Mr. Chairman, may I have your permission to
yield briefly to Senator Corker?
The Chairman. Absolutely.
Senator Corker. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And, Mr. Ranking
Member, I appreciate it.
I'm here out of total respect for the nominee and just to
thank her for her commitment to public service. I don't know of
a Foreign Service person who I respect more than the nominee
for this position. And I welcome her and look forward to her
doing great work in Egypt, as she has in so many other
countries.
And with that, I'm going to go do something else.
Thank you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Lugar [presiding]. Mr. Chairman, I join you in
welcoming Ambassador Patterson and our second panel of
distinguished nominees.
Americans were moved by the power and speed of Tunisia's
Jasmine Revolution and by the resolve of Egyptians to change
the course of their history.
We celebrated the calls for greater political
participation, the protection of basic human rights, and a more
inclusive economy. We were heartened that protests in Tunisia
and Egypt had such an impact in many parts of the Middle East.
At the same time, it is clear that decisive improvements in
governance in the Middle East will not be simple or automatic.
The past few months have demonstrated that the countries of the
region are all on very different paths and timelines.
We should not overgeneralize about what is occurring in
Middle Eastern societies or expect changing attitudes to solve
American national security problems in the region. We should
recognize that the genuine opportunities in the long run for
the advancement of democratic values and the broadening of
prosperity are accompanied by short-term risks and dangerous
uncertainties.
We are witnessing civil war in Libya and ongoing
suppression of popular upheaval in Syria. In Yemen, we have
seen a highly fractured society that appears to lack national
institutions or a common identity around which to coalesce. In
Bahrain, we have seen sectarian tensions and violence against
peaceful protesters.
The challenge for our nominees is to protect and advance
American interests in the midst of this rapidly changing and
diverse landscape. It is essential that we redouble our efforts
to engage in the Middle East. We must be creative in using the
full scope of American power and influence to support a more
peaceful future for the region.
This is important to our own fundamental national security,
the global economy, and the security of our close ally, Israel.
Recognizing the diversity of the region does not mean
shying away from promoting real reform and more inclusive
government--even if that process looks different in Egypt than
it does in the United Arab Emirates.
We have been encouraging more representative and tolerant
governance throughout the region for many years. As Americans,
we should honor those in the region who are speaking out in
defense of values that we hold dear.
I believe that a key part of this process must be the
encouragement of more transparent and inclusive economies that
are more securely tied to the global market. We need to build
more meaningful trade and investment relationships in the
region.
Our nominees also should leverage the leadership of
American universities, cultural institutions, and civil society
to generate deeper and more sustainable linkages.
Protests started in Tunisia, but it seems clear that the
test of this process will be in Egypt. We have a shared
interest with the people of Egypt to build a more secure and
prosperous future. This will not be a short process. But I
believe Americans now expect a different relationship with this
and future Egyptian governments.
We respect what was born in Tahrir Square and want to see
it flourish into a partnership that goes beyond the top levels
of our governments.
It is vital that the transition in Egypt not be hijacked by
extremist groups who would undermine the fundamental civil
liberties at the heart of the revolution and threaten U.S. and
allied interests in the region.
In addition, during this moment of turmoil, the desire for
more inclusive government must not be manipulated by those
seeking to deflect attention from their own failures, including
the regimes in Iran and Syria.
I appreciate the commitment of our nominees and their
willingness to take on these difficult assignments for our
country.
We welcome you, again, Ambassador Patterson, and ask for
your testimony at this point.
STATEMENT OF HON. ANNE W. PATTERSON, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE
AMBASSADOR TO THE ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT
Ambassador Patterson. Thank you very much, Ranking Member
Lugar, Senator Casey, and members of the committee. Thank you
for the honor of appearing before you today.
I wish to thank the President for nominating me as
Ambassador to Egypt and the confidence he and the Secretary
have shown in me.
With your permission, could I introduce my family?
Senator Lugar. Yes, that would be very, very nice of you.
Ambassador Patterson. My husband, David, who is retired
from the Foreign Service.
Senator Lugar. Welcome.
Ambassador Patterson. And my stepdaughter, Jessica, who is
on her way to Afghanistan.
Senator Lugar. Jessica.
Ambassador Patterson. And my son, Andrew, who is about to
be commissioned in the Marines. And our other two children,
unfortunately, aren't here today.
If confirmed, I look forward to leading the professionals
from all agencies who serve in Cairo. Serving with so many
dedicated people over the years, often under difficult
circumstances, has been the highlight of my career.
Should I be confirmed, I am under no illusions about the
responsibility and challenges of serving as Ambassador to
Egypt, which is now the epicenter of enormous promising changes
in the Arab world.
People everywhere were inspired by the events of Tahrir
Square and Egyptian citizens' desire for freedom and democracy.
But we should remember that transitions to democracy are
difficult and long, that there will be reverses and surprises
along the way, and that the Egyptians will find their own
unique path.
When thinking about Egypt, I think we should be heartened
by what has taken place in Latin America and Eastern Europe
over the past 40 years. While in Latin America, the path to
prosperity and democracy has hardly been a straight one, this
hemisphere now has democratic governments in most countries and
a degree of economic prosperity unimaginable 40 years ago. The
Arab world will be no different.
If confirmed, I will be firmly committed to backing Egypt's
democratic transition, which will reinforce much-needed respect
for human rights, with all the support the United States
Government can muster.
Let me outline the strategy that the administration has
developed and which, if confirmed, I will pursue in Cairo. The
first priority will be to encourage and support, to the extent
that Egyptians desire it, an election process which is free and
fair.
Polling suggests that many Egyptians will have the first
opportunity in their lifetimes to vote in a free election, so
enthusiasm is understandably high. And as we do in hundreds of
other countries, the United States will support nongovernmental
and civil society organizations who wish to enhance their
organizational skills and play a more prominent role in public
life. These groups are always essential ingredients in a
successful political system.
The strengthened democratic process should lead to
increased respect for human rights in Egypt since newly
empowered citizens will demand it. We welcome the commitment of
the interim Government to repeal the emergency law. We are
concerned about arbitrary arrests, overly rapid and
nontransparent trials, and attacks on religious groups.
Some particularly disgusting abuses against women
demonstrators have taken place, and we have called on the
authorities to prosecute those who committed them.
Second, it is clear that the need for a job was just as
strong a motivator for demonstrators in Tahrir Square as the
desire for freedom and justice. Egypt has to generate over
750,000 jobs a year to absorb young people into its labor
force. These young people are often not well-prepared with
skills needed for a modern economy, yet they have high
expectations.
In fact, the International Republican Institute has just
come out with a poll which indicates that Egyptians
overwhelmingly believe that next year they will be better off
economically. The current economic trends are headed in the
other direction, and most Egyptians are barely making ends
meet.
Egypt's military leadership has played a key role in
stabilizing the situation, but Egypt's economy has suffered
from the unrest, tourism has declined, and investors are
sitting on the sidelines. So expectations for the new
government will be unrealistically high.
As a result, a key part of our strategy, both bilaterally
and working with the international community, will be to
strengthen Egypt's private sector so that it can generate jobs
and broaden the benefits of economic growth. Increased economic
engagement with Egypt will also offer opportunities for
American businesses to invest in and export to Egypt.
All Americans should be proud of what United States
assistance has achieved in Egypt over the past 30 years, but we
are now refocusing our assistance on projects that are directly
linked with private sector growth and sustainable jobs.
As the President said in his May 19 speech, we are leading
the effort in the international community to provide short-term
stabilization for Egypt's economy. Egypt is discussing a
program with the IMF and the World Bank, and other
international lenders will provide the short-term resources
that Egypt needs. We are seeking legislation which will allow
us to forgive $1 billion of Egypt's debt and ask Egypt to
invest the local currency equivalent in an activity we mutually
select.
The Overseas Private Investment Corporation is working to
expand lending to small- and medium-size businesses.
Senator Kerry and, you, Senator Lugar have introduced
legislation to authorize an enterprise fund for Egypt to spur
private sector growth.
Our third priority is to ensure that Egypt plays a strong
and positive role in the region. As one of only two Arab States
to sign a peace treaty with Israel, Egypt has been a powerful
ally for a two-state solution and a comprehensive Middle East
peace agreement. Egypt has also been a valuable partner in
fighting terrorism, reintegrating Iraq into the region, and
providing assistance to refugees fleeing Libya.
Egyptian officials have said repeatedly that they will
abide by the peace treaty with Israel. We take these
commitments seriously. The vast majority of Egyptians have no
interest in regional conflict and want to move forward on their
own democratic path. Our close defense cooperation with Egypt
serves United States interests and promotes regional security.
Let me say that democracies can often be loud and
bumptious, and I am sure that Egypt will be no different.
During Egypt's transition, we will hear many voices that are
not to our liking, and Egypt's democratic process will be
difficult at times, because of the newness and fragility of its
democratic institutions.
If confirmed, I will do everything I can to support the
aspirations of the Egyptian people during this period of
transition. A credible transition in Egypt matters to the
United States and our allies, and it will serve as a model for
the rest of the Arab world.
Let me say in closing that I am particularly grateful for
the critical role that members of this committee played in my
last post. If confirmed, I know that members of this committee
will play a similar role in the months ahead in Egypt.
Thank you very much. And I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Patterson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ambassador Anne W. Patterson
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lugar, and members of the committee,
thank you for the honor of appearing before you today. I wish to thank
the President for nominating me to serve as Ambassador to Egypt, and
for the confidence that he and the Secretary have shown in me.
I would also like to recognize my husband, David, who is retired
from the Foreign Service, my stepdaughter, Jessica, who is off to
Afghanistan soon, and my son, Andrew, who is shortly to be commissioned
in the Marines. Our other children, Edward and Rachel, are not here
today.
If confirmed, I look forward to leading the professionals from all
agencies who serve in our mission in Cairo. Serving with so many
competent and dedicated people, over the years, often under difficult
circumstances, has been the highlight of my career.
Should I be confirmed, I am under no illusions about the
responsibility and challenges of serving as Ambassador to Egypt. This
5,000-year-old society that has been a cradle of civilization and a
longstanding regional leader is now the epicenter of enormous,
promising changes in the Arab world. People everywhere were inspired by
the events of Tahrir Square and Egyptian citizens' desire for freedom
and democracy. But we should remember that transitions to democracy are
difficult and long; that there will be reverses and surprises along the
way; and that the Egyptians will find their own, unique path.
When thinking about Egypt, I think we should be heartened by what
has taken place in Latin America and Eastern Europe over the past 40
years. While in Latin America the path to democracy and prosperity has
hardly been a straight one, this hemisphere now has democratic
governments in most countries and a degree of economic prosperity
unimaginable 40 years ago.
I am sure the Arab world will be no different. So let me say at the
outset of
this hearing that, if confirmed, I am firmly committed to supporting
Egypt's democratic transition, which will reinforce much-needed respect
for human rights, with all the moral, economic, and political support
that the United States Government can muster.
Let me outline the strategy that the administration has developed
and which I will pursue in Cairo, if confirmed.
The first priority will be to encourage and support, to the extent
that Egyptians desire it, an election process which is free and fair.
Polling suggests that many Egyptians will have the first opportunity in
their lifetimes to vote in a free election, so enthusiasm is
understandably high. Just as we do in the United States, we anticipate
that the Egyptian Government would invite international observers to
witness this historic occasion. And as we do in hundreds of other
countries, the United States will support nongovernmental and civil
society organizations who wish to enhance their organizational skills
and play a more prominent role in public life. These groups are always
essential ingredients in an open and successful participatory political
system.
The strengthened democratic process should lead to increased
respect for human rights in Egypt, since newly empowered citizens will
demand it. We welcome the commitment of the interim government to
repeal the emergency law, which has been used for years to justify
widespread human rights abuses. We are concerned about arbitrary
arrests, overly rapid and nontransparent trials, and attacks on
religious groups, primarily but not exclusively, against Christians.
Some particularly disgusting abuses against women demonstrators have
taken place, and we have called on the authorities to prosecute those
who committed them.
Second, it is clear that the need for a job was just as strong a
motivator for demonstrators in Tahrir Square as a desire for freedom
and justice. Egypt has to generate over 750,000 jobs a year to absorb
young people coming into the labor force.
These young people are often not well prepared with skills needed
for a modern economy, yet they have high expectations. Many of these
young people have historically been employed by the public sector, but
this is no longer practical given Egypt's shortage of resources.
In fact, the International Republican Institute has just come out
with a poll which indicates that Egyptians overwhelmingly believe that
next year they will be better off economically. But current economic
trends are headed in the other direction, and most Egyptians are barely
making ends meet. During this critical transition period, the military
leadership has played a role in stabilizing the situation, but Egypt's
economy has suffered from the unrest; tourism has declined; and
investors are sitting on the sidelines as attacks on the private sector
seem to have proliferated in the aftermath of the revolution. So,
expectations for the new government will be unrealistically high.
As a result, a key part of our strategy, both bilaterally and
working with the international community, will be to strengthen Egypt's
private sector so that it can generate economic stability and broaden
the benefits of economic growth to all Egyptians. It is keenly in our
interests to promote economic recovery in Egypt. Young people who have
jobs are more likely to be productive members of society and contribute
fully in the democratic transition. Importantly, increased economic
engagement with Egypt will also offer opportunities for American
businesses by investing in and exporting to Egypt.
All Americans should be proud of what United States assistance has
achieved in Egypt over the past 30 years, particularly dramatic
advances in reducing infant and maternal mortality and promoting
education. USAID built the Cairo sewage system, the world's biggest
construction project at the time, with predictable results for
developing professional skills in Egypt and sharply increasing health
conditions in one of the most crowded cities on the planet. We are now
refocusing our assistance on projects that are directly linked with
private sector growth and sustainable jobs. Let me describe some of
this to you.
As the President said in his May 19 speech, we are leading the
effort in the international community to provide short-term
stabilization for Egypt's economy. Egypt and the IMF have reached
staff-level agreement on new financing and the World Bank and other
international lenders will provide short-term resources that Egypt
needs.
We are seeking legislation which will allow us to forgive $1
billion of Egypt's debt and ask Egypt to invest the local currency
equivalent into an activity we mutually select. We intend it to be a
major project that makes clear America's contribution to the Egyptian
people. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation is working to
expand lending to small- and medium-size businesses, which in any
economy are the engine of job growth. OPIC is building on a very
successful model in the West Bank. Chairman Kerry has introduced
legislation to authorize enterprise funds for Egypt and the United
States is working to reorient the EBRD to enable lending to Egypt.
These have spurred private sector growth in Eastern Europe, and they
will also spur private sector growth in Egypt. So, I believe that we
have a sound plan going forward, along with other members of the
international community, to encourage stability in Egypt by widening
opportunities for both American and Egyptian firms.
Our third priority is to ensure that Egypt plays a strong and
positive role in the region and that our interests continue to align.
As one of only two Arab States to sign a peace treaty with Israel,
Egypt has been a powerful ally for a two-state solution and a
comprehensive Middle East peace agreement. Egypt has also been a
valuable partner in fighting terrorism, reintegrating Iraq into the
region, and providing assistance to refugees fleeing Libya. Egyptian
officials have said repeatedly that they will abide by the peace treaty
with Israel. We take those commitments seriously. The vast majority of
Egyptians have no interest in regional conflict and want to move
forward on their own democratic path. Our close defense cooperation
with Egypt serves United States interests and is influential in
promoting regional security.
Let me say that democracies can often be loud and bumptious, and I
am sure that Egypt will be no different. During Egypt's transition we
will hear many voices that are not to our liking, and Egypt's
democratic process will be difficult at times because of the newness
and fragility of its democratic institutions. If confirmed, I will do
everything I can to support the aspirations of the Egyptian people
during this period of transition. A successful, democratic transition
in Egypt matters to the United States strategically; it matters to our
allies; and it will serve as a model for the rest of the Arab world.
Let me say in closing that I am particularly grateful for the
critical role members of this committee played in my last post. If
confirmed, I know that this committee will play a similar role in
maintaining our bilateral relationship with Egypt and in ensuring a
credible democratic transition.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
Senator Lugar. Well, thank you very much, Ambassador. We'll
have a round with 7 minutes for each Senator.
And I'll commence the questioning by simply commenting how
much admiration I have not only for your performance in your
last assignment, but also your remarkable career on behalf of
our country.
We also appreciate the members of your family being here.
They exemplify, likewise, the service to our country that's a
part of your family.
Let me start by saying that the Washington Post on June 19
talked about a problem that has been often discussed in this
committee as to what role the United States ought to play in
support of the political transition in Egypt. It's been
suggested, for example, that perhaps the election that is now
scheduled for September should be delayed. This is a point of
contention, obviously, in Egypt, quite apart from our
discussions going on here in the United States.
The dilemma comes down to the fact that those who are
trying to put together political parties find themselves
involved in a lengthy enterprise. This would include not only
those who were in Tahrir Square, but other people in Egypt.
Thus, the fear is that the Muslim Brotherhood, which is
apparently better organized than most other political
movements, might play a dominant role in the upcoming election,
with results that would not exemplify the best in terms of
Egyptian democracy or Egypt's relationship with the United
States.
In the past 2 or 3 days, there was a story in the press of
a young Egyptian who was one of those who was attempting to
rally for democracy in Tahrir Square, and who has subsequently
gone out into the countryside to try to encourage people to
sign a petition to establish a new political party, which
apparently requires 5,000 signatures. He had gotten up to 1,000
signatures but was finding it to be very difficult going,
because the citizens he encountered wanted to talk primarily
about fundamental issues such as their lack of food and their
lack of employment.
They, to use our political jargon presently, were involved
in the jobs issue, and were not as interested to discuss what
seemed to them to be more abstract issues such as the political
transition or the formation of a political party.
What is your general comment on this? Because as you
accede, and I think you will be confirmed for this role, you're
going to be there during much of this formative period, prior
to September, in which there are going to be intense
discussions regarding the need to ensure there are competitors
in a free and fair election that really makes some difference.
Ambassador Patterson. Thank you very much, Senator Lugar,
and thank you for the kind words about me and my family.
Let me first address what we're doing as the U.S.
Government to try and advance this process. And I think I, for
one, am very heartened at the receptivity of some of our
groups, like the National Democratic Institute and the
International Republican Institute and IFES, have had in Egypt,
because their job is precisely the one that you have suggested,
which is try and teach politicians, nascent politicians who
have very little experience in a democratic political system,
how to do basic things like organize and hold debates and do
polling.
And so we have invested quite a few resources, close to $40
million, in these organizations over the past few weeks. And
they're very active on the ground in Egypt, and, as I
mentioned, have been very well received.
We've also tried to support smaller organizations. And
through our Middle East Partnership Initiative, we've given
out, I think, 35 grants since the unrest in Tahrir Square to
small civil society organizations, and many of them in rural
areas who are doing just what you say, trying to connect the
people's grievances with their political desires.
And we're not alone in this process, Senator. Other members
of the international community are doing the same.
But certainly with the fragility of institutions, it's
going to be a long, hard slog.
And as you mentioned, the issue of the timing of the
elections has been a controversial one in Egypt, and I think
there are voices on many sides of that issue. But we will do
our best in whatever time remains before the election to
promote this democratic transition through our organizations,
to the extent that Egyptians are willing to engage with us.
Senator Lugar. We have had some difficulty, as I
understand, not just with our assistance pertaining to the
elections, but likewise with economic assistance.
Some in the Egyptian Government--I wouldn't characterize
this more broadly--have protested that somehow their
sovereignty is being compromised by our economic assistance. At
the same time, it's been noted that around USAID headquarters
there, there are long lines of people trying to avail
themselves of our assistance programs.
What is your reading, as you prepare for this assignment,
of how our aid is being accepted? And to what extent will you
be able to monitor our assistance on behalf of the taxpayers in
the United States, who may fear that our assistance is going to
uncooperative or corrupt governments who fail to use it for its
stated intent even as we are attempting to do good?
Ambassador Patterson. Yes, Senator Lugar. I think on what
we call the money to promote democracy, which is about $65
million, and the money to promote economic growth, there has
been a very large outpouring from the public. And hundreds of
people, I think something like 600 organizations, came to the
information sessions for how to apply to these grants. And so
there is a lot of interest on the part of Egyptian civil
society.
Let me take this opportunity to say that by no means is
this an affront to Egyptian sovereignty. We do these programs,
as you well know, sir, in hundreds of countries in the world.
And they're always, almost always, well received by the
governments as support for their own democratic institutions.
On the monitoring issue, Senator Lugar, monitoring of small
grants is always problematic. And I have already looked into
this issue with the Middle East Partnership Initiative, and I
think they have a good auditing program on the ground.
And regarding our larger aid program, there is an office of
the AID inspector general in Cairo, and I think they have long-
established controls and rigorous procedures in effect.
But please rest assured that this will be a very high
priority for me, to be sure that our money is used for the best
value for the taxpayer.
Senator Lugar. That's an important reassurance.
Ambassador Patterson. Yes, thank you.
Senator Lugar. I'd like to recognize Senator Casey.
Senator Casey. Thank you very much.
Ambassador Patterson, it's great to see you.
Ambassador Patterson. Thank you, sir.
Senator Casey. And let me say, I think I can speak for a
lot of people, but for purposes of today, just speak for myself
in thanking you for taking on yet another difficult assignment.
And I really can't say enough about your extraordinary work in
Pakistan, along with your other postings over many years.
I thought when you appeared before us for your next
assignment that it would be kind of an easy one, that you'd be
assigned to the Sea of Tranquility, but you've decided to take
on another tough assignment.
We are grateful, because you've been so effective and so
capable, but also, I think, in a word, a great patriot. And
we're eternally grateful for that.
And I want to thank your family, as well. We often note
that families help the public official or the Ambassador or
whoever else comes before our committee. And this is an
extraordinary commitment by a family. But in this case, I
guess, individually, they're doing their own public service of
one kind or another. And we're grateful, grateful for that
commitment.
So we'll miss you in Islamabad and other places in the
country, but we'll look forward to seeing you in Egypt.
I wanted to ask you about the recent approach that Egypt
broadly--and this is generalizing a bit, but I think more
broadly--what I would argue is a more confrontational approach
now to Israel, whether it's the opening up of the Rafah border
crossing; whether it's the Hamas-Fatah unity government, the
work that was done there and Egypt's role in that; and then
finally the question of the gas lines to Israel.
When you think about those three examples, and more
broadly, I wanted to get your sense of that, just in terms of
the approach itself, but also in terms of our policy. What are
the United States redlines, so to speak, as it relates to how
Egypt will approach its relationship with Israel? I think it's
an issue that not just the Israelis are concerned about, but we
are as well.
Ambassador Patterson. Thank you. Thank you. And, again,
thanks for the kind words about my family, particularly.
Let me sort of take this in sequence, Senator Casey.
Let me first say that Egypt is the bedrock of our regional
policy. And Egypt has been at peace with Israel for many years,
and the current Government has committed to abiding by all
international agreements with Israel. And, as I said, we take
those commitments seriously, and we do not think it's in
Egypt's interest to promote confrontation with Israel in any
way.
And if I might mention these specific issues, on the Rafah
border crossing, that's for people and limited humanitarian
goods. There are security incidents there. The smuggling is of
very considerable concern to us. We know that the Israeli and
Egyptian security authorities have been working together on
this and have been in close contact, and that the Egyptians,
with Israeli permission, have put additional military forces
into the Sinai to address some of these issues. But there
certainly have been increased law and order issues out there.
We understand the police are beginning to return now.
On the Hamas-Fatah agreement, Egypt served as a
facilitator. Our understanding is it was at the instigation of
Hamas, who, perhaps because of other activities, incidents in
the region, was anxious to come to some kind of arrangement
with Fatah. We're not necessarily opposed to reconciliation;
what we are very concerned about that, that it promote regional
peace and the two-state solution. Our understanding is that the
reconciliation has sort of slowed at this point, because
President Abbas is very concerned about it and very concerned
that the assistance for the West Bank and the support that's
been given to the P.A. continue.
And, finally, the gas lines to Israel, we certainly know
that this has been a concern. The gas has started to flow
again. The pipeline was attacked twice in recent months, again
because of lack of law and order out there and banditry. But it
has started to flow again. And there are some pricing disputes
that will be addressed between the vendor and the purchaser.
But, yes, Senator, these are issues of concern to us. And,
again, nothing is more important to the United States than
regional peace and Egypt's peace with Israel. And we'll do
everything we possibly can to pursue that.
But if I might conclude, again, the Government has
reiterated at every turn its respect for these peace
agreements, and we know that on many of these issues that the
Israelis and the Egyptians are talking directly.
Senator Casey. Thank you. And I want to ask you about some
of the economic relief promises that have been made.
Egyptian officials emphasize the need for that kind of
relief. And as you know, our President--President Obama
announced $1 billion in debt relief and $1 billion in U.S.-
backed loan guarantees.
But there have been calls for conditioning that kind of
assistance, and I wanted to get your sense on how do we--if
there is a commitment to somehow conditioning that aid or at
least taking their actions into consideration as it relates to
our aid, what are the benchmarks that we should use, if we can
just simply call them democratic benchmarks or democratic
reform benchmarks? How do you approach that as an incoming
Ambassador?
Ambassador Patterson. Yes, thank you.
On the debt relief, sir, we'll be presenting legislation
shortly to the Hill that will build on previous legislation for
some of these debt relief and debt swap, I think--let me say
that one of our goals and the reason it has taken awhile to
develop is we're trying to find a worthy recipient for the
local currency that will be generated by these funds, and one
that is transformational and addresses some of Egypt's
underlying problems. The Secretary feels very strongly that we
should have a transformational project.
But certainly, the draft legislation that we've considered
that builds on some of this previous legislation does have--I
wouldn't call it ``conditions.'' There would be the standard
issues that are in this legislation about democracy, about
various human rights observations, observation of human rights.
And again, we would expect them, as we do in all economic
agreements, to abide by the provisions of the IMF agreement.
And most aid agreements contain quite specific conditions on
health reform or education reform that aren't too onerous, but
we expect our aid to be used to promote a reform process.
So I would certainly, if confirmed, expect to continue that
tradition and enhance it.
Senator Casey. Thanks very much.
Senator Lugar. Thank you, Senator Casey.
Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And let me join in not only welcoming, but thanking Ms.
Patterson for your service, and thank your family for your
continued willingness to help our country.
This is a critically important position, as my colleagues
have pointed out. And we all wish you well representing the
United States in this transitional country, as well as in a
part of the world where there's great hope for democracy.
We have found, by the Arab Spring, that the desire for
human rights and democracy is universal, and the United States
is looked upon as a facilitator to bring that about. And your
role will be very important in that regard.
Egypt, obviously, is a critically important country to
United States strategic interests, their role in regards to the
Middle East, as Senator Casey has pointed out. They're
important for moving forward with Israel, and one of the key
points is whether they will continue to honor the agreements
reached with Israel. They're very important in our campaign
against extremists.
But here's the dilemma we face. There are some who believe
that we have to be bolder in our development assistance in
Egypt, that the main trigger for the revolution was basically
economics, that the people were being denied the basic economic
growth of their country, and they wanted to do better for their
families. That will require more attention by the international
community to make significant progress in Egypt's economic
growth.
There are others that believe that we have to make sure
that there's accountability on U.S. aid. I fall into both
camps. I think we have to be bolder, and we have to have
accountability. We have responsibility to make sure that aid is
used for its intended purpose. And to me, there is a
requirement that that aid go to nations who support our basic
goals with peace with Israel and will maintain that
relationship with Israel, that they will fight extremists, and
that they'll provide basic human rights to its citizens.
But there have been some disturbing trends in Egypt. We're
not clear as to whether Hamas is getting a stronger footing
within that country. We don't know whether there is effort
being made to fund extremists through Egypt. We're not exactly
clear on the trafficking of weapons that may very well end up
being used to attack Israel.
And we look to you as our eyes and ears in Egypt to be able
to give us the best advice as we have to sort through these
issues. I would like to get your general view as to how you see
your role advising us as to how we can move forward with the
strategic partnership with Egypt, but using the tools at our
disposal to make that more of a reality.
Ambassador Patterson. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
First of all, let me say that I would entirely expect and,
frankly, look forward to interaction with members of this
committee, if I am confirmed as Ambassador to Egypt. And if
confirmed, I would also look forward to visits on the ground,
where you could see for yourself how we're progressing on these
issues. So I would very much look forward to working with
members of this committee and keeping you advised.
Let me say that I think the dilemma that you've laid out is
a real one and one we're going to have to struggle with over
the next few months.
Now I think on the stabilization and have we been bold
enough, let me say that I think we've tried to take a
leadership role in the international community and encourage
burden-sharing, where other members and other countries and
other organizations can come forward with the short-term
resources that Egypt needs, because there's no question that
this big youth bulge, this unemployed youth bulge and all these
kids getting out of colleges with essentially no skills and
second-rate educations, and soaring food prices, and declining
tourism, these are all going to be very difficult issues to
maneuver over the next few months.
But we've tried. The IMF is working with the Government.
The World Bank is prepared to lend very considerable funds. The
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and some of
Egypt's allies in the gulf that Senator Kerry has been working
with are also prepared to provide short-term stabilization
funds. So I think that will begin to stabilize in a few months.
From our standpoint, we're going to focus on democracy in
governance and private-sector growth, because that's where the
future is in Egypt, I think. This youth bulge could turn into a
very significant demographic dividend, as they have a lot of
young people in productive jobs. And as I mentioned, we will do
everything possible through AID and through various inspectors
general to monitor this aid and to be sure that it's usefully
used.
And I was, as I mentioned earlier, we certainly share your
concern about Hamas and some of these other--there's no
evidence, I might add, Senator, that Hamas has a closer
relationship with the Egyptians. They have facilitated this
reconciliation with Fatah.
But I think, to reiterate again, we are going to hold Egypt
to its commitments about peace with Israel. And those
commitments are in Egypt's interest. There seems to be
certainly no inclination within the current government to do
anything to undermine these commitments that they've made.
Senator Cardin. Let me just underscore one point in regards
to the normalization of the relationship between Israel and
Egypt.
It was very frustrating under the Mubarak administration to
see the government condoning such anti-Semitic activities,
particularly in their schools with the textbooks, et cetera. We
brought that to the attention frequently of the Egyptian
Government.
And I would hope that we've learned a lesson that, if
there's going to be lasting stability in the region, that
democracy, human rights, and understanding need to be part of
that, which means that we should have expectations that the
Egyptians will facilitate, rather than fuel discriminatory-type
views.
Ambassador Patterson. Sir, this issue of textbooks is,
frankly, an issue in many Islamic countries. It was certainly
an issue in my previous post, and it's one we work on. And it's
sort of, if I might say, below the radar a little in many
countries.
And I was very interested to read some of the conditions on
our assistance program in Egypt, and one of them is to
transform these textbooks into something that is more broadly
acceptable.
But, yes, the anti-Semitism, actually, Senator, seems to
have increased recently, because they've sort of taken the lid
off a lot of this in Egypt. But again, it's critically
important. This is why the building of democratic institutions
is so critically important, so people have a voice.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador Patterson. Thank you.
Senator Lugar. Thank you very much, Senator Cardin.
Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you.
I'd like to join the other members of the committee in
saying that I'm thrilled to welcome Ambassador Patterson. I've
had a number of conversations with you before about your
service in Islamabad and was very impressed with your grasp of
the political nuances and the intricacies of diplomacy. Over
your nearly four decades of service to our Nation, you've
clearly amassed a remarkable background in many challenging
posts in El Salvador and Colombia and Pakistan.
And I'd like to join other members of the committee in
thanking David and Jessica and Andrew for your willingness to
serve this Nation in the past and in the future.
I'll remark that my predecessor in this seat, Senator
Kaufman, chose to highlight your service to our Nation by
recognizing you as a great Federal employee on the Senate
floor, something which he did with great effect and enthusiasm.
And I know I've come to share his respect and admiration for
you and for your service.
I think, if I could, I'd like to start by focusing on that
recent experience in Islamabad and your understanding of the
difficulties of sort of the rough and tumble of a relatively
new democracy. You mentioned in your testimony that, during
Egypt's transition, you're sure that we will hear many voices
that are not to our liking, and that Egypt's democratic process
will be difficult at times because of its newness and
fragility.
I'll just associate myself with Senator Casey's expressed
concerns about the Israeli-Egyptian relationship, the security
at the border, the relationship with Hamas, recent incidents in
terms of bombing the gas pipeline, and security is really one
of my principal concerns as well.
Senator Cardin referenced history of incitement and some
challenges there, and I appreciate your reassurance to the
committee that this is a primary concern for you.
Senator Casey raised the question about putting conditions
on assistance, possibly. And as someone who was charged with
overseeing the first round of Kerry-Lugar-Berman assistance to
Pakistan, and who saw how difficult and uneven that process has
been, particularly as at times unwelcome voices caused
reactions in this Chamber, I'd be interested in your views.
Should we condition assistance to Egypt? How can we be most
effective in encouraging private sector development and growth?
Should we look at a similar multiyear structure that has
sustained investment in a sort of primary area of engagement?
And we have great confidence in you. How do we retain
confidence in the commitments of the Egyptian Government as it
changes and evolves to recognizing the Camp David Accords, and
being determined to stay on course in terms of respecting
Israel's right to self-defense and right to existence, and
continuing to be a constructive force in the recognition of
Israel?
A brief and focused question, I know. [Laughter.]
Ambassador Patterson. Thank you.
On conditioning assistance, yes, certainly in Pakistan that
was a huge issue with the assistance there. But, first of all,
there are already conditions in the Foreign Assistance Act
across a broad range.
And I think my own view is that conditions are sometimes
useful to focus the attention of the host government on what
they need to do. And that's why it's very important, also, for
government officials to meet with you when they come here and
for you to meet with them when you travel abroad, to reiterate
this.
So I don't think we can sort of give out the taxpayers'
money willy-nilly without demanding certain conditions, not the
least of which is the money be used for the purpose for which
it was appropriated.
On private sector growth, Senator, we're going to have to
refocus a lot of our aid program to promote this. I think,
again, we should be very proud, particularly in the health and
education field, for what aid has achieved. But we have a lot
less money than we used to in Egypt. And so to begin to focus
this on something that builds up the private sector, we have,
for instance, a little program on entrepreneurship, which
engages young people and promotes angel investing.
That sort of thing we need to do a lot more of over the
next few years, and generally to encourage trade with the U.S.
through trade facilitation and other things like this.
On retaining confidence in the Camp David Accords and peace
with Israel, again, the Government so far--and our military
assistance over the years, which is very substantial, $1.3
billion a year, has certainly, I think, enhanced regional
stability. And we have a program, a multiyear program for that
military assistance.
And, yes, generally speaking, I think it would be good to
have multiyear programs for civilian assistance as well,
because it gives more certainty and more steadiness to our
planning and our disbursements.
But we'll have to see what the new elected government does.
I mean, I don't really have any better answer than that. We'll
have to see how this evolves with an elected government.
Again, there is no evidence that people in Egypt--there's
no evidence that Egyptian Government officials or the leading
politicians don't see peace with Israel is in their interest.
Many of them want to get on with their own democratic and
economic path, and I think the politicians to be elected will
have to focus on these burning economic issues.
Certainly, in Tahrir Square, we saw no anti-Americanism and
no anti-Israeli statements. It was all about Egypt's domestic
politics.
Senator Coons. Last question, in terms of path forward. I'm
chair of the African Affairs Subcommittee, and Egypt has played
a role in Sudan, sometimes constructive, sometimes not so much.
They've received a lot of Sudanese refugees. Egypt is one of
the continent's largest, fastest growing economies,
populations, has a lot of potential.
How do you think we can encourage a constructive role that
Egypt might play in the future in Sudan?
Ambassador Patterson. Yes, I think that's a very accurate
characterization. Sometimes they've played a positive role, and
sometimes they haven't. But we'll just have to engage with them
on all levels.
And one of the reasons we're having these outreach programs
with the nascent political parties is not only to engage on
political party formation, but also to discuss--and our Embassy
has been very active in this--also to discuss the issues of the
day, which would include issues like Sudan, regional
engagement, economic reform. So we'll be talking these issues
up over the next few months.
Senator Coons. Thank you very much.
Senator Lugar. Thank you very much, Senator Coons.
Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Lugar.
And I think all of our Senators on this panel have done a
brilliant job here at outlining your remarkable career, and I'd
just like to thank you for your remarkable service to our
country and thank your family members. Each of them, I think,
are serving or have served at key places around the world, and
we also appreciate that service.
Ambassador, you hit on one of the things that is so
prevalent throughout the Middle East, this whole issue of jobs.
And there is a young population and a need to create
significant jobs. And I think you highlighted in your testimony
750,000 jobs a year, which is a big feat to be able to do that.
And we all know, and I think we feel, that the lack of jobs
then creates a fertile ground for violence and for terrorism
and things like that.
So my question I wanted to ask goes to--and you've touched
on this a bit, in terms of how we're using our money. But I
understand recently that Secretary Clinton has done
reprogramming, in terms of the funds that were available for
Egypt, and she's moving funds from one category to the other.
And I was wondering if you could outline for us where we've
taken money away from, and then why we're doing that, and then
what areas we're targeting.
I know that you mentioned angel investors and other kinds
of programs, but I think it would be helpful to the committee
to kind of have an idea of where do we think are the key--with
the scarce resources we have, where do we think are the best
places to invest?
And I know you've said in a broad, general way that it's
important to invest in good governance and also in the
development of the private sector.
Ambassador Patterson. Thank you, Senator.
Let me say this job creation and, frankly, these youth
bulge issues are really rather frightening, but they can have a
huge upside. Pakistan, for instance, had to generate 2 million
jobs a year for new entrants to the labor force.
But in Latin America, what happened was that this became a
huge demographic benefit, because there were all these people
in the labor force that had fewer children and didn't have to
support the elderly, like many of our developed societies, so
it was a huge impetus for economic growth. And I don't see any
reason that, properly handled, that Egypt's economy can't do
the same thing.
But let me outline more specifically what we're trying to
do. The Secretary did reprogram funds, and she took it what I
would call out of Egypt's pipeline, economic assistance
pipeline, which was not disbursing very rapidly, because Egypt
had not met the conditions for disbursement of this pipeline.
So we took $150 million out of that pipeline, and we
allocated $65 million of it to democracy and governance, and
that's the funding source, as I mentioned, for some of our
prestigious organizations.
And we're going to put $100 million in, essentially, job
creation, issues like, in the short run, cash for work, which
is not sustainable but will, I think, solve some short-term
problems.
So we have, Senator, we have the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation, which has a very sophisticated program
for lending. We have our debt swap programs. Again, the whole
AID program will be refocused to promote economic reform and to
do such varied things as work with think tanks and political
parties to help them develop platforms on economic reform, to
do job creation, to do trade facilitation.
There are issues, and this was actually a very important
issue in my other post. To increase trade, you need a certain
amount of infrastructure. What's the infrastructure that you
can build that will most efficiently promote trade flows? And
as we go into more trade liberalization with Egypt and North
Africa, this will be important, too.
So we're looking at that. That's a fairly high-cost and
long-term project, but that's the sort of thing we're looking
at to promote jobs.
Senator Udall. Ambassador, when you say cash for work, how
does that program work?
Ambassador Patterson. Essentially, and we're trying not to
do too much of this, because it's not sustainable, but it takes
young people, mostly young men, off the streets, and it pays
them to do, basically, manual labor.
And we try not to do very much of this in our assistance
programs, because it's not sustainable. But sometimes it's
necessary in some of these countries, because it does put cash
in people's pockets.
Senator Udall. Yes, and it's showing that I think there's a
feeling that we're kind of in an, maybe not to put it too
dramatically, emergency situation. But we are in a situation
where there's serious unemployment, and that creates all of the
other problems.
If I could, just shifting direction, just briefly here, on
water usage and increasing concerns about the Nile River and
water shortages in the region, I know that many countries are
increasingly concerned about Egypt's especially upstream users
of the high rate of water usage.
What role can the United States play and what role will you
help to play to facilitate water conservation, so the region
avoids conflicts over the water resource?
Ambassador Patterson. Yes, and then related to your
previous question, I should have mentioned this, that we do
have projects, certainly, to promote agricultural efficiency,
because most of these countries are rather--they don't have
very good water management systems, so we are working on that,
too, as part of our agricultural project.
But on the Nile Basin Initiative, the department has been
very active in trying to encourage the countries to come
together, as has the World Bank, and work out a settlement
among themselves.
Senator Udall. Great. Thank you very much, and thank you
again for your service.
Senator Lugar. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador, thank you for your long service to our country.
You've had a distinguished career, and you have been nominated
for an exceptionally important assignment at this time in
history.
In between my meetings, I was glancing at the TV in my
office trying to capture your answers to Senator Casey's
questions, but I want to pursue them a little bit more.
I want to know your views on what we will tell Egypt about
the state of relations between our countries, in terms of its
adherence to the Camp David peace treaty with Israel?
Ambassador Patterson. Senator Menendez, I don't think there
could be the slightest doubt about our views about Egypt's
adherence to the Camp David peace treaty with Israel.
And, as I mentioned before, I think the Egyptian Government
at all levels has made utterly clear its commitment to that
treaty, which is in its interests.
Senator Menendez. And yet, there are a series of actions
that we have seen that are unsettling to some of us who believe
that that is a cornerstone of United States foreign assistance
to Egypt.
Is Egypt's adherence to its international obligations,
including the peace treaty with Israel, a prerequisite for
United States assistance?
Ambassador Patterson. Well, let me put it this way,
Senator: We entirely anticipate that Egypt will abide by its
international agreements, and the assistance to Egypt is, of
course, based on those agreements from many years ago.
Senator Menendez. If we were to come to the conclusion that
we do not believe that Egypt is pursuing its international
obligations to that agreement, then we would expect that we
would not be forthcoming in terms of the $1.5 billion that we
give Egypt?
Ambassador Patterson. Senator, I don't think we have any
reason to expect that Egypt is not going to abide by its
commitments with Israel. But, again, as I said, I think this is
widely known, that the assistance to Egypt is essentially as a
result and tied for many years to the Camp David Accords.
Senator Menendez. So the reopening of the Rafah border
crossing, which has been closed since 2007, due to concerns
about Hamas using that to bring weapons and fighters into Gaza;
some of the gas disruptions that have taken place, and
additional actions, you're not concerned?
Ambassador Patterson. I didn't say that, Senator Menendez.
I think what I told Senator Casey was, in fact, we were
concerned about these issues and, in fact, that the Egyptians
and Israeli security forces are working on these issues, that
there is a very serious concern about smuggling, of course. And
the Egyptians with Israeli concurrence have put additional
troops into the Sinai to confront this.
The gas is flowing again. There were two attacks on the
pipeline. The law and order situation is bad there, but the gas
is flowing again.
There are some pricing disputes, but this is an issue that
we think the Egyptians and Israelis can work out between
themselves.
Senator Menendez. Many of us have and had and have still
high hopes for a transition in Egypt that is both more
democratic and continuingly secular, but many of us also have
concerns about recent actions and where we're headed.
And our support, certainly this Senator's support, for
assistance to Egypt at the levels that we have been supporting
it is predicated on a continuing relationship with a major ally
of the United States important to our national security and our
national interest. And so I hope you understand that there are
those of us here who are not ready to sign a blank check
because of a long-term relationship, and we will be expecting
our next U.S. Ambassador to make that very clear.
Ambassador Patterson. Senator, I don't think anyone expects
the Congress of the United States to write a blank check
anymore. Our financial conditions would not permit it.
And I think the military assistance, in particular, as well
as the civilian assistance, but particularly the military
assistance, the very significant amount that you all have
appropriated over the years, has really been a source for
stability and encourages stability in the region.
Senator Menendez. Well, financial circumstances certainly
create pressures on all of our assistance abroad. But, in my
mind, this relationship, in terms of whatever continuing
assistance the United States might produce, is beyond even the
financial circumstances of the country. It is also about
whether or not Egypt is living up to our expectations, for
which we are willing to assist it in moving in the right
direction.
So I think I've made my case. I will leave it at that.
I want to talk about one other thing, and it is something I
am seriously concerned about. It's how Coptic Christians are
treated inside of Egypt. It is totally unacceptable. You know,
we have seen an Egyptian court have 16 suspects that were found
not guilty. The two who were convicted were released on bail.
I heard of a recent peaceful sit-in by Coptic Christians
trying to get churches reopened that was attacked by a group of
men using firearms, knives, stones, Molotov cocktails. Over 78
people were wounded.
What progress do you see being made by the military council
to end sectarian violence and tension? And what are the
prospects for constitutional changes in laws that would address
sectarian violence and ease restrictions, for example, on
building churches?
I have a tremendously productive Coptic Christian community
in my State of New Jersey, and they are a very peaceful people.
They're very entrepreneurial.
I don't understand this continuing violence against them.
And I would hope the United States makes it very clear to Egypt
that the continuing attacks on people, simply because of the
altar that they choose to worship at, is not acceptable.
Ambassador Patterson. Yes, thank you, Senator Menendez.
Yes, we've made this absolutely clear to the Egyptian
Government on many levels. And this has certainly flared up
after the unrest in Tahrir Square, and I think it's gotten
worse. I don't think there is any question about that.
That said, the military government has reconstructed the
church that was destroyed and has arrested people that have
attacked Coptic Christians. There was just a draft law the
other day, and, frankly, we've gotten very mixed reports on
this about the construction of these churches or mosques. It
may not be satisfactory to the Coptic community. We just don't
know yet.
But we certainly expect this Government and the new
Egyptian Government to observe freedom of religion, which is in
their constitution and in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, of which, of course, Egypt is a signatory.
So that is certainly one of our expectations of this
Government and any new government.
Senator Menendez. And my final question, as the next
Ambassador, can I rely upon you to vigorously raise this
question with the Egyptian Government?
Ambassador Patterson. You certainly can, Senator Menendez.
Absolutely.
Senator Menendez. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lugar. Thank you, Senator Menendez.
If there are no more questions of Senators, we thank
Ambassador Patterson once again for her testimony and wish you
well. And I know the committee will be taking action very soon.
Ambassador Patterson. Thank you very much, Senator.
Thank you, members. Thank you.
Senator Lugar. The chairman has asked Senator Casey to
chair the second panel, and I'm delighted to relinquish the
chair to my colleague. And we'll call the second panel to come
forward, please.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT P. CASEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA
Senator Casey [presiding]. Well, thank you. We want to
welcome our second panel.
I'll have a brief opening statement, then I'll turn the
microphone over to our ranking member, Senator Lugar, and then
we'll go with each of the witnesses' opening statements.
Let me say first, with regard to the United Arab Emirates,
the UAE sits at a strategic location in the Persian Gulf and
has taken an active role in the region during the unprecedented
period of political change that we're living through today.
The UAE has been constructive in the Gulf Cooperation
Council's mediation effort in Yemen, and has taken positive
steps to monitor and combat terrorism and extremism in the
region.
The UAE is also an important partner in Afghanistan. Since
2004, it has deployed 250 troops to southern Afghanistan,
making it the only Arab country to contribute combat forces to
the NATO mission. The Government has also pledged $323 million
in economic assistance to Afghanistan.
There are concerns, however, about the UAE's ongoing
relationship with Iran. While the government has been
responsive to some United States concern over the reexport of
U.S. technology to Iran, we need to encourage--or, I should
say, need to continue to encourage the UAE to vigorously
enforce international sanctions on Iran.
I look forward to hearing how Mr. Corbin intends to work
with the UAE Government to address these serious concerns.
Mr. Corbin is a career senior Foreign Service officer
currently serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for
Near-Eastern Affairs. His experience working in our Embassies
in Iraq, Syria, and Egypt will undoubtedly serve him well in
this position, if confirmed.
Welcome, sir.
Kuwait is another key ally in the gulf region and has been
pivotal in 2 decades of United States efforts to reduce the
threat posed by Iraq. With Iraq largely stabilized, Kuwait now
serves as the key route for the drawdown of United States
troops and equipment. Thousands of United States soldiers
continue to pass through Camp Arifjan, a military logistics hub
south of Kuwait City, whose importance I witnessed firsthand
during a visit to Kuwait in 2010.
While Kuwait has been a leader in the gulf on
democratization issues, as evidenced by the election of four
women to Parliament in 2009, there is still progress to be
made, particularly in human trafficking. And for the fourth
year in a row, the U.S. Trafficking in Persons Report ranked
Kuwait as a ``Tier Three'' country, the lowest level, for
failing to make sufficient efforts to comply with minimum
standards for the elimination of trafficking.
The United States must continue to engage Kuwait on this
serious issue, including the full prosecution--full
prosecution--of all cases, including Kuwaiti citizens.
Mr. Tueller is a career senior Foreign Service officer
currently serving as Deputy Chief of Mission in Egypt. If
confirmed, he will bring a total of 6 years of experience in
Kuwait, first as a political counselor from 1991 to 1994; then
as Deputy Chief of Mission from 2004 to 2007.
And I'd also like to take this opportunity to welcome Mr.
Tueller's two sisters, Dianne and Betsy, and his nephew, Eli,
who have traveled here from Belmont, MA, today.
That just happens to be my wife's hometown, so I'm happy to
be able to mention that. My mother- and father-in-law would
want me to mention Belmont in this hearing today. [Laughter.]
Kazakhstan has played a key role in the transportation of
non-lethal supplies for our troops in Afghanistan through its
participation in the Northern Distribution Network, the so-
called NDN. As Pakistani supply lines have become increasingly
precarious, the NDN has become even more vital to our security
interests in the region.
Kazakhstan can also play a key role in European energy
diversification efforts, particularly through its participation
in the Nabucco pipeline.
Despite hope that Kazakhstan's 2010 OSCE chairmanship would
usher in long-awaited democratic reforms, serious human rights
abuses persist, including severe limits on free speech and
assembly, discrimination against women, and the ongoing
detention of political activists.
The United States must continue to encourage democratic
openness and respect for human rights through engagement with
civil society and ongoing diplomatic exchanges.
I welcome Mr. Fairfax's insight into these complex set of
issues.
Mr. Fairfax is a career senior Foreign Service officer who
has served in challenging posts around the world. He currently
served as Minister Counselor for Economic Affairs at the United
States Embassy in Iraq and has served in our overseas posts in
Vietnam, Poland, Ukraine, Canada, and South Korea.
I'd also like to welcome his wife, Nyetta, who is here with
us today.
So we're grateful for your work and for her presence here.
And finally, Qatar is another important United States
partner in the gulf and host to the former headquarters of U.S.
CENTCOM. It has taken an active role in response to the recent
unrest in the region, and it was the first Arab State to
recognize Libya's Transitional National Council, one of two
Arab countries to do that, along with the UAE, to contribute
military aircraft to NATO's Operation Unified Protector in
Libya.
Its policy of engagement with Iran and Hamas has been a
cause for great concern for the United States and Israel, and
there are reports that Hamas may be seeking to relocate to Doha
due to political turmoil in Syria.
Human rights groups continue to criticize Qatar's ban on
political parties and restrictions on freedom of speech, press,
assembly, and religion. Moreover, its large population of
foreign residents and temporary laborers enjoy no political
rights, and unskilled laborers continue to live in hazardous
conditions.
Ms. Ziadeh is a career senior Foreign Service officer as
well, currently serving as Deputy Chief of Mission in Saudi
Arabia. Prior to this, she was Deputy Chief of Mission in
Bahrain from 2004 to 2007, and has also served at our Embassies
in Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, and Israel.
I'd like to welcome her sister, Rhonda, who is here with us
today.
With that, I would turn to our ranking member, Senator
Lugar.
Senator Lugar. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Casey. I
appreciate very much the tributes that you have given to each
of our four distinguished nominees. I join you in welcoming
them, and we look forward to their service.
I really want to take this opportunity, as a point of
personal privilege, to make some comments about Kenneth
Fairfax, who has been nominated by President Obama to serve as
United States Ambassador to Kazakhstan.
I was encouraged to read in a recent piece in Foreign
Policy magazine by David Hoffman, entitled, ``The Loose Nuke
Cable That Shook the World,'' details based on declassified
cables of Mr. Fairfax's long history in observing and reporting
on very disturbing nuclear security threats in parts of the
former Soviet Union during his service in Moscow in the mid-
1990s.
These same concerns prompted my own involvement in these
matters, having worked with Senator Sam Nunn to craft the Nunn-
Lugar legislation in 1991, which continues to safeguard WMD
materials and components throughout the former Soviet Union and
now worldwide.
I expect that Mr. Fairfax's background will serve him well
in Astana, given Kazakhstan's central role in nonproliferation
endeavors over the past decades.
The United States and Kazakhstan have been cooperating
closely on nonproliferation matters now for over 18 years
through the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. At
the time of the collapse of the U.S.S.R. in December 1991,
Kazakhstan possessed 1,410 nuclear warheads. On December 13,
1993, the Government of Kazakhstan signed the Safe and Secure
Dismantlement Act and five Nunn-Lugar implementing agreements
with the United States.
Upon the removal of the last nuclear warhead from
Kazakhstan in 1995, Kazakhstan acceded to the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty in 1995 as a nonnuclear weapon state.
Other successes in Kazakhstan include the closure of the
former Soviet Union's nuclear test site; the elimination of a
biological weapons production facility; and the securing of
dangerous nuclear, biological, and radiological materials. This
past year, the United States and Kazakhstan completed a major
nonproliferation program to provide secure storage for the
spent fuel from Kazakhstan's BN-350 plutonium production
reactor.
In a large-scale effort over the last year, the spent fuel,
enough material to fabricate 775 nuclear weapons, was
transported in a series of 12 secure shipments over 1,800 miles
from Aktau near the Caspian Sea to a secure location in eastern
Kazakhstan.
The completion of this decade-long effort to secure the BN-
350 spent fuel provides yet another example of the progress on
nuclear security and nonproliferation through concerted United
States diplomacy and global security engagement.
I look forward to working with Mr. Fairfax, and I look
forward to working with each of the nominees on the panel,
should they be confirmed, and we have some confidence that you
will be. We are grateful for your service.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Casey. Thank you, Ranking Member Senator Lugar.
And we'll now do opening statements. We'll plead with you
to stay within the limits of your time.
And, of course, if you want to summarize your testimony as
best you can, that would be preferable, and your full
statements will be made part of the record.
I think we'll start with Mr. Corbin.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL H. CORBIN, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE AMBASSADOR
TO THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Mr. Corbin. Thank you very much, Senator Casey, Senator
Lugar.
I'm honored to appear before you as the President's nominee
to be the United States Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates.
I'm extremely grateful to President Obama and to Secretary
Clinton for their confidence in me. And if confirmed, I look
forward to representing the American people and to working with
this committee and other interested Members of Congress to
advance U.S. goals in the UAE.
It has been an honor to serve as a Foreign Service officer
since 1985, mostly in the Arab world, and to use regional
experience and the Arab language in a wide variety of
assignments.
The Foreign Service brought my Foreign Service spouse, Mary
Ellen Hickey, and me together. As a tandem couple, we have been
blessed to serve together in most of our assignments. My two
children have learned much from living overseas, and I'm
gratified they have joined me here today, along with my
parents, my mother-in-law, and my extended family.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the UAE plays an
influential and growing role in the Middle East and is a key
partner for the United States in areas such as defense,
nonproliferation, trade, law enforcement, energy policy, and
educational and cultural exchange.
Regionally, the UAE is a leader. For example, the UAE has
had troops in Afghanistan since 2004, actively participates in
the Libyan Operation Unified Protector, and is a founding
member of the Friends of Democratic Pakistan, with over $300
million in direct assistance.
Our bilateral cooperation is strong. On defense, the Port
of Jebel Ali in Dubai is the United States Navy's busiest
overseas port of call, and the UAE is our largest Foreign
Military Sales cash customer.
On nonproliferation, we work together. The UAE takes its
international obligations seriously and has fully implemented
international sanctions targeting Iran and North Korea. Most
recently, in May, the UAE coordinated with us on the
sanctioning of two UAE-based entities for supplying Iran with
prohibited amounts of refined fuel.
The UAE seeks to prevent use of its open trade environment
and is implementing a comprehensive export control law. Our
trade cooperation is excellent, and for the past 2 years, the
UAE has been the largest export market for U.S. goods in the
Middle East.
For example, Dubai's Emirates Airlines is the single
largest customer for Boeing's 777 aircraft, and more than 700
United States companies have regional headquarters in the UAE.
The UAE is a partner in building UAE's law enforcement
capabilities, particularly to counter money laundering and
terrorist financing, and we work with the UAE on energy policy.
Holding nearly 8 percent of the world's proven oil reserves
and nearly 5 percent of its proven gas reserves, the UAE
supports U.S. energy goals, and joined other GCC states on June
8 in pushing for an increase in OPEC oil production in line for
U.S. goals for the global economy.
Finally, in cultural and educational cooperation, the UAE
has partnered with major U.S. institutions, such as the
Guggenheim and New York University, on major programs in that
country.
The United States is focused on human rights, trafficking
in persons, and the rights of women in the UAE. For example,
this year the UAE established a special court in Dubai to hear
human trafficking cases and is taking steps to train its police
and customs officials to aid trafficking victims. But more must
be done, particularly with regard to labor issues.
Our comprehensive dialogue with the UAE has included a
frank, productive discussion on historic changes brought about
by the Arab Spring. If confirmed as United States Ambassador, I
would work to see that the UAE's legitimate interest in trade
with its neighbors is not put to inappropriate uses, especially
with respect to Iran. I would work to strengthen our trade
relationship, promote U.S. exports, and assist the U.S.
businesses using the UAE as a hub.
We have a clear dialogue with the UAE on the universal
right of free expression, and Secretary Clinton has
demonstrated the priority we place on this with her Internet
Freedom Initiative.
If confirmed as Ambassador, I will continue to highlight
our commitment to this principle and work with our partners in
the UAE.
With 36 different United States Government agencies and
departments in the UAE, my first priority, if confirmed, would
be to the safety and security of our personnel, as well as all
Americans living and working or traveling to the United Arab
Emirates.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, if confirmed, I
would welcome your views and insights on the UAE and the region
and welcome any questions you might have for me today. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Corbin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael H. Corbin
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am honored to appear
before you as the President's nominee to be the U.S. Ambassador to the
United Arab Emirates. I am extremely grateful to President Obama and to
Secretary Clinton for their confidence in me. If confirmed, I look
forward to representing the American people, and to working with this
committee and other interested Members of Congress to advance U.S.
goals in the UAE.
It has been an honor to serve as a Foreign Service officer since
1985, mostly in the Arab World, and to use regional experience and the
Arabic language in a wide variety of assignments. The Foreign Service
brought my Foreign Service spouse, Mary Ellen Hickey, and me together.
As a tandem couple we have been blessed to serve together in most of
our assignments. My two children have learned much from living overseas
and I am gratified to have my family, parents, and extended family here
in the audience today.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the UAE plays an
influential and growing role in the Middle East, and is a key partner
for the United States. The United States and the UAE enjoy strong
bilateral cooperation on a full range of issues including defense,
nonproliferation, trade, law enforcement, energy policy, and cultural
exchange.
As a member of the International Security Assistance Force, the UAE
has had troops in Afghanistan since 2003. It has been a leader as
current president of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in Yemen
mediation; participates in the Libya Operation Unified Protector;
provided several million dollars in humanitarian aid to assist those
affected by the Libyan crisis; contributed almost $50 million in 2010
to rebuilding Afghanistan; and is a founding member of the Friends of
Democratic Pakistan with over $300 million in direct assistance.
Defense cooperation is a central pillar of our partnership and is
reflected in regular bilateral strategic security discussions. The port
of Jebel Ali in Dubai is the U.S. Navy's busiest overseas port-of-call
and the UAE is our largest Foreign Military Sales cash customer. The
UAE has actively participated in international operations to police the
gulf, and organized an international conference on countering piracy
March 18-19 of this year.
In the area of nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the
UAE takes its international obligations seriously and has fully
implemented international sanctions targeting Iran and North Korea for
their pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our active dialogue with Abu Dhabi on
these and other nonproliferation issues supports the enforcement of
U.S. laws and most recently, in May, the UAE coordinated with us on the
sanctioning of two UAE-based entities for supplying Iran with
prohibited amounts of refined fuel. The UAE seeks to prevent use of its
open trade environment to import and export items and funds that assist
in the development of weapons of mass destruction and is implementing a
comprehensive export control law to take action against noncomplying
companies. The UAE participates in the U.S. Export Control and Border
Security program, hosts a bilateral Counter Proliferation Task Force,
and is a member of the multilateral Proliferation Security Initiative.
The UAE's Nuclear Cooperation Agreement with the United States (signed
in May 2009) is a positive example for the peaceful development of a
nuclear energy program.
For the past 2 years the UAE has been the largest export market for
U.S. goods in the Middle East, and 21st in the world. It has developed
a leading role in business services, including finance and logistics,
and has emerged as the preeminent business hub between Asia and Europe.
Dubai's Emirates Airlines is the single largest customer for Boeing's
777 aircraft. With its infrastructure and business and logistical
services, the UAE has become the regional headquarters for over 700
American companies active in the petroleum, defense, services,
education, and health care sectors.
The United States is a partner in building UAE's law enforcement
capabilities, particularly to counter money laundering and terrorist
financing and to provide training to enable the UAE to disrupt illicit
cash flows.
The UAE is also a partner on energy policy. Holding nearly 8
percent of the world's proven oil reserves and nearly 5 percent of its
proven gas reserves, the UAE joined other GCC states on June 8 in
pushing for an increase in OPEC oil production. The UAE has sought U.S.
assistance to pursue renewable energy and plays a leadership role on
renewable energy technologies. Finally, on cultural and educational
exchange, the UAE has partnered with major U.S. institutions such as
the Guggenheim and New York University.
The United States works closely with the UAE on human rights,
trafficking in persons, and the rights of women. The UAE is committed
to the education of its people and is working to ensure that the female
half of its citizenry receives a complete, high-quality education. This
year, the UAE established a special court in Dubai to hear human
trafficking cases and is taking steps to train its police and customs
officials to aid trafficking victims. As these policies develop, we are
continuing to work closely with the Emirati leadership to improve its
response to forced labor, particularly among the foreign migrant worker
population the country hosts. Finally, the UAE and the United States
have maintained a productive dialogue throughout the recent historic
changes brought about by the ``Arab Spring.''
If confirmed as U.S. Ambassador I would work to see that the UAE's
legitimate interest in trade with its neighbors is not put to
inappropriate uses, especially with respect to Iran. I would work to
continue to strengthen our trade partnership, promote U.S. exports and
assist U.S. businesses using the UAE as a hub.
We have a clear dialogue with the UAE on the universal right of
free expression and Secretary Clinton has demonstrated the priority we
place on this with her Internet Freedom Initiative. If confirmed as
Ambassador, I will continue to highlight our commitment to this
principle in my work with our partners in the UAE.
At a U.S. mission comprising employees from 36 different U.S.
Government agencies and departments, my first priority, if confirmed,
would remain at all times protecting the safety and security of the
dedicated men and women at our mission as well as of all Americans
living and working or traveling in the United Arab Emirates.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, if confirmed, I would
welcome your views and insights on the UAE and the region and welcome
any questions you might have for me today. Thank you.
Senator Casey. Thanks, Mr. Corbin. You had time left. You
had 40 seconds. [Laughter.]
Ms. Ziadeh, thank you.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN L. ZIADEH, OF WASHINGTON, TO BE AMBASSADOR
TO THE STATE OF QATAR
Ms. Ziadeh. Senator Casey, Ranking Member Lugar, members of
the committee, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today.
I'm honored to be President Obama's nominee to serve as
United States Ambassador to Qatar. I deeply appreciate the
confidence President Obama and Secretary Clinton have shown in
me by making this nomination.
If confirmed by the Senate, I will exercise the full range
of our diplomatic tools to promote regional security
cooperation, expand commercial ties, and develop stronger
educational partnerships between the United States and Qatar.
With your permission, I'd like to introduce my sister,
Rhonda, her husband, George, and their daughter, Gihan, here
today representing their Ziadeh family.
I would also like to thank my family for their
encouragement as I've pursued graduate studies in Egypt and
Lebanon, where Middle East issues became my lifelong
intellectual and professional pursuit. Through seven tours in
the Middle East, including Iraq, their support continues.
The United States and Qatar enjoy an excellent military-to-
military relationship. Qatar's Al Udeid Air Base hosts the
United States Air Force's 379th Air Expeditionary Wing, as well
as the Combined Air Operations Center, critical to United
States military operations in the CENTCOM AOR, including
Afghanistan.
If confirmed, I will work to expand our counterterrorism
and regional security cooperation with Qatar.
From the United Nations to the Gulf Cooperation Council,
Qatar has played an active and helpful role in multilateral
diplomacy. In Libya, Qatar was the first Arab country to
dedicate military sources to the international coalition and
has pledged significant financial support to the Transitional
National Council.
In Egypt, Qatar has announced plans to invest $10 billion
to strengthen the economy. The Emir of Qatar has set a positive
example by reinforcing the need for political, social, and
economic reforms across the Arab world, and he has also focused
on the need for better and inclusive governance.
Qatar recently held municipal council elections and has
pledged to hold advisory council elections soon. These are
important steps and demonstrate Qatar's commitment to
representative government.
Recognizing that each country will follow its own
particular form of representative democracy, if confirmed, I
pledge to work with our Qatari friends and speak out for the
core values and principles that define America.
Qatar also represents tremendous economic opportunity for
American business. With the third-largest proven gas reserves
in the world, Qatar is the leading supplier of liquified
natural gas. Oil and gas account for more than 60 percent of
GDP and 70 percent of Government revenues. Qatar is using these
revenues to invest in its infrastructure and its people, while
diversifying its economy.
If confirmed, I will advocate aggressively for U.S.
companies competing for the more than 70 billion dollars' worth
of major infrastructure projects to be awarded between now and
2022. I will also work tirelessly to find new export
opportunities for American goods and services in Qatar.
Qatar has made great strides in education, overhauling its
schools. Through the Qatar Foundation and initiatives such as
Education City, Qatar is building the intellectual
infrastructure necessary for Qataris to compete in a knowledge-
based economy.
U.S. universities are at the forefront of this process,
cooperating on educational services. As a former Fulbright
Scholar myself, I know firsthand the value of educational
exchanges. If confirmed, I will strongly support these growing
institutional ties and promote long-term partnerships.
A top priority as Ambassador will be, if confirmed, to
protect the welfare, security, and interests of American
citizens, as well as our personnel at Embassy Doha.
If confirmed, I will dedicate myself to supporting the
American community and helping it to succeed in Qatar. If
confirmed, I look forward to welcoming the committee's members
and staff to Doha.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for this
opportunity to address the committee. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ziadeh follows:]
Prepared Statement of Susan L. Ziadeh
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lugar, members of the committee, I
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
I am honored to be President Obama's nominee to serve as U.S.
Ambassador to Qatar. I deeply appreciate the confidence President Obama
and Secretary Clinton have shown in me. If confirmed by the Senate, I
will exercise the full range of our diplomatic tools to promote
regional security cooperation, expand commercial ties, and develop
stronger educational partnerships between the United States and Qatar.
With your permission, I would like to introduce my sister, Rhonda,
here today representing the Ziadeh family. I would like to thank my
family for their encouragement as I pursued graduate studies in Egypt
and Lebanon, where Middle East issues became my lifelong intellectual
and professional pursuit. Through seven tours in the Middle East,
including Iraq, their support continues.
The United States and Qatar enjoy an excellent military-to-military
relationship. Qatar's Al Udayd Air Base hosts the U.S. Air Force's
379th Air Expeditionary Wing as well as the Combined Air Operations
Center, critical to U.S. military operations in the CENTCOM AOR,
including Afghanistan. If confirmed, I will work to expand our
counterterrorism and regional security cooperation.
From the United Nations to the Gulf Cooperation Council, Qatar has
played an active and helpful role in multilateral diplomacy. In Libya,
Qatar was the first Arab country to dedicate military resources to the
international coalition and has pledged significant financial support
to the Transitional National Council. In Egypt, Qatar announced plans
to invest $10 billion to strengthen the economy. The Amir of Qatar has
set a positive example by reinforcing the need for political, social,
and economic reforms across the Arab world.
He has also focused on the need for better and inclusive
governance. Qatar recently held municipal council elections and has
pledged to hold advisory council elections soon. These are important
steps and demonstrate Qatar's commitment to representative government.
Recognizing that each country will follow its own particular form of
representative democracy, if confirmed, I pledge to work with our
Qatari friends and speak out for the core values and principles that
define America.
Qatar presents tremendous economic opportunity for American
business. With the third-largest proven gas reserves in the world,
Qatar is the leading supplier of Liquid Natural Gas. Oil and gas
account for more than 60 percent of GDP and 70 percent of government
revenues. Qatar is using these revenues to invest in its infrastructure
and its people while diversifying its economy. If confirmed, I will
advocate aggressively for U.S. companies competing for the more than 70
billion dollars' worth of major infrastructure projects to be awarded
between now and 2022; I will also work tirelessly to find new export
opportunities for American goods and services in Qatar.
Qatar has made great strides in education, overhauling its schools.
Through the Qatar Foundation and initiatives such as Education City,
Qatar is building the intellectual infrastructure necessary for Qataris
to compete in a knowledge-based economy. U.S. universities are at the
forefront of this process, cooperating on educational services. As a
former Fulbright scholar, I know firsthand the value of educational
exchanges. If confirmed, I will strongly support these growing
institutional ties and promote long-term partnerships.
A top priority is to protect the welfare, security, and interests
of American citizens as well as our personnel at Embassy Doha. If
confirmed, I will dedicate myself to supporting the American community
and helping it succeed in Qatar.
If confirmed, I look forward to welcoming the committee's members
and staff to Doha. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you
for this opportunity to address the committee. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions you may have. Thank you.
Senator Casey. Thanks very much.
Mr. Tueller.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW H. TUELLER, OF UTAH, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO
THE STATE OF KUWAIT
Mr. Tueller. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to appear before
you today as President Obama's nominee to serve as Ambassador
to the State of Kuwait.
I'm grateful to the President for the nomination and to
Secretary Clinton for her confidence in me and for her
leadership of the Department of State.
If confirmed by the Senate, I will do my best to live up to
their trust and to work closely with this committee and others
in Congress to continue to advance the vital interests of the
United States in Kuwait.
Senator Casey, you very kindly welcomed my two sisters.
With your permission, I'd like to note that my wife, Denise,
and son, Christian, had to remain in Cairo while I came here.
But my two sisters, who represent eight of my sisters and
my one brother, with whom we grew up in the Foreign Service,
were kind enough to join me today. And my five children refer
to those aunts as ``the entourage,'' so I'm happy to have their
support here.
Mr. Chairman, the State of Kuwait has been a reliable
partner and friend in a region of utmost importance to U.S.
interests. Since 1991, U.S. military forces and our coalition
partners have relied heavily on Kuwait's support for our
regional policy priorities. If confirmed, I would work to
expand that support into broader political, social, and
economic arenas.
If confirmed, I will seek to focus intensively on ensuring
that Kuwait continues to act as a full partner with the United
States in regional security efforts.
Kuwait is playing an essential role in the repositioning of
our forces from Iraq. Continuing to foster improved Kuwaiti-
Iraqi relations in coordination with Embassy Baghdad will help
speed Iraq's regional reintegration and create an atmosphere in
which political and trade ties can prosper.
We share with the Government of Kuwait a common interest in
combating the spread of extremist ideology and rooting out
terrorist elements. If confirmed, I will seek to build strong
counterterrorism cooperation, to include increased information
sharing and intensified training efforts.
As states in the region today face popular demands to close
the often yawning gaps between governments and the people,
Kuwait's traditions of open political discourse and
constitutional sharing of power have put the country in a
relatively advantageous position to meet the challenges of this
new era in the Middle East.
Recent parliamentary elections have led to a gradually
increasing role for women in parliamentary and political life.
If confirmed, I will endeavor to help Kuwait to consolidate and
expand those democratic gains.
Mr. Chairman, I have had the privilege of serving my
country as a Foreign Service officer for more than 25 years,
most recently as Deputy Chief of Mission at our Embassy in
Cairo during the turbulent, but inspiring events of the January
25 revolution. My Foreign Service career has included overseas
service in Baghdad, Riyadh, London, Doha, Amman, and Yemen.
As you noted, I've served twice before in Kuwait. The
Ambassadors under whom I served in Kuwait were Edward Gnehm,
Ryan Crocker, and Richard LeBaron. Under their leadership, I
was able to play some part in laying the foundation upon which
the United States-Kuwaiti relationship rests today.
If confirmed, I believe I can make a substantial
contribution of service to the American people as the next
United States Ambassador to Kuwait.
If confirmed to this position, I will work to protect
American citizens and promote U.S. interests, while
consolidating and augmenting the close ties between our
governments' leaders and our peoples.
Again, I'm honored, Mr. Chairman, by this nomination and
the opportunity to appear before you today, and look forward to
your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tueller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Matthew H. Tueller
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is an honor to appear
before you today as President Obama's nominee to serve as Ambassador to
the State of Kuwait. I am grateful to the President for the nomination
and to Secretary Clinton for her confidence in me and for her
leadership of the Department of State. If confirmed by the Senate, I
will do my best to live up to their trust and to work closely with this
committee, and others in Congress, to continue to advance the vital
interests of the United States in Kuwait and in the region.
Mr. Chairman, the State of Kuwait has been a reliable partner and
friend in a region of utmost importance to U.S. interests. Since
Kuwait's 1991 liberation from Saddam Hussein's brutal occupation, U.S.
military forces and our coalition partners have relied heavily on
Kuwait's support for our policy priorities in Iraq, Iran, and
Afghanistan, and in countering terrorist threats. If confirmed, I will
work to expand that support into broader political, social, and
economic arenas to build and sustain a partnership that will advance
key American interests in a region that today is undergoing rapid and
profound change.
If confirmed, I will seek to focus intensively on ensuring that
Kuwait continues to act as a full partner with the U.S. in regional
security efforts. Sustaining and further strengthening our security
partnership will be important to meeting our shared broader regional
strategic objectives. Kuwait is playing an essential role in the
repositioning of our forces from Iraq. Continuing to foster improved
Kuwaiti-Iraqi relations in coordination with Embassy Baghdad will help
speed Iraq's regional reintegration and create an atmosphere in which
political and trade ties can prosper.
We share with the Government of Kuwait a common interest in
combating the spread of extremist ideology and rooting out terrorist
elements that threaten peace and security in the region. If confirmed,
I will seek to build strong counterterrorism cooperation to include
increased information-sharing and intensified training efforts to
ensure the best possible force protection for our troops in Kuwait, as
well as our mission employees, family members, and the larger American
community while continuing to build on the cooperation essential to
countering terrorist threats.
As states in the region today face an unprecedented wave of
popular demands to close the often yawning gaps between governments and
the people, Kuwait's traditions of open political discourse and
constitutional sharing of power have put the country in a relatively
advantageous position to meet the challenges of this dawning era in the
Middle East. Parliamentary elections in 2009 once again gave opposition
voices a significant platform from which to influence and oversee
government policies. The participation of women in elections since 2005
has led to a gradually increasing role for women in parliamentary and
political life. Four women were elected to seats in Parliament in 2009.
If confirmed, I will endeavor to help Kuwait consolidate and expand
those democratic gains, to include supporting the development of
grassroots women's organizations, civil society groups, youth and other
activists, and advancing the rights and protections of vulnerable
populations living within Kuwait's borders.
In addition to deepening our security cooperation and advancing
the strength of civil society, we must seek with our Kuwaiti partners
to create new opportunities for economic partnership, both within and
beyond the energy sphere. Kuwait's objective to become a regional
commercial center, including passing a 5-year $104 billion development
plan, will create commercial opportunities for U.S. companies and
provide us the opportunity to work with the Kuwaiti Government and with
the private sector to promote economic reform and private sector
growth, and create opportunities for aspiring entrepreneurs. The
potential for dynamic synergies between Kuwait and the United States,
combining capital, technology, and expertise to advance global
development, is enormous. Constructive bilateral engagement on trade
and investment-related issues, through tools such as the Trade and
Investment Framework (TIFA), will help support needed reforms and
cement our partnership. If confirmed, I will pursue ongoing policies
that promote increased investment, trade, and project development
between our two countries.
Finally, if confirmed, I will work energetically in reaching out
to Kuwaiti youth via U.S.-sponsored exchange and English language
programs and through Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI)
programming to highlight common interests and emphasize strong bonds of
friendship based on shared core values. Forty-five percent of Kuwait's
population is under the age of 25, and many Kuwaiti youth have no
direct experience regarding the U.S. role in the 1991 liberation of
Kuwait. While heavily exposed to commercial Western media and cultural
influences, the United States must play an active role in exposing them
to the fundamentals of participatory civil society with values of
tolerance and nonviolence. This will ensure stronger bilateral ties and
thus counter the negative extremist influences found all too often in
regional media.
Mr. Chairman, I have had the extraordinary privilege of serving my
country as a Foreign Service officer for more than 25 years, most
recently as Deputy Chief of Mission at our Embassy in Cairo during the
turbulent but inspiring events of the January 25th Revolution. I was in
Egypt as a graduate student taking advanced Arabic classes in October
1981 when President Sadat was assassinated and President Mubarak began
his 29 years of rule. My first exposure to the Middle East was as a
dependent of a Foreign Service officer when my father was assigned to
study Arabic in Tangier from 1965-67 followed by his assignment as
Consul in Tangier from 1967-69. My Foreign Service career has included
service in Washington as Egypt desk officer and Deputy Director of the
Office of Northern Gulf Affairs. Overseas I have served in Baghdad,
twice in Riyadh, in London, Doha, Amman, and Yemen. I have served twice
before in Kuwait, first as Political Counselor following the reopening
of our Embassy in 1991 and then more recently in 2004-07 as Deputy
Chief of Mission. The Ambassadors under whom I served in Kuwait include
Edward Gnehm, Ryan Crocker, and Richard LeBaron and, if confirmed, I
would strive to live up to the examples they set as outstanding U.S.
diplomats. Under their leadership, I was able to play some part in
laying the foundation upon which the United States-Kuwaiti relationship
rests today. I believe I can make a substantial contribution of service
to the American people as Ambassador to Kuwait.
If confirmed as Ambassador, I will work with persistence,
enthusiasm, and stamina to protect American citizens and promote U.S.
interests, while consolidating and augmenting the close ties between
our governments' leaders and our peoples. Again, I am honored, Mr.
Chairman, by this nomination and the opportunity to appear before you
today. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Casey. Thanks very much.
Mr. Fairfax.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH J. FAIRFAX, OF KENTUCKY, TO BE AMBASSADOR
TO THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN
Mr. Fairfax. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today. And I would like to
thank Senator Lugar for his very kind words.
I am deeply honored by the confidence that President Obama
and Secretary Clinton have shown in me by nominating me as the
United States Ambassador to Kazakhstan.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my
wife, Nyetta Yarkin, who is with me here today, as she has been
continuously for the last 25 years, including during my current
assignment at United States Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq.
Last year, President Obama and Kazakhstan President
Nazarbayev reaffirmed the strategic partnership between our two
countries, declaring our commitment to a shared vision of
stability, prosperity, and democratic reform in Central Asia
and beyond.
If confirmed by the Senate, I will work faithfully to
deepen this strategic partnership and I look forward to working
with Congress in pursuit of this goal.
United States interests in Kazakhstan can be grouped into
three strategic areas.
First, we seek to advance sound democratic and economic
reforms. Kazakhstan has had consistently outstanding economic
performance. While it took a short hiatus due to the 2008
financial crisis, already by 2010, growth had returned to 7
percent, and this year it looks to be even stronger.
This economic growth also means that Kazakhstan is a
growing market for American goods and services. And if
confirmed, I intend to lead a concerted effort to cooperate
with and support United States businesses as they expand their
presence in Kazakhstan.
Despite these positive economic achievements, democratic
political institutions in Kazakhstan remain underdeveloped. The
Presidency dominates the political system and the President's
party is the only party represented in Parliament.
The 2010 Human Rights Report highlights other problematic
issues relating to rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom from
arbitrary detention, and other universally recognized human
rights.
If confirmed, I will work with all branches of the United
States Government, as well as with the international community,
to address these issues and to ensure that Kazakhstan fulfills
its commitments to political reform as it prepares for the 2012
parliamentary elections, the first that will result in
multiparty representation.
The second area of United States strategic interest in
Kazakhstan is strengthening global and regional security. With
its courageous decision to renounce nuclear weapons shortly
after the breakup of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan demonstrated
its commitment to international security and nonproliferation,
a commitment that it continues to build upon today through its
active participation in the Cooperative Threat Reduction
Program, the IAEA, and other international organizations.
The United States and Kazakhstan also share a common
interest in bolstering Central Asian security, fighting
terrorism, and stemming narcotics trafficking.
Kazakhstan is supporting efforts in Afghanistan through
expanded overflight rights and through active participation in
the Northern Distribution Network.
Kazakhstan is also dedicating its own resources to the
effort in Afghanistan through a $50 million program to educate
the next generation of Afghan leaders, as well as through
humanitarian assistance.
Our third area of strategic focus in Kazakhstan is world
resource security, particularly energy and food. With a
potential to rank among the world's top 10 oil exporters within
the next several years, Kazakhstan plays an important role in
advancing international energy security at the same time it
builds a basis for its own economic future.
Similarly, Kazakhstan ranks as the world's sixth-largest
grain exporter and is, thus, critical to food security.
Cooperating to further improve Kazakhstan's performance in
these and other areas represents a win-win-win situation for
the United States, Kazakhstan, and the world community. All
three sets of interests--democratic and economic development,
our joint security cooperation, and our shared commitment to
world resource security--are interrelated and must advance
together.
Mr. Chairman, I have spent nearly my entire career serving
in countries in transition, from centrally planned to market
economies, and from authoritarian to representative
governments. I believe that there is an inextricable link
between the growth of an open democratic system of government
and the development of an open, market-based economy. Both are
fueled by the universal desire of people to build a better,
safer, and more prosperous future and together they constitute
the best route toward long-term security and stability.
If confirmed, this belief in the power of an open,
democratic system will guide me as I work to ensure that the
already strong United States-Kazakhstan partnership continues
to growth and strengthen.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fairfax follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kenneth J. Fairfax
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this
opportunity to appear before you today. I am deeply honored by the
confidence with which President Obama, by nominating me for the post of
Ambassador of the United States to Kazakhstan, and Secretary Clinton
have entrusted me. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank
my wife, Nyetta Yarkin, who is here with me today, as she has been with
me continuously for the past 25 years as my work has taken me around
the globe, including to my current posting in Baghdad, Iraq.
If confirmed by the Senate, I will work diligently and faithfully
on behalf of the American people to pursue U.S. foreign policy goals
and to deepen the strategic partnership between the United States and
Kazakhstan. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the Congress
in pursuit of those goals.
Mr. Chairman, Central Asia is a region of significant importance to
U.S. national interests. U.S. policy in the region supports the
development of independent, stable, democratic nations, integrated into
the world economy, that cooperate with one another, the United States,
and our partners to advance regional and global security.
Kazakhstan is an important regional and international partner. It
is geographically strategic, ethnically diverse, and resource rich. It
is the ninth-largest country in the world by land mass, or roughly the
size of Western Europe. The population is 15.6 million people, 59.2
percent of whom are ethnically Kazakh, 25.6 percent ethnically Russian
with the remainder divided among many ethnic minorities. The largely
secular population is 65 percent Muslim, 30 percent Russian Orthodox
with the remainder divided among many smaller faiths. Located at the
crossroads of Europe and Asia and bordered by Russia, China, and the
Caspian Sea, Kazakhstan's size, location, and resources make it
strategically important and key to regional stability. If plans are
approved to expand production at its three largest oil fields,
Kazakhstan's hydrocarbon reserves should, by 2018, rank it as one of
the top 10 world oil producers.
As the first country to renounce its nuclear weapons voluntarily
following the breakup of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan established early
its commitment to international security and credentials for
leadership. Since that debut on the international stage, Kazakhstan has
continued to pursue a policy of active engagement with the global
community, with chairmanships of the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO) in 2010 and Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in 2011,
as well as hosting the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit on June
14-15 of this year.
Kazakhstan is providing significant support to our stabilization
and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. The United States and
Kazakhstan have had an overflight agreement in place since 2001 that
has facilitated over 9,000 overflights and over 85 diverts. Kazakhstan
actively participates in the Northern Distribution Network--which
entails commercial shipment through Kazakhstan of supplies for U.S. and
international forces in Afghanistan. The recent expansion of the 2001
overflight agreement to include new polar routes will significantly
increase the efficiency of operations. In addition to facilitating U.S.
and international efforts to stabilize and strengthen Afghanistan,
Kazakhstan is directly investing in Afghanistan's future development
through a $50 million program to educate the next generation of Afghan
leaders in Kazakhstan's universities. Over time, we hope Kazakhstan
will be part of a revitalized regional economic system encompassing
Central Asia, Afghanistan, and South Asia.
Starting with its voluntary renouncement of nuclear weapons,
Kazakhstan has been and continues to be a key partner on
nonproliferation. Through the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction
program, Kazakhstan has cooperated extensively with the United States
for over a decade on a host of projects to eliminate its Soviet-legacy
Weapons of Mass Destruction infrastructure, secure materials of
proliferation concern, and redirect former Weapons of Mass Destruction
scientists to peaceful purposes. In 2009, Kazakhstan ratified a 7-year
extension to the umbrella agreement for our bilateral Cooperative
Threat Reduction (CTR) program. The United States provided significant
assistance to decommission a Soviet-era nuclear reactor designed to
produce weapons-grade plutonium and to manage the safe and secure
disposal of fuel from that reactor in 2010. Ongoing CTR program
activities include the construction of a state-of-the-art Central
Reference Laboratory to consolidate Kazakhstan's collection of
pathogens. The Kazakhstani Government continues to seek opportunities
to remain actively engaged in nonproliferation cooperation, both
bilaterally and via its pursuit of a more active role in the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Economically, Kazakhstan has laid a solid foundation for its market
economy and future prosperity. Financial reform has created a modern,
full-service banking system. Kazakhstan's natural resource-driven
economy averaged over 9 percent annual growth during the 2001-07,
before dropping to 3 percent in 2008 and 1 percent in 2009 amid the
global financial crisis. Kazakhstan's economy rebounded strongly in
2010, however, posting 7 percent growth, and growth in 2011 is
predicted to be between 7 and 10 percent. Thanks to its strong economic
policies and oil wealth, Kazakhstan has dramatically reduced the
percentage of its population living below the level of subsistence from
28.4 percent in 2001, to 13.8 percent in 2007.
Thanks to Kazakhstan's tremendous natural resource wealth, Customs
Union with Russia and Belarus, and imminent accession to the World
Trade Organization, U.S. companies are recognizing Kazakhstan's
potential. We have the opportunity to export more with the assistance
of the U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service Office in Almaty. U.S. oil
companies, including Chevron, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips, hold
major stakes in Kazakhstan's largest oil and gas projects, Tengiz,
Karachaganak, and Kashagan. U.S. companies do face difficulties,
however, including aggressive tax audits and work permit restrictions.
Despite these concerns, it is clear that U.S. companies and the
Government of Kazakhstan are committed to a long-term partnership.
Exchange programs are effectively strengthening the core of the
United States-Kazakhstan strategic partnership. Via the free exchange
of information and ideas, academic, cultural, and professional
exchanges are one of the most effective tools to promote long-term
relations, as well as economic and social development, and to increase
mutual understanding between citizens of the United States and
Kazakhstan. To promote these exchanges, we have 11 American Corners
throughout the country, which currently reach over 50,000 people
annually. In addition, the Future Leaders Exchange, Hubert Humphrey
Fellowship, Muskie Graduate Fellowship and Fulbright Fellowship
programs all support students from Kazakhstan to pursue studies in the
United States. The Government of Kazakhstan also understands the
strategic importance of both education and exchanges. Since 1994,
Kazakhstan's Presidential Scholarship Program, ``Bolashak,'' has sent
almost 8,000 students to universities in the United States and many
other countries around the world. The newly inaugurated Nazarbayev
University, which will have a Western-style curriculum taught in
English, is partnering with several American universities, including
Duke, University of Wisconsin, Carnegie Mellon, University of
Pennsylvania, University of Pittsburgh, and Harvard Medical School.
In 2010 the United States and Kazakhstan concluded a new Science
and Technology Cooperation Agreement. Both President Barak Obama and
Secretary of State Clinton have advocated the inclusion of science in
diplomacy and ``science diplomacy'' has become an important component
of U.S. foreign policy. Through the Bolashak program and Kazakhstan's
investments in research and education Kazakhstan has adopted the goal
of building an innovation focused economy and will broaden its
cooperation areas with the United States.
Democratic political institutions, civil society, and the
independent media remain underdeveloped in Kazakhstan, the Presidency
dominates the political system, and the Parliament elected in 2007 has
representation from only one political party--the President's. The 2010
Human Rights Report highlights other problematic isues, including
arbitrary arrest and detention, lack of an independent judiciary,
restrictions on freedom of speech, the press, and assembly. We
regularly encourage the government to move forward by taking concrete
steps toward reform, and we have assistance programs that promote
democratic reform and the development of civil society and independent
media.
If I am confirmed, I will work with Kazakhstan's Government and
civil society partners as the nation prepares for parliamentary
elections scheduled in 2012; the first elections that will be governed
by a new law guaranteeing that at least two parties will be represented
in the Parliament. It remains to be seen how representative this new
party system will be, and we will work to encourage a comptetitive,
pluralistic party system. Kazakhstan has expressed its commitment to
reform its election and media laws and to liberalize its political
party registration requirements. It has also committed to reform the
media law in line with recommendations from the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe's Freedom of Media Representative,
which include, among others, to reduce criminal liability for
defamation in the media and to liberalize registration procedures for
media outlets. We will hold Kazakhstan to these commitments.
Recognizing Kazakhstan's important role in Central Asia, in April
2010, President Obama and Kazakhstan President Nazarbayev reaffirmed
the strategic partnership between our two countries, declaring our
commitment to a shared vision of stability, prosperity, and democratic
reform in Central Asia and the broader region.
If confirmed, I would continue to promote the United States-
Kazakhstan strategic partnership's three primary interests. First, we
seek to advance democratic and market economic reforms through
diplomacy and development, including an innovative partnership model
with the Government of Kazakhstan. Economic reform attracts and
sustains foreign investment while democratic reforms will improve
opportunities for Kazakhstanis to participate openly in civic life.
Together these are the only reliable ways to establish long-term
stability. Second, our common security interests include bolstering
Central Asian sovereignty and independence, fighting terrorism and the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and stemming narcotics
trafficking. Third, we have a strategic interest in fostering the
development of Central Asia's very significant natural resources. The
region's resources can substantially advance international energy
security, provided they have a reliable path to global markets via
multiple routes that avoid geographic chokepoints or transportation
monopolies. Energy can also form the basis of long-term economic growth
and prosperity. Kazakhstan has the potential to be an agricultural
power, and, as the world's sixth-largest exporter of grain, is critical
to global food security. All three sets of interests--democratic
development, security cooperation, economic reform and energy--are
interrelated and must advance together.
Mr. Chairman, I have spent nearly my entire career serving in
countries in transition from centrally planned to market economies and
from authoritarian to representative government. From more than two
decades of experience working in countries in Asia, the former Soviet
Union, Central and Eastern Europe and, most recently, Iraq, I firmly
believe that there is an inextricable link between the growth of an
open, democratic system of government and the development of an open,
market-based economy. Both are fueled by the universal desire of people
to build a better, safer and more prosperous future. If confirmed, I
will draw on my many years of experience in countries in transition to
work with the Government of Kazakhstan and to reach out to the people
of Kazakhstan to ensure that the already strong United States-
Kazakhstan partnership continues to grow and strengthen. Kazakhstan is
an important country with a promising future.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
Senator Casey. Thanks very much. Each of you stayed within
your limits, and that's a record, maybe, for our committee.
Thanks very much.
I'll try, in the time that we have, which is about 20
minutes, to get in as many questions as we can. And of course,
I and other members will likely submit questions for the
record, and that should be said at the outset.
Mr. Corbin, I wanted to start with you. One of the major
concerns that our Government has had, and I think it's shared
widely in the region, is the threat posed by the Iranian
regime.
Last summer, when I was in the Middle East on a great trip
where we got to see a lot of places in about 9 or 10 days, my
perception of the consensus in that region at the time was a
real consensus and focus on Iran, and in particular, obviously,
the threat posed by the Iranian regime, even in the absence,
but especially in light of, the potential nuclear threat.
But just the activity of Iran in the region supporting and
being, in my words here, the banker for bad guys in the region.
And that consensus I thought was very helpful to our own
strategy, because even countries that were disagreeing on other
things could come around to agree on the threat posed by the
regime.
In my judgment, that consensus, or at least that focus, has
been degraded because of the changes taking place. People's
attention is focused elsewhere and other crises and issues have
arisen, and that is not good when we take our, in my judgment,
when we take our focus off of Iran.
So I wanted to ask you, with regard to a question about
export controls in the UAE, we know that the UAE's record on
preventing reexport of advanced technology to Iran is
reportedly mixed, and get your thoughts about that. But we know
that numerous Iranian entities involved in Iran's energy sector
and WMD programs have offices in the UAE, and the Iran-Dubai
trade is currently estimated at $10 billion per year.
There are reports that the UAE-based companies Crescent
Petroleum, Dragon Oil, and National Petroleum Construction
Corporation continue to engage in business with Iran, in
potential violation of United States sanctions.
I'd ask you first, as Ambassador, what steps you'd take to
encourage the UAE to improve its export controls and to take
action against their companies who continue to engage in
business with Iran, in potential violation of United States
sanctions.
Mr. Corbin. Thank you, Senator.
And I think our strong dialogue with the UAE, including
most recently the visit of the crown prince to meet with
President Obama earlier this month, provides an opportunity for
the kind of dialogue on Iran that's so important to our Middle
East policy.
On the specifics on export control, the UAE has a law that
they are implementing that seeks to protect their open economy,
which is their hallmark and is a positive indicator for the
region, from being exploited by those who would transship
prohibited items to Iran. We have a strong U.S. agency presence
in the UAE that is cooperating with the Emirati Government in
many areas, including the financial aspects of this
transshipment, and we have strong cooperation on many levels.
If confirmed as Ambassador, I would work to support those
agencies, to support the dialogue that we have on these issues,
and to look for every opportunity to increase the technical
capacities of the Emirati services as they work against this
threat.
Senator Casey. And I'd say the obvious concern we have
broadly in the United States Government, with regard to the
Iranian regime, has a particular significance, I think, within
the Congress. We've worked very hard--I have and others have
worked very hard--to develop consensus around sanctions, to
pass legislation, to improve what we've passed, to add to it,
and to encourage the administration to aggressively enforce
them. So we need all the help that we can get, and obviously
those export controls are part of that.
And I know there's more to explore, but I want to try to
move to as many questions as we can.
Moving next to Kuwait, Mr. Tueller, the past 4 years, as I
mentioned in my opening, Kuwait has been ranked a ``Tier
Three'' country, the lowest level in United States Trafficking
in Persons, in that report, for failing to make sufficient
efforts to comply with minimum standards for the elimination of
trafficking.
I'd ask you why you believe that's the case, why Kuwait has
failed to make progress? And what steps can you take and can we
take to encourage the Kuwaiti Government to enact the
appropriate reforms to deal with this problem?
Mr. Tueller. Senator, thank you very much for the question.
I appreciate that you've raised this issue. I believe it's
important that our allies around the world understand the
importance of antitrafficking to Members of Congress and to the
U.S. public.
As you note, Kuwait has a record that falls far short of
what it should be. Secretary Clinton and other previous
administrations have made clear how important it is to the
United States that we combat this evil.
In Kuwait, the system of employment for guest workers lends
itself to the possibility that employers can exploit workers.
And this becomes particularly the case when it involves
domestic workers who are inside a home, and if not sufficiently
protected, can be deprived of wages, forced to work long hours,
even subjected to physical and sexual abuse.
I know that the current Prime Minister and the Government
of Kuwait abhor these practices and seek to try to counter
them. At times, however, their system of laws has not proved up
to the challenge.
So if confirmed as Ambassador, I will work both with the
Kuwaiti Government and with Kuwaiti partners, NGOs, who have
been very effective in advancing public awareness of this
problem and seeking improvements in two specific areas.
One is taking the existing laws and ensuring that they are
actually implemented, that there are prosecutions of the most
egregious cases as an example and deterrent to others.
Second, ensuring that there is a more robust system of
sheltering and protecting victims once they're identified,
providing them safe places where they can be free from threat
so that they can present testimony. They can be freed from
whatever exploitation has taken place.
So with the support of Congress and the administration, I
believe progress is possible, because I know that there are
many Kuwaitis who understand the importance of making advances
in this area.
Thank you.
Senator Casey. Thank you.
And one other question about democracy. Some of us observe
that Kuwait has often been considered further along than some
other countries on democracy itself. But the recent
demonstrations in the region and, therefore, the reaction by
Kuwait has been the subject of some review. Reports of beatings
of protesters, detentions of journalists, raise questions about
the commitment to human rights and to the rule of law.
What can you tell us that you'll do to encourage a full
commitment to those basic rights and those basic principles
that we expect any government to not just respect, but to
enforce?
Mr. Tueller. Thank you, Senator.
As you note, I believe Kuwait starts from a relative
position of strength, and that it has a long tradition of open
debate, of tolerance for different opinions. And Kuwait has a
constitution that genuinely provides for sharing of power.
The recent events in the Middle East have clearly had an
impact on Kuwait. I believe they've had an impact on every
country and will continue to have an impact as governments
recognize the need to do better, to provide more opportunities
for freedom of assembly; for freedom of opinion; and for people
to have a stake in their futures politically, socially, and
economically.
If confirmed, I will seek to work with the partners that
we've already identified in Kuwait, in some cases members of
Kuwaiti society, political figures, but also with
nongovernmental organizations. Through our MEPI, Middle East
Partnership Initiative, that we have been able to assist in
training women candidates and promoting civic activism and
creating greater civil society organizations.
So I'll be committed to working with those existing
institutions and maintaining a close and candid dialogue with
the Government about how Kuwait can build on its already great
strengths in tolerance and openness in order to set a standard
for the rest of the region.
Senator Casey. Thank you very much.
I move next to Ms. Ziadeh.
In the April 2011 visit to the White House, the Qatari Emir
signaled support for President Obama's position on a two-state
solution for Middle East peace. The country earned criticism in
the West for its policy of engagement with Hamas, and there's
been speculation--and it may just be, at this point,
speculation--that Hamas might be seeking to establish a
permanent office in Doha, due to the ongoing unrest in Syria.
How might the role of Qatar in the negotiations change the
political situation and change--I should say change given the
political situation in Egypt, as well as the unrest in Syria?
Can you speak to that? I know it's a broad and difficult
question, but if you can speak to that, to the extent that
you're able at this stage?
Ms. Ziadeh. Thank you very much for the question. With
regards to Hamas, it is true that Qatar has had relations with
Hamas. And in fact Hamas, at one point, did have an office with
members of their leadership in Doha. And that relationship does
continue, although that office is no longer there.
However, I would certainly, if confirmed, use my good
offices as the Ambassador to encourage the Qatari Government to
use their position as the Chair of the Arab League Peace
Initiative followup committee to call for more direct
engagement between the parties, between the Palestinians and
other parties, with Israel, in terms of solving the Israeli-
Palestinian issue.
Make no mistake: We, as the U.S. Government, consider Hamas
a terrorist organization. And, therefore, we would want to be
able to push on the Qatari Government to work in its capacity
as the Chair to look for direct engagement, direct
negotiations, to bring a just and peaceful solution to the
Middle East conflict.
Senator Casey. And I would hope--you've pointed to this in
what you've said, but I would hope you would reiterate in your
direct discussions with the Qatari Government, when it comes to
the conditions that we expect to be applied to any engagement
with Hamas, that they renounce violence, that they recognize
Israel's right to exist, and that they abide by agreements.
And that three-part test is conjunctive. And they should be
reminded of that, that they've got to meet every condition.
And I know it's particularly complicated, as you would be
assuming this position, but I would urge to you reiterate that
as often as you can.
Ms. Ziadeh. Absolutely. That would have to be part of the
discussion. Absolutely.
Senator Casey. Do you have any sense of the--and I
mentioned that it was speculation, but do you have anything you
can report on that speculation?
Ms. Ziadeh. We have not heard any developments in that
regard to date.
Senator Casey. I would also ask, with regard to relations
with other Gulf Cooperation Council states, what concerns, if
any, does Qatar have about Iran's response to the regional
unrest?
Because, as I mentioned before, the focus that we want to
have on the Iranian regime's threat in the region, that focus,
I think--or that consensus in the region has been, if it hasn't
been degraded, it's at least not been as sharply focused as I
would hope it would be because of the changes in the region.
But do you think they have concerns about Iran's response,
or do you have any sense of that yet?
Ms. Ziadeh. Yes. Well, first of all, Qatar is very much a
regional player, in terms of the GCC and the GCC overall
assessment of regional security. And they have played a very
important and leading role in that.
So they're part of the team effort in looking at the role
of Iran in the region. I would note that the Qataris did send
troops as part of the Peninsula Shield Force that went to
Bahrain, in the face of unrest there and of threats from Iran
on Bahrain. So that was indicative of their position.
It is true that Qatar has a unique relationship with Iran,
due in part, obviously, to the geographic proximity, but more
importantly their economic interests. Iran and Qatar share the
North Dome/South Pars gas field, which is the world's largest
non-associated gas field, and so, therefore, they have economic
interests.
That said, I would note that the work on the fields and the
derivative of the gas there is done independently. There are no
joint ventures.
And in fact, when you look at the relationship in other
economic terms, the amount of trade that Qatar has with Iran is
less than 2 percent of its annual trade. It's negligible. And
Iran, in terms of banking and other issues, it's also
negligible where Qatar is concerned.
The flip side of that, I would note that they host a large
U.S. military contingent there at Al Udeid, with over 10,000
uniformed service personnel. And they certainly do look to us
as an important guarantor in terms of their regional security,
along with other members of the GCC.
So that's how I would characterize the relationship with
Iran.
But, for sure, if confirmed, I would take every opportunity
to impress to the Government of Qatar the importance of our
concerns on the issue of Iran and their growing aggressive role
in the region.
Senator Casey. Thank you very much.
I know our time is limited now, but, Mr. Fairfax, I wanted
to focus a little bit on the Northern Distribution Network,
which we know has the key role of transit for nonlethal
supplies to Afghanistan.
How would you work, if confirmed, to ensure that
Kazakhstan's continued military cooperation with the U.S. and
NATO is ensured? And if you can assess that broadly and
specifically as well?
Mr. Fairfax. As you know, Kazakhstan has already started
playing a role through the Northern Distribution Network, as
well as through expanded overflights.
They key issue, if confirmed, I would plan on working with
going forward is to work on this in a regional basis along with
the other countries. One of the fundamental facts we face is
that Kazakhstan does not border on Afghanistan, and so, it
requires a multiple-step process of moving through Russia,
moving through Kazakhstan, and then helping the process of
Kazakhstan reaching agreement with its neighbors, which it has
recently done, for example, with Uzbekistan, in opening up a
second border crossing there, in order to facilitate the
movement of goods through the Northern Distribution Network
down into Afghanistan.
And I think this is an area where increased cooperation
among the countries themselves and among U.S. missions in the
region can play an important role in pushing forward U.S.
interests.
Senator Casey. One of the difficulties, not just with
regard to Kazakhstan and our relationship there, but also in
plenty of other places throughout the world, is getting that
balance right, when we've got a strategic interest or a
strategic priority like the distribution network is, but also
balancing that with the concerns we have about human rights and
so many other concerns.
With regard to Kazakhstan, that balance is basically
between that strategic priority or interest and respect for
universal human rights.
How do you approach that as an incoming Ambassador, to make
sure that we ensure that we get that balance right?
Mr. Fairfax. Thank you, Senator, for that question,
because, particularly, that's one that's personally important
to me because of my belief that, ultimately, these are not two
separate issues, but simply a question of short-term and long-
term interests that need to be aligned.
As I said in my statement, I believe there is a strong
relationship between security and stability, economic
development, and political development.
Thus far, Kazakhstan's economic development and its
cooperation with the United States on security have certainly
been in the lead, but I think in order for that to continue in
the decades in the future, the democratic development is
important. And we have to continue, both through short-term
actions, such as arguing on behalf of jailed activists, such as
Mr. Zhovtis, but also long term, through public outreach,
educational exchanges, and other efforts that help to bring
Kazakhstan into the mainstream of world thinking and respect
for human rights.
And I think this is actually a hopeful picture in
Kazakhstan, if you look, not just at their willing acceptance
of programs such as the Humphrey program or other exchange
programs, but the fact that they finance, through Bolashak,
3,000 college students to go overseas, many to the United
States, to learn about how the rest of the world operates; the
fact that they are financing Nazarbayev University with
participation of multiple leading U.S. universities and other
international universities.
There is a long-term trajectory toward movement into
internationally accepted norms, and I think those include not
just economic norms but, ultimately, political and human
rights. And that's what I would try to work for as Ambassador,
if confirmed.
Thank you.
Senator Casey. Thank you. And I want to thank every nominee
for your testimony, the answers you gave to questions, the
answers you'll provide by way of response to written questions
that will be submitted.
We're out of time. One of the reasons is I have to vote in
a few minutes, and I won't be able to do both, both stay and
vote at the same time.
But one question I was going to ask and I'll submit it, a
question for the record, because it's so significant, but we
tend to overlook it when we're dealing with foreign policy, is
just the basic question of the economy of the place within
which you serve.
You could be a very capable diplomat, and we could have the
right policy in place, but sometimes the economies of these
places and the economic security of their people can be as
important as any other consideration. So we'll ask you about
that in writing.
But let me conclude on a note of gratitude for your public
service already; your willingness to commit yourselves to a new
assignment, and difficult assignments; and the commitment of
your families at so many levels and at such a great sacrifice.
We're grateful you're doing that, especially at a time of
tension and danger throughout the world, but especially in many
of the places that you serve. We're grateful for that.
And I wish we had more time, but we're limited. And we hope
to see each of you not just confirmed, but also on the road
somewhere, either in the places you'll serve or back here on
Capitol Hill.
But thanks again for your service.
And we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record
Responses of Anne W. Patterson to Questions Submitted by
Senator John F. Kerry
Question #1. While the Egyptian revolution has opened up political
space, there is clearly a serious short-term economic problem. You said
in your opening statement that Egypt must create 750,000 jobs a year
just to keep up with the population growth.
Can you elaborate on how U.S. assistance has been reoriented
to address Egypt's current political and economic challenges?
How can the United States best deploy its economic
development assistance to meet the stated goals of the Egyptian
people of creating sustainable jobs and beginning the process
of long-term economic reform?
Answer. Our goal is to help Egypt's transitional government meet
short-term economic stabilization requirements as well as longer term
economic modernization needs. These two objectives are not mutually
exclusive--rather we can direct our support now to help meet the future
needs of the Egyptian people.
The United States has made available $165 million of bilateral
assistance to support Egypt's immediate needs. President Obama
announced on May 19 that the administration will seek congressional
authorization to provide Egypt up to $1 billion in debt relief under a
debt swap arrangement. The United States would implement this in three
tranches over 3 years, forgiving about $330 million of Egypt's debt
each year. As principal and interest payments come due, we will work
with the Government of Egypt to direct the equivalent amount of
Egyptian pounds to mutually agreed projects that are high-impact,
visible, and benefits Egyptians from all segments of society. This
major effort will require reorienting previously appropriated funds to
cover the budget cost.
Egypt will need to build a stronger private sector, which will
increase entrepreneurial activity and generate new jobs. Developing
Egypt's private sector will require that (1) small businesses have
access to capital in order to start and expand; (2) firms adopt
entrepreneurial approaches and take advantage of new opportunities; (3)
workers' skills meet the actual needs of private sector employers;
(4) the business and regulatory environment is conducive to small
businesses and entrepreneurs; and (5) the U.S. and international
private sector is engaged in this process.
To improve access to finance, we are working with Congress to
establish an enterprise fund for Egypt which would be initiated with up
to $60 million from existing bilateral assistance funds to stimulate
private sector investment, promote projects that support competitive
markets, and encourage public/private partnerships. We are supporting
the expansion of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
to help catalyze Egypt's private sector during its transition. In
addition, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) will
create a 10-year loan guarantee facility in Egypt which could provide
up to $700 million in loans to small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs), supporting over 50,000 local jobs. OPIC will also seek to
provide up to $1 billion in guarantees and/or loans to public/private
partnerships in order to promote growth in mutually agreed-upon sectors
of the Egyptian economy.
To aid in the development of an entrepreneurial ``ecosystem,'' the
State Department's Global Entrepreneurship Program is pursuing multiple
initiatives, including a USAID-funded, Cairo-based Entrepreneur-in-
Residence (EIR). The EIR, in turn, is leading intensive educational
modules--entrepreneur boot camps--that will teach promising
entrepreneurs, women and men, the critical aspects of starting a new
company. It is also facilitating angel capital networks in Egypt to
ensure entrepreneurs, including women and minorities, have the means to
get their ideas off the ground. Finally, the program is planning to
help arrange temporary job placement for students and new entrepreneurs
in U.S.-based startups, to help develop skills matched to market needs.
To encourage commercial networking, USTDA just concluded its
``Egypt: Forward'' forum and facilitated trade missions for the
Egyptian delegates to cities across the United States. We are seeking
every opportunity to leverage private sector activities for their
public diplomacy value and their ability to interest more American
companies in doing business with Egypt. One successful example of this
sort of public-private partnership that is already paying dividends is
Partners for a New Beginning (PNB).
To develop a local chapter for PNB in Egypt, the Aspen Institute
PNB Secretariat will be working with the Egyptian counterparts of our
PNB Steering Committee, such as Cisco, Intel, ExxonMobil, Coca-Cola,
Morgan Stanley, Dow Chemical, and others. The Aspen Institute PNB
Secretariat is meeting with local leaders in Egypt about developing a
locally driven, self-operational committee that will identify local
priorities and implement targeted PNB projects to address those needs.
We will offer the Egyptian people concrete support for economic
policy formulation alongside our democratization efforts. We have been
using and will continue to use bilateral programs to support economic
reform, including outreach and technical assistance from our
government, universities, and think-tanks to individuals, and NGOs in
Egypt. We are also prepared to begin robust discussions with Egypt and
Tunisia and their regional counterparts on a set of strategic trade
initiatives, including the possible expansion of Egypt's Qualifying
Industrial Zones (QIZs).
Question #2. It is clear that corruption and a lack of transparency
about the Egyptian economy were among the engines of the January 25
revolution.
a. How can our assistance efforts be designed to ensure that
they promote transparency and the rule of law?
b. What lessons have we learned from our previous experience
in Egypt in tackling corruption? What lessons have you learned
from your time in Pakistan and elsewhere about the effective
provision of foreign assistance?
Answer. It is a high priority to ensure U.S taxpayer dollars are
used wisely. USAID's Inspector General has an office in Cairo and there
are controls and rigorous procedures in effect to ensure our funds are
not wasted or diverted for other purposes. We will ensure that the
monitoring procedures on all our grants are meticulous.
Tackling the issue of societal corruption was difficult during the
Mubarak government. USAID/Egypt has run a number of rule of law and
human rights, but political will to address corruption issues has been
the key factor that determined whether our programs could translate to
broad societal change. Experience in other transitional situations
indicates that a newly elected government may be highly motivated to
act on campaign promises and address grievances. We will work with the
Egyptians to advance their goals to curb corruption, improve
transparency, and strengthen the judicial system. Our efforts will
benefit from Egypt's status as a party to shared international
anticorruption standards in the U.N. Convention against Corruption, and
the Convention's expert peer review process to assess compliance and
implementation, which will bolster political will and guide reform.
With a portion of the $165 million in transition assistance, we are
already supporting reform in this area, primarily by focusing on how
civil society can broaden public awareness of corruption and build
demand for transparency and accountability. Transparency International,
for example, is building a grassroots anticorruption network in Egypt,
utilizing the U.N.'s checklist on implementation of the U.N. Convention
against Corruption. We are also working with Egyptian and international
organizations to focus on anticorruption campaigns and awareness, media
reporting on transparency and corruption, and business ethics. A recent
U.S.-sponsored regional conference in Rabat, with Egyptian
participation, stressed the importance of these approaches and on the
importance of engaging the full range of stakeholders--citizens,
businesses, NGOs, government officials, the media--in reform. We will
also leverage our regional and global anticorruption efforts to enhance
the impact of our assistance in Egypt. For example, the State
Department has supported the development in recent years of an Arab-led
regional network of anticorruption officials and bodies, which will be
a very useful, ``locally owned'' channel to share good practices with
Egyptian officials and to engage in policy dialogue at the regional
level on key anticorruption reform issues.
In Pakistan, we confronted multiple challenges in our own system
and with the Government of Pakistan in implementing the assistance
program. It required too much time to focus the program on specific
projects. We did not develop quickly enough a convincing narrative
about the meaning of our assistance. While I strongly believe that we
made the right decision to funnel assistance money through the
government--and thus build capacity within the government and encourage
citizens to look to their government for services--it slowed
implementation. Nonetheless, the long-term American commitment
indicated by the Kerry-Lugar-Berman legislation was recognized by a
broad range of Pakistanis, who realized it was a sea change in our
bilateral relationship.
I am determined to avoid the same mistakes in Cairo. We will
undertake a review of the program quickly and focus it on a limited
number of activities, namely support for the private sector, economic
growth, and democracy and governance. I have heard from think-tank
experts that while we have made astonishing advances in (for instance)
maternal and child health with U.S. assistance in Egypt, the capacity
of the Egyptian Government to implement these programs without donor
financing and technical assistance is still limited. This is an issue I
will look at carefully. I look forward to working with the committee on
this issue.
Question #3. In the past, USAID funding has generally been allotted
to NGOs registered with the Egyptian Government, thereby excluding many
civil society groups that the government did not recognize, some of
which played a role in the January 25 revolution. USAID representatives
have said that this policy is being reevaluated and that going forward
USAID and other USG granting institutions will work with both
registered and nonregistered organizations. What is the status of that
reevaluation and how do USAID and the Department of State plan to
engage differently with Egyptian nongovernmental actors in the future?
Answer. We do not distinguish between registered and unregistered
NGOs in our funding decisions. The United States provides funding to
both types of organizations as a policy.
Question #4. What is the status of the initial $150 million
reprogrammed on February 17 to assist with transition and economic
recovery in Egypt? What effects of and responses to that assistance
have you seen thus far?
Answer. In addition to the $150 million reprogrammed on February
17, the USG also repositioned $15 million of previously appropriated
democracy and governance funds designated for Egypt. Of the $165
million, we have reserved $65 million for democracy and governance and
$100 million for economic growth projects.
We have awarded $59 million of the democracy funds, focusing on
elections, labor rights, media freedom, and human rights. For example,
the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) has programmed $4.5
million in small grants to Egyptian, Washington, DC-based, and
international organizations working closely with Egyptian partners.
These grants have provided support to Egyptian organizations in the
preelection environment in the areas of human rights, inclusion,
transparency, and networking/coalition-building. Thirty-two million
dollars was provided to NDI and IRI; and $5.6 million to IFES to
support election administration, political party development
strengthening, voter education, and election observation. Other
activities supported by the democracy funds include:
Support for expanding women's participation in the political
and decision making processes.
Building the capacity of independent worker organizations to
advocate for workers' rights and participate in the democratic
transition.
Training to journalists to serve as a watchdog in the
elections, including support for blogging, for female and youth
citizen journalists.
For the economic growth funds--focusing on private sector,
entrepreneurship, and job growth--we have awarded about $15 million,
with more proposals in negotiations. Another $10 million of the
economic growth funds were recently notified to Congress for transfer
to OPIC to support a small and medium enterprise lending facility.
Question #5. Women protested alongside men during the revolution in
Tahrir Square and played a key role in organizing the protests. How do
U.S. assistance policies address the inclusion of women and minorities
into mainstream decisions in a post-Mubarak Egypt?
Answer. Regrettably, the committee to draft revisions to Egypt's
Constitution in March did not include any women, and the Ministry of
Women's Affairs was abolished soon after the interim government was
formed. Although some women have taken prominent roles in activist
groups, more needs to be done to ensure women's voices are part of
Egypt's transition. We will continue pressing the Egyptian Government
to promote the participation of women in government and political
parties. The United States promoted a conference on June 2 in Cairo,
cosponsored by International IDEA and U.N. Women, to raise the profile
of women's rights in democratic transitions. Chaired by U.N. Women
Executive Director Michele Bachelet, this event advocated for robust
women's political participation and empowerment, with special attention
on Egypt, and has likely laid the groundwork for a ministerial-level
gathering on the subject on the margins of the U.N. General Assembly.
Many of the civil society programs we support aim to empower women
politically and economically, and we will monitor the drafting of
Egypt's new constitution to ensure women's rights are protected.
Support for women as political leaders and candidates will be an
important part of the work NDI and IRI will undertake with U.S.
funding. Additional programs under the $165 million assistance package
with America's Development Foundation, Vital Voices, and six Egyptian
NGOs specifically aim to increase women's participation in elections,
democratic processes and women's rights advocacy--whether as citizens,
activists, or candidates.
Through its local grants program, the Middle East Partnership
Initiative (MEPI) is funding 10 Egyptian NGOs to carry out innovative
projects to break down barriers for women in the legal profession,
raise awareness of women's rights among female students in Upper Egypt,
train ordinary Egyptian women to become community leaders and business
owners, and carry out voter education and corruption awareness
campaigns targeting women, including in lesser developed regions of
Egypt. MEPI also is preparing to fund new Egyptian local grants that
focus on women's rights, economic opportunity, and participation during
the transition.
Economic opportunity for women is a parallel theme, along with
political participation. We will ensure our assistance provides women
with economic opportunities and access to capital, as financial
independence for women sets the groundwork for greater opportunity in
other spheres of life as well. OPIC's projects in Egypt will give
particular focus to women, and the Global Entrepreneurship Program will
increase the number of women participants and match women entrepreneurs
with women mentors. PNB member Coca-Cola is partnering with the MENA
Businesswomen's Network to provide training and skills development
courses for young professional women.
Looking forward, we will also focus more of our International
Visitor Leadership Programs (IVLPs) on women, putting together projects
in the fields of governance, sciences, business, and in economics.
These include sectors in which women are underrepresented. In the 4th
quarter of FY 2011, Egyptian women will take part in IVLP projects such
as ``Youth Leaders,'' ``Women as Political Leaders'' and ``Science and
Technology.'' In FY 2012, Egyptian women will participate in IVLP
projects including ``Global Economic Cooperation and Recovery,''
``Women's Innovations in Science and Engineering,'' ``U.S. Political
System: Background for Journalists,'' ``Women as Political Leaders,''
``Women and Entrepreneurship,'' and ``Small Business Development.'' In
addition, State/ECA will expand programs like TechWomen, in which we
provided six Egyptian women and colleagues from other parts of the NEA
region the opportunity to participate in a professional mentorship
exchange program for women engaged in technology. Additionally, in
2011, two Egyptian women leaders participated in the Fortune/ U.S.
State Department Global Women's Mentorship Program, in which State/ECA
offers emerging women leaders from around the world the opportunity to
develop their leadership, management, and business skills through
mentorships with senior female executives from the Fortune Most
Powerful Women Summit.
Question #6. Many human rights groups have expressed concerns about
ongoing human rights abuses in post-Mubarak Egypt. What is the most
pressing human rights issue in Egypt today?
What steps are being taken to enhance legal protections and
access to due process, particularly in light of ongoing trials
of civilians in military courts? What is the capacity of the
civilian courts to handle the caseload?
What is your interpretation of the tensions and in some
cases, violence, between Copts and Muslims? What efforts are
being made to foster collaboration and reconciliation between
different religious groups within Egyptian society?
In your assessment, how, if at all, have press freedoms
changed in post-Mubarak Egypt and do you think that laws
criminalizing certain journalistic acts will remain in place?
Answer. Despite the fact that the Egyptian Government is committed
to carrying out a democratic transition, serious concerns about human
rights remain. We have raised at the highest levels the need for
Egypt's military leadership to address transparently and inclusively
the grievances of the Egyptian people, including lifting the state of
emergency, protecting freedom of expression and assembly, reforming
security institutions, investigating allegations of abuse by security
forces, conducting trials in civilian, not military, courts, and
transitioning to civilian control of the government through free and
fair elections. Specifically regarding military courts, we have made
clear to the Egyptians our belief that in spite of ongoing security
concerns, criminals can and should be tried in civilian courts. The
Egyptian Government has generally argued that the emergency law is
necessary to maintain security during a volatile period, but in fact,
the persistence of the state of emergency and the use of military
courts have been key factors driving protesters to the streets on
multiple occasions. We also believe that elections held under the
emergency law may not be perceived as free, fair, and credible,
particularly if the government attempts to restrict political parties
and free expression. Although Egypt's court system could be made more
efficient in terms of processing cases, capacity constraints are not
the reason that suspects continue to face trial in military courts.
Sectarian violence remains a troubling problem in Egypt, and there
is a gap between official statements and the security situation on the
ground, as evidenced for example by the violence that erupted in the
Cairo neighborhood of Imbaba. On May 7, riots against two churches in
Imbaba killed 15 and injured 232. Other incidents include the January 1
bombing of a church in Alexandria and the burning of churches in the
village of Sol on March 4. On May 17, Field Marshal Tantawi, the head
of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) issued a strongly
worded, public condemnation of sectarian attacks. The SCAF also stated
that it would investigate and prosecute those responsible for the May 7
Imbaba clashes, and has referred 48 individuals to trial in conjunction
with his case. On June 7, Prime Minister Sharaf attended the formal
reopening of the Holy Virgin Church, one of two churches damaged during
the May 7 riots. The Egyptian transitional government has also allowed
the construction and repair of 17 churches that had previously not been
granted permission to be built or repaired. Unfortunately, the Egyptian
Government rarely refers perpetrators of sectarian violence to courts,
but rather has sought to resolve sectarian tensions through extra-
judicial reconciliation sessions between perpetrators and victims of
violence. We have raised the issue of reconciliation sessions
repeatedly with the Egyptian Government, and again have urged the
Egyptian Government to abide by due process of law.
On May 14, Prime Minister Sharaf announced the formation of a
National Justice Committee to draft an antidiscrimination law and
consider a ``unified places of worship law'' within 30 days--two key
Coptic Christian demands. On June 1, the Egyptian Cabinet announced
that it had approved a draft ``Unified Law for Organizing the
Construction of Places of Worship.'' This draft law, which governs the
building and renovation of churches and mosques, is currently under
public review, and some Coptic leaders and human rights activists have
raised concerns during this review process that the draft law does not
free the approval process for church construction from political
influence that has allowed for discrimination. We are closely following
the development of this legislation and urging the Egyptian Government
to pass and implement it, taking into account the concerns raised by
religious leaders and human rights groups as the law moves forward.
We remain very concerned about incidents of sectarian violence in
Egypt and will continue to monitor this issue closely. We will continue
to impress upon the Egyptian Government the importance of taking steps
to confront sectarian violence, including steps to reverse
discriminatory laws and treatment, of holding perpetrators of violence
accountable, and of fostering an environment that promotes religious
tolerance. Following parliamentary elections in September, Egyptians
will draft a new constitution, and we are working to ensure that the
final document fully respects the rights of religious minorities.
We are aware of recent interrogations of journalists, bloggers, and
judges critical of the SCAF and military and have made our concerns
regarding such cases clear to the Egyptian Government and the SCAF.
Freedom of expression is a critical component of any democratic state,
and we have repeatedly stated that attempts to silence political
opposition in Egypt are unacceptable. Following the revolution, many
new television stations and newspapers have emerged, but the military
remains highly sensitive to how it is depicted in the media. It is too
soon to tell whether laws on freedom of expression will change once
Egypt has completed its transition back to civilian rule.
Question #7. Has the State Department received any response or
signal from the Egyptian Government regarding the presence of
international monitors at the upcoming election? In your assessment
what technical support is necessary to foster a robust electoral
process and strong political parties? How might the United States and
the international community address those needs, particularly in light
of ambivalence in the face of democracy and governance assistance?
Answer. On July 20, 2011, the press reported that Major General
Shahin, spokesman for the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF),
announced that international observers would not be invited to monitor
Egypt's elections. We have expressed disappointment that Egypt's
transitional government has chosen not to invite international
observers, but continue to encourage Egypt to accept monitors as it is
a standard practice among democratic states.
The SCAF has begun clarifying procedures for September's
parliamentary elections but much remains to be decided. Egypt's youth
leaders and new political parties face the challenge of quickly
organizing campaigns. Among the issues that the Egyptian Government
must address are setting up and securing polling sites, safeguarding
the transfer of ballot boxes, training poll workers, and educating the
many new voters who will likely turn out in September. U.S. Government
programs are helping to address some of these issues, and we are
working with the Egyptian Government and international partners to
provide additional assistance in this important area.
Question #8. Noor and Ramsay Bower, 8 and 10 years old
respectively, were abducted by their Egyptian mother, Mirvat El Nady,
in August 2009 and taken to Egypt without the knowledge or consent of
their American father, Colin Bower.
On December 1, 2008, a U.S. court granted Mr. Bower sole legal
custody and joint physical custody of the children. United States
courts ruled again on August 28, 2009, granting Mr. Bower sole legal
and physical custody of the children. A federal warrant and an Interpol
Red Alert have been issued for the mother on charges of kidnapping.
If confirmed, what will you do to ensure that Mr. Bower once
again acquires custody of his children?
In accordance with the ``Memo of Understanding on Consular
Cooperation in Cases Concerning Parental Access to Children,''
the U.S. Embassy in Cairo has liaised with the appropriate
officials in Egypt in attempts to facilitate regular
visitations for Mr. Bower, but to date, only three such visits
have taken place. The most recent visit took place in early
December 2010, and to my knowledge the mother has been
unresponsive to requests for visitations since the January 25
Revolution. If confirmed, will you offer Colin the support of
the U.S. Embassy to ensure that regular visitations resume as
soon as possible and that they continue with necessary
frequency until Noor and Ramsey return to their father?
Answer. Secretary Clinton and the Department have been in direct
contact with Egyptian authorities at senior levels concerning this
matter. I have met Mr. Bower and we will continue to raise this case
with appropriate Egyptian authorities in the hope of seeing Noor and
Ramsay returned to Mr. Bower. Both the Special Advisor for the Office
of Children's Issues, Ambassador Susan Jacobs, and the U.S. Consul
General in Cairo have, on multiple occasions, worked directly with Mr.
Bower on this difficult matter. The Office of Children's Issues is very
engaged on Mr. Bower's behalf. We will continue to press the Egyptian
Government to sign the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction.
We will also continue to work with the Egyptian Ministry of Justice
in order to support Mr. Bower in his efforts to visit with his
children. A meeting between Mr. Bower and his children is currently
scheduled in Cairo for July 9. An Egyptian court granted visitation
rights to Colin Bower to see his children on the second and fourth
Friday of each month. Mr. Bower's inability to visit regularly with the
children has been exacerbated since the events of January 25. We will
do all that we can to assist with Mr. Bower's efforts to obtain
consistent access to his children.
______
Responses of Michael H. Corbin to Questions Submitted by
Senator John F. Kerry
Question. How has the recent regional political change and unrest
of the Arab Spring affected the views of the leadership of the United
Arab Emirates about their country's political system, including power-
sharing between Emirates and the partially elected Federal National
Council? What challenges, if any, has the recent political upheaval
created for U.S.-UAE relations?
Answer. The UAE was as surprised as we all were by the suddenness
of the popular uprisings and the speed with which they spread across
the region. They have sought to maintain stability at home and abroad.
Generally speaking, the UAE has remained stable and cohesive in the
face of protests in surrounding countries.
The FNC serves in an entirely advisory capacity but is an important
feature of the Emirati political landscape. The Emirati leadership
recently announced various reforms expanding the electoral college vote
in the FNC election ninefold, but this still amounts to only a small
percentage of the citizenry. The UAE Government is gradually
introducing reforms aimed at increasing political participation; most
recently, the leadership announced it was developing plans to move
toward universal suffrage as early as 2019.
We engage with the Emirati Government regularly and at all levels
regarding the universal principles of freedom of expression, assembly,
and association. The UAE and the United States do not always see eye to
eye on the popular uprisings of the Arab Spring, but we have maintained
a robust and productive dialogue throughout this period of historic
change.
Question. What is the administration's view of the UAE's
participation in the Peninsula Shield force deployed by the GCC to
Bahrain during the recent unrest there? How does the UAE population
view their involvement?
Answer. The Government of Bahrain invited the UAE to deploy forces
and the UAE responded affirmatively to that request.
There has been no evidence of backlash within the Emirati
population regarding the deployment of Peninsula Shield forces.
Question. How would you assess the strengths and weaknesses of the
UAE economy? What prospects are there for increasing bilateral trade
and investment flows? What is the status of Dubai's economy, 2\1/2\
years into the global economic crisis? How has the relationship between
Dubai and Abu Dhabi shifted, if at all, since the beginning of the
economic crisis?
Answer. The strengths of the UAE economy are its location,
innovative leadership, and natural resources. In addition to having
large natural gas and oil deposits, it is a transshipment hub and has
made open trade and transport its hallmarks since before it existed as
a nation. It is the No. 1 destination for U.S. exports in the Middle
East, 2 years running.
The leadership of the UAE is acutely aware of the fact that its
hydrocarbon resources will eventually run out. It has been seeking to
diversify its economic base and compete in international markets in
order to mitigate possible future negative economic effects. The UAE
has become the regional headquarters for over 700 American companies
active in the petroleum, defense, services, education, and health care
sectors. It has developed a leading role in business services,
including finance and logistics, and has emerged as the primary
business hub between Asia and Europe. It is also seeking a leading role
in the research and development of renewable energy.
Bolstered by strong oil revenues, Abu Dhabi has contributed
significantly to stabilizing the Dubai economy following a real estate
crash triggered by the 2008 global financial crisis. The Abu Dhabi
leadership continues to work with the authorities in Dubai to
strengthen the UAE's economic standing following the global financial
crisis. Several of Dubai's Government-linked real estate development
firms have successfully restructured debt and developed repayment plans
for contractors, including a number of American companies.
Question. What is the perspective of the administration on the
recent arrests of figures calling for political reform by the Emirati
authorities?
Answer. We engage the Emirati Government regularly and at all
levels regarding the universal principles of freedom of expression,
assembly, and association. Our Embassy and senior Department officials
have been reaching out to the Emirati Government regarding our concern
that any trials be conducted in a transparent and open manner in
accordance with international standards of due process. If confirmed, I
will continue to make these points. We understand the lawyers for the
five defendants have asked that the trial be closed to the public and
the press. We will continue to monitor the situation to the best of our
ability.
Question. How would you assess the UAE's level of cooperation in
implementing U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, which imposes
sanctions against Iran? Please describe any U.S. efforts to cooperate
with the UAE on implementation of Iran sanctions.
Answer. The UAE takes seriously its international obligations to
enforce sanctions against Iran. We have had excellent cooperation with
the UAE on implementation on UNSCR 1929 and look forward to our
continuing close efforts. The UAE has a strong track record of
disrupting or preventing transfers to Iran of items of proliferation
concern. It has also taken good steps in the area of proliferation
finance.
The UAE has a national strategy to protect the reputation of its
historically open trade environment against abuse by proliferators. In
August 2007, the UAE passed comprehensive strategic trade control
legislation providing the basis for an enforceable export control
system. The law is currently being enforced and we have been working in
close partnership with UAE authorities to halt attempts to divert
sensitive dual-use technology, including U.S.-origin goods, from the
UAE. With respect to enforcement and counter proliferation issues, the
UAE is an active participant in the Proliferation Security Initiative
(PSI) and hosted, in January 2010, a major multinational PSI exercise,
LEADING EDGE. They also cohosted with the United States a Global
Transshipment Conference in March 2011 designed to focus international
attention on the problems of illicit transshipment and ways to address
them.
If confirmed, I will continue to advance our policy of working with
the UAE to ensure our continued cooperation as we seek the full
implementation of sanctions on Iran. This has been a top priority and
will continue to be one under my tenure, if confirmed. I will also
continue our efforts to prevent the sale of refined petroleum products
to Iran, with a focus on monitoring of and reporting on efforts by
commercial entities to evade international and U.S. sanctions,
including the CISADA refined petroleum sanctions.
Question. The UAE was listed as a Tier 2 country in the State
Department's 2010 Trafficking in Persons Report. What are the most
concerning aspects of government policy on this issue and what steps
will you take as Ambassador to address the widespread problem of human
trafficking, particularly on the issues of sex and labor trafficking?
What steps has the government taken to regulate and protect its migrant
domestic workers? Please describe any opportunities for public
diplomacy activities related to trafficking in persons and any
technical cooperation or other partnership initiatives being undertaken
on this issue.
Answer. UAE's human trafficking problem is serious. We have
witnessed strong efforts to tackle sex trafficking through punishing
traffickers and expanding victim protection services. Over the past
year, the UAE established a special court to hear human trafficking
cases in Dubai and opened two new shelters for victims of trafficking.
However, challenges remain for the UAE to combat its considerable and
multifaceted problem of forced labor, including among its population of
migrant domestic workers.
Our concerns about the forced labor of migrant workers and the
trafficking of women and girls for prostitution in this region have
been highlighted many times and at many levels--to governments, civil
society, source countries, the media, and to victims. If confirmed, I
will continue to urge the UAE to focus their attention on these serious
issues and continue to prosecute trafficking offenses; identify and
provide protection for victims of trafficking; and end labor practices
such as the withholding of passports by employers that make foreign
workers vulnerable to abuse.
Question. Can you describe the range of ways in which the UAE has
supported and continues to support the Libyan Transitional National
Council since the conflict in Libya began? What has been the UAE's role
in supporting the temporary funding mechanism established by the Libya
contact group?
Answer. The UAE is a key partner in NATO-led operations in Libya,
and is providing pilots and aircraft to assist with the no-fly zone and
civilian protection mission. The UAE is a leader in working to protect
the Libyan people and stabilize the situation in that country, and has
disbursed several million dollars in humanitarian aid to those affected
by the crisis.
On June 9, the UAE hosted the most recent Libya Contact Group
meeting in Abu Dhabi and is cochairing the July 15 meeting in Istanbul.
The Abu Dhabi meeting built on the previous Contact Group meetings in
Doha and Rome to solidify international resolve in ensuring the
departure of Qadhafi from power. The Contact Group in Abu Dhabi also
issued a statement which stressed that Qadhafi has lost legitimacy and
must go, the use of force against civilians must cease, regime forces
must withdraw from cities they have occupied, and a political
transition must be based on the Transitional National Council's (TNC)
inclusive approach expressed in its ``Roadmap on Libya.'' Under UAE
leadership, the Contact Group meeting in Abu Dhabi also announced the
establishment of a temporary financial mechanism to channel financial
support to the TNC. In the runup to that meeting, the UAE offered
concrete suggestions that helped structure the Temporary Financing
Mechanism (TFM) and build consensus in support of its establishment.
The UAE recognized the Transitional National Council on June 12 as
``the sole legitimate representative for the Libyan people'' on the
occasion of an official visit to Abu Dhabi by TNC leader Mustaf Abdul
Jalil. UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed noted in the wake of the
visit that the UAE would ``work toward helping our Libyan brothers out
of this difficult situation.'' On June 13, the UAE expelled the pro-
Qadhafi Libyan Ambassador from Abu Dhabi and committed to opening a
representative office in Benghazi in the near future, which the Foreign
Minister pointed to as a sign that it wanted to establish ``government-
to-government relations'' with the TNC.
Question. How would you characterize the UAE's approach to Hamas
and to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict more broadly?
Answer. The UAE supports a two-state solution as well as the dual-
track strategy of pursuing a vigorous political negotiation along with
an equally vigorous and mutually reinforcing institution-building
track. They have also helped shape the
Arab League position on supporting direct negotiations between Israel
and the Palestinians.
Among Arab partners, the UAE has a history of strong financial
support to the Palestinian Authority's development of responsible
institutions, which is imperative to maintaining a viable partner for
peace talks: the UAE provided $134 million in 2008, $173 million in
2009, $42 million in 2010, and thus far has contributed an additional
$43 million in 2011.
While the UAE supported Fatah-Hamas reconciliation, it shares our
concerns about Islamist extremist groups such as Hamas and the Muslim
Brotherhood.
Question. What is the status of U.S.-UAE defense cooperation? What
are the major priorities of each side?
Answer. Cooperation on defense is a central pillar of our strategic
partnership and is reflected in regular bilateral strategic security
discussions. The port of Jebel Ali in Dubai is the U.S. Navy's busiest
overseas port of call and the UAE is our largest Foreign Military Sales
cash customer in the world. The Emirati Air Force annually hosts the
United States and other air forces for ``Iron Falcon,'' a training
exercise at the UAE Air Warfare Center. The UAE has worked with
international partners, including the United States, to limit illegal,
destabilizing activities in the gulf and organized an international
conference on countering piracy March 18-19 of this year. On May 19 the
North Atlantic Council approved the establishment of a separate UAE
mission to NATO making the UAE, along with Japan, one of the first two
non-Partnership for Peace partner missions and the United States was
highly supportive of this effort.
The major priorities of both the UAE and the United States are to
continue our close security partnership and to promote peace and
security in the region.
______
Responses of Matthew H. Tueller to Questions Submitted by
Senator John F. Kerry
Question. How has the regional political change and unrest of the
Arab Spring affected the political situation in Kuwait? To what do you
attribute the fact that Kuwait has not been faced, to date, with mass
popular unrest?
Answer. Kuwait is in a unique position, having long been one of the
countries in the Middle East where political freedoms are embraced and
upheld by the government and society. Well-defined democratic
principles are enshrined in Kuwait's constitution, and reflected in
free competitive legislative elections, a fully elected and empowered
Parliament, a vibrant civil society, and relatively open press
environment. Kuwait's Government also ensures that Kuwaiti citizens
benefit from the country's wealth by subsidizing education and health
care and at times taking steps to offset for citizens increases in the
cost of living.
Kuwait has witnessed some peaceful, organized rallies this spring.
Ongoing tensions between elements within Parliament and the Kuwaiti
Government led to the Cabinet's decision to resign earlier this spring.
There were some rallies in the leadup to that period, and also
following the swearing in of the new Cabinet. Kuwait's bidoon or
``stateless'' residents also organized several rallies this spring to
bring attention to the demands of their population, including in areas
such as better access to health care, education, and job opportunities.
Question. Kuwait has been listed as a Tier 3 country in four
consecutive State Department Trafficking in Persons Reports. Why, in
the administration's view, has Kuwait failed to make progress to curb
trafficking in persons? What are the most concerning government
failures on this issue? Migrant workers working in domestic service
face particular hardships that in some cases have caused them to flee
back to their countries of origin. What is Kuwait doing to prevent
these types of abuses? Please describe how you intend to press this
issue as Ambassador.
Answer. The situation for migrant workers remains particularly
precarious in light of the restrictive sponsorship system, which
effectively gives sponsors power over the movement and activities of
the migrants, making foreign workers extremely vulnerable to forced
labor. Domestic workers are particularly vulnerable given their
isolation within private homes.
Kuwait's victim protection structure and law enforcement efforts
are fundamentally weak. While the GOK operates a shelter for victims of
trafficking, it has not developed a procedure to identify and refer
victims to the facility.
Currently, draft legislation prohibiting trafficking is stalled in
the legislature. Although the Department has encouraged Kuwait for
years to use existing laws to punish traffickers, the government
remains reluctant to prosecute Kuwaiti citizens for trafficking
offenses.
If confirmed, I would like to see and will encourage the Kuwaiti
Government to actively prosecute and punish acts of forced labor,
including against employers who use violence, threats, or restrictions
on movement (such as withholding of passports and exit permits) to
compel labor. Additionally, if confirmed, I would like to see and will
encourage the Kuwaiti Government institute a formal identification
procedure to adequately find and protect victims of TIP.
Question. How would you assess Kuwait's level of cooperation in
implementing U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, which imposes
sanctions against Iran? Please describe any U.S. efforts to cooperate
with Kuwait on implementation of Iran sanctions.
Answer. Kuwait, which is increasingly concerned about Iran's
disruptive influence in the region, is committed to full implementation
of UNSCR 1929. Kuwait is alarmed by Iran's continued refusal to comply
with its United Nations Security Council obligations and with
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. The Kuwaiti
Government has publicly urged Iran to abide by IAEA and Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations. Kuwait fears that the
development of an Iranian nuclear weapons capability would have a
destabilizing effect on the region as a whole and in particular for
Kuwait, given the geographic proximity of the two countries, and
therefore has urged Tehran to work with the international community to
ensure full transparency of Iran's nuclear program. If I am confirmed
as Ambassador, I will continue our candid dialogue with the Kuwaiti
Government to use sanctions and other measures increase pressure on
Iran and encourage it to engage on the nuclear issue.
Question. On January 12, 2011, the Prime Minister of Kuwait became
the first Kuwaiti Prime Minister to visit Iraq since the August 2,
1990, invasion. To what extent has progress been made on Iraqi-Kuwaiti
issues such as border demarcation, reparations, diplomatic and economic
normalization, and the status of the missing Kuwaiti state archives?
What role, if any, might the United States play in support of
normalization between Iraq and Kuwait?
Answer. There have been positive developments in the Iraq-Kuwait
relationship over the past several years, including the reestablishment
of diplomatic ties. Kuwait sent an ambassador to Baghdad in 2008, and
Iraq sent an ambassador to Kuwait in 2010. These steps reflect a shared
desire to strengthen the bilateral relationship, and rebuild the trust
that was destroyed by Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.
We were encouraged to see Iraq and Kuwait launch a joint
ministerial commission earlier this year. This commission provides a
useful forum for the two sides to discuss cooperation and steps forward
to achieve progress on all outstanding issues in the bilateral
relationship.
Going forward, additional issues must be discussed. Iraq needs to
quickly fulfill its remaining obligations under the relevant Chapter
VII Security Council resolutions pertaining to the situation between
Iraq and Kuwait, including the resolutions on the Iraq-Kuwait border
and efforts to locate Kuwaiti nationals and Kuwait's national archives
missing from the first gulf war. This will create a more positive
atmosphere in which to address other outstanding issues.
Given the United States unique relationship with both Iraq and
Kuwait, we are in an advantageous position to play a positive role in
achieving progress on this issue. If confirmed, I will work toward
strengthened dialogue between Iraq and Kuwait, utilizing existing
channels such as the ICRC-led Tripartite Commission and Tripartite
Subcommittee, and the newly established Iraq-Kuwait Joint Ministerial
Commission.
Question. What is the view of the Kuwaiti Government on the
Peninsula Shield operation? What are the views of the Kuwaiti people?
How was the rejection of a Kuwaiti medical team in Bahrain in March
perceived by the government? What is the potential for Kuwait to play a
mediating role in the ongoing conflict in Bahrain?
Answer. Both the Government of Kuwait and Kuwaiti civil society
have been playing an active role in trying to mediate between the
Government of Bahrain and the opposition to find a political solution
to the crisis. When the Government of Bahrain appealed to other GCC
member states for assistance, the Government of Kuwait, concerned by a
possible Iranian role in the unrest, responded to what it saw as its
treaty obligations under the GCC mutual defense pact by deploying naval
ships to protect Bahrain from external aggression. Kuwait's role in the
Peninsula Shield intervention has been the subject of vigorous debate
in the local media, within political society, and in the National
Assembly, with some factions calling on the government to send ground
forces to Bahrain and others urging their government not to participate
at all. On March 31, the Cabinet--which was facing a number of
interpellation motions, including some related to the Peninsula Shield
operation and the Government of Bahrain's decision earlier that month
to refuse entry to a team of Kuwaiti medics--resigned en masse. The
Prime Minister himself, who was reappointed in early May, stood for
interpellation on June 14 to defend his government's action on Bahrain;
though some opposition MPs subsequently filed for a noncooperation
motion against him, the Prime Minister defeated that vote on June 23.
Question. Some Kuwaiti women viewed it as a major breakthrough that
four women were elected to the National Assembly in 2009, without any
quotas or set-asides. What is your assessment of their influence in the
National Assembly and more broadly of women's political participation
in Kuwait?
Answer. Kuwait's female parliamentarians, all of whom hold doctoral
degrees from American universities, have proven to be among the most
active and productive of all National Assembly members. In so doing,
they have secured the admiration of some who were previously skeptical
of women's abilities to succeed in this environment, and have even on
occasion formed alliances with them on issues of cross-cutting concern.
With the female MPs' assistance, the Cabinet and National Assembly have
continued to chip away at legislation that discriminates against women,
particularly in terms of benefits allocations. Now 6 years after
gaining suffrage, women continue to play an important role in Kuwait,
both inside and outside of Parliament. Traditionally, at least one
woman has served in the Cabinet (currently, the Minister of Commerce
and Industry, Dr. Amani Khalid Buresli, is a woman) and women hold
leadership positions in both the public and private sectors. Women also
continue to play their historically active role in Kuwaiti civil
society, advocating not only for women and children's rights, but for
human rights more generally.
______
Responses of Susan L. Ziadeh to Questions Submitted by
Senator John F. Kerry
Question. What impact does the recent Arab Spring have on Qatar's
domestic politics and process of political liberalization? Has Qatar's
economic situation helped the country weather the wave of popular
unrest sweeping the region? If so, how? And how can the U.S.
incentivize the Qataris to open up their political system more?
Answer. Qatar has not experienced domestic demonstrations or
protests. The country's small, homogenous population and wealth
insulate it from many of the factors that are driving protests in other
countries. Qatar's unemployment rate is extremely low, it has the
world's highest per capita GDP, and the country ranked 19th in the
Transparency International's 2010 Corruption index. Nevertheless, Qatar
has taken small but important steps to increase citizen participation
in government. It held municipal council elections in May 2011 and
announced that it will hold elections for its advisory council soon.
This would be an important step forward and demonstrate Qatar's
commitment to implementing meaningful reform. It is U.S. policy that
governments need to be transparent, accountable, and responsive to
their citizens. If confirmed, I will encourage Qatar to build on the
steps it has already taken and advocate for government transparency,
accountability, responsiveness and greater citizen participation in
governance.
Question. What role does Qatar play in the Peninsula Shield forces
sent to Bahrain in light of the ongoing unrest there?
Answer. Qatar is a member of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC),
and the United States understands that Qatar contributed a small number
of people to the Peninsula Shield Force. According to the GCC and the
Government of Bahrain, the Peninsula Shield Force was used to protect
government installations and critical infrastructure. The Government of
Saudi Arabia has announced that some of their Peninsula Shield troops
are leaving Bahrain; we have no reason to believe there are any Qatari
forces currently in Bahrain.
Question. Please comment on Qatar's cooperation in implementing
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, which imposes sanctions against
Iran. How has the decision to participate in the Peninsula Shield force
deployed to Bahrain affect Qatar's bilateral relationship with Iran?
Answer. Qatar is an active participant in the Gulf Cooperation
Council and it shares the same concerns as other gulf countries
regarding Iran's interference in regional issues and its nuclear
program. Qatar enforces U.N. sanctions on Iran. It does not appear that
Qatar's decision to participate in the Peninsula Shield Force has had
any effect on its bilateral relationship with Iran.
Question. Can you describe the range of ways in which Qatar has
supported and continues to support the Libyan Transitional National
Council since the conflict in Libya began? What has been Qatar's role
in supporting the temporary funding mechanism established by the Libya
contact group?
Answer. Qatar has taken an important leadership role in Libya. It
was the first Arab country to join the coalition and provide military
assets to Operation Unified Protector. Qatar has sent significant
amounts of humanitarian assistance to Libya. It helped establish an
independent Libyan TV station to counter Qadhafi's propaganda and is
marketing oil for the Transitional National Council (TNC). Qatar has
also recognized the TNC as the legitimate representative of the Libyan
people. Qatar has coordinated closely with several international
partners, including the United States, France, and the U.K., to
establish a Temporary Financing Mechanism (TFM) to facilitate
contributions to the TNC. Qatar pledged $100 million to the TNC at the
June Libya Contact Group meeting in Abu Dhabi.
Question. The Qatari-funded Al Jazeera media outlet has received
criticism for being selective in its coverage of the unrest across the
Arab world. What impact does Al Jazeera have in the projection of
Qatar's soft power in the region? How much influence does the
Government of Qatar have on Al Jazeera's coverage?
Answer. Al Jazeera's coverage of the Arab Spring, especially in
Tunisia and Egypt, has had a profound impact on events in the region.
Al Jazeera's reach extends beyond the Arab world. The network, through
its Arabic and English channels, has established itself as a global
media platform that broadcasts across the world--from the Western
Hemisphere to Europe, Asia, and Africa. The Qatari Government provides
significant funding for Al Jazeera but has long maintained that Al
Jazeera operates independently.
Question. Relations between Qatar and Egypt under President Mubarak
were cold and tense. How do you see relations between the two countries
evolving now that there is new leadership in Egypt? What is the status
of Qatar's pledged financial assistance of $10 billion to Egypt? How
are the United States and Qatar coordinating efforts to offer Egypt
financial assistance?
Answer. Qatar has welcomed the transition in Egypt and expressed
interest in investing several billion dollars in Egypt. Qatari
officials have made several trips to Egypt to explore areas for
cooperation and investment. The United States is coordinating with
Qatar and Egypt to identify investment opportunities, and to reduce
duplication our effort and to maximize support for Egypt's economic
recovery. The United States will continue to encourage Qatar to support
Egypt as it undergoes its transition to democracy.
Question. Qatar has in recent years enjoyed close relations with
Hamas, leading to some speculation that Hamas might relocate to Doha.
How would you characterize Qatar's approach to Hamas and to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict more broadly?
Answer. The Government of Qatar (GOQ) has a relationship with Hamas
and there have been press reports that Hamas will relocate its
headquarters. Doha has been mentioned as a possible location, but there
have not been any announcements by Hamas or the GOQ about relocation of
Hamas' headquarters to Doha. The United States considers Hamas a
terrorist organization, and we continue to raise our concerns about
Hamas with the GOQ. As head of the Arab League Peace Initiative Follow-
Up Committee, Qatar can play a positive role in encouraging Middle East
peace efforts. The committee issued a statement that welcomed President
Obama's May 19 speech calling for a two-state solution.
The U.S. goal is to encourage direct engagement by the parties on
the basis of President Obama's May 19 speech in order to try to reach
an agreement that resolves the permanent status issues and brings an
end to the conflict.
Question. Qatar was listed as a Tier 2 Watch List country in the
State Department's 2010 Trafficking in Persons Report. What are the
most concerning government failures on this issue and what steps will
you take as Ambassador to address the widespread problem of human
trafficking, particularly on the issues of sex and labor trafficking?
What steps has the government taken to regulate and protect its migrant
domestic workers? Please describe any opportunities for public
diplomacy activities related to trafficking in persons and any
technical cooperation or other partnership initiatives being undertaken
on this issue.
Answer. Trafficking in persons (TIP) remains a serious problem in
Qatar. The State Department continues to engage the Government of Qatar
(GOQ) on the issue and helped push the GOQ to develop a comprehensive
action plan to address TIP. In addition, the GOQ is close to enacting a
TIP law that will significantly strengthen its ability to investigate
and prosecute TIP. We have recommended to the Qataris that it improve
its antitrafficking policies by increasing law enforcement against
trafficking offenders and enhancing procedures to identify victims to
ensure that they receive protection services. The current U.S.
Ambassador to Qatar recently published an op-ed in a Qatari newspaper
to highlight the 2011 Trafficking in Persons report. If confirmed, I
will engage a variety of stakeholders, including the GOQ and civil
society, to advocate for increased efforts to prosecute traffickers,
protect victims, and prevent trafficking.
______
Responses of Hon. Anne W. Patterson to Questions Submitted by
Senator Richard G. Lugar
Question. What instructions do our representatives at the World
Bank and the International Monetary Fund have with regards to the need
for political and economic reform ``conditionalities'' as part of any
additional lending or assistance programs to Egypt?
Answer. We support ambitious reform benchmarks for international
financial institution (IFI) assistance that reinforce the homegrown
agenda of Egyptian reformers and civil society, including support for
the democratic transition and a macroeconomic program that promotes
economic stability and growth. Egyptian citizens are demanding greater
accountability and equity, so we are supporting conditionality that
fosters transparency and a level playing field, targets key measures
that can be credibly implemented, and creates conditions for future
reforms by catalyzing domestic pressures for good economic governance
and sustainable and inclusive growth.
The Government of Egypt recently revised its budget to reduce
public spending and external financing needs. We therefore believe it
is unlikely that Egypt will begin a new lending program with the IMF
prior to elections.
Question. I believe it is critical, given the dramatic changes in
the Middle East, that the NEA bureau is able to staff all of its
positions, both domestically and overseas, with at-grade personnel.
This is particularly important with regard to senior positions at our
Embassies. I am concerned, for instance, that there has been no
Ambassador at post in Bahrain during this critical period, nor is there
a nominee from the administration before the committee. I also note
that at a number of critical posts, both the Ambassador and Deputy
Chief of Mission are changing this summer.
Please provide details about staffing in your Embassy. What
percentage of positions are filled with at-grade personnel, with the
appropriate language ability? Please list any position in the Political
or Economic sections of your Embassy that has been vacant for more than
6 months as of June 1, and indicate whether an officer has been paneled
for the position, and if so when he or she will arrive at post.
Answer. Ninety-three percent of personnel at Embassy Cairo are at
grade or above. The percentage of personnel with minimum or higher
language qualifications is 60 percent. No positions in the Economic and
Political Section of Embassy Cairo have been vacant for more than 6
months as of June 1.
Question. Please identify any position at post which has been
vacant for 3 months or longer over the past 2 years due to the
incumbent's departure for service in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Pakistan.
Answer. The table that follows details individuals who departed for
service in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Pakistan, and the length of time their
positions at Embassy Cairo were vacant:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Country (TDY) From To Arrival date GAP/vacant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RSO/WSU............................ Baghdad, Iraq......... Aug-09................ Jun-10............... Apr-10............... 8 months.
RSO/WSU............................ Baghdad, Iraq......... Oct-09................ Mar-11............... Jul-10............... 9 months.
RIMC............................... Baghdad, Iraq......... Nov-09................ Nov-10............... ..................... Vacant.
PAO................................ Baghdad, Iraq......... Jun-08................ Jun-09............... Sep-09............... 15 months.
IMO................................ Baghdad, Iraq......... Sep-08................ Sep-09............... Mar-10............... 18 months.
HR................................. Kabul, Afghanistan.... Jun-10................ Dec-10............... Apr-11............... 10 months.
OBO................................ Kabul, Afghanistan.... Aug-09................ Aug-10............... ..................... Vacant.
ECPO............................... Kabul, Afghanistan.... Aug-09................ Aug-12............... Jul-10............... 11 months.
ECPO............................... Baghdad, Iraq......... Mar-11................ Present.............. ..................... Vacant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. If the Ambassador and DCM positions at your Embassy are
transitioning simultaneously this transfer cycle, please indicate steps
taken to mitigate the potential for this to be necessary in future
years.
Answer. It is the policy of the Department and the NEA Bureau to
try and schedule the transfer of Ambassadors and DCMs so that
transitions do not occur at the same time. Transfers are coordinated
based on the needs of the service, foreign policy priorities, and the
needs of our Foreign Service families. Given these often competing
factors, it does happen that employees depart prior to the arrival of
their replacements, and Ambassadors may not overlap for accreditation
reasons. In most cases, either the Ambassador or the DCM is present at
all times. Egypt is a foreign policy priority. As such, DCM Tueller
will remain at post to have a few weeks of overlap with me if I am
confirmed before taking up his new position (pending his own
confirmation) in Kuwait. The staff in Cairo is very experienced. The
Economic and Political Minister, the USAID Director, and the heads of
other important agencies will not be transferring this summer.
______
Responses of Michael H. Corbin to Questions Submitted by
Senator Richard G. Lugar
Question. Since the initiation of the NATO operation to enforce the
arms embargo against Libya on 22 March, and the decision to initiate
no-fly zone enforcement operations on March 24, please describe all
U.S. transfers, sales, grants or leases of defense articles, defense
services or technical data to the United Arab Emirates under the
Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program, direct commercial sales (DCS), or
any other relevant authority or authorization to transfer, sell, grant
or lease U.S. defense articles, defense services and technical data.
Please provide aggregate dollar values, and provide a summary of the
particular defense articles, defense services or technical data
transferred, sold, granted or leased to date.
Answer. Arms Transfers to UAE since March 22, 2011:
FMS
UH-60 Blackhawks: On June 23, DSCA notified Congress of a possible
FMS sale of five Blackhawk helicopters and associated equipment, parts,
training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $217 million.
The UAE will use these helicopters for intracountry transportation of
UAE officials to militarily critical training and operation sites.
F-16 Program Support: On May 24, DSCA notified Congress of a
possible FMS sale of support and maintenance of F-16 aircraft and
associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an
estimated cost of $100 million. The UAE Air Force and Air Defense have
operated the F-16 Block 60 aircraft for over 10 years, including in
current coalition operations in Libya. Munitions are not part of this
possible sale, although the UAE continues to purchase munitions for
these aircraft.
AIM-9X-2 Sidewinder missiles: On April 18, DSCA notified Congress
of a possible $251 million FMS sale of 218 AIM-9X short-range air-to-
air missiles, which the UAE will use on its aircraft to support
coalition operations in Libya and contingency operations with the
United States.
In addition DOD has $4.8 billion in total Foreign Military Sales
for UAE pending. The bulk of this total reflects the offer for the
THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) missile system, a $3.5
billion previously notified FMS case. These sales also include 54 GBU-
12s (Guided Bomb Unit--12) for UAE's F-16s.
DCS
From March 22 to June 27, the U.S. Government adjudicated and
approved or approved with provisos 375 direct commercial sales (DCS)
licenses for defense articles and services involving the UAE, for an
estimated value of $1.3 billion. These figures do not necessarily
represent actual exports, but the value of the approved licenses for
potential sales and deliveries.
Question. Iran was viewed by many Gulf States as a counterweight to
Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, although that view has shifted now
that Iraq has a representative government and Saddam is gone. What is
your assessment of the threat, if any, posed by Iran to the UAE?
Answer. The UAE shares our concerns about Iran's nuclear program
and has taken a strong stance on its obligations under UNSCR 1929 in
recognition of Iran's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. The UAE
also shares our concerns about Iranian meddling in the region. The UAE
has a strategic interest in regional stability and is an active
participant in the Gulf Cooperation Council. The UAE takes its national
security very seriously and is building a strong military partnership
with the United States and other Western partners.
The UAE maintains diplomatic and commercial ties with all its
immediate neighbors, including Iran. This is necessitated by the UAE's
geographical proximity, its historical ties with Iran that go back
centuries, and the approximately 500,000 Iranians live in the UAE
(about half the number of Emiratis).
Question. Each of the Gulf States have seen some political unrest,
and each monarchy has dealt with it in a different manner. Each regime
clearly prioritizes survival often at the sacrifice of human rights and
democratic values we hold dear. What lessons do you take from Tunisia
and Egypt going into your posting?
Answer. We regularly engage the Emirati Government at all levels
regarding the universal principles of freedom of expression and
association. While the UAE and the United States have not always seen
eye to eye on the popular uprisings of the Arab Spring, we have
maintained a robust and productive dialogue throughout this period of
historic change. Following the events in Tunisia and Egypt, this
engagement is more as important as ever.
As with any country in the region, we will continue to support and
empower the democratic and reformist voices. And we will continue to do
this by speaking honestly about the need to respect human rights and
the legitimate aspirations of the people. We support the right to free
expression, political participation, confidence in the rule of law, and
governments that are transparent and responsive and accountable to
their people.
Question. I believe it is critical, given the dramatic changes in
the Middle East, that the NEA Bureau is able to staff all of its
positions, both domestically and overseas, with at-grade personnel.
This is particularly important with regard to senior positions at our
Embassies. I am concerned, for instance, that there has been no
Ambassador at post in Bahrain during this critical period, nor is there
a nominee from the administration before the committee. I also note
that at a number of critical posts, both the Ambassador and Deputy
Chief of Mission are changing this summer.
Please provide details about staffing in your Embassy. What
percentage of positions are filled with at-grade personnel, with the
appropriate language ability? Please list any position in the Political
or Economic sections of your Embassy that has been vacant for more than
6 months as of June 1, and indicate whether an officer has been paneled
for the position, and if so when he or she will arrive at post.
Answer. In UAE--Abu Dhabi the percentage of at-grade or above
personnel is 72 percent, and the percentage of minimally or higher
language qualified personnel is 73 percent. In UAE--Dubai the
percentage of at-grade or above personnel is 86 percent, and the
percentage of minimally or higher language qualified personnel is 70
percent.
There a total of 22 Political and Economic positions in Mission
UAE. Seventy-three percent of these positions are filled with at-grade
personnel with the appropriate language ability. No positions have been
vacant for 6 months as of June 1.
Question. Please identify any position at post which has been
vacant for 3 months or longer over the past 2 years due to the
incumbent's departure for service in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Pakistan.
Answer. The mission has one position which will be vacant for 3
months or longer due to the incumbent's departure for service in
Afghanistan, Iraq, or Pakistan. Dubai ECON FS-03 Departed 6/2011
replacement due 7/2012.
Question. If the Ambassador and DCM positions at your Embassy are
transitioning simultaneously this transfer cycle, please indicate steps
taken to mitigate the potential for this to be necessary in future
years.
Answer. It is the policy of the Department and the NEA Bureau to
try and schedule the transfer of Ambassadors and DCMs so that
transitions do not occur at the same time. Transfers are coordinated
based on the needs of the service, foreign policy priorities, and the
needs of our Foreign Service families. Given these often competing
factors, it does happen that employees depart prior to the arrival of
their replacements; and, in the case of Ambassadors, they may not
overlap for accreditation reasons. In most cases either the Ambassador
or the DCM is present at all times. In the case of UAE, the DCM
position is transferring this summer but the incoming DCM will arrive
the end of July and will be in place prior to my arrival if I am
confirmed.
______
Responses of Susan L. Ziadeh to Questions Submitted by
Senator Richard G. Lugar
Question. Since the initiation of the NATO operation to enforce the
arms embargo against Libya on 22 March, and the decision to initiate
no-fly zone enforcement operations on March 24, please describe all
U.S. transfers, sales, grants or leases of defense articles, defense
services or technical data to Qatar under the Foreign Military Sales
(FMS) program, direct commercial sales (DCS), or any other relevant
authority or authorization to transfer, sell, grant or lease U.S.
defense articles, defense services and technical data. Please provide
aggregate dollar values, provide a summary of the particular defense
articles, defense services, or technical data transferred sold,
granted, or leased to date.
Answer. Foreign Military Sales: Since March 22, DOD has $4.8
million in total Foreign Military Sales pending for Qatar. There have
been no congressionally notified FMS cases for Qatar.
Direct Commercial Sales: From March 22-June 27, the U.S. Government
adjudicated and approved or approved with provisos 102 direct
commercial licenses (DCS) for defense-related technical data and spare
parts to Qatar, for an estimated value of $2.1 billion. These sales
include four C-130 aircraft. These figures do not necessarily represent
exports approved, but the value of the approved licenses for potential
sales and deliveries.
Question. Iran was viewed by many Gulf States as a counterweight to
Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, although that view has shifted now
that Iraq has a representative government and Saddam is gone. What is
your assessment of the threat, if any, posed by Iran to Qatar?
Answer. Qatar maintains a relationship with Iran primarily because
of geographic proximity and shared economic interests. Qatar and Iran
share the world's largest nonassociated gas field, and although Qatar
develops its side of this field independently, maintaining a
nonconfrontational relationship with Iran remains a priority for the
Qatari Government. Qatar has a strategic interest in regional stability
and it views any action that threatens regional security as a threat.
Qatar is an active participant in the Gulf Cooperation Council and it
shares the same concerns as other gulf countries regarding Iran's
interference in regional issues and its nuclear program. Qatar enforces
U.N. sanctions on Iran. Qatar's strong military partnership with the
United States demonstrates its commitment to promoting regional
security and countering regional threats.
Question. Each of the Gulf States have seen some political unrest,
and each monarchy has dealt with it in a different manner. Each regime
clearly prioritizes survival often at the sacrifice of human rights and
democratic values we hold dear. What lessons do you take from Tunisia
and Egypt going into your posting?
Answer. The Government of Qatar (GOQ) has reacted positively to the
Arab Spring, and Qatar's leadership has publicly announced its support
for reforms in the Middle East. Qatar has not experienced
demonstrations or protests at home. The country's small, homogenous
population and wealth insulate it from many of the factors that are
driving protests in other countries. Nevertheless, the GOQ has taken
small, but important steps to increase citizen participation in
government. Qatar held municipal council elections in May 2011. The GOQ
also announced that it will hold elections for its advisory council
soon. This would be an important step forward and demonstrate Qatar's
commitment to implementing meaningful reform. It is U.S. policy that
governments need to be transparent, accountable, and responsive to
their citizens. If confirmed, I will advocate for government
transparency, accountability, responsiveness and greater citizen
participation in governance. I will also emphasize the need to uphold
universal rights.
Question. I believe it is critical, given the dramatic changes in
the Middle East, that the NEA Bureau is able to staff all of its
positions, both domestically and overseas, with at-grade personnel.
This is particularly important with regard to senior positions at our
Embassies. I am concerned, for instance, that there has been no
Ambassador at post in Bahrain during this critical period, nor is there
a nominee from the administration before the committee. I also note
that at a number of critical posts, both the Ambassador and Deputy
Chief of Mission are changing this summer.
Please provide details about staffing in your Embassy. What
percentage of positions are filled with at-grade personnel, with the
appropriate language ability? Please list any position in the Political
or Economic sections of your Embassy that has been vacant for more than
6 months as of June 1, and indicate whether an officer has been paneled
for the position, and if so when he or she will arrive at post.
Answer. The Percentage of positions filled by at-grade or above
personnel is 85 percent. The percentage of minimally or higher language
qualified personnel is 80 percent. There have been no positions in the
POL/ECON Section that have been vacant for more than 6 months as of
June 1.
Question. Please identify any position at post which has been
vacant for 3 months or longer over the past 2 years due to the
incumbent's departure for service in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Pakistan.
Answer. There are no positions that have been vacant for more than
3 months due to AIP in the last 2 years.
Question. If the Ambassador and DCM positions at your Embassy are
transitioning simultaneously this transfer cycle, please indicate steps
taken to mitigate the potential for this to be necessary in future
years.
Answer. It is the policy of the Department and the NEA Bureau to
try and schedule the transfer of Ambassadors and DCMs so that
transitions do not occur at the same time. Transfers are coordinated
based on the needs of the service, foreign policy priorities and the
needs of our Foreign Service families. Given these often competing
factors, it does happen that employees depart prior to the arrival of
their replacements; and, in the case of Ambassadors, they may not
overlap for accreditation reasons. In most cases either the Ambassador
or the DCM is present at all times. In the case of Doha, the DCM is not
transferring this summer.
______
Responses of Matthew H. Tueller to Questions Submitted by
Senator Richard G. Lugar
Question. The most recent U.S. State Department reports on
terrorism criticize Kuwait for not enacting specific laws against
terrorism support or terrorism financing. The State Department also
reported in May 2010 that, ``the provision of financial support to
terrorist groups, both by charities and by individuals utilizing cash
couriers continues to be a major concern.'' What is preventing
enactment of such laws? To what extent would clear laws help the
government reduce the potential for terrorist attacks in Kuwait? What
is Embassy Kuwait advocating in this respect?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be fully committed to strengthening
United States-Kuwait counterterrorism cooperation, including
cooperation on combating the ability of terrorist networks to finance
terrorist activities from Kuwaiti soil. Kuwait's relatively permissive
environment renders the country vulnerable to exploitation by terrorist
networks, who may find Kuwait to be a more attractive environment for
raising and transmitting funds in comparison to other countries in the
region. The fact that Kuwait does not have a law criminalizing the
financing of terrorism is a serious impediment to the Kuwaiti
Government's ability to pursue and prosecute individuals suspected of
financing terrorist activities. However, over the past several years,
there have been several encouraging examples of the Kuwaiti Government
charging and prosecuting suspected terrorist financiers on related
crimes, such as plotting an attack against a foreign country.
If confirmed, I will continue the U.S. Embassy's sustained
engagement on this issue, pressing the Kuwaiti Government and Kuwait's
Parliament to prioritize passage of an amended antimoney laundering/
counterterrorism finance law. Last year, Kuwait's Parliament considered
a draft amendment that would have specifically criminalized terror
financing and returned it to the executive branch to draft two separate
laws: an antimoney laundering law and an antiterror financing law.
Additionally, in 2010 Kuwait underwent a mutual evaluation by both
the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) the international body for
countering money laundering and terrorist financing, and the Middle
East North Africa FATF, the regional body in the FATF network. The
mutual evaluation and related discussions highlighted the
vulnerabilities and reputational damage Kuwait faces without robust
legislation in place criminalizing terrorism finance. If confirmed, I
will lead strong U.S. engagement on this important issue, working
closely with relevant U.S. Government agencies, and with international
bodies such as the FATF to leverage the role of the international
community in raising Kuwait's awareness of the need for progress in
this area.
Question. Kuwait's relationship with Iraq remains rocky 20 years
after you served there and helped reopen the Embassy in 1991, and 8
years after Saddam. Heading to Kuwait for now your third tour, and
having served in Baghdad in the interim, what do you believe are the
keys to putting that relationship on solid footing, what are the
impediments, and how can the United States best facilitate a resolution
of the deep-seated mistrust?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be fully committed to encouraging
continued progress on rebuilding the relationship between Iraq and
Kuwait. Having served in Kuwait directly following the liberation, I
recognize the challenges associated with achieving progress on what are
very sensitive, emotional, issues for both sides. I am encouraged by
the positive developments we have seen over the past several years,
including the restoration of diplomatic relations and several high-
level visits in 2011, which I take as encouraging signs that both sides
are committed to rebuilding the bilateral relationship.
Given the United States unique relationship with both Iraq and
Kuwait, we are in an advantageous position to play a positive role in
achieving progress on this issue. If confirmed by the Senate, I will
lead sustained engagement by the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, working in
close coordination with the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, the U.S. Mission
to the United Nations, and Member States of the U.N. Security Council.
I am confident that Iraq and Kuwait recognize that both countries stand
to benefit from closer ties between their two countries, particularly
in areas such as trade and investment.
If confirmed, I will work toward strengthened dialogue between Iraq
and Kuwait, utilizing existing channels such as the ICRC-led Tripartite
Commission and Tripartite Subcommittee, and the newly established Iraq-
Kuwait Joint Ministerial Commission. The United States, along with the
United Nations, will continue to call on Iraq to abide by its U.N.
obligations with regards to Iraq-Kuwait issues, which will create a
more positive atmosphere in which to address other outstanding issues.
Question. Iran was viewed by many Gulf States as a counterweight to
Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, although that view has shifted now
that Iraq has a representative government and Saddam is gone. What is
your assessment of the threat, if any, posed by Iran to Kuwait?
Answer. In recent years, the Kuwaiti Government has maintained
mostly correct but not close relations with Iran. Ongoing concerns
about disruptive Iranian influence in the region were exacerbated by
the discovery of an Iranian spy ring in Kuwait and what they believe
were clear signs of Iranian efforts to exploit the subsequent political
unrest in Bahrain. Kuwait is also concerned about Iran's refusal to
cooperate with international nuclear energy regimes, and the Kuwaiti
Government has publicly urged Iran to abide by IAEA safeguards. Kuwait
fears that any attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would have
disastrous consequences for Kuwait, given the geographic proximity of
the two countries, and therefore urges Iran to cooperate with the
international community on ensuring full transparency of Iran's nuclear
program. Kuwait has also enforced U.N. sanctions on Iran.
Question. Each of the Gulf States have seen some political unrest,
and each monarchy has dealt with it in a different manner. Each regime
clearly prioritizes survival often at the sacrifice of human rights and
democratic values we hold dear. What lessons do you take from Tunisia
and Egypt going into your postings?
Answer. I believe Kuwait is in a uniquely advantageous position
amidst the wave of unrest sweeping across the region, having long been
one of the countries in the Middle East where political freedoms are
embraced and upheld by the government and society. Kuwait's well-
defined democratic principles are enshrined in its constitution, and
reflected in free competitive legislative elections, an elected and
empowered Parliament, a vibrant civil society, and relatively open
press environment. Kuwait's Government also ensures that Kuwaiti
citizens benefit from the country's wealth, by subsidizing health care
and education through the university level.
Kuwaitis enjoy a relatively high degree of freedom of expression.
Kuwaitis are free to--and do--criticize senior members of the ruling
family. In a move unique to the region, the Prime Minister has
submitted to parliamentary questioning three times in the past 2 years,
providing for parliamentary oversight of the government. Other
ministers have also faced parliamentary questioning.
If confirmed, I am committed to strengthening U.S. support for
Kuwait's democratic traditions and practices, including by supporting
Kuwait's vibrant civil society through MEPI programming. Over the
years, MEPI-sponsored activities have made notable contributions in
Kuwait by encouraging and training women to be effective candidates,
activists, and voters in future elections, and strengthening civil
society organizations so that they can play a more positive role in
Kuwait's political and democratic process.
Question. I believe it is critical, given the dramatic changes in
the Middle East, that the NEA Bureau is able to staff all of its
positions, both domestically and overseas, with at-grade personnel.
This is particularly important with regard to senior positions at our
Embassies. I am concerned, for instance, that there has been no
Ambassador at post in Bahrain during this critical period, nor is there
a nominee from the administration before the committee. I also note
that at a number of critical posts, both the Ambassador and Deputy
Chief of Mission are changing this summer.
Please provide details about staffing in your Embassy. What
percentage of positions are filled with at-grade personnel, with the
appropriate language ability? Please list any position in the Political
or Economic sections of your Embassy that has been vacant for more than
6 months as of June 1, and indicate whether an officer has been paneled
for the position, and if so when he or she will arrive at post.
Answer. a. Staffing at Embassy Kuwait:
Sixty percent at grade or above personnel.
Eighty percent minimally or higher language qualified
personnel.
Twenty-one percent of Political and Economic positions are
filled by employees one grade below the grade of the position
(43 positions total, nine stretches). All are language
qualified.
All Political and Economic positions are filled.
Question. Please identify any position at post which has been
vacant for 3 months or longer over the past 2 years due to the
incumbent's departure for service in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Pakistan.
Answer. Post vacancies due to due to the incumbent's departure for
service in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Pakistan:
RSO departed April 2011, successor arrives August 2011.
A/RSO departed April 2011, successor arrives July 2011.
Facilities Maintenance departed April 2010, successor
arrived January 2011.
Question. If the Ambassador and DCM positions at your Embassy are
transitioning simultaneously this transfer cycle, please indicate steps
taken to mitigate the potential for this to be necessary in future
years.
Answer. It is the policy of the Department and the NEA Bureau to
try and schedule the transfer of Ambassadors and DCMs so that
transitions do not occur at the same time. Transfers are coordinated
based on the needs of the service, foreign policy priorities and the
needs of our Foreign Service families. Given these often competing
factors, it does happen that employees depart prior to the arrival of
their replacements; and, in the case of Ambassadors, they may not
overlap for accreditation reasons. In most cases either the Ambassador
or the DCM is present at all times. In the case of Kuwait, foreign
policy priorities as well as family needs played a significant factor
in the transition schedule. While both the Ambassador and the DCM
positions will be vacant for a few weeks, we have full confidence in
the designated Charge. The incoming DCM will arrive in late August.
______
Responses of Kenneth J. Fairfax to Questions Submitted by
Senator Richard G. Lugar
Question. Kazakhstan's cooperation on nonproliferation has been a
model example of U.S. security engagement. What do you see as the next
steps in our relationship with Kazakhstan in the realm of
nonproliferation and cooperative threat reduction?
Answer. Cooperation on nonproliferation has been a pillar of the
United States-Kazakhstan bilateral relationship and is a model for U.S.
security engagement. Kazakhstan has cooperated extensively with the
United States to eliminate its Soviet-legacy weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) infrastructure, secure materials of proliferation
concern, and redirect former WMD scientists to sustainable, nonmilitary
employment. The shutdown of the BN-350 reactor and shipment of enough
nuclear material for 775 nuclear weapons to a secure location made a
significant contribution to global security. Kazakhstan continues to
build upon its commitment to international security and
nonproliferation through its active participation in the Cooperative
Threat Reduction (CTR) program, the IAEA, and more than 25 U.S.
nonproliferation initiatives and programs currently active in
Kazakhstan.
Cooperation on nonproliferation and cooperative threat reduction
will remain a focus of our bilateral relations with Kazakhstan. Through
our Biological Threat Reduction program, the United States is working
with Kazakhstan to improve bio-safety and bio-security by consolidating
and securing dangerous pathogen collections, and we continue to fund
the redirecting of underemployed biological weapons experts to careers
with peaceful purposes. We are also supporting Kazakhstan's efforts to
combat bioterrorism and are enhancing its ability to detect, diagnose,
and respond to disease outbreaks. Through Kazakhstan's participation in
the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Export Control and
related Border Security assistance program, the United States is
strengthening Kazakhstan's ability to prevent proliferation of WMD and
related materials across its borders and reducing the risk of
proliferation through training for and provision of equipment to
licensing officials, border guards, and customs officials.
Our Annual Bilateral Consultations have provided another important
mechanism through which to further our engagement with Kazakhstan on
nonproliferation issues, including its interest in a more prominent
role in the IAEA and its offer to host the IAEA low enriched uranium
fuel bank.
Question. Kazakhstan could play an increasingly important role as a
supplier to the development of a Southern Energy Corridor and already
participates in trans-Caspian shipments to Azerbaijan. Do you see any
prospect for Kazakhstan to enlarge its role in this project through
trans-Caspian shipments?
Answer. As its oil production increases, Kazakhstan could increase
its delivery of crude oil across the Caspian, most likely through
enhanced tanker shipments. At this point, it is not clear that
Kazakhstan will have substantial volumes of gas available for delivery
into the Southern Energy Corridor. Most gas currently produced in
Kazakhstan is utilized domestically or reinjected to enhance oil
production. We also understand that Kazakhstan believes trans-Caspian
oil and gas pipelines will be difficult to build without a five-country
agreement on delimitation of the Caspian Sea.
Question. With regard to United States-Kazakhstan energy
cooperation, what additional steps do you believe the United States
should take to enlarge our relationship?
Answer. We have an ongoing and productive dialogue with Kazakhstan
on ways to deepen energy cooperation. Our engagement with Kazakhstan
has largely focused on the country's investment climate and its
planning to increase oil production in the coming decade. The United
States has a strategic interest in Kazakhstan's production moving
forward and additional Kazakhstani crude reaching world markets.
Our engagement occurs during the U.S.-Kazakhstan Annual Bilateral
Consultations and U.S.-Kazakhstan Energy Partnership. The second Annual
Bilateral Consultation, which took place March 24-25 in Astana,
included discussion of investment climate issues related to
Kazakhstan's energy sector. We expect to have an ABC review session
with the Kazakhstani Government in Washington in September 2011, where
we will continue the discussion of deepening our economic and energy
partnership. The Annual Bilateral Consultations include meetings with
representatives of American and Kazakhstani energy companies.
The U.S.-Kazakhstan Energy Partnership has been active for 8 years
and is an essential part of our relationship with this hydrocarbon-rich
nation. The next U.S.-Kazakhstan Energy Partnership meeting is
scheduled for November 2011 in Washington, and will include a visit by
the Minister of Oil and Gas Sauat Mynbayev.
I also plan to work closely with private American companies active
in the energy field in Kazakhstan, as well as those who would like to
become involved in emerging markets such as alternative energy in
Kazakhstan, in order to facilitate and encourage the growth of a long-
term, mutually beneficial commercial relationship that benefits both
Kazakhstan and the American people.
Question. In what areas do you believe Kazakhstan could expand its
participation in the Northern Distribution Network?
Answer. Kazakhstan is providing significant support to our
stabilization efforts in Afghanistan through its active participation
in the Northern Distribution Network. We are also working with
Kazakhstan's Government and private sector to increase local
procurement of construction materials, supplies, and food products to
support our operations in Afghanistan. Kazakhstan plays an important
role in our efforts to build a stable, economically prosperous
Afghanistan, reconnected with its region. Kazakhstan's participation in
NDN demonstrates the potential for trade linking Central and South Asia
via Afghanistan, and we are working with Kazakhstan to enact policies
to speed the flow of trade through the region.
______
Responses of Anne W. Patterson to Questions Submitted by
Senator Robert Menendez
Question. An Egyptian court convicted two people for attacking a
Coptic sit-in in Cairo last month, but 16 suspects were found not
guilty. The two convicted men were reportedly released on bail. The
court was reviewing accusations related to last month's attacks on a
Coptic sit-in, which was staged in front of the state radio and
television building. A group of unidentified men attacked the people
participating in the sit-in, using firearms, knives, stones, and
Molotov cocktails. At least 78 people were wounded. The protesters
decided to end their sit-in 5 days later after authorities agreed to
open three churches. Copts have faced discrimination, even on
governmental levels, as their churches are sometimes closed, or require
special permits for even minor renovations.
What progress is being made by the military council to end
sectarian violence and tension and what are the prospects for
constitutional changes and laws that would address sectarian
violence and ease restrictions on building churches? Can Egypt
achieve a secular government that (1) respects the rights of
its religious minorities; and (2) fosters the full integration
of religious minorities in all levels of government?
Answer. Sectarian violence remains a troubling problem in Egypt, as
evidenced by the May 7 violence that erupted in the Cairo neighborhood
of Imbaba. On
May 17, Field Marshal Tantawi, the head of the Supreme Council of the
Armed Forces (SCAF) and de facto leader of Egypt during this transition
period, issued a strongly worded, public condemnation of sectarian
attacks. The SCAF also stated that it would investigate and prosecute
those responsible for the May 7 clashes, and has charged 48 individuals
in conjunction with his case. On June 7, Prime Minister Sharaf attended
the formal reopening of the Holy Virgin Church, one of two churches
damaged during the May 7 riots. The Egyptian transitional government
has also allowed the construction and repair of 16 churches that had
previously not been granted permission to be built or repaired.
On May 14, Prime Minister Sharaf announced the formation of a
National Justice Committee to draft an antidiscrimination law and
consider a ``unified places of worship'' law within 30 days--two key
Coptic Christian demands. On June 1, the Egyptian Cabinet announced
that it had approved a draft ``Unified Law for Organizing the
Construction of Places of Worship.'' This draft law, which governs the
building and renovation of churches and mosques, is currently under
public review, and some religious and civil society leaders have raised
concerns during this review process that the draft law does not
sufficiently depoliticize the construction process.
We remain very concerned about the prospects of sectarian violence
in Egypt and will continue to monitor this issue closely. We will also
continue to impress upon the Egyptian Government the importance of
taking steps to confront sectarian violence, including steps to reverse
discriminatory laws and treatment, of holding perpetrators of violence
accountable, and of fostering an environment that promotes religious
tolerance.
Question. Your service in Cairo coincides with a unique moment on
world history--a potential political sea change in the Middle East and
North Africa. Egypt has many challenges and opportunities--this year
will see parliamentary and Presidential elections and early next year
we expect Egyptians to begin drafting a new constitution.
In the context of these changes, are you concerned about an
erosion of the relationship between Israel and Egypt? Do recent
actions, the facilitation of the talks that led to the
declaration of Fatah-Hamas unity government--a step that may
prove fatal to the negotiation process--and the reopening of
the Rafah border crossing, which has been closed since 2007 due
to concerns about Hamas using the crossing to bring weapons and
fighters into Gaza foretell a different relationship between
Egypt and Israel?
If confirmed, will you make clear to Egypt that the state of
relations between our countries is directly linked to its
adherence to the Camp David Peace Treaty with Israel?
The Egypt-Israel peace treaty formed the basis of our
foreign assistance program to Egypt. Is Egyptian adherence to
its international obligations, including the peace treaty with
Israel, a prerequisite for U.S. assistance, including possible
debt relief?
Answer. The current Egyptian Government has repeatedly expressed
its commitment to adhere to past agreements, including its Treaty of
Peace with Israel. The Department of State fully appreciates the
significance of Egyptian-Israeli peace to our regional interests and
those of our ally, Israel. In our discussions with Egyptian leadership
across the political spectrum, we have and will continue to underscore
the importance of upholding this and other international obligations.
It is important that Egypt and Israel continue to strengthen their
bilateral relationship and their lines of communication, particularly
as Egypt moves through its transition. Egypt has maintained direct
diplomatic and security engagement with Israel throughout the
transition, and we continue to encourage such cooperation.
With regard to the reconciliation agreement between the Palestinian
Authority and Hamas, we want the agreement to be implemented in a
manner that moves us closer to our common goal of comprehensive peace.
We will work with Egypt toward this objective, as Egypt continues to
play a leadership role in the peace process.
Question. Earlier this month Secretary Clinton said, ``We are also
troubled by reports of sexual violence used by governments to
intimidate and punish protesters seeking democratic reforms across the
Middle East and North Africa. Rape, physical intimidation, sexual
harassment, and even so-called `virginity tests' have taken place in
countries throughout the region. These egregious acts are violations of
basic human dignity and run contrary to the democratic aspirations so
courageously expressed throughout the region.'' The virginity tests
utilized by security forces in Egypt are the most blatant violation of
women's rights, and a worrying sign that one of the goals of the
Egyptian revolution--to secure civil liberties for women--is not being
met. In contrast to the democratic transition in Tunisia, where women
have been guaranteed parity with men in the party lists for the
upcoming Constituent Assembly, women in Egypt have not been largely
integrated into the transition process. Since the ``Million Woman
March'' on March 8 in Cairo, most of the main complaints women have
have not been addressed:
(1) Women's participation in the constitutional, legislative,
and political future of Egypt;
(2) A new civil constitution which respects citizenship,
equality and cancels all forms of discrimination;
(3) A change to all laws, including the personal status law
to guarantee equality;
(4) Fundamental policy and legal changes to impose
significant penalties on all forms of violence toward women.
How will you continue to raise the issue of women's rights
with the military council in Egypt and the new government that
will emerge this fall? What leverage does the United States
have to pressure the integration of women into the democratic
transition, and ensure women's equality is safeguarded in
Egypt?
Answer. We are disgusted by allegations of torture and ``virginity
tests'' by military police in the Egyptian Museum on March 9. At the
highest levels, we have called on the Supreme Council of the Armed
Forces (SCAF) to investigate these reports and prosecute those who are
culpable. The SCAF has publicly vowed to investigate allegations that
protesters detained by the military on March 9 were tortured.
We share your concerns about the involvement of women in the
political transition. Regrettably, the committee to draft revisions to
Egypt's Constitution in March did not include any women, and the
Ministry of Women's Affairs was abolished soon after the interim
government was formed. Although some women have taken prominent roles
in activist groups, more needs to be done. If confirmed, I will
continue pressing the Egyptian Government to promote the participation
of women in government and political parties. The United States also
promoted a conference on June 2 in Cairo, cosponsored by International
IDEA and U.N. Women, to raise the profile of women's rights in
democratic transitions. Chaired by U.N. Women Executive Director,
Michele Bachelet, this event advocated for robust women's political
participation and empowerment, with special attention on Egypt, and has
likely laid the groundwork for a ministerial-level gathering on the
subject on the margins of the U.N. General Assembly.
Many of the civil society programs we support also aim to empower
women politically and economically, and we will monitor the drafting of
Egypt's new Constitution to ensure women's rights are protected. As
part of the $165 million we have made available to meet urgent Egyptian
needs, USAID is providing $20 million in funding to support political
party development through NDI and IRI, civil society development,
election monitoring, and voter education. Support for women as
political leaders and candidates will be an important part of these
projects. In its regular assistance portfolio, USAID provides direct
grants to enhance women's and girls' civic and political rights and
participation, improve the operation of family courts, provide
psychological counseling services to women and children, and combat
violence against women by improving the capacity of Egypt's National
Council for Women and National Council for Childhood and Motherhood to
advocate for policy changes and provide services and legal assistance
for battered and trafficked women.
Through its local grants program, MEPI is funding 10 Egyptian NGOs
to carry out innovative projects to break down barriers for women in
the legal profession, raise awareness of women's rights among female
students in Upper Egypt, train ordinary Egyptian women to become
community leaders and businessowners, and carry out voter education and
corruption awareness campaigns targeting women, including in lesser
developed regions of Egypt. MEPI also is preparing to fund new Egyptian
local grants that focus on women's rights, economic opportunity, and
participation during the transition.
Question. Our government has stated and restated the importance of
peaceful, democratic transition in Egypt that includes respect for
human rights, including expression, association and assembly, freedom
of the press. However, recent reports from Egypt have estimated that
between 5,000 and 10,000 people have been tried in military courts over
the past 3 months. Activists believe the prosecutions are a scare
tactic by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to intimidate
Egyptians off the street, as they often specifically target protesters.
How is the administration addressing this failure with the
military council, to ensure that the transitional government is
not backsliding and reverting to tactics reminiscent of the
Mubarak era?
Answer. We have raised at the highest levels the need for Egypt's
military leadership to address transparently and inclusively the
grievances of the Egyptian people; including lifting the state of
emergency; protecting freedom of expression and assembly; reforming
security institutions; trying civilians in civilian, not military,
courts; and transitioning to civilian control of the government through
free and fair elections.
We are aware of recent interrogations of journalists, bloggers, and
judges critical of the SCAF and military and have made our concerns
regarding these cases clear to the Egyptian Government and the SCAF.
Freedom of expression is a critical component of any democratic state,
and we have made clear that attempts to silence political opposition in
Egypt are unacceptable.
Question. Ambassador Patterson, I have been following Chairman
Kerry's effort with respect to the Bower children who were wrongfully
removed from the United States by their mother. As you are aware, their
father, Colin Bower, has been trying unsuccessfully to secure the
return of his children, Noor and Ramsay, to the United States. Pursuant
to a 2008 decision by Probate and Family Court of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Mr. Bower has sole legal custody of Noor and Ramsay and
joint physical custody with Mirvat El Nady. That ruling stipulated
Mirvat el Nady was not to remove Noor and Ramsay from the Commonwealth.
There are no international or bilateral treaties in force between Egypt
and the United States dealing with international parental child
abduction, and Egyptian law does not consider the removal of a child by
the noncustodial parent to or within Egypt to be a crime.
What efforts is the Department undertaking with the interim
government to secure the return of Mr. Bower's children? What
pressure do you believe would be helpful to motivate the
Military Council or a future Egyptian Government to resolve
this case favorably? In your role as Ambassador, what actions
will you take to encourage Egypt to sign the Hague Convention
on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction?
Answer. Secretary Clinton and the Department have been in direct
contact with Egyptian authorities at senior levels concerning this
matter. We will continue to raise this case with appropriate Egyptian
authorities in the hope of seeing the children returned to Mr. Bower.
Both the Special Advisor for the Office of Children's Issues,
Ambassador Susan Jacobs, and the U.S. Consul General in Cairo have, on
multiple occasions, worked directly with Mr. Bower on this difficult
matter. The Office of Children's Issues is very engaged on Mr. Bower's
behalf. We will continue to press the Egyptian Government to sign the
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
______
Responses of Michael Corbin to Questions Submitted by
Senator Robert Menendez
human rights/democracy
Question. Five prodemocracy activists have been detained in the
United Arab Emirates since April 18 without bail. According to Human
Rights Watch, the activists were charged with ``peaceful use of speech
to criticize the UAE Government.'' The UAE Government said they were
charged with harassment after the activists and other UAE nationals
signed a petition in March that demanded constitutional and
parliamentary changes in the Emirates, and free elections for all
citizens. The detainees include a leading human rights activist and
university lecturer. In his address on the Middle East and North Africa
last month, President Obama declared that ``it will be the policy of
the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support
transitions to democracy.''
With the trial date of these prodemocracy activists set for
July 18, how will the administration follow through on its
promise of promoting reform and democracy including in the UAE?
How will you as Ambassador pressure the Emirati Government to
conduct the trial in a transparent and open manner, and
preserve freedom of speech and assembly?
Answer. We engage the Emirati Government regularly and at all
levels regarding the universal principles of freedom of expression and
association. Our Embassy and senior Department officials have been
reaching out to the Emirati Government regarding our concern that any
trials be conducted in a transparent and open manner in accordance with
international standards of due process. If confirmed, I will continue
to make these points. We understand the lawyers for the five defendants
have asked that the trial be closed to the public and the press. We
will continue to monitor the situation to the best of our ability.
relationship with iran
Question. The relationship between the United States and the UAE is
multifaceted and reflects many complex issues that both countries face.
At the top of our agenda for the past several years has been the issue
of Iran and the important role the UAE must play in enforcing
international sanctions. While we have seen a dramatic and positive
shift in the UAE's behavior toward Iran in the past year, it can and
must do much more. For example, the UAE should stop refined petroleum
exports to Iran; they should further clamp down on illicit re-exports
to Iran; and they should do more to cut banking ties with Tehran.
Can you describe the UAE's compliance with international
sanctions on Iran?
If confirmed, will you make it a top priority to press the
Government of the UAE, including the individual Emirates, to
fully comply with U.N. and U.S. sanctions on Iran?
The State Department recently sanctioned two UAE firms for
their role in the export of refined petroleum products to Iran.
If confirmed, will you ensure Embassy personnel investigate and
report to Washington on companies involved in the export of
refined petroleum to Iran in violation of U.S. law?
Answer. The UAE takes seriously its international obligations to
enforce sanctions against Iran. To this end, it has a track record of
disrupting or preventing transfers to Iran of items of proliferation
concern. The UAE has a national strategy to protect the reputation of
its historically open trade environment against abuse by proliferators.
In August 2007 the UAE passed comprehensive strategic trade control
legislation providing the basis for an enforceable export control
system. The law is currently being enforced and we have been working in
close partnership with UAE authorities to halt attempts to divert
sensitive dual-use technology, including U.S.-origin goods, from the
UAE. With respect to enforcement and counterproliferation issues, the
UAE is an active participant in the Proliferation Security Initiative
(PSI) and hosted, in January 2010, a major multinational PSI exercise,
LEADING EDGE. They also cohosted with the U.S. a Global Transshipment
Conference in March 2011 designed to focus international attention on
the problems of illicit transshipment and ways to address them.
If confirmed, I will continue in our policy of pressing the UAE
including each of the Emirates, as we do all our partners, to fully
comply with U.N. and U.S. sanctions on Iran. This has been a top
priority and will continue to be one under my tenure, if confirmed.
If confirmed I will ensure that post continues our efforts on
refined petroleum products to build on the work done so far. I will
work to focus on monitoring of and reporting on efforts by commercial
entities to evade international and U.S. sanctions, including the
CISADA refined petroleum sanctions.
______
Response of Matthew H. Tueller to Question Submitted by
Senator James M. Inhofe
Question. You have surely been briefed about the Kuwaiti detention
without bond of a U.S. citizen in his seventies, Aliyar Dehghani. His
family is deeply concerned that he is not being afforded normal, due
legal process, and that his continued detention poses risks to his
health given his age and heart condition.
Even though the circumstances surrounding the case are
controversial, it is especially troubling if one of our allies ever
were to single out an American citizen for discrimination, in violation
of its own legal standards and process.
Should you be confirmed, will you raise this case--and
potentially any others like it--to ensure fair treatment under
the law of American citizens in Kuwait?
Answer. If confirmed by the Senate, I will be fully committed to
ensuring the protection and well-being of all U.S. citizens in Kuwait,
including securing fair treatment under the law. I assure you that, if
confirmed as Ambassador, I will raise with the Kuwaiti Government any
cases in which we believe an individual is being discriminated against
or mistreated because of his or her U.S. citizenship.
Regarding the specific situation of Mr. Aliyar Dehghani, a U.S.-
citizen resident in Kuwait for many years, I understand that Mr.
Dehghani was released from the Kuwait Central Prison on May 29 after he
posted bond. The case is pending the outcome of the ongoing
investigation into his role in connection to the 2009 failure of the
Mishref Sewage Pumping Station.
The U.S. Embassy in Kuwait informs me there is no indication Mr.
Dehghani is being targeted, disadvantaged, or discriminated against in
any way because of his U.S. citizenship. After Mr. Dehghani was
detained by Kuwaiti authorities on May 10, representatives of the
Consular Section of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait visited Mr. Dehghani on
several occasions and were in regular contact with members of
his family. The Department of State and the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait
continue to closely follow Mr. Dehghani's situation and will continue
to provide appropriate consular assistance.
NOMINATIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
Derek J. Mitchell, of Connecticut, to be Special Representative
and Policy Coordinator for Burma, with the rank of
Ambassador
Frankie Annette Reed, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of the Fiji Islands, and to serve concurrently
as Ambassador to the Republic of Nauru, the Kingdom of
Tonga, Tuvalu, and the Republic of Kiribati
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jim Webb
presiding.
Present: Senator Webb.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM WEBB,
U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Webb. Good morning. The hearing will come to order.
Today the committee will consider the nominations of Derek
J. Mitchell to be U.S. Special Representative and Policy
Coordinator for Burma; and Frankie A. Reed to be U.S.
Ambassador to the Fiji Islands, and the Republic of Nauru, the
Kingdom of Tonga, Tuvalu, and the Republic of Kiribati.
In 2008, the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE Act established
the position of the Special Representative and Policy
Coordinator for Burma. The Special Representative is charged,
among other responsibilities, with promoting a comprehensive
international effort to support democracy in Burma and address
the humanitarian needs of its people.
I believe this position can play a key role in bringing
together the various voices on Burma policy in striving to
develop a more coherent, effective policy. However, to date,
the position has not been filled, and we should not delay this
any longer.
In 2009, after a great deal of coordination, I became the
first Member of Congress to travel to Burma in 10 years. There
I had the opportunity to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi, and was
also the first and only American official ever to meet with
General Than Shwe.
Following this visit, there were, in my view, many
opportunities for follow-on activities by others in our
Government and in theirs that could bring about a change in our
policy toward Burma.
Our sanctions-led approach had produced no meaningful
results in the country, except to further isolate the people,
and I believe that we need to find a way to break this cycle.
Soon thereafter, following its own policy review, the
administration agreed with this position and announced a new
dual-track policy guided by direct engagement with the
Government in Burma and the continued policy of economic
sanctions.
Since this shift, the administration has taken some limited
steps toward direct engagement, but given the strategic
importance of Burma and the critical humanitarian needs in that
country, more can and should be done.
Fixed between two powers--India and China--and bridging two
subcontinents, Burma has been wrecked by internal conflict, led
in part by the desire of the previous military government to
enforce national unity among a diverse ethnic population. In
the past few weeks, this conflict has flared up in a serious
way, particularly in the Kachin areas near the Chinese border.
Despite this enduring violence, the Burmese people have
steadily pursued a transition toward civilian government and,
hopefully, toward eventual democracy.
On November 7, 2010, Burma held its first election in 20
years. With limited international observation, most will argue
that the election was neither free nor fair, with the military-
backed Union Solidarity and Development Party, USDP, winning
the majority of open seats in the new Parliament.
Coupled with the military's automatic holding of 25 percent
of the seats in Parliament, this bloc will carry a
supermajority.
Yet numerous independent reports indicate that the election
process has created the potential for a new political dynamic
in the country, with candidates participating from more than 37
different political parties. The National League for Democracy
did not register as a political party and, therefore, was
unable to participate in the election. But other democratic and
ethnic minority parties did participate, and their candidates
won seats in the national and regional Parliaments.
This was a step--albeit an incomplete one--toward forming a
representative government, and it is a greater step than many
other countries in the region can claim.
This spring, we have observed the convening of the
Parliament and the appointment of new government officials. By
all indications, a transition of some sort is occurring. My
colleague, Senator John McCain, in his visit to Burma earlier
this month, noted that ``this new government represents some
change from the past,'' and that the new government wants a
better relationship with the United States.
The release of Aung San Suu Kyi after the election was an
important benchmark in this process, and her continued freedom
of movement may serve as a bellwether for the development of a
more vibrant civil society.
I believe these changes yield promise for improving
accountability and transparency in Burma. The International
Crisis Group, a well-respected nonprofit organization committed
to preventing conflict, concurs. Their March 2011 report notes
``this moment of relative change in a situation that has been
deadlocked for 20 years provides a chance for the international
community to encourage the Government to move in the direction
of greater openness and reform.''
However, it also important to realize that this transition
is not guaranteed, either domestically or because of foreign
influence. China, the second largest economy in the world with
a decidedly nondemocratic political system, wields a great and
continuing influence in Burma. With the construction of gas and
oil pipelines, hydropower development, and additional
assistance, China has attempted to purchase influence through
investments that support the Burmese Government and provide
China with strategic access to the Indian Ocean. Chinese
leaders may be concerned with the ethnic conflict on their
border, but they have yet to take constructive steps to
encourage a meaningful political reconciliation with Burma.
Even more troubling has been China's role as a
transshipment point for illicit exports from North Korea, which
many observers believe may be bound for Burma. While there are
legitimate concerns about Burma's relationship with North
Korea, the administration has yet to question China's role in
these exports.
I believe we should be more consistent and responsible in
our rhetoric, particularly on an issue of such importance.
With this political and regional complexity, the Special
Representative faces a difficult task. Yet this position has
the opportunity to play a positive and continuing role in
ending the isolation of the Burmese people and promoting
democratic development through deeper, more sustained direct
engagement with the Government and civil society.
Historian and scholar Thant Myint-U testified in 2009
before this committee that ``there can be no grand strategy on
Burma from the outside, only efforts to use and build on
opportunities as they come along. And seeing these
opportunities depends on being more present on the ground, in
direct contact with the Burmese people.'' And I encourage our
nominee today to consider this approach.
Today we are also considering our policy toward Fiji,
Nauru, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Kiribati. That distance that spans
these locales is a challenge, only to be matched by the
requirement that our Ambassador represent the United States
simultaneously to five different countries with varied
political systems and domestic challenges.
The largest among these, Fiji, is an important political,
educational, and economic center in the western Pacific. It is
also a country of significant ethnic tensions--particularly
between indigenous Fijians and Fijians of Indian ancestry--that
have affected its political stability.
In 2006, Fiji's military chief sponsored a coup that
nullified contentious elections in the name of national unity.
Since this time, United States relations with Fiji have been
strained.
The military chief, now interim Prime Minister, has further
postponed elections until 2014. It is interesting to note that
our response to this undemocratic action has appeared softer
than our response to other military coups in Asia, such as
those in Burma.
For example, while we cut bilateral military assistance to
Fiji following the coup, the U.S. Agency for International
Development will be opening an office there this year. I look
forward to examining this decision and exploring the prospects
for United States-Fiji relations as we go forward.
In closing, I look forward to the testimony of our
nominees, and before their remarks, I would like introduce them
and invite them to recognize those who have come to support
their nomination today.
And to begin the introductions, I would like to welcome
Congressman Faleomavaega, the U.S. Representative from American
Samoa and ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.
Congressman Faleomavaega is a fellow veteran and has
recently been reelected to his twelfth term in the Congress
this year. Throughout his service, he has been a vital voice on
the importance of the Asia Pacific region and the value of our
relationships there.
And he's joined us today to introduce Frankie Reed, our
nominee to be U.S. Ambassador to Fiji.
And, Congressman, welcome, and the floor is yours, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, U.S. DELEGATE FROM
AMERICAN SAMOA
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With due respect, I did not have the opportunity to meet
Mr. Mitchell, but I'm sure that President Obama has made a very
wise decision in terms of this position that is going to be so
important to establish a bilateral dialogue between us and the
state of Myanmar.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you very much for the
opportunity that I have. I voluntarily offered myself to come
here not only to introduce my very dear friend, but someone
whom I have respected over the years. I would say among the
very few Foreign Service officers who knows anything about the
Pacific region. And I felt it so important that I wanted to
come here to do this and to share with you some of my
observations in the 20 years that I've served as a member of
the House Foreign Affairs Committee, specifically also as a
member of the Asia Pacific Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs for
the past 20 years.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, it's a real honor and a humbling
experience for me to introduce a dear friend. Although I don't
represent her and her constituency in the great State of
Maryland, I feel like I know her, and in terms of the close
working relationship that we've had and her efforts as she had
served previously as the Deputy Chief of Mission in the
Independent State of Samoa.
I'm sure you already have the biography of Ms. Frankie
Reed, Secretary Reed. And I just wanted to reiterate some of
the highlights of her career and how much to the extent that I
totally support President Obama's nomination of her to serve as
our Ambassador not only to Fiji but to the Republics of
Kiribati, Tuvalu, Nauru, and also the Kingdom of Tonga.
Ms. Reed is a graduate of Howard University and got her
degree in journalism. And then she also received her law degree
at the University of California, Berkeley; became a Peace Corps
Volunteer; served also as a member of the California Bar; and
before becoming a Foreign Service officer, she was initially
assigned as a desk officer for the Bureau of African and
Western Hemisphere. She later held posts Kenya and also in
Cameroon and Senegal, and then became the deputy director of
the Office of Australia and New Zealand and the Pacific
Islands.
She then became the Deputy Chief of Mission to the
Independent State of Samoa for about 3 years. Then she went off
again to Guinea and then later became Consul General and Deputy
U.S. Observer to the Council of Europe and the European Council
for Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.
And returning from that assignment, she became a diplomat
in residence at her alma mater at U.C.-Berkeley and lectured
there and conducted several outreach programs to universities
in the Pacific Northwest.
She was then assigned as Deputy Assistant Secretary for the
Bureau of East Asian Affairs and Pacific Affairs. And then to
this point now in her brilliant career, she is nominated by
President Obama to serve as Ambassador.
And my reason for wanting to do this very much, Mr.
Chairman, is the fact that we do have some very serious issues
and problems affecting the Pacific region. I think I've been
very vocal for all these 20 years. As I recall, when I first
became a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee,
interestingly enough, nobody wanted to talk about Asian-Pacific
issues 20 years ago. I think the entire mentality here in
Washington, DC, was Europe and the Middle East. And if we
talked about any issue affecting the Asian-Pacific region, it
was really nothing that we could really take interest in. And I
wondered myself why we have not really taken a more serious
interest in this very important region of the world.
I do want to say that I honestly believe that Secretary
Reed will do a fantastic job for the simple reason that she
knows the Pacific. I've often said that President Obama is the
first President of the United States that at least knows where
the Pacific Ocean is. For the simple reason that when we talk
about Asian Pacific, it's almost like a foreign language to
many of our policymakers here in Washington, DC.
I say this with interest, Mr. Chairman, because both you
and I as Vietnam veterans, I know we've taken a lot deeper
understanding of the fact that many times the policies that we
enunciate toward Asian-Pacific region have not been very
positive, out of the fact that I think we don't know the
complexity of the region, and for the simple reason that we
just have not had a very positive experience in dealing with
the peoples of the Asian-Pacific region.
I do appreciate the fact that this administration and
President Obama and Secretary Clinton, in the initiatives that
they've taken for the past 2 years, I think it's positive. And
yet, we need to do more.
And I believe that you have hit it right on the nail in
terms of the challenges that Secretary Reed is going to have
when she becomes Ambassador to these five different countries.
Even though by way of population that seems to be sometimes the
way we operate as a matter of policy--if the country is not
heavily populated, we don't seem to take much interest in it.
And we see this in the Pacific region as a classic example.
And my basic criticism, Mr. Chairman, of our policy toward
the Pacific region is that we have no policy. Our policy toward
the Pacific region has only been toward Australia and New
Zealand, and all the other countries are only incidental to
this policy.
And I sincerely hope that Secretary Reed, and I know from
her given experience, that it's going to become a lot more
positive, more engaging, and I really believe that we ought not
neglect the needs of these 14 island countries, sovereignties,
and we should pay more attention to the problems of the
Pacific.
And you and I could not agree more of the fact that we
should pay more attention to Asia, as well. Despite the fact
that President Obama has taken the initiative--a lot of
meetings, a lot of conferences, a lot of this, but we need to
be a little more substantive in terms of what we really mean we
should do, we ought to do, when dealing with the Asian-Pacific
region.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, again, I want to thank you for
giving me this opportunity to comment on the distinguished
nominees that we have here, especially my good friend Secretary
Frankie Reed. And I sincerely hope that the committee will
approve her nomination as Ambassador to Fiji.
I will not go into the crisis or the problems we're dealing
with Fiji at this point in time. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, if you
have questions, I would be more than happy to assist in that
regard. But again, I want to thank you for this opportunity and
I yield back.
Senator Webb. Congressman, thank you very much for taking
the walk to the other side of the Capitol and being with us
this morning, and for your long years of service to our country
and to Congress. We very much appreciate you coming and
expressing your support for Ambassador-to-be Reed.
Thank you again for being with us. And I know you probably
have things waiting for you on the House side this morning.
At this time, I'd like to introduce Derek Mitchell, who has
been nominated to be Special Representative and Policy
Coordinator for Burma, with the rank of Ambassador. Currently,
he is Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian
and Pacific Security Affairs. Prior to this position, Mr.
Mitchell was a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies; special assistant at the Department of
Defense; and a senior program officer at the National
Democratic Institute. He has a master's degree from the
Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, a
bachelor's degree from the University of Virginia.
Welcome, Mr. Mitchell. I know you would like to introduce
those who are here today to support your nomination, and please
do that.
We welcome your wife. I had a chance to say hello to her
before we came up here, but please do so, and then we'll look
forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF DEREK J. MITCHELL, OF CONNECTICUT, TO BE SPECIAL
REPRESENTATIVE AND POLICY COORDINATOR FOR BURMA, WITH THE RANK
OF AMBASSADOR
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me, indeed, introduce my wife first, Min Lee, who is
right behind me. She is a reporter. We used to work in Taiwan.
She's originally from Taiwan and now works for a cable station
in Hong Kong. But I want to welcome Min, who is sitting right
behind me, so thank you very much for the opportunity.
Senator Webb. Welcome.
You may proceed.
Excuse me, I neglected to say that Senator Kerry has a
statement he would like to have introduced into the record, and
it will be included at this point.
[The prepared statement of Senator Kerry follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator John F. Kerry, Chairman,
Senate Foreign Relatiions Committee
Today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee convenes to consider
the nominations of Derek Mitchell to be Special Representative and
Policy Coordinator for Burma, with the rank of Ambassador, and Frankie
Reed to be Ambassador to the Republic of the Fiji Islands, the Republic
of Nauru, the Kingdom of Tongo, Tuvalu, and the Republic of Kiribati.
Both the nominees before the committee today have distinguished
records, and they are well qualified to represent the United States
overseas in these important posts.
Given the moral imperative of fashioning a wise policy that
benefits Burma's long-suffering people, I would like to take a moment
to discuss the opportunities and challenges that await one of our
nominees: Mr. Mitchell, our current Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs, and the
President's deserving choice to be his special envoy for Burma.
If confirmed, I have every confidence that Mr. Mitchell will
faithfully implement the Obama administration's ``dual-track'' approach
toward Burma. After years of a one-sided, ``sanctions only'' policy
that did not produce change, the administration is seeking to combine
pressure with principled engagement to encourage the Burmese Government
to embrace reforms and make a genuine transition to civilian,
democratic rule. Let me be clear: The special envoy position's mandate
is to undertake a comprehensive international effort that includes both
engagement with Burma's leaders and working with Burma's neighbors and
international organizations to coordinate more effectively pressure for
change. This holistic approach holds the best chance of achieving real
results.
When he arrives in Naypyidaw for the first time early in his
tenure, the President's envoy will need to assess the implications of
recent developments in Burma, including the release of Daw Aung San Suu
Kyi from house arrest, the controversial 2010 elections, and the
formation of a government led by a former top regime general and now
President, Thein Sein.
Many questions linger about Burma's new Parliament and its
``civilian'' government. The elections that produced them reflected a
deeply flawed process with highly restrictive rules that excluded the
main opposition party, the National League for Democracy (NLD). All the
while, the NLD's longstanding leader Daw Suu remained sidelined under
house arrest. Members affiliated with the old regime and military
appointees occupy almost 90 percent of all positions in the
legislatures. While many former military officers now wear civilian
clothes, Senior General Than Shwe's role in daily affairs is not
readily apparent. It is similarly unclear how much power various
institutions such as the Presidency, Vice Presidencies, the Cabinet,
the Parliament, the United Solidarity and Development Party and the
Tatmadaw (the military) will wield over time.
If confirmed, I expect Mr. Mitchell will test and probe in
principled ways to understand the new political dynamics inside Burma
and see if there is a possibly changing environment that is more
amenable to calls for reform. This will require him to consult broadly
with various stakeholders, including the government; Daw Suu and other
current and future NLD leaders; other legitimate democratic groups;
civil society; ethnic groups; and, of course, the international
community. While creatively exploring how best to encourage political
change, our envoy will also need to search for ways to help Burma's
people today, including through more effective implementation of
humanitarian programs that can empower them.
The Burmese Government could take some tangible steps to show it is
sincere about making real progress: Releasing political prisoners,
easing media and speech restrictions, making good on President Thein
Sein's recent promises of economic reforms, devoting more resources to
education and health, as well as allowing greater space for
international and nongovernmental organizations to help meet the
critical needs of the Burmese people would be a good start. Minimal
concrete steps to date in these areas combined with deeply troubling
reports of sensitive military technology transfers from North Korea and
renewed violence in Kachin state and other ethnic regions make fair-
minded observers wonder whether Burma is still conducting ``business as
usual.''
I believe the administration is prepared to improve ties with
Burma's Government if it breaks from the policies of the past. For
their part, Burmese diplomats have repeatedly expressed a desire for
better relations. In fact, they recently asked for a few modest U.S.
measures to build confidence such as calling the country by its current
name--Myanmar--and removing travel restrictions on visitors to its
United Nations Mission in New York, who have to adhere to a 25-mile
limitation. Yet, there has been very little progress by Naypyidaw on
either core human rights concerns or an inclusive dialogue that leads
toward national reconciliation.
In the months ahead, both sides should explore taking carefully
calibrated measures independent of each other to begin a process that
encourages constructive change inside Burma and could lead to serious
talk on tough issues. Burma could grant the ICRC access to prisoners,
for example, while the United States could allow it observer status in
a signature, new U.S. program focused on environmental, health,
education, and infrastructure development in mainland Southeast Asia
called the Lower Mekong Initiative.
Make no mistake, U.S. efforts to encourage democratic reform and
progress on human rights will get more traction if our envoy is able to
forge greater multilateral cooperation on all facets of U.S. Burma
policy. Other Southeast Asian countries can send a message about their
own expectations by linking Burma's chairmanship of ASEAN in 2014 to
tangible political progress. Burma's giant neighbors, China and India,
are also indispensable partners in this equation.
My experience working to improve relations with Vietnam taught me
that clear-eyed diplomacy, combining elements of pressure and
engagement, can encourage even an authoritarian regime to change
course, particularly if Washington works in concert with like-minded
members of the international community.
I and others will be watching closely to see whether Burma's
Government is interested in a path toward peace and democracy or
whether it remains anchored to the failed policies of the past.
The appointment of a U.S. Presidential envoy dedicated to Burma
will afford its leaders an important, new opportunity to pursue
policies that benefit their people, can improve relations with the
United States, and begin to repair their international reputation.
Senator Webb. Go ahead, Mr. Mitchell.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I am honored to appear before you today as
President Obama's nominee to serve as the Special
Representative and Policy Coordinator for Burma with the rank
of Ambassador. I am truly humbled by the confidence that
President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have shown in me
by this nomination.
As you are well aware, Mr. Chairman, Burma is a nation rich
in history, rich in culture, and rich in possibility. At the
crossroads of South and Southeast Asia, Burma sits on sea
lanes, natural resources, and fertile soil that create the
conditions for potentially unlimited development.
It is, therefore, particularly unfortunate that while much
of Southeast Asia has become more free, prosperous, and
globally interconnected in recent decades, Burma has been the
outlier.
Burma remains a country at war with itself and distrustful
of others. With a Government that has chosen for several
decades to distance itself from the outside world, Burma now is
the poorest country in Southeast Asia and a source of great
concern and potential instability in the region.
Although rich in natural and human resources, nearly a
third of Burma's population lives in poverty. Hundreds of
thousands of its citizens are internally displaced and
thousands more continue to seek refuge and asylum in
neighboring countries, largely due to the central authority's
longstanding conflicts with and systematic repression of the
country's ethnic minority populations.
Over 2,000 political prisoners languish in detention, even
as Burma's military continues to routinely violate
international standards of human rights.
And although the Burmese Government has claimed a
successful transition to a ``disciplined, flourishing
democracy,'' a political system that exhibits anything close to
recognizable standards of representative democracy remains to
be seen.
As a result, United States relations with Burma have been
strained. Over the past 2 decades, however, international
policies of either pressure or engagement, as you have
suggested yourself, Mr. Chairman, alone have not produced the
change in Burma that we and the rest of the international
community seek.
In September 2009, the Obama administration completed its
Burma policy review and announced its intention to pursue a
more flexible U.S. policy approach that integrated both
sanctions and engagement, a dual-track approach fully
consistent with President Obama's call for ``principled
engagement'' with nations around the world.
Congress' establishment of a Special Representative and
Policy Coordinator for Burma was meant, in my view, to enable a
more focused, sustained, coordinated, and ultimately effective
attention on Burma by the U.S. Government.
Although United States policy toward Burma has evolved, the
overriding objective has and, I believe, should not: The United
States still seeks a peaceful, prosperous, open, and democratic
Burma that respects the rights of all its citizens and that
adheres to its international obligations. The United States
remains prepared to establish a positive relationship, based on
mutual respect and mutual benefit, with a Burmese leadership
that adheres to and advances these principles.
If I am confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I will seek opportunities
for direct and candid dialogue with the regime concerning a
path forward for our relationship with Burma that is consistent
with our values and broader national interests, and contributes
to Burma's own development as a secure and prosperous nation at
peace with itself. I will report regularly, including to the
U.S. Congress, on the results of this engagement, so we may
calibrate our dual-track policy appropriately.
I believe we should be prepared to respond flexibly and
with agility to opportunities as they arise in Burma, according
to evolving conditions on the ground.
If confirmed, I will also conduct extensive consultations
with key stakeholders inside and outside government, at home
and abroad. My objective will be to implement U.S. law
faithfully and coordinate efforts to advance our common
objectives.
To date, in my view, the inability of key members of the
Burma-interested community around the world to coordinate their
approach to Burma has only undermined the effective realization
of our shared objectives.
Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right mix of skills,
experience, and regional expertise to carry out fully the
congressional mandate for this position. I currently serve, as
you said, as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Asian and Pacific Affairs, where I have been
responsible for overseeing U.S. security policy and strategy
throughout East, Southeast, South, and Central Asia.
I have more than 20 years of experience studying and
working on Asia from various perspectives, both inside and
outside of government, from within the United States and in
Asia itself.
Mr. Chairman, I know you take a particularly keen personal
interest in the situation in Burma, as do many others in
Congress, throughout our country, and around the world. It is a
country of unique interest to me as well. It would be a great
privilege to serve my country as the first Special
Representative and Policy Coordinator for Burma.
If confirmed, I will bring the full weight of my diverse
experience, personal contacts, understanding of Asia, and
strategic instincts to this position. I will consult closely
with you and other members of this committee in Congress to
fulfill the mandate of this position in the interests of the
United States and toward the betterment of the people of Burma.
Thank you for considering my nomination. I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Derek Mitchell
Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I am honored to appear
before you today as the President's nominee to serve as the Special
Representative and Policy Coordinator for Burma with the rank of
Ambassador. I appreciate the confidence that President Obama and
Secretary of State Clinton have shown in me by this nomination.
As you are well aware, Burma is a nation rich in history, rich in
culture, and rich in possibility. At the crossroads of South and
Southeast Asia, Burma sits on sea lanes, natural resources, and fertile
soil that create the conditions for potentially unlimited development.
It is therefore particularly unfortunate that while much of
Southeast Asia has become more free, prosperous, and globally
interconnected in recent decades, Burma has been the outlier. Burma
remains a country at war with itself and distrustful of others. With a
government that has chosen for several decades to distance itself from
the outside world, Burma now is the poorest country in Southeast Asia
and a source of great concern and potential instability in the region.
Although rich in natural and human resources, nearly a third of Burma's
population lives in poverty. Hundreds of thousands of its citizens are
internally displaced and thousands more continue to seek refuge and
asylum in neighboring countries largely due to the central authority's
longstanding conflicts with and systematic repression of the country's
ethnic minority populations. Over 2,000 political prisoners languish in
detention, while Burma's military continues to routinely violate
international human rights.
Overall, the average Burmese citizen lacks fundamental freedoms and
civil rights. Although the Burmese Government has claimed a successful
transition to a ``disciplined, flourishing democracy,'' a political
system that exhibits anything close to recognizable standards of
representative democracy remains to be seen. I am encouraged that the
new President of Burma speaks of reform and change, but the pathway to
real national reconciliation, unity among its diverse peoples, and
sustainable development requires concrete action to protect human
rights and to promote representative and responsive governance.
As a result, U.S. relations with Burma have been strained. Over the
past two decades, international policies of either pressure or
engagement alone have not produced the change in Burma that we and the
rest of the international community seek. In 2008, Congress directed
the establishment of a Special Representative and Policy Coordinator
for Burma to enable more focused, sustained, and coordinated attention
on Burma by the U.S. Government. Consistent with this directive, in
September 2009, the Obama administration completed its Burma policy
review and announced its intention to pursue a more flexible U.S.
policy approach that integrated both sanctions and engagement to
achieve results in Burma. This dual-track approach is fully consistent
with President Obama's call for ``principled engagement'' with nations
around the world.
Although U.S. policy toward Burma has evolved, our overriding
objective has not: the United States still seeks a peaceful,
prosperous, open, and democratic Burma that respects the rights of all
its citizens and adheres to its international obligations. The United
States remains prepared to establish a positive relationship, based on
mutual respect and mutual benefit, with a Burmese leadership that
advances these principles.
If I am confirmed, my role as ``Special Representative and Policy
Coordinator'' will be to work closely with and build upon the excellent
foundation established by Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell
and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Joseph Yun in implementing
Burma policy. I will seek opportunities for direct and candid dialogue
with the regime concerning a path forward for Burma that promotes our
values and broader national interests, and contributes to Burma's own
development as a secure and prosperous nation. Of course, engagement is
not an end in itself or the single measure of success: engagement must
be time-bound, results-based, and accompanied by meaningful progress.
If confirmed, I will report regularly to the White House, Secretary of
State Clinton, and the U.S. Congress on the results of our dialogue and
evidence of such progress so we may calibrate our dual-track policy
appropriately. I believe we should be prepared to respond flexibly and
with agility to opportunities available in Burma and according to
evolving conditions on the ground.
If confirmed, I will also conduct extensive consultations with key
stakeholders both inside and outside government, at home and abroad. My
objective will be to implement U.S. law faithfully and coordinate
efforts to advance the common international objectives of bringing
about in Burma the unconditional release of all political prisoners,
respect for human rights, an inclusive dialogue between the regime and
the political opposition, including Aung San Suu Kyi, and ethnic groups
that would lead to national reconciliation, and Burma's adherence to
its international obligations, including all U.N. Security Council
resolutions on nonproliferation. To date, in my view, the inability of
key members of the international community to coordinate their approach
to Burma has undermined the effective realization of our shared
objectives.
Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right mix of skills, experience,
and regional expertise to carry out fully the congressional mandate for
this position. My first job in Washington was in the foreign policy
office of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, where I learned the importance
of congressional oversight, particularly on international issues of
unique interest to Members and the American people. I have more than 20
years of experience studying and working on Asia from various
perspectives both inside and outside of government, from within the
United States and in Asia itself. For 8 years, I led the Asia division
at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
International Security Program and established CSIS' Southeast Asia
Initiative. I currently serve as the Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Affairs, where I have been
responsible for overseeing U.S. security policy and strategy throughout
East, Southeast, South, and Central Asia.
My first visit to Burma was in 1995, when I traveled to Rangoon
with the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs and
met with government officials, international NGO representatives, and
political party leaders, including the remarkable Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.
I made subsequent visits, which solidified my appreciation for the
richness of the country's history and culture as well as the tragic
limitations of its political and economic development. I retained a
keen interest in Burma's affairs in the years since, and cowrote an
article in the journal Foreign Affairs in 2007 that outlines a new U.S.
policy approach to the country not dissimilar to results of the Obama
administration's 2009 policy review.
Mr. Chairman, I know you take a particularly keen personal interest
in the situation in Burma, as do many others in Congress, throughout
our country, and around the world. It is a country of unique interest
to me as well. It would be a great privilege to serve my country as the
first Special Representative and Policy Coordinator for Burma. If
confirmed, I will bring the full weight of my diverse experience,
personal contacts, understanding of Asia, and strategic instincts to
this position. I will consult closely with you and other members of
this committee and in the Congress to fulfill the mandate of this
position in the interest of the United States and toward the betterment
of the people of Burma.
Senator Webb. Thank you very much, Mr. Mitchell.
And, Ms. Reed, welcome.
Let me first mention that, as the congressman noted in his
introduction, Frankie A. Reed is a career Foreign Service
officer. She served in Cameroon, Kenya, Senegal, Samoa, Guinea,
and France. Currently, she's Deputy Assistant Secretary of East
Asian and Pacific Affairs for Australia, New Zealand, and the
Pacific Islands. She has a law degree from the University of
California at Berkeley, a bachelor's degree in journalism from
Howard University. Prior to joining the Department of State,
Ms. Reed practiced law, worked in print journalism, spent 2
years as a Peace Corps Volunteer.
And I know that you have people who have come to support
your nomination, so I'd like to give you the chance to welcome
them, and then we'll go to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF FRANKIE ANNETTE REED, OF MARYLAND, TO BE
AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF THE FIJI ISLANDS, AND TO SERVE
CONCURRENTLY AS AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF NAURU, THE
KINGDOM OF TONGA, TUVALU, AND THE REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI
Ms. Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have my cousin, Susan
Reed Slocum, and her husband here today.
Senator Webb. Welcome.
You may take such time as you care.
Ms. Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am deeply honored that the President has nominated me to
be the United States Ambassador to the Republic of the Fiji
Islands, the Republic of Kiribati, the Republic of Nauru, the
Kingdom of Tonga, and Tuvalu. I want to thank the President and
Secretary Clinton for nominating me for this position, and
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and this
committee today.
The United States Ambassador resident in Fiji, as we have
noted, is responsible for the bilateral relationships with five
independent nations.
Embassy Suva is a busy hub of American activity in the
Pacific. The staff collaborates with multilateral
organizations, including the Pacific Island Forum. In addition,
the Embassy also has consular and commercial responsibilities
for French Polynesia, New Caledonia, and Wallis and Futuna,
making it the largest geographic consular district in the
world, one which attracts over 150,000 Americans annually.
Fiji, in the heart of the Pacific region, is a diverse
country of some 850,000 people. It is a regional transport and
communications hub, as well as the site of the University of
the South Pacific and the regional headquarters of many foreign
aid organizations.
In December 2006, as we also noted, the Fijian military,
led by Commodore Bainimarama, overthrew the country's lawfully
elected government. This event has created a prolonged
political and economic crisis in Fiji.
In accordance with the foreign operations assistance act,
the United States suspended military and other foreign
assistance programs in Fiji and will maintain these sanctions
on Fiji until a return to a civilian government. That return
must be signaled by a transparent, inclusive process that
includes all elements of Fijian society.
We look forward to working with the Fijian Government on
continued law enforcement training with police and port
security officials, however. And, if confirmed, we also look
forward to a deepened cooperation on disaster preparedness with
the Pacific Command Center for Excellence.
If confirmed, I will work with the Fijian people, the
government, and other regional partners to push for early
elections, elections restoring Fiji to the path of democracy.
The Pacific Islands face many of the same global issues
that other countries face, but in this particular region, the
repercussions can be more acute.
These countries, many of them low-lying atolls, will be the
first to experience the effects of climate change and
environmental degradation.
Tuvalu, one of the world's smallest nations, has nine
atolls only a few feet above sea level. Nauru's once bountiful
phosphate mines are almost exhausted. The problem of
overfishing and threatened marine resources hits hard in the
Pacific, since island states are dependent upon fish stocks not
only for the sustenance of their people, but also as a major
source of government revenue.
If confirmed, I will work with these nations and regional
partners like the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, as well
as our Australia and New Zealand partners, to address these
pressing global issues.
Despite these challenges at home, these Pacific islands are
our partners in fostering both regional and global stability.
Tonga and Tuvalu became early members of the coalition to
liberate Iraq. Tongan troops are currently serving in
Afghanistan. Fiji contributes 600 soldiers to peacekeeping
operations in Iraq, the Middle East, Sudan, and Liberia.
Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Tonga, and Tuvalu occupy a
strategically important part of the Pacific. They are our
partners in addressing critical global and regional issues.
If confirmed, I will do my best to continue to strengthen
relations between the United States and each of these five
countries. Working together, we can achieve our common goals
for a stable, peaceful, and prosperous region.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Reed follows:]
Prepared Statement of Frankie Reed
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am deeply honored that
the President has nominated me to be United States Ambassador to the
Republic of the Fiji Islands, the Republic of Kiribati, the Republic of
Nauru, the Kingdom of Tonga, and Tuvalu. I want to thank the President
and the Secretary for nominating me for this position and thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today.
Currently, I serve as the Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau
of East Asian and Pacific Affairs responsible for relations with
Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Island posts (Fiji, Tonga,
Kiribati, Samoa, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Republic
of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau),
the Consul General and Deputy U.S. Observer to the Council of Europe
and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, the
Deputy Chief of Mission in Guinea and in Samoa, and as the Deputy
Director in the Office of Australia, New Zealand and Pacific Island
Affairs. My service outside of the Department of State includes that of
Diplomat in Residence at the University of California and as a Pearson
Congressional Fellow.
The U.S. Ambassador resident in Fiji is responsible for the
bilateral relationships with five independent nations. Embassy Suva is
a busy hub of American activity in the Pacific. Some 26 American
employees and 80 Foreign Nationals work to advance U.S. interests over
a stretch of the Pacific Ocean. The dedicated staff members collaborate
with multilateral organizations, and promote regional public diplomacy
activities, environmental programs and policies, the National Export
Initiative, and defense-related relationships on a daily basis. If
confirmed, I will engage closely with the Pacific Islands Forum
continuing the good work of my predecessor, who was designated as the
first U.S. Representative to the PIF. The Embassy also has consular and
commercial responsibilities for French Polynesia, New Caledonia, and
Wallis and Futuna, making this geographically the largest consular
district in the world, spanning across 3,000 miles and attracting
approximately 55,000 Americans annually.
Fiji, located in the heart of the Pacific region, is an ethnically
and religiously diverse country of 850,000 people. It is a regional
transport and communications hub, as well as the site of the University
of the South Pacific and the regional headquarters of many foreign aid
organizations, NGOs, and multilateral organizations, including the
Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. The New Embassy Compound in Suva,
opened in June this year, serves four other U.S. Embassies in the
region as the hub for our Regional Environmental, Labor, Law
Enforcement, Public Diplomacy, and Defense offices.
Fiji's unique position in the Pacific makes it a key focal point
for our larger regional engagement with the South Pacific. In
comparison with other small Pacific Island nations, Fiji has a fairly
diversified economy. It remains a developing country with a large
subsistence agriculture sector, and Fiji is rich in natural resources
including gold, timber, and marine fisheries. For many years, sugar and
textile exports drove Fiji's economy. However, neither industry is
currently competing effectively in globalized markets. Additionally,
remittances from Fijians working abroad, and a growing tourist
industry--with 400,000 to 500,000 tourists annually--are the major
sources of foreign exchange. However, Fiji's tourism industry as well
remains damaged by the coup and continues to face an uncertain recovery
time.
In December 2006, the Fijian military, led by Commodore Voreqe
(Frank) Bainimarama, overthrew the country's lawfully elected
government creating a prolonged political and economic crisis in Fiji.
Fiji's coup leaders have not taken any credible steps to restore
democratic institutions. The public emergency regulations remain in
place; the press remains heavily censored and the right to assembly is
severely restricted. The United States has consistently advocated for
the Fijian regime to take steps to return democracy to the Fijian
people by holding free and fair elections and an end to Fiji's Public
Emergency Restrictions (PER). A promise to hold in 2009 did not
materialize and the government has now said it will hold elections in
2014.
A key feature of our engagement with Fiji is close consultation
and coordination with Australia, New Zealand, and other regional
players. We seek more direct engagement with Fiji's Government and
encourage it to take the necessary steps to restore democracy and
freedom. By taking credible steps toward an increased civilian role in
government, lifting of the PERs and other democratic reforms, Fiji can
work toward reintegrating into international institutions and restoring
its former international role. Assistant Secretary Campbell is in the
region now continuing our engagement with our friends in the Pacific;
and if confirmed, I will do the same. Also, we look forward to
discussing Fiji at the upcoming September Pacific Island Forum Leaders
meeting in Auckland.
Following the 2006 coup, the United States suspended military and
other assistance to Fiji under section 7008 of the Foreign Operations
Appropriations Act. This suspension applies to foreign military
financing, International Military Education and Training grants,
peacekeeping operations, and military aid that falls under section 1206
of the of the 2006 Defense Authorization law. The United States will
maintain these sanctions on Fiji until a return to civilian government,
signaled by a transparent, inclusive, open-ended process including all
elements of Fijian society. U.S. foreign assistance to Fiji has been
suspended due to the coup. If it resumes due to a return to a
democratically elected government, assistance will remain focused on
security for Fiji.
On occasion the United States cooperates with civilian police
authorities and, if confirmed, I will continue to work with the Fijian
Government on law enforcement training with police and port security
officials. The United States also plans to provide substantive
technical assistance toward an elections process once Fiji's Public
Emergency Restrictions are lifted and credible democratization
timetables are implemented. Fiji's Strategic Framework for Change
envisions a timeline for elections in 2014, but inclusive national
dialogue and concrete steps to restore a democratic process should
begin as early as possible. If confirmed, I am prepared to meet with
all levels of government, civil society, and other regional partners,
to push for early elections and restoring democracy in Fiji.
Pacific Island nations face many of the same global issues that
other countries face, but in this particular region, the repercussions
can be more acute. These countries, many of them low-lying atolls, will
be the first to experience the effects of climate change and
environmental degradation. Tuvalu, one of the world's smallest nations,
has nine atolls only a few feet above sea level. Nauru's once bountiful
phosphate mines are almost exhausted. HIV/AIDS, drug smuggling, and
human trafficking are also growing concerns. The problem of overfishing
and threatened marine resources, another global problem, hits hard in
the Pacific, since Island states are dependent upon fish stocks not
only for the sustenance of their people, but also as a major source of
government revenue. Non communicable diseases like diabetes and heart
disease among the Pacific Island population are also an area of
increasing concern. Kiribati participates in regular consultations
based on our 1979 Treaty of Friendship.
The challenges are many, but these small states are open to working
with us, and we have learned that focused, timely engagement can have a
large impact. If confirmed, I will work with all members of the U.S.
Government and private sectors, as well as regional partners like
Australia and New Zealand to try to address these pressing issues.
Historically, Pacific Island nations have been our friends but others
are increasing their profile in this strategic region, and we want to
ensure that nothing gets in the way of our close mutually supportive
cooperation.
Despite these challenges at home, these Pacific Islands are our
partners in fostering both regional and global stability. In the recent
November 2010 elections, Tonga has shown its commitment to the region
in being consistent in its vision toward democratization in that
country. Tonga and Tuvalu were early members of the coalition in Iraq.
Tongan troops are currently serving in Afghanistan. Fiji contributes
approximately 600 soldiers toward peacekeeping operations in Iraq, the
Middle East, Sudan, and Liberia.
Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Tonga, and Tuvalu occupy a strategically
important portion of the Pacific. They are our partners in addressing
critical global and regional issues. If confirmed, I will do my best to
continue to strengthen relations between the United States and each of
these five countries. Working together, we can achieve our common goals
for a stable, peaceful and prosperous region.
Senator Webb. Thank you very much.
And I should point out that your full statements, if they
vary at all from what you said, will be entered into the record
at the conclusion of your oral statements. Also that there may
be other members of the committee who have questions, and the
record will be held open until tomorrow evening, in case they
would like to submit those questions in writing and have them
included as part of the record.
Let me start, Mr. Mitchell, with some questions for you.
First a technical one: Have you been informed as to how
your position is going to fit into the hierarchy of the State
Department? Who's going to be the lead person for policy toward
Burma? And how are you going to fit into that?
Mr. Mitchell. Well, it is the first time someone will have
this position, so it will need to be worked out over time and
in practice.
I have been told that I will take a lead role on Burma
policy but, obviously, in consultation with East Asia-Pacific
office there, with Kurt Campbell, with Joe Yun, and obviously
in close consultation with the Secretary. But I've been told
that I'll be taking a leading role in consultation, in essence.
Senator Webb. We haven't had an ambassador to Burma since
1990, how do you feel about this in terms of affecting your
ability to engage the Government and the diplomatic
representatives of other countries in Burma?
Mr. Mitchell. I think we can engage effectively. This has
been a longstanding issue. We haven't had an ambassador for a
couple decades now. But I think it's a matter of what we say
and how we say it, as well. We need to take this a step at a
time.
But I think we can engage effectively with the charge there
and with my position and other channels.
Senator Webb. A key part of your role as defined by the
JADE Act is to consult with regional partners and others to
coordinate policy. What is your view of ASEAN's current policy
toward Burma?
Mr. Mitchell. Well, ASEAN has traditionally taken a
different approach. They have their ASEAN way of
noninterference and very strict notions of sovereignty and
such.
Things are changing. Things are evolving within ASEAN.
There are some key members, including Indonesia, that have made
the transition from a Burma-like system to a democracy.
So things are shifting there. They want to hold together,
though, so there is a kind of consensus approach that limits
the ability to take a more hard-line toward Burma.
They have sought engagement. They've pursued the
constructive engagement approach for some time. I think they
realize, as we have, as I said in my statement, that pure
engagement, pure pressure is not necessarily getting the
results we want.
And a key aspect of my job, a central aspect of my job, is
going to be coordinating with ASEAN, coordinating with ASEAN
nations to find a coordinated approach that gets us further
down to where we both want to be.
Senator Webb. As you know, there is some serious discussion
that Burma may chair ASEAN in 2014 and that this prospect could
actually incentivize the Government toward more rapid change.
What is your view or has the State Department taken a view on
this as of yet?
Mr. Mitchell. I don't think the State Department has taken
a view. This is for the ASEANs to determine themselves.
But I'm sure there's diplomatic outreach to ASEAN talking
about this issue, but I can't comment about where they stand on
that.
Senator Webb. What are your thoughts about that prospect?
Mr. Mitchell. About chairing ASEAN? I think, frankly, where
Burma is today--I mean, ASEAN recognizes that Burma is an
outlier, that Burma is somewhat of an embarrassment to the
organization, that it is not moving in the direction that they
want it to, even with the so-called elections and such that
have happened late last year and the government now in
Naypyidaw.
So I think they're wondering, they're debating themselves,
whether this is the right time and whether Burma itself needs
to prove that it deserves that kind of position within ASEAN,
to be basically the face of ASEAN for a year. That's pretty
substantial.
I mean, Burma has some work to do in order to make ASEAN
nations comfortable with that, and the rest of the
international community, I should say.
Senator Webb. You mentioned something a minute ago about
Indonesia having evolved from a military system. Vietnam and
China have never held democratic elections, yet have opened up
their economies to the outside world, have spurred regional
economic development, and have transformed their domestic
societies a great deal through that process, which is obviously
not perfect.
But Indonesia was a system viewed as corrupt and controlled
by the military. But over the course of decades, it's evolved
into a fairly successful democracy and a leader in Southeast
Asia.
What type of model do you see for Burma's political and
economic transition?
Mr. Mitchell. Well, every country has its own model.
There's no perfect cookie-cutter approach for countries. Burma
will have its own path to development and progress.
Indonesia I think clearly provides a very, very useful
model. They used to actually want to model themselves after
Indonesia, before Indonesia changed. I would hope they would
continue that talking point today, given how Indonesia has
changed from being a military-dominated society to a democracy
that is more stable than not and developing.
Burma hasn't made the choice that China and Vietnam have in
terms of opening up, and economic reform and such. So I think
they're very different situations, but we'll see how Burma
proceeds.
Senator Webb. Well, wouldn't you agree that one of the
reasons that Burma hasn't made that choice is that they've had
sanctions on them, and once sanctions were lifted--for
instance, in Vietnam, once the trade embargo was lifted in
1994, it enabled a different type of interaction from the
outside world, not only economic but on many different levels.
Mr. Mitchell. I think Burma, traditionally, it's paranoia
and it's xenophobia, and it's isolation. It's isolated itself
for many decades.
And there's still that old thing there. There is a lot of
concern about what this all will mean for the people in control
of the system, including the economic system. They did that to
themselves, and I think the sanctions were put in place in part
because the sense was that the elites were doing well and the
rest of the people were not. This was not a country that was
seeking real change. It was maybe only enough change to benefit
the few.
But we should watch how they develop. We should watch how
they proceed and see if development can assist the people of
Burma.
Senator Webb. You would agree, would you not, that
sanctions from the outside affect the ability of a country to
evolve economically and in other ways? You can't just say that
Burma did this to itself. I'm not defending the Burmese regime,
but just the reality of how sanctions policies work.
Mr. Mitchell. Sanctions certainly does affect our business
investment and trade. There's no question about that.
But I think, fundamentally, the problem is not sanctions,
when it comes to their economic development or where they are
economically. I think, fundamentally, they have to make
decisions about how they want to order their system in a way
that really benefits the people of Burma.
Senator Webb. Well, at a time when we have had these
sanctions in place, Beijing has made well more than $5 billion
in direct investment without asking for any sort of political
change inside the country.
And I know from personal experiences of American businesses
that were in Burma that had to leave once the sanctions were
put into place. And the comment at the time, this was 2001, was
that we were going to cut off our ability to help effect change
inside the country.
So wouldn't you agree that a two-step approach, similar to
what we have in place but taking advantage of signals from this
newly formed government, would possibly include lowering
sanctions?
Mr. Mitchell. Well, as I said in my testimony, as well, I
think we do need to be flexible. We need to evolve according to
conditions on the ground, if we see things are fundamentally
changing.
I mean, I don't think there's an ideology of sanctions--it
is the law, of course. I'm going to fulfill the law and it's up
to Congress to lift these restrictions. It won't be up to me,
necessarily.
But clearly, we need to watch what's going on there, and if
we do find, as in our humanitarian assistance, that we are able
to get in and help the people of Burma, truly help the people
of Burma through our engagement in that way, then we ought to
be considering that.
But right now, we're not necessarily seeing those signals,
and I don't think we're seeing the change from the Burmese
Government that makes that productive.
Senator Webb. I hope you get your feet on the ground over
there and maybe you can come back and have another discussion
about what the signals are. Thant Myint-U, who I think is one
of the most thoughtful and balanced observers of what's going
on in Burma, is saying pretty strongly that there's a window
here that could be taken advantage of, for the benefit of the
United States position in that part of the world and also for
the ability of the people inside the country to be able to
reconnect with the international community.
And so, let's see if we can't get a really clear look at
the signals that are being given off. And again, one of his
comments to me was that this was a window. If we don't take
advantage of it, it could very well go back the other way, and
we certainly wouldn't want to see that.
Mr. Mitchell. I should say, Mr. Chairman, he's a friend of
mine. I've talked to him several times about this, and I've
heard the same from him. And I certainly will keep my eyes and
ears open. I'm not coming in with any preconceived notions in
that regard.
Senator Webb. You wrote an article in Foreign Affairs in
2007. One of the quotes was, ``All parties have good reasons to
make concessions. None of them can afford to watch Burma
descend further into isolation and desperation and wait to act
until another generation of its people is lost.''
What are your thoughts about that now?
Mr. Mitchell. I continue to believe that. That's why this
position is meant to go out and coordinate and discuss with
other partners around the world, with ASEAN, with India, with
China, with Europe, and Japan, Korea, and others, about how we
get a coordinated approach, where strict sanctions or strict
engagement, which hasn't worked uncoordinated--maybe I think we
can find ways that we can come together on a more coherent
approach, even if we have different impulses.
Senator Webb. Thank you.
Ms. Reed, I'd say, listening to the Congressman's
introduction, and talking about this part of the world, I've
had the pleasure of, I'd guess I would say bouncing around
Pacific Asia over the years and wearing different hats. I
worked in Guam and Micronesia, at one point, as a military
planner. I was out in different spots as a journalist. Also had
the very emotional opportunity to visit Kiribati and the
Solomon Islands when I was Secretary of the Navy. And Kiribati,
as you know, was the site of one of the bloodiest battles in
Marine Corps history, the Battle of Tarawa.
It was an incredible experience to stand on that narrow
beach and look out at the amphibious vehicles that were still
in the water, and think about all the sacrifices that went on
in that remote place.
And so there are some of us up here who actually have, at
some level, been involved in those issues. I worked pretty hard
on this Trust Territory of the Pacific transition into the
political divisions that are now Micronesia.
I wish you the best, and the one thing I think about when I
am in that part of the world or remembering it, I was back in
Guam and Tinian just a couple months ago, is what the
Australians call the tyranny of distance.
And of course, I'd be interested in your thoughts in terms
of challenges of your position, with the remote locations of
these different countries that you're going to represent,
represent us to.
Ms. Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate your
comments, particularly I had the opportunity to listen to some
of your discussion on Federated States of Micronesia a little
over a year ago, when we were here for a confirmation hearing
for our Ambassadors to Australia, New Zealand, and the
Federated States of Micronesia.
As we are speaking, we have a group led by the Assistant
Secretary. This is an interagency group with Admiral Walsh.
They are visiting nine islands in the Pacific and just left
Kiribati and are participating in memorial ceremonies also at
each of the stops. I believe they are just leaving Tonga, also,
now.
But the tyranny of distance is exactly that. I just came
back from Papua New Guinea, where we were launching a women's
conference, Pacific women leaders. And having missed all of the
connections, it was about 29 hours. And that is the challenge.
I think what is important, in terms of U.S. engagement, is
an understanding of the economics of that engagement and why it
does necessarily cost more in terms of time and people power to
undertake this.
It's also important in understanding what the economies of
these island states are like and why it may take a bit more in
terms of generating strong economies.
But certainly, not only the historical connection, in terms
of regional security, the role that some of these island
states, all of them, in supporting the United States and the
United Nations, it's a very valuable investment.
Senator Webb. We have a term in military planning called
strategic denial. There are two different ways you look at
territories. One is strategically where you need to be
involved, and the other is strategically where you don't want
somebody else to be, because it will affect your ability to do
things. And the Pacific Ocean area, particularly Micronesia,
but also Kiribati, these areas, have always been a concern to
United States military planners, in terms of how other
countries might operate in the region and affect our ability to
communicate.
What do you see as the involvement of other major nations
in this region right now that we should look at, whether it's
economic or otherwise, just involvement of larger countries in
this region?
Ms. Reed. I guess in formulating my answer to that, I was
recently here with the Energy and Resources Committee
discussing Palau and we talked about strategic denial. And
while the impact of U.S. resources is probably, and I'm
phrasing this carefully, a bit more apparent in the freely
associated states, for historical reasons, and the compacts, of
course, it is closely watched by those others.
Again, another recent trip I made where one of the
countries that does not have a compact said they wish they did,
OK?
I find in the Pacific, in particular in the small island
states, because of the tyranny of distance, there's a lot of
room for other powers to come in, if there's a void. And in my
view, and having spent a lot of time out there--we lived in
Samoa, Apia, Samoa, western, for 3.5 years, a lot of investment
that has come in, in between that period of time, from other
powers, and a lot of that, in my view, has to do with the
absence--and when I say absence, the United States didn't leave
the Pacific, but sometimes we are not as physically present as
many of these countries would like.
Senator Webb. I would strongly agree with your summation on
that.
And what is it, in the areas that you're going to
represent, the most important for the United States Government
to be doing?
Ms. Reed. These five countries present an opportunity, an
almost unique opportunity, in terms of the ability for the
United States to make a big difference in support for
democratic reform, not only in Fiji, but in the other four.
Some of these systems have made great headway, Tonga, for
example. But at the same time, it's an occasion to show our
support through various support for civil society.
Because of the distance, it's important to have a physical
presence. Engagement means much more than being able to access
electronic media, some of which is almost nonexistent in many
of these places.
When we talk about economic empowerment, this is a place
where small investment can make a difference, support for
small-business institutions, exactly what the U.S. Agency for
International Development is so good at.
The Peace Corps is very present in some of these countries
but has withdrawn from three. And again, a missed opportunity.
You have island leaders who still talk about their Peace Corps
teachers from 30 years back. And it has one of the more
successful re-upping rates; that is, Peace Corps Volunteers who
decide to do a third year or fourth in these island states.
And in terms of simply regional stability, I think U.S.
presence, much of what the Pacific Command has been able to do
out there, Pacific Partnership bringing medical clinics to the
outer islands of many of these states, many people who have
never had an opportunity to see a U.S. physician or nurse,
setting up clinics.
That just touches on it just briefly, but I think there's
room for quite a bit.
Senator Webb. Thank you.
Mr. Mitchell, in several instances over the past year, the
State Department has issued statements calling for Burma to
fulfill its nonproliferation obligations, particularly with
regard to North Korea.
Last May, Assistant Secretary Campbell made the comment,
``We have urged Burma's senior leadership to abide by its own
commitment to fully comply with U.N. Security Council
Resolution 1874. Recent developments call into question that
commitment.''
Do we have evidence that Burma is noncompliant with U.N.
Security Council Resolution 1874?
Mr. Mitchell. I can't comment on that, personally. I don't
know if we have that.
Senator Webb. As policy coordinator, what steps do you
intend to take to examine Burma's military relationship with
North Korea, in particular China's role as an enabler in terms
of a point of transshipment in this relationship?
Mr. Mitchell. This is an absolutely critical issue. This is
a core concern of ours, because there are reports and there
seems to be some evidence of this relationship at a number of
levels between North Korea and Burma. And it's one reason for
engagement, is to be very frank and up front face to face, and
tell them what's at stake if we get evidence that there is this
relationship and they're violating U.N. Security Council
resolutions. It will have substantial impact on any possibility
of a betterment of certainly our bilateral relationship and
their relations with the outside world.
Senator Webb. There's a recent news report regarding
possible shipments from North Korea to Burma. And Gary Samore,
Special Assistant to the President, stated in the Wall Street
Journal that Burma was among the countries that agreed to apply
pressure on North Korea, and that contrary to initial press
reports implying the ship was bound for Burma, the final
destination of the North Korean ship was not known. This was
the Wall Street Journal report of a comment by the Special
Assistant to the President.
What is your view of this? Is this a positive development?
Do you think it portends anything for future cooperation on
nonproliferation?
Mr. Mitchell. Well, I'd have to defer. I don't know about
that report. I can't substantiate it. I don't know anything
about that, so I'd refer to the State Department and the White
House on that. But if there is evidence, then----
Senator Webb. If it were correct, you would view that as a
positive development?
Mr. Mitchell. If correct, obviously very positive.
Senator Webb. OK.
As I said, any questions for the record from other members
of the committee can be submitted until close of business
tomorrow.
I thank both of you for your testimony today and for your
willingness to continue serving our country and for this very
useful exchange.
This hearing is now closed.
[Whereupon, at 11 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record
Responses of Derek Mitchell to Questions Submitted by
Senator John F. Kerry
Question. You made clear in your prepared remarks that the Obama
administration policy you will pursue, if confirmed, is based on a more
flexible approach that integrates sanctions and engagement to achieve
results in Burma. This ``dual-track'' policy, as you noted, is
reflective of President Barack Obama's broader call for ``principled
engagement'' with countries worldwide. Thus far, the administration's
engagement with Burma has yielded only modest results, as U.S.
officials themselves point out. But it was also understood that this
process would require some time and patience. While U.S. policy has
evolved, the goal of a more open, democratic, peaceful, and prosperous
Burma remains much the same. How will you approach the Burmese
Government to advance these principles, and what will be your message
to senior Burmese officials when you first arrive in Naypyidaw?
Answer. If confirmed, I will engage in a direct dialogue with
senior Burmese officials in Nay Pyi Taw--as well as a full range of
other leading players in the country--to listen to their perspective on
the future direction of Burma, plans for democratic change, national
reconciliation, economic reform, and protection of human rights, and
frankly relay the perspectives and principles of the U.S. Government as
they will affect our Burma policy going forward. My message to the
Government and people of Burma will be that the United States harbors
no animosity toward Burma but rather is committed to advancing Burma's
own stated goal to become an open, just, democratic, and prosperous
nation that adheres to international laws and principles, and serves as
a responsible and respected member of the international community.
Question. Following last November's highly controversial elections,
Burma's first Parliament in over 20 years completed its inaugural
session from January to March 2011. Notwithstanding the fact that it is
early and you have not had a chance to have first-hand conversations
with relevant actors on the ground, what are your initial observations
about how that institution is functioning? If confirmed, what
principles would inform your consultations with opposition leaders, and
based on those principles, with whom in the opposition would you most
likely consult in addition to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi?
Answer. I was disappointed by media reports that noted Burma's
parliamentary sessions were short and scripted and that members had to
submit questions in advance. A true democratic legislature should serve
as a forum for genuine debate and a check on executive branch power.
If confirmed, my consultations with opposition leaders would affirm
these principles while ensuring that I consult with a full range of
stakeholders, including civil society leaders, ethnic minority
representatives, and political parties, in addition to Aung San Suu Kyi
and the National League for Democracy and other groups, to enable me to
understand the full range of thinking about Burma's future.
Question. Allegations have recently resurfaced that the Tatmadaw is
seeking to obtain assistance from North Korea to develop nuclear
weapons and missile technology. How do you view such claims and, more
generally, the political-military relationship between Burma and North
Korea? What might be motivating any Burmese efforts to acquire
sensitive technologies from overseas?
Answer. I am troubled by reports of military-to-military ties
between Burma and North Korea. If confirmed, I will monitor closely any
reports or questions about illicit North Korea-Burma interaction and
consult with the committee on any findings in an appropriate classified
venue.
I will also raise our concerns about these reports in Nay Pyi Taw
and urge the Burmese to be transparent in any dealings they have with
North Korea and to comply with their international obligations,
including full and transparent implementation of U.N. Security Council
Resolutions 1718 and 1874.
Question. Burma's Ministry of National Planning Development reports
Burma received $20 billion in inward foreign direct investment (FDI) in
the fiscal year ending March 11, compared to $302 million in fiscal
year 2010. The claim, if reasonably accurate, would seem to point to
the challenges of coordinating international efforts to apply pressure
on Burma. If confirmed, how would you try to address the growing
importance that Burma's neighbors seem to be placing on the country as
an investment destination?
Answer. Burma is a country that is rich in natural resources, and I
have seen reports that investment in the country is increasing,
particularly in extractive industries. If confirmed, I will engage
interested nations about the full range of interests and equities we
share in genuine political and economic reform Burma, and our potential
role in promoting that reform through coordinated and principled
engagement. In addition, I would call upon the governments of Burma's
neighboring countries to urge Burmese authorities to comply with
international environmental, labor, and human rights norms.
Question. One of the responsibilities of the Special Representative
is to consult with regional and international organizations and other
countries to coordinate policies toward Burma. As you know, Burma is
scheduled to chair ASEAN in 2014. Understanding that ASEAN's membership
must ultimately reach their own decisions, how will you coordinate with
them to leverage the ASEAN chairmanship to achieve improvement on human
rights and more responsive governance?
Answer. If confirmed, I will coordinate and consult closely with
ASEAN members individually and as an institution to encourage
consideration of Burma's potential chairmanship in a manner consistent
with ASEAN's own interests and reputation, and the ideals of ASEAN's
own charter with respect to democratic principles, good governance, and
respect for human rights. I believe the countries of ASEAN will have an
essential role to play in assisting movement toward reform in Burma.
Question. If recent high-profile visits are instructive, China
continues to exert considerable political and economic influence over
Burma. China's ongoing practice is to shield Burma from criticism over
its human rights record in global fora and to thwart international
efforts to apply pressure on the Burmese Government that are intended
to produce improvements in human rights and good governance. If
confirmed, how would you approach China to coordinate our activities in
ways that produce positive changes in Burma? Are there particular
areas, for example, that you view as potentially ripe for cooperation
with China?
Answer. If confirmed, I will pursue dialogue with Chinese officials
to identify areas of shared concern and potential cooperation, and
encourage China to consult not only with officials in Nay Pyi Taw but
with a wide array of stakeholders. China's interest in stability on its
borders provides an incentive for a common approach that encourages
national reconciliation through dialogue with, rather than violence
against, Burma's ethnic minorities. Likewise, China should understand
that only through real political and economic reform will Burma achieve
true stability, which in turn serves China's interests in the region.
Question. In recent years, India has shifted its approach on Burma
to put a much greater emphasis on engagement with the Burmese
Government. In New Delhi's view, a policy focused principally on
engagement is more consistent with India's interests. Are there ways in
which we can encourage India to conduct its engagement going forward so
that it benefits a more diverse set of stakeholders in Burma and better
prepares Burma for a transition to a more open, inclusive, and
responsive political and economic order?
Answer. India could play a unique role in promoting genuine
democratic reform in Burma, particularly as the largest democracy in
the world and key regional player, but also due to close historical
ties with Burma and a shared background as a former British colony.
India's free press, flourishing civil society, and ethnic diversity
offer a useful example for Burma's future. India has a wide range of
national interests in Burma that affect its calculations in dealing
with the country. I am convinced, however, that India and the United
States have a mutual interest in national reconciliation, reform, and
true stability in Burma based on democratic principles. If confirmed, I
will consider it an important part of my job to engage India to
determine how we can leverage our respective strengths and interests
toward a coordinated international approach to Burma that achieves our
common goals, promotes reform, and benefits the people of Burma.
______
Responses of Derek Mitchell to Questions Submitted by
Senator Richard G. Lugar
Question. The Governments of Thailand and Burma have a reciprocity
agreement to return military personnel of the other country who have
fled their country of origin. During the last 4 years, over 100 Burmese
military personnel who fled to Thailand were reportedly returned to
Burma. Some of these individuals were hoping to defect to the United
States. Will you work within the Obama administration to develop a
strategy for approaching Thailand officials to reconsider the policy of
returning fleeing military personnel from Burma, especially those who
desire relocating to the United States?
Answer. If confirmed, I will consult closely with administration
officials as well as Thai Government officials to help ensure
appropriate protection for all Burmese fleeing the country, including
former members of the military. We need to continue to emphasize to
Thai authorities that any return of Burmese nationals to Burma be
voluntary and in line with international norms. We will continue to
work closely with UNHCR to assist Burmese refugees needing protection
and durable solutions to their refugee circumstances, including through
resettlement in the United States.
Question. Why have economic sanctions targeting Burma's junta not
been fully implemented by the U.S. Government? For example, the U.S.
Treasury Department has not terminated correspondent relationships
between overseas financial institutions holding assets of key junta
officials and U.S. financial institutions, as allowed under present
U.S. law. When asked about this, Treasury officials advised that such
action would require the approval of the Department of State, and was
unlikely to be received.
Answer. Our sanctions against Burma are comprehensive and target
senior government officials and their cronies, among others. As
warranted by conditions on the ground and new information, our ability
to tighten sanctions is an extremely important lever of pressure on the
regime. We appreciate the authorities Congress has provided through the
JADE Act.
If confirmed, I intend to thoroughly review implementation of all
existing sanctions, including those authorized and imposed under the
JADE Act, to ensure that our sanctions regime complies with the law and
is implemented as effectively as possible.
Question. In 2009, a Burmese military official seeking to defect to
the United States was turned away at the American Embassy in Bangkok.
What are the instructions provided to U.S. embassies on how to respond
to persons from Burma seeking asylum?
Answer. The Department issues annual guidance to all embassies on
procedures for handling foreign national walk-ins. We have confirmed
that our embassies in the region follow these procedures for any
Burmese military personnel who may approach the embassy. Embassies are
instructed to coordinate with UNHCR regarding persons seeking asylum.
We will continue to monitor these types of situations closely and
coordinate with the appropriate entities to respond to the needs of any
Burmese asylum seekers, including military personnel, who may approach
an embassy in the region.
Question. Please provide the dates and details of communications
since 2008 inclusive, when U.S. officials based in the U.S. Embassy in
Rangoon approached Burmese officials asking that officials of the
International Red Cross be allowed to visit with imprisoned political
prisoners?
Answer. At every opportunity, we call on the Government of Burma to
release all political prisoners immediately and unconditionally. We are
concerned by the International Committee of the Red Cross' lack of
access to prisons in Burma. I am unable to address the specifics of
this question at this time. However, if confirmed, I will do all I can
to facilitate this inquiry and provide information through a classified
briefing if you are still seeking this information at that time.
Question. What steps have been taken by the U.S. Government to
encourage countries neighboring Burma to accommodate child soldiers
seeking to escape from their forced service in Burma's military?
Answer. We consistently call on Burma's neighboring countries to
provide safety and protection to all Burmese fleeing the country,
including children seeking to escape involvement in military
activities. We work with the international community, including at the
United Nations, to continue to shed light on the deplorable human
rights situation in Burma and to urge the Government of Burma to cease
this practice and respect basic human rights of all its citizens.
Together with the international community, we are urging the government
to grant the United Nations access to areas where children are
recruited.
Question. If confirmed, will you support Secretary Clinton's call
for a Commission on Inquiry related to Burma?
Answer. If confirmed, I will fully support Secretary Clinton's
commitment to seek accountability for the human rights violations that
have occurred in Burma by working to establish an international
Commission of Inquiry through close consultations with our friends,
allies, and other partners at the United Nations.
Question. In addition to the export of missiles to Burma from North
Korea, are North Koreans assisting with the manufacture of missiles
inside Burma?
Answer. I would refer you to the intelligence community for an
answer to this question. If confirmed, I will monitor closely any
reports or questions about illicit North Korea-Burma interaction and
consult with the committee on any findings in an appropriate classified
venue.
Question. What are the projected annual numbers of MANPADS exported
to Burma from North Korea and what are the projected numbers of MANPADS
reportedly manufactured inside Burma on an annual basis?
Answer. I am unable to provide answers to these questions at this
time and would refer you to the intelligence community. If confirmed, I
will do all I can to facilitate this inquiry and provide answers to the
committee through a classified briefing, if you are still seeking this
information at that time.
Question. What is the status of the nuclear reactor reportedly
under construction in Pakokku Township, Magway Division, Burma? How
many North Koreans are estimated to be working at this facility?
Answer. I am unable to provide answers to these questions at this
time and would refer you to the intelligence community. If confirmed, I
will do all I can to monitor reports of questionable Burmese activities
and ensure the committee receives answers to its questions on this
account in the appropriate classified venue.
Question. Is the reported collaboration between Burmese and North
Korean officials in Pyin Oo Lwin connected to Burma's efforts to
develop a nuclear weapons program?
Answer. I would refer you to the intelligence community for an
answer to this question. I can say, however, that if confirmed I will
monitor closely any reports of collaboration between Burma and North
Korea, including but not limited to those that may violate U.N.
Security Council resolutions, and will consult with the committee on
this matter in the appropriate classified venue.
______
Responses of Frankie Reed to Questions Submitted by
Senator Richard G. Lugar
Question. Please describe the objectives and efforts of U.S. IMET
programs in the Pacific, particularly in countries that do not have
their own defense forces.
Answer. IMET is an important component of the administration's
broader commitment to strengthen our engagement with the Pacific region
at a time when other countries are intensifying their interactions with
the Pacific Islands. Modest U.S. security assistance to the Pacific
Islands provides local security personnel the necessary technical
training to enhance their maritime security capabilities while
improving their professionalism. The links we develop between our
respective security forces have an important people-to-people component
that help us maintain close relations across the generations and at all
levels of society.
In particular, Tonga, despite its small size and isolated
geography, has been a valuable and regular contributor to U.S. and
international security--with deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, and the
Solomon Islands. Nauru and Kiribati also support the Regional
Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands.
Question. What is the nature of the relationship between U.S.
officials in Fiji and Commodore Bainimarama? Please provide the
committee with a copy of his biography.
Answer. The U.S. Ambassador has had over the past 3 years a cordial
but distant working relationship with Commodore Bainimarama. Commodore
Bainimarama has not always accepted the Ambassador's requests for
meetings and one-on-one meetings between the two have been limited.
Bainimarama has not welcomed the Ambassadors's overtures to discuss
specific ways that the United States could help Fiji return to civilian
government and democracy. However, the Ambassador and Embassy officials
have had an excellent working relationship with the Minister of Foreign
Affairs and his staff. Embassy officials work with Fiji Government
officials at all levels and on areas of mutual concern, particularly
law enforcement cooperation, disaster response and votes in the United
Nations.
Question. During the last 2 years, what has been the nature of
communication between U.S. and Chinese officials in Fiji?
Answer. Embassy officials have a friendly and constructive
relationship. Embassy officials periodically meet to discuss possible
mutual cooperation on development and humanitarian assistance as well
as consular affairs to ensure better disaster preparedness for overseas
American citizens and Chinese citizens.
Question. Please outline in detail, the U.S. export strategy for
the Republic of the Fiji Islands and the other areas where you will
represent the United States.
Answer. The Embassy seeks to use the National Export Initiative as
a mechanism to increase exports from the United States to the region.
Pacific Island countries would benefit from using U.S.-generated
bioengineered agricultural products and techniques to increase food
production. Exporting green technologies, particularly to reduce the
burden of high fossil fuel costs, also would expand U.S. markets.
Favorable exchange rates currently provide opportunities to export
poultry, meat, and vegetables. The establishment of a Web-based
American-Pacific Chamber of Commerce would strengthen trade ties and
bolster economic activity. In addition, labor mobility strategies for
Pacific Island countries largely dependent on wage remittances would
greatly enhance their purchasing power.
Question. Please outline and compare U.S. and Chinese foreign
assistance to the Republic of Fiji.
Answer. The United States does not provide traditional foreign
assistance to Fiji. On occasion, our efforts focus on capacity-
building, training, and technical assistance, particularly in law
enforcement, disaster management, and leadership training for
civilians. China still supports significant ``brick and mortar'
projects, such as roads, housing, and other facilities, using Chinese
companies. Both countries allow for small numbers of Fijian students to
attend colleges and universities in their respective countries.
______
Prepared Statement of Derek Mitchell to Questions Submitted by
Senator James M. Inhofe
reporting lines and staffing pattern
In order for this position to be effective, the Special
Representative and Policy Coordinator will need to be able to work
across bureaus at State and across agencies, particularly with regard
to the policy coordination mandate of the position. As the person in
this position will be working on such complex interbureau and
interagency efforts as the Commission of Inquiry, the disposition of
banking and other targeted sanctions, and questions of aid and
investment policy, it is important that they have the imprimatur of a
direct reporting line to the Secretary of State and the interagency
convening authority that comes with it. At the same time it is
important to understand where the Special Representative/Coordinator
will fit within the existing hierarchy and policy processes dealing
with Burma, and what mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that the
Special Representative's role is integrated effectively into those
processes.
Question. Would you please provide all information regarding the
expected reporting lines for the Special Representative and the
Department's justification for its proposed arrangement; and additional
information on the proposed reporting lines between the Special
Representative and the EAP front and Burma offices, Embassy Rangoon,
and other relevant officers?
Answer. We expect that the Special Representative and Policy
Coordinator for Burma will report to East Asia and Pacific Affairs
Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell and through him to the Secretary of
State. The Department believes this reporting line will ensure that U.S
Burma policy is integrated with our overarching policy in Southeast
Asia and East Asia more broadly. The Special Representative will
consult closely with our Embassy in Rangoon and all offices in the
Department that have equities in Burma, as well as across the
interagency, to ensure that our policy on Burma is comprehensive and
coordinated.
Question. Would you please provide the committee with additional
information regarding the proposed staffing pattern for the office,
including the anticipated number and type of staff that the Special
Representative's office will be allocated to carry out its work?
Answer. The Special Representative will be supported by a Special
Assistant and an Office Management Specialist. As needed, the East
Asian and Pacific Affairs Bureau will work to ensure that the Special
Representative is adequately supported to ensure he can fulfill his
mandate.
assistance policy and programs
You noted that the U.S. Government has recently broadened the scope
of its assistance programs inside Burma to assist directly the Burmese
people through aid interventions. We are also seeing some other key
donors moving to increase the nominal value of their aid programs in
Burma and expand the types of activities in which they are engaged.
Also, investment and aid from China in Burma varies widely. Some
commentators have noted the deleterious effects of Chinese assistance
to the Burmese Government as undermining the efforts of other donors to
provide more responsible assistance.
Question. Could you elaborate on the current U.S. Government policy
on humanitarian and development assistance in Burma, including examples
of the types of activities that we consider to be possible at this time
as well as those areas that remain outside the scope of current policy?
Answer. Current U.S. Government policy is to ensure all of our
assistance programs are humanitarian or focused on democracy-building.
Our assistance in Burma is designed to address the core problem of
governance by empowering civil society to demand more responsive and
democratic government, while also tackling the more immediate
humanitarian issues that impede a democratic transition.
Burma is the poorest country in Southeast Asia and approximately
one-third of Burma's people live in poverty. Our humanitarian
assistance inside Burma combats public health threats, helps meet basic
needs of refugees and migrants along Burma's borders, and addresses
critical transnational challenges including infectious disease. Our
democracy-building activities aim to develop and empower Burma's
fragile civil society through training, education, and other civic
capacity-building programs. The U.S. Government provides all
humanitarian, health, and democracy assistance to Burma through U.N.
agencies, international nongovernmental organization partners and local
civil society organizations.
Any assistance activities that are outside of humanitarian or
democracy assistance, flow through or to the Government of Burma at the
national or local level, or support the Government of Burma are outside
the scope of current policy. I believe that until we see evidence of
genuine change inside Burma, we must continue to carry out our
assistance programs independent of the government.
Question. Could you detail how assistance programs inside Burma are
related to longstanding U.S. programs to assist refugees and political
activists working from exile to support political reform in Burma, as
well as how changes in European policies and programs have impacted USG
policy and funding decisions in this area?
Answer. The overarching U.S. interest in Burma is a peaceful,
prosperous, democratic country that respects human rights and the rule
of law. Our assistance contributes to this objective by strengthening
civil society; meeting the basic needs of the most vulnerable Burmese
inside the country, along the Thai-Burma border, and elsewhere in the
region; and addressing critical transnational issues. Assistance
programs inside Burma complement ongoing programs to assist refugees
and political activists working from exile to support political reform
in Burma. To help meet the needs of people on both sides of the border,
our assistance programs operate from both inside Burma and from the
border regions.
In FY 2010, we provided significant cross-border assistance,
totaling $25.5 million for vulnerable Burmese along the Thai-Burma
border and roughly 150,000 refugees residing in nine refugee camps in
Thailand. In addition to humanitarian assistance programs inside Burma,
democracy programs also operate from both sides of the border. Current
programs inside Burma, for example, improve the operational ability of
nascent civil society organizations, and provide grants for
scholarships to Burmese citizens who return from overseas to provide
social work within their communities. We have strict monitoring
requirements in place to ensure none of our assistance flows to or
through the government or military in any way and is delivered directly
to the people of Burma.
The European Union's continued support for humanitarian assistance
in Burma and Thailand is welcomed. In March 2011, the EU Commissioner
announced its commitment to provide 22.25 million Euros in support of
vulnerable Burmese communities in Burma and Burmese refugees in
Thailand. We coordinate closely with the EU and other donor governments
to ensure that adequate funding is sustained in order to meet the
humanitarian needs of vulnerable Burmese.
Question. Would you please explain how you propose to engage both
our fellow donors, multilateral aid agencies, and others like China on
developing and implementing appropriate standards for assisting Burma?
Is this an area where the United States can engage directly with the
National League for Democracy and others outside the ruling party to
effect better programs and outcomes?
Answer. The U.S. Government has consistently sought to coordinate
with and influence other countries and multilateral organizations on
the provision of assistance to Burma. Our goal has been to ensure that
any assistance, from U.S. taxpayer dollars or anoth sources, benefits
the people of Burma and does not enrich the Government of Burma or its
supporters. This engagement has taken place not only with partners such
as Australia and the European Union, but also with countries and
organizations such as China, Japan, Canada, the Republic of Korea, the
Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), and the U.N. and its
agencies.
In addition to advocating appropriate parameters for assistance
programs with the international community, we have engaged with an
array of civil society groups including the National League for
Democracy (NLD) and its leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, to solicit their
views on assistance and effective methods to promote democracy and the
growth of civil society inside the country.
Our engagement with the NLD and Aung San Suu Kyi and other
nongovernment entities has taken place both through our Embassy in
Rangoon as well as through senior-level visits and correspondence from
Washington officials. If I am confirmed, I will ensure that we continue
the provision of assistance with the same philosophy and goals and that
we remain focused on the betterment of the Burmese people.
NOMINATIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
Paul D. Wohlers, of Washington, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of Macedonia
William H. Moser, of North Carolina, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of Moldova
John A. Heffern, of Missouri, to be Ambassador to the Republic
of Armenia
Thomas M. Countryman, of Washington, to be Assistant Secretary
of State for International Security and Non-
Proliferation
Jeffrey DeLaurentis, of New York, to be Alternate
Representative of the United States of America for
Special Political Affairs in the United Nations, with
the rank of Ambassador, and Alternate Representative of
the United States of America to the Sessions of the
General Assembly of the United Nations
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m., in room
SD-419, Dirksen Office Building, Hon. Jeanne Shaheen presiding.
Present: Senators Shaheen, Menendez, Barrasso, and Risch.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Shaheen. Good afternoon, everyone. We have a full
house. I hope that means we have lots of relatives and it's not
just because there's nothing else going on in the Senate this
afternoon. Welcome to all of you.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is here today to
consider the nominations of: Paul Wohlers, to be Ambassador to
the Republic of Macedonia; William Moser, to be Ambassador to
the Republic of Moldova; John Heffern, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of Armenia; Tom Countryman, to be Assistant Secretary
of State for International Security and Non-Proliferation; and
Jeffrey Delaurentis, to be Alternate Representative of the
United States of America for Special Political Affairs in the
United Nations, with the rank of Ambassador, and Alternate
Representative of the United States of America to the Sessions
of the General Assembly of the United Nations. I'm sure we have
an acronym for that title. [Laughter.]
We will do these nominations in two panels, and today we
will examine a wide variety of posts and positions with
responsibilities spanning regions and institutions across the
globe. Each of them is important in strengthening U.S.
influence and in safeguarding American interests. I want to
congratulate each of you on your nominations and welcome you
and your families and friends as we discuss the challenges and
opportunities that you face should you be confirmed.
In the interest of time, I'm going to submit my full
statement for the record and point out that three of our
nominees have been named for ambassadorial posts in important
countries in the strategic regions of southern and Eastern
Europe. Macedonia seeks full European integration, including by
joining the EU and NATO. Its full integration can't be
achieved, however, until the Macedonians and the Greeks resolve
the lingering impasse over the country's name. Separately,
Macedonia faced a parliamentary crisis earlier this year, due
largely to complaints of media oppression.
Moldova is Europe's poorest country, according to the World
Bank. It faces low living standards and a weak economy, but has
shown a real commitment to reform and expanding democratic
values.
We've maintained close ties with Armenia since the
dissolution of the Soviet Union, due to Armenia's promotion of
democratic principles. Unfortunately, the quality of recent
elections and the failure to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh issue
have not been encouraging.
Today we also examine the United States relationship with
the United Nations. In particular, we will look at the role of
the U.N.'s peace and security functions, including peacekeeping
operations.
Finally, the committee will examine the role the United
States should be taking to prevent the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons and
materials. The proliferation of such weapons and materials
threatens not only U.S. security, but global stability.
I want to thank each of you for your willingness to take on
these important and challenging posts, and I look forward to
hearing your views.
I want to take a moment to briefly introduce our first
panel before turning it over to you for your opening
statements, and I will also turn it over to Senator Barrasso to
make a brief statement. But first up today is Paul Wohlers, the
nominee to be Ambassador to Macedonia. Paul has a distinguished
record in the Foreign Service, serving multiple tours in Europe
and the Department's Executive Secretariat. He is a graduate of
the Naval Academy and currently serves as the Deputy Executive
Secretary at the State Department.
Next is William Moser, who has been nominated to serve as
Ambassador to Moldova. William is also a Foreign Service
officer, having served in a wide range of management officer
positions. He currently serves as the Department's Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Logistics Management.
Finally, we have John Heffern, nominated to be Ambassador
to Armenia. A career member of the senior Foreign Service, John
has a wide range of experiences, including extensive service in
Asia and Europe. He additionally spent time on the Hill, first
with Senator Danforth and later as a State Department Pearson
Fellow. He currently serves as Deputy Chief of Mission at the
U.S. mission to NATO.
As each of you give your opening statements, I hope you'll
feel free to introduce your family or any friends who are here
to support you. Now I'd like to turn it over to Senator
Barrasso before we ask the panel to begin.
[The prepared statement of Senator Shaheen follows:]
Opening Statement of Hon. Jeanne Shaheen,
U.S. Senator from New Hampshire
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is here today to consider
the nominations of Paul D. Wohlers to be Ambassador to the Republic of
Macedonia; William H. Moser to be Ambassador to the Republic of
Moldova; John A. Heffern to be Ambassador to the Republic of Armenia;
Thomas M. Countryman to be Assistant Secretary of State for
International Security and Nonproliferation; and Jeffrey DeLaurentis to
be Alternate Representative of the United States of America for Special
Political Affairs in the United Nations, with the rank of Ambassador,
and Alternate Representative of the United States of America to the
Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Today, we will examine a wide variety of posts and positions with
responsibilities spanning regions and institutions across the globe.
Each of them is important in strengthening U.S. influence and in
safeguarding American interests. I want to congratulate each of you on
your nominations, and welcome you and your families as we discuss the
challenges and opportunities that you may face should you be confirmed.
Three of our nominees have been named for ambassadorial posts in
important countries in the strategic regions of Southern and Eastern
Europe. We will examine a wide range of issues regarding these
countries today.
Macedonia seeks full European integration, including by joining the
European Union and NATO. Its full integration cannot be achieved,
though, until the Macedonians and Greeks resolve the lingering impasse
over the country's name. Separately, Macedonia faced a parliamentary
crisis earlier this year, due largely to complaints of media
oppression.
Moldova is Europe's poorest country, according to the World Bank.
It faces low living standards and a weak economy, but has shown a
commitment to reform and extending democratic values. Moldova is taking
significant steps to create a transparent legal system, to fight
corruption, and to end human trafficking, but much work remains.
Further, the unresolved status of Transnistria hinders Moldova's
ability strengthen its institutions and economy.
We have maintained close ties with Armenia since the dissolution of
the Soviet Union, due to Armenia's promotion of democratic principles.
Unfortunately, the quality of recent elections and failure to resolve
the Nagorno-Karabakh issue have not been encouraging.
Today, we also examine the United States relationship with the
United Nations. In particular, we will look at the role of the U.N.'s
peace and security functions, including peacekeeping operations. In
recent years, numerous conflicts have led to an escalation in the use
of U.N. peacekeepers. This expansion of operations has drawn attention
to weaknesses and failures of the United Nations in these activities.
Finally, the committee will examine the role the United States
should be taking to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, particularly nuclear weapons and materials. The
proliferation of such weapons and materials threatens not only U.S.
security, but global stability. We face a great number of challenges,
including stopping illicit networks, countering North Korean and
Iranian nuclear programs, and implementing existing nonproliferation
regimes. Additionally, we must look at how nuclear energy programs are
being implemented globally.
I want to thank each of you for your willingness to take on these
important and challenging posts, and look forward to hearing your
views. I want to take a moment to briefly introduce our first panel
before turning it over to you for your opening statements.
First up today, is Paul Wohlers, the nominee to be the Ambassador
to Macedonia. Paul has a distinguished record in the Foreign Service,
serving multiple tours in Europe and the Department's Executive
Secretariat. He is a graduate of the Naval Academy, and currently
serves as the Deputy Executive Secretary at the State Department.
Next, is William Moser, who has been nominated to serve as
Ambassador to Moldova. William is also a Foreign Service officer,
having served in wide range of Management Officer positions. He
currently serves as the Department's Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Logistics Management.
Finally, we have John Heffern, nominated to be Ambassador to
Armenia. A career member of the Senior Foreign Service, John has a wide
range of experiences, including extensive service in Asia and Europe.
He additionally spent time on the Hill, first with Senator Danforth,
and later as a State Department Pearson Fellow. He currently serves as
Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Mission to NATO.
As each of you give your opening statements, feel free to introduce
any family or friends here to support you.
First on our second panel is Thomas Countryman, who has been
nominated to be the Assistant Secretary of State for International
Security and Nonproliferation. Tom is a career member of the Senior
Foreign Service, serving most recently as the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, specifically
focusing on Balkans issues. Tom has a great deal of experience working
on International Security issues, previously serving in the Bureau of
Political-Military Affairs, as Foreign Policy Advisor to the Commandant
of the Marine Corps, and on the National Security Council Staff.
Finally, we will consider the nomination of Jeffrey DeLaurentis to
be Alternate Representative of the United States of America for Special
Political Affairs in the United Nations, with the rank of Ambassador,
and Alternate Representative of the United States of America to the
Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations. As a Foreign
Service Officer, Jeffrey has served in a number of positions in the
State Department, especially focused on Western Hemisphere and United
Nations issues. He currently serves as Deputy Assistant Secretary for
South America
As each of you give your opening statements, feel free to introduce
any family or friends here to support you.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Madam
Chairman. I just want to join you in congratulating each of the
nominees who are here today as the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations meets to consider these very important nominations.
Each post is important to fostering vital relationships,
addressing important problems, and securing United States
national interests.
So I also want to extend a warm welcome to all the friends
and the family who are with you and I look forward to them, as
you had suggested, introducing the family and friends that are
here. So with that, thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and it
is indeed a warm welcome to each of these nominees. [Laughter.]
Senator Shaheen. You can't really appreciate how warm it is
because it's usually freezing in this room. So it's either
feast or famine.
Mr. Wohlers, would you like to begin?
STATEMENT OF PAUL D. WOHLERS, OF WASHINGTON, NOMINATED TO BE
AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
Mr. Wohlers. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam
Chairman, members of the committee, it's a privilege to appear
before you today as President Obama's nominee to be the U.S.
Ambassador to the Republic of Macedonia. It's a great honor to
have this confidence placed in me by the President and by
Secretary Clinton. If confirmed, I look forward to working with
this committee and with the Congress in advancing U.S.
interests in Macedonia, building on the excellent work of my
predecessors.
I'm delighted today to be accompanied by my family and I'd
like to introduce them briefly, if I may: first my wife, Mary
Jo, who's a registered nurse and has held our family together
through many, many moves over 27 years in the Foreign Service.
Senator Shaheen. We're going to ask her if she would stand
up and be recognized.
Mr. Wohlers. My three daughters, Rachel and Julia and
Jessica. Also I'm pleased today to be accompanied by my niece,
Marion, who's also the daughter of a Foreign Service family.
So as you can see, I have great pride in being part of a
Foreign Service family. I think Foreign Service families are
true unsung heroes and diplomats themselves. I know that my
three daughters and my wife--and I know Marion--have served
much of their lives living, working, and going to school
overseas, serving as examples of American values to the people
around them, and sometimes even bearing the sting of criticism
from people at their schools who did not agree with American
policies. So I've been delighted to have them by my side all my
life, and my life would have been empty without them.
As you're aware, I have served previously in Macedonia, an
experience which I believe will enhance my effectiveness as
Chief of Mission should you decide to confirm me. If confirmed,
I will return to Macedonia during an important period. On
September 8, Macedonia will mark the 20th anniversary of its
independence, and August 13 will be the 10th anniversary of the
Ohrid Framework Agreement, which ended the country's civil
conflict in 2001. The framework agreement, concluded with
United States and European Union help, remains the foundation
for Macedonia's peaceful and democratic development. The
agreement ended the conflict by addressing the ethnic
grievances of the people through principles of equal rights for
all citizens regardless of ethnicity.
Today, 10 years from Ohrid and after 20 years of
independence, Macedonia is working toward becoming a stable,
multiethnic democracy. However, there is much more to be done
in Macedonia. First, though, I think the citizens of Macedonia
are to be congratulated for the June 5 election, in which
people turned out in great numbers and behaved peacefully and
with dignity.
Following this accomplishment, now this is the time for the
people of Macedonia and the leaders of Macedonia to refocus on
moving toward greater prosperity, stability, security, and
Euro-Atlantic integration. While democratic structures are in
place in Macedonia, full respect for the rule of law and
independent institutions remains a problem. An independent
judiciary, free and independent media, and strong civil society
are vital cornerstones for all democracies, and we have
concerns about Macedonia's development in these areas.
The United States is a partner with Macedonia in
confronting these challenges. Macedonia's continued reform and
integration into the Euro-Atlantic community remains a
priority. Macedonia became a European Union candidate country
in 2005. In December 2009, the European Commission recommended
setting a start date for accession negotiations.
Macedonia also has made strides in defense reform in order
to meet NATO's performance-based standards for membership. At
the November 2010 NATO summit in Lisbon, allies reaffirmed that
Macedonia will receive an invitation to join the alliance as
soon as the dispute with Greece is concluded. We will continue
to support the U.N. process to help Macedonia and Greece find a
mutually acceptable solution to this question.
Macedonia has proven itself as a net provider of security,
as evidenced by its contributions both regionally and globally.
Macedonian troops have served honorably in both Iraq and
Afghanistan. Indeed, Macedonia has been one of the highest per
capita contributors to the International Security Assistance
Force in Afghanistan. These contributions to regional and
global stability reflect our shared values and the depth of our
partnership with Macedonia.
If I am confirmed, my foremost priority as Ambassador would
be promoting United States interests in Macedonia, while
working to advance Macedonia's own internal transformation on
the path to full Euro-Atlantic integration. I will continue to
pursue the U.S. goals of strengthening the rule of law,
fighting corruption, promoting economic growth and prosperity,
and reinforcing democratic institutions.
Madam Chairman and members of the committee, thank you
again for this opportunity to appear before you. I stand ready
to answer any questions you might have later on.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wohlers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul Wohlers
Madam Chairman and members of the committee, it is a privilege to
appear before you today as President Obama's nominee to serve as the
United States Ambassador to the Republic of Macedonia. I am honored by
the confidence placed in me by the President and Secretary Clinton. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee and the
Congress in advancing U.S. interests in Macedonia.
I am delighted and proud to be accompanied today by my family: my
wife, Mary Jo, who has held our family together during multiple moves
over almost 27 years in the Foreign Service; my three daughters and one
son-in-law--first, Rachel and her husband Ryan; then Julia and Jessica.
Foreign Service families are unsung heroes and true diplomats
themselves--my wife and daughters have been living, working, and going
to school overseas for much of their lives, serving as examples of
American values to their friends and colleagues, and sometimes, even at
school, feeling the sting of criticism from those who did not agree
with U.S. policies. My life would have been empty without my family,
and I am thankful that they have always been by my side as we pursued a
Foreign Service life together.
As you are aware, I have served previously in Macedonia, an
experience which I believe will enhance my effectiveness as Chief of
Mission, should you decide to confirm me. If confirmed, I will return
to Macedonia during an important period. On September 8, Macedonia will
mark the 20th anniversary of its independence, and August 13 will be
the 10th anniversary of the Ohrid Framework Agreement that ended the
country's civil conflict in 2001. The Framework Agreement, concluded
with U.S. and EU help, remains the foundation for Macedonia's peace and
democratic development. The Agreement ended the conflict by addressing
ethnic grievances through principles of equal rights for all citizens
irrespective of ethnicity. Today, 10 years from Ohrid and after 20
years of independence, Macedonia is working toward becoming a stable,
multiethnic democracy.
There is much more to be done in Macedonia. The citizens of
Macedonia deserve congratulations for the June 5 election in which the
people turned out in high numbers and behaved peacefully and with
dignity. Now is time for the people of Macedonia, along with their
leaders, to focus on moving toward greater prosperity, security,
stability, and Euro-Atlantic integration. While democratic structures
are in place, full respect for the rule of law and independent
institutions remains a problem. An independent judiciary, free and
independent media, and strong civil society are vital cornerstones for
all democracies, and we have concerns about Macedonia's development in
these areas.
The United States is a partner in confronting these challenges.
Macedonia's continued reform and integration into the Euro-Atlantic
community remains a priority. Macedonia became a European Union
candidate country in 2005 and in December 2009 the European Commission
recommended setting a start date for accession negotiations. Macedonia
has also made strides in defense reform in order to meet NATO's
performance-based standards for membership. At the November 2010 NATO
summit in Lisbon, allies reaffirmed that Macedonia will receive an
invitation to join the alliance as soon as the dispute with Greece over
the name is resolved. We will continue to support the U.N. process to
help Macedonia and Greece find a mutually acceptable solution.
Macedonia has proven itself as a net provider of security as
evidenced by its contributions both in the region and globally.
Macedonian troops have served honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Indeed, Macedonia has been one of the highest per capita contributors
to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. These
contributions to regional and global stability reflect our shared
values and the depth of our partnership with Macedonia.
If I am confirmed, my foremost priority as Ambassador will be
promoting U.S. interests in Macedonia while working to advance
Macedonia's own internal transformation on the path to full Euro-
Atlantic integration. I will continue to pursue the U.S. goals of
strengthening the rule of law, fighting corruption, promoting economic
growth and prosperity, and reinforcing democratic institutions.
Madam Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this
opportunity to appear before you. I would be pleased to answer any
questions that you may have.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Moser.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. MOSER, OF NORTH CAROLINA, NOMINATED TO
BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Mr. Moser. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Barrasso, it is
an honor and a privilege to appear before you today as the
President's nominee to the Republic of Moldova. I deeply
appreciate the confidence and trust that President Obama and
Secretary Clinton have placed in me and if confirmed I look
forward to working closely with Congress to promote United
States interests in Moldova.
First of all, though, I think it would only be right for me
to introduce my wife and my three children, if I could get them
to stand as you requested, Senator Shaheen. My wife, Marie, my
son, Stephen, my daughter, Rebecca, and my son, Daniel. I'm
very proud to have them here because they too, as Paul noted in
his remarks, have grown up in the Foreign Service and I think
that they are very happy to be here to witness this process
today.
I was born and raised in North Carolina and, as you noted,
Senator Shaheen, I still have that accent that doesn't go away.
I visited my family there over the Fourth of July holiday. The
State of North Carolina and Moldova have a very strong
partnership. If confirmed, I hope to play a role in maintaining
and expanding this partnership. If confirmed, I will work to
strengthen our relations and to support Moldovan efforts to
strengthen democratic and free market reforms and further
integration with Europe.
Vice President Biden delivered this message in his recent
trip to Moldova when he stated: ``The American people have
watched your struggle and celebrated your successes, and we are
determined to help you build on your achievements. We strongly
support your commitment to political and economic reforms and
taking on hard issues.''
As Moldova prepares to celebrate the 20th anniversary of
its independence, the United States will continue to support
the Moldovan people in their efforts to build a democratic,
prosperous, and secure European state.
Moldova continues to make strides in its economic and
political development and its integration into Europe. The
United States wants to assist Moldova on this journey, not just
because of our longstanding friendship between our peoples, but
also because a democratic, peaceful, and prosperous Moldova
would contribute to our longstanding objective of a Europe
whole, free, and at peace. Moldova deserves our continued
support and encouragement.
Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Barrasso, I thank you
again for the opportunity to share my thoughts about the
relationship with Moldova, and if confirmed I look forward to
working closely with you and with the committee. I would also
be happy to answer any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moser follows:]
Prepared Statement of William H. Moser
Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Barrasso and members of the
committee, it is an honor and a privilege to appear before you today as
the President's nominee to be Ambassador to the Republic of Moldova. I
deeply appreciate the confidence and trust that President Obama and
Secretary Clinton have placed in me. If confirmed, I look forward to
working closely with Congress to promote United States interests in
Moldova.
I want to introduce my wife, Marie, and two of my three children,
Daniel and Stephen. I was born and raised in North Carolina and visited
my family there over the recent July 4th holiday. The State of North
Carolina and Moldova have a strong partnership. If confirmed, I hope to
play a role in maintaining and expanding this partnership.
If confirmed, I will work to strengthen our relations with Moldova
and to support Moldovan efforts to strengthen democratic and free
market reforms at home and further integration with Europe. Vice
President Biden delivered this message in his recent trip to Moldova,
when he stated, ``the American people have watched [your] struggle and
celebrated your successes, and we are determined to help you build on
your achievements. We strongly support your commitment to political and
economic reforms and taking on hard issues.'' As Moldova prepares to
celebrate the 20th anniversary of its independence, the United States
will continue to support the Moldovan people in their efforts to build
a democratic, prosperous, and secure European state. I would like to
take a moment today to touch upon the strategic focus areas in our
relationship with Moldova: democratic development, free market
development, and security.
first: democratic development
Moldova's parliamentary elections in 2009 and 2010 met most
international commitments and were generally well administered and
offered voters genuine choice. However, the international election
observer mission fielded by the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe noted that ``further effort is needed to improve
public confidence in Moldova's democratic process.'' If confirmed, I
will look for new ways to support the efforts of the Moldovan people to
further their nation's democratic development and to continue to expand
our dialogue with all responsible elements of the political spectrum.
Moldova's governing coalition has an ambitious reform agenda, based on
a widespread recognition that much remains to be done to reach to its
stated goal of good governance. Judicial reform, greater transparency
and other efforts to reduce corruption are among the governing
coalition's top priorities, priorities which we support through our
assistance programs. Moldova has taken steps to combat trafficking in
persons, which remains a significant problem, and we are cooperating
closely with Moldovan authorities to address this issue. Moldova's
chosen foreign policy of European integration is one that the United
States strongly supports. Moldova's steps toward association with the
European Union involve meeting European standards and norms for
democracy, good governance, free trade and in many other areas. If
confirmed, I will work closely with my European counterparts in
Chisinau to advance our shared agenda in Moldova.
second: free market development
Moldova remains one of Europe's poorest countries with per capita
GDP of less than $3,000 a year; many of its citizens, unable to find
adequate work at home, work abroad. Thanks in part to a nearly $600
million IMF stand-by agreement, Moldova's economy is beginning to
recover, but more reform is required to achieve sustained economic
growth. Moldova seeks a diversified, export-oriented economy;
improvements to the investment climate are key to attracting the
investment that could increase exports. If confirmed, I plan to work
with Moldova on these issues. The United States has been helping to
bolster private sector competitiveness and improve the legal and
regulatory environment. We have dramatically increased our investment
in Moldova's future through the Compact with the Millennium Challenge
Corporation signed last year. The $262 million package provides
assistance for irrigation and road infrastructure improvements intended
to support Moldovan farmers in their transition to high value-added
agriculture and to help them get their produce to market.
third: security
Molodova's number one security challenge remains the unresolved
conflict with Transnistrian separatists. Moldova has been a divided
land for the past 19 years after the brief armed conflict ended between
government forces and the separatists. The United States is committed
to a peaceful resolution of the Transnistria conflict that guarantees
Moldova's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. I am
convinced that this longstanding conflict can and should be resolved.
The United States remains committed to the 5+2 process, involving the
two parties to the conflict, the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Russia and Ukraine, with the EU and the
United States serving as active observers. The United States has
repeatedly called for the immediate resumption of official
negotiations, which have been stalled since 2006. Recent discussions
among the 5+2 participants, which have facilitated confidence-building
initiatives and explored conditions for the resumption of formal talks,
have shown some progress. If confirmed, I intend to do what I can to
move this process forward, including outreach throughout Moldova, as
well as the Transnistria region. Beyond the Transnistria conflict, the
United States provides assistance to Moldova through various programs
to help create a modern, sustainable, military force, led by a Ministry
of Defense and Joint Staff that are compatible with Euro-Atlantic
structures and can integrate into multinational structures and
missions. Moldova currently receives $750,000 in International Military
Education and Training funds (IMET) and $750,000 in Foreign Military
Financing (FMF). These funds are used to support Moldova's efforts to
achieve its NATO Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) objectives,
enhance Moldova's capacity to conduct peace and stability operations in
support of multinational coalition operations, and strengthen Moldova's
cooperation with other partners to enhance regional security and
stability.
Moldova continues to make strides in its economic and political
development and its integration into Europe. The United States wants to
assist Moldova on this journey, not just because of the longstanding
friendship between our peoples, but also because a democratic, peaceful
and prosperous Moldova would contribute to our longstanding objective
of a Europe whole, free and at peace. Moldova deserves our continuing
support and encouragement.
Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Barrasso, I thank you again for the
opportunity to share my thoughts about the relationship with Moldova.
If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with you and this
committee.
I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Mr. Moser.
Mr. Heffern.
STATEMENT OF JOHN A. HEFFERN, OF MISSOURI, NOMINATED TO BE
AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA
Mr. Heffern. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. Madam Chair and
distinguished members of the committee, for me as well, it's an
honor to be before you as President Obama's nominee for next
Ambassador to the Republic of Armenia. I'd also like to
introduce my family. I'm delighted that they can be here today.
My wife, my wife of 32 years, Libby. I would just add a note on
Foreign Service spouses, Senator. I know you know this already,
but Foreign Service spouses do play a really important role
overseas in projecting--helping U.S. image overseas, working
with the community, the U.S. community at the Embassy, and the
local community, and certainly Libby has done that for the 29
years that we've been doing this together.
Then I've got--we have five children. We have--where are
we? We have Lisa--we have Lisa and her husband, Ryan Waters; we
have Lucy--Lucy; and then Sarah, Sarah and her boyfriend, Jamie
Pett is here with us today; and we have Woody and we have
Alley. And thank you very much for making it possible for our
families to be here, to join us for this special occasion
today. Thank you.
My 88-year-old mother, though, Madam Chairman, is not able
to be here with us today. She's a naturalized American from
India, and I really owe it to her and to my deceased father. My
interest in foreign affairs and the Foreign Service comes from
them. My father was in World War II, a World War II veteran,
and met her in India, and was briefly a Foreign Service officer
himself. It's from that experience that I developed my interest
in foreign affairs and in Asia. So I'm sorry she was not able
to be here with us today.
Madam Chair, again I'm honored to have been nominated by
President Obama and Secretary Clinton for this important post,
and if confirmed I will build upon the fine work of my
predecessors to deepen and strengthen our relationship with
Armenia.
The Obama administration has greatly strengthened our
relations with Armenia. In April 2010 the Presidents of our two
countries held their first bilateral meeting in 10 years, and
when Secretary Clinton visited Yerevan last year it was the
first time that an American Secretary of State has visited
Armenia in 19 years.
The administration has expanded development assistance to
Armenia into key areas of governance, of economic growth and
market competitiveness, and has been able to maintain overall
funding levels for Armenia despite budget cuts elsewhere in
Europe and Eurasia. If confirmed, I would also work to expand
United States-Armenia trade and investment, building on the
strong connections, existing connections, between the American
and Armenian people.
On the political front, the United States has encouraged
Armenia to improve its human rights and democracy record, and
we've actually seen some positive results on that front this
year, which we can talk about, Madam Chairman. Armenia will
hold important national elections next year and in 2013, and we
see these elections as opportunities for the government to
demonstrate its commitment to democracy.
The administration supports Armenia's courageous steps to
begin a process with Turkey to address their history and to
find a way to move forward together toward a shared future of
security and prosperity. Through the OSCE's Minsk Process, the
United States also supports Armenia and Azerbaijan as they work
toward a peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
There is still a lot to do in all these areas, Madam Chair,
but I believe my 29 years as a Foreign Service officer has
prepared me for this important assignment. During this time I
have served faithfully both Democrat and Republican
administrations. Following my instructions from Washington,
I've done my best to advance U.S. interests and to uphold
American ideals. In addition, I pledge to the committee that if
confirmed I will report candidly and objectively to Washington
on my views and my recommendations from the field.
Madam Chair and members of the committee, President Obama
has recognized and deplored the horrific events that took place
in the final days of the Ottoman Empire. He has publicly called
the massacre of 1.5 million Armenians at that time one of the
worst atrocities of the 20th century. The President has urged
Turkey and Armenia to work through their painful history to
achieve a full, frank, and just acknowledgment of the facts. If
confirmed, I will do my best to fulfil the President's vision
in this sensitive area.
Madam Chair, thank you for your time today. If confirmed, I
look forward to working with you, other members of the
committee and staff and with Congress as a whole as I represent
the United States in Armenia. Thank you and I look forward to
your questions and comments today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Heffern follows:]
Prepared Statement of John A. Heffern
Madam Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, it is an
honor to appear before you as the President's nominee to be the United
States Ambassador to the Republic of Armenia. I am pleased to be joined
today by my wife, Libby, and our children, Lisa (and Ryan), Lucy,
Sarah, Woody, and Alley. We welcome this opportunity to again serve our
Nation overseas.
My mother, a naturalized American from India, could not be here
today, but I would note that I owe my interest in the Foreign Service
to her and to my deceased father, who was a WWII veteran and, briefly,
an FSO as well.
Madam Chairman, I am honored that President Obama and Secretary
Clinton have nominated me for this important post. If confirmed, I will
build upon the fine work of my predecessors to advance our bilateral
relationship with Armenia in all its facets: diplomatic, political,
economic, trade, and in our deep people-to-people ties.
The Obama administration has strengthened U.S. relations with
Armenia. In April 2010, the Presidents of our two countries held their
first bilateral meeting in 10 years and, when Secretary Clinton visited
Yerevan last year, it was the first visit by a Secretary of State to
Armenia in 19 years.
We have expanded development assistance to Armenia in several
areas, especially in governance, economic growth, and market
competiveness, and maintained overall funding levels despite budget
cuts in Europe and Eurasia. Specifically, including FY 2011, we have
invested more than $38 million since 2009 in democracy and governance
programming, including over $16 million for civil society development.
During this period, we have also devoted over $17 million to promote
better access to health care and launched a new 5-year, $22 million on
enterprise development and market competitiveness. Over the past 5
years, the Millennium Challenge Corporation has invested almost $180
million in Armenia to improve irrigation infrastructure, provide
technical and financial assistance to farmers and agribusinesses, and
improve rural roads. If confirmed, I would like to work on expanding
the United States-Armenia trade relationship, building on the already
strong connections between Americans and Armenians, to foster more
trade and investment between our countries.
On the political front, the U.S. has encouraged Armenia to improve
its human rights and democracy record, and we have seen some positive
developments this year, with the government releasing those still
detained from the protests after the Armenian elections in 2008.
Armenia will hold important national elections in 2012 and 2013, which
are opportunities for the Government of Armenia to demonstrate its
commitment to democracy. The administration supports Armenia's
courageous steps to begin a process with Turkey to address their
history, and to find a way to move forward together in a shared future
of security and prosperity. Through the Minsk Process, the U.S.
supports Armenia and Azerbaijan as they work toward a peaceful
resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
There is still a lot to do. If confirmed, I would continue the
efforts of my most able predecessor, Ambassador Masha Yovanovitch. I
will seek, as she did, opportunities to enhance our relationship with
Armenia, should the Senate confirm me for this position.
My 29 years as an FSO have prepared me for this assignment. During
this time, I have served faithfully in both Democratic and Republican
administrations. Following my instructions from Washington, I have done
my best to advance U.S. interests and uphold American ideals. In
addition, I pledge to the committee that, if confirmed, I will report
candidly and accurately to Washington my views and recommendations from
the field.
My work at NATO with Armenia and other Caucasus partners has
introduced me to this complex and fascinating region. I look forward to
enhancing my understanding of the country and the region by working
with the Armenian Government, the Armenian people, and the Armenian-
American community.
Madam Chair and members of the committee, President Obama has
recognized and deplored the horrific events that took place in the
waning days of the Ottoman Empire. He has publicly called the massacre
of 1.5 million Armenians at this time one of the worst atrocities of
the 20th century. The President has urged Turkey and Armenia to work
through their painful history to achieve a full, frank, and just
acknowledgement of the facts. If confirmed, I will do my best to
fulfill the President's vision.
Madam Chairman, I would like to thank you for your time today. I
want to assure you that, if confirmed, I look forward to working
closely with you, with members of this committee, and with the Congress
as a whole in representing my fellow Americans as the U.S. Ambassador
to the Republic of Armenia.
Thank you and I welcome your questions.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, and thank you to each
of you for your testimony today.
I think they finally got the air conditioning working, so
hopefully it will cool off, probably not in time for you to
finish your questioning.
Mr. Heffern, I would like to begin with you. You mentioned
in your testimony the history between Armenia and Turkey. The
Armenia-Turkey Protocols of 2009 were I think a very positive
step toward improving relations between the parties, but
unfortunately the protocols have not been ratified. Can you
talk about what the prospects are for reviving reconciliation
talks between Turkey and Armenia and what other steps might be
possible to encourage the two countries to address their mutual
past?
Mr. Heffern. Senator, yes. The administration strongly
supports and we welcomed and congratulated both governments,
the Government of Turkey and the Government of Armenia, for
their courageous decision to sign the protocols in Zurich in
October 2009. Secretary Clinton had a major part in that. She
was there for the signing ceremony. And we remain committed to
doing whatever we can to encourage the two parties to get the
protocols back on track.
The Secretary has talked to both parties regularly. The
Secretary has made it clear; Secretary Clinton has said the
ball is in Turkey's court and that we hope and expect that they
will be able to work to find a way to work together to resume
that.
For me, if I'm confirmed at the Embassy, I would work with
our Embassy in Ankara to devise effective and hopefully
constructive confidence-building measures for cross-border
exchanges and other things to try to build trust from the
bottom up, in addition to the Secretary and the President's
work with the leaders to try to get the protocols back on
track.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
You also mentioned Nagorno-Karabakh, which is another of
the issues facing Armenia. You pointed out the Minsk Process,
which unfortunately ended without any agreement on the basic
principles. So can you elaborate a little more on the status of
these talks, what steps can be taken to help move them forward
and to encourage the parties to reach some sort of a negotiated
resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh question?
Mr. Heffern. Senator, the President and Secretary have been
also deeply involved in this. We remain committed to the Minsk
Process as sort of the only game in town to try to resolve this
dispute. The purpose, as you know, of the Minsk Process is to
find a lasting, peaceful, and just solution to this conflict
that will help the parties, help the people of Nagorno-
Karabakh, and help bring some stability and prosperity and
peace to the South Caucacus region. That's the purpose of it,
as you well know.
The United States participates as one of the cochairs.
Ambassador Bradtke is our representative and he was at the
Kazan meetings that you referred to. Indeed, the parties were
not able to agree on the basic principles there, but they did
issue a statement with President Medvedev that they have made
some progress on some of the issues and they remain committed
to the process.
Foreign Minister Lavrov recently visited the capitals with
some additional proposals from President Medvedev and I'm not
briefed on what those proposals are. I don't know what the
prospects are for the next steps. But we are working--we the
United States are working as cochair with the other cochairs
and with the two parties and with the authorities, the de facto
authorities in Nagorno-Karabakh, to find a solution.
Senator Shaheen. I will point out, as you know, I just
returned from Serbia and the OSCE's Parliamentary Assembly,
where they appointed a special representative to help address
Nagorno-Karabakh. So hopefully that may be helpful as well in
moving the discussions forward.
Finally, you pointed out that there will be elections held
again in 2012, a Presidential election in 2013. I had the
interesting fortune to be in Armenia in 2003 for an
international observation mission to their parliamentary
elections and those were not free and fair elections, and
unfortunately there have been--elections have been plagued by
accusations of fraud and abuse for too long.
So what are the prospects for that to be turned around by
2012 and 2013? Are there measures in place? Is there an
independent election commission that is moving forward in a way
that holds some prospect that the upcoming elections will be
freer and fairer than those in the past?
Mr. Heffern. Senator, I'm not well briefed on the 2003
elections. On the 2008 elections, they also were flawed
elections and we've said so publicly, that they were not the
kind of elections that meet international standards. Then in
the aftermath of the elections there were some protests and
some detentions and violence in response to those protests. It
was not a great situation in 2008.
In the last 6 months, though, Senator, there have been some
positive signs. Ambassador Yvonovich has made this one of her
top priorities and worked very much, very closely with the
parties and the government to find a way forward to work with
them on democracy and human rights.
Some useful things have happened. They have reopened the
square for freedom of assembly. They've allowed some of the
opposition groups and parties to actually have rallies and
assemblies in the Freedom Square, so that's a good thing. They
have--the government has released finally, after much prodding,
all of the detainees from the post-2008 unrest, and they have
assured the Armenian people that they will launch a full
investigation of the events post-election 2008.
So they have made some useful steps in the last 6 months
that have been helpful in giving us some indication that the
next elections in 2012 and 2013 will hopefully be better in
meeting international standards.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. That's very encouraging.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Mr. Heffern, following up, if I could, on Senator Shaheen's
questioning, the administration has requested funding in fiscal
year 2012 in order to focus on economic growth as well as
democratization in Armenia. The U.S. Millennium Challenge
Corporation I think, as you know, has expressed concerns about
freedom of the press, about democratization in Armenia.
Due to these concerns, a portion of the Millennium
Challenge Corporation's compact with Armenia was ended. How
would you characterize the current status of democratization in
Armenia and what efforts an we take to kind of improve that?
Mr. Heffern. Senator, there's a couple of elements to your
question. Not only the democracy side, but also the governance
side I think is important. What we're trying to do through our
bilateral assistance program, and since their independence the
United States has been the largest bilateral donor to Armenia.
So what we're trying to do through our bilateral assistance is
to work on governance, increase, improve the business climate,
investment climate, to encourage western investment and trade,
to keep them focused on the West.
Part of that, of course, involves governance and rule of
law and democracy and human rights. I mentioned to Senator
Shaheen the three or four useful steps they've made in the last
6 months. If confirmed, I'll go and I will build--I will try to
build on what Ambassador Yvonovich has done and work with the
people and the parties and the government there to see what we
can do to make the next round of elections meet international
standards.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Mr. Moser, talking about Moldova, the poorest nation in
Europe, continues to face serious problems, including
corruption, crime, and human trafficking as well, as you know.
In the 2011 Trafficking in Persons Report, actually, the
Department of State highlighted concerns with Moldova. While
some progress has been made, the report states that the
Government in Moldova does not fully comply with even the
minimum standards for elimination of trafficking.
Can you tell me what efforts are currently being taken to
fight the problem of human trafficking and what's the United
States currently doing to assist Moldova on this issue?
Mr. Moser. Senator Barrasso, thank you very much for that
question. One of the focuses of our democracy-building programs
is of course to strengthen the rule of law, because in the
Trafficking in Persons Report of this year, even though Moldova
went up a step from a tier 2 watchlist to a tier 2 country, we
still said that there were real problems in the judiciary and
in the independence of the judiciary and in arresting corrupt
officials.
Now, we do a couple things. Through our International and
Law Enforcement Bureau, we're working on training police
officials and strengthening the judiciary, and also with our
AID programs we're also doing further judicial training in
technical assistance to build up prosecutorial capacity.
I realize that the Moldovans have a long way to go,
particularly on the corruption issue, and one of the things
that I think that has to be drawn together is that for the
Moldovans to really make the steps toward European integration
and toward economic development that they themselves profess
that they want to make, that they are going to have to make a
business climate that is free of corruption, so people will
want to invest there.
So this is a whole complex of issues, that you don't get
the economic development without having the correct and
corruption-free democratic development that Moldova really
needs. That's what I think that, if confirmed, that I would
like to work on as Ambassador.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Mr. Wohlers, the United States has supported Macedonia's
candidacy for NATO as well as for the European Union
membership. But, as you know, Greece has blocked Macedonia's
accession to NATO and the European Union due to a dispute
actually, I think, over its name. While there have been many
efforts to reach a solution to the dispute, really they haven't
found a solution yet.
Can you tell us what progress, if any, has been made
between Macedonia and Greece on solving this dispute, and what
is your view of the prospects of finding a solution?
Mr. Wohlers. Thank you, Senator. You're correct that this
is a 20-year-old dispute which has not been resolved, and it
goes to the heart of our desire to have Macedonia fully
integrated into the Euro-Atlantic community, because that can't
happen until we resolve this name dispute. We fully support the
U.N. process under the auspices of Matthew Nimetz to resolve
this issue and we also support direct engagement between Athens
and Skopje. We have encouraged both sides to show maximum
flexibility, compromise, sense of respect for each other's
history and traditions, in moving forward on this issue. We
have made it clear that whatever mutually acceptable solution
they arrive at we will accept. We're not going to impose a
solution on this.
This goes back to our major goal of stability in
Southeastern Europe, of which we think the integration of
Macedonia into the Euro-Atlantic community will be a key part.
But integration can't move forward until the name issue is
resolved. So this is an issue that needs strong leadership by
both sides. It's not going to be easy. Obviously, if it were
easy it would have been done long ago. It's going to require
painful compromises on both sides, and that's why they need to
have strong leadership to move this forward.
If confirmed, I will work very diligently with the
Macedonian authorities to encourage them to show maximum
flexibility, maximum cooperation and respect, and hopefully we
can move forward on this.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Congratulations to all of you on your nominations.
Let me start with you, Mr. Heffern. In your opening
statement you said that ``President Obama has recognized and
deplored the horrific events that took place in the waning days
of the Ottoman Empire.'' And you went on to say, I noted, that
``he''--I assume that was the President--``publicly called the
massacre of 1.5 million Armenians at the time one of the worst
atrocities of the 20th century.''
I welcome that statement, but I'd like to explore it a
little bit more with you. Do you agree that there were mass
killings, ethnic cleansing, and forced deportations of over 1.5
million Armenians during the period that the Ottoman Empire
existed?
Mr. Heffern. Senator, yes. As the President has said, the
massacres and the forced deportations leading to the deaths of
1.5 million Armenians is acknowledged and recognized and
deplored by President Obama. And yes, sir, I believe it as
well.
Senator Menendez. OK. And those were conducted at the time
by the Ottoman Empire; is that true?
Mr. Heffern. Those were conducted at the time, in the final
days of the Ottoman Empire, yes, sir.
Senator Menendez. Now, we as a country and I assume this
administration recognizes the Turkish Republic as a successor
state to the Ottoman Empire, is that true?
Mr. Heffern. Senator, I assume that's true. I don't know
that that's true. I assume that's true. I mean, it has to be
true, so yes, sir. I'm going to just take that as true, but I
have to say I don't know that specifically.
Senator Menendez. Let me ask you this. Article 2 of the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide, which the United States has both signed and ratified,
states: ``In the present convention, `genocide' means any of
the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in
whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious
group as such: [a] killing members of the group; [b] causing
serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; [c]
deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or
in part.'' And it goes on to other elements.
Those are from a convention which we the United States have
signed. Now, if that is a convention the United States is
willing to be a signatory to, would not the facts that you
acknowledge in your opening statement during the period of 1915
to 1923 and that, in furtherance of the answers to my
questions, meet the definition of article 2?
Mr. Heffern. Senator, you have accurately described article
2, the definition of genocide in the convention. So yes to that
part of the question. And yes to the facts that were in my
statement and that you've repeated. But the characterization of
those events, Senator, is a policy decision that is made by the
President of the United States, and that policy is enunciated
in his April 24 Remembrance Day statement.
Senator Menendez. Are you aware of cables that exist from
former Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, who was the U.S. Ambassador
to Turkey, from 1913 to 1916; from the U.S. consul in Aleppo,
from the U.S. consul in Harput; from Ambassador Morgenthau, who
was succeeded by Abraham Elkus, who served as Ambassador from
1916 to 1917? Have you had an opportunity to read any of those?
Mr. Heffern. Senator, yes, I've seen the compilation that
Mr. Sarafian has put together of documents from the time. So
yes, sir, I have seen a large number of them.
Senator Menendez. You have no reason to dispute what those
dispatches were?
Mr. Heffern. Those Foreign Service officers at the time,
sir, reported what they saw and how they perceived events at
the time, yes, sir.
Senator Menendez. I just want to say, Madam Chair, this is
a difficult set of circumstances.
And I appreciate your answers.
This is an inartful dance that we do. We have a State
Department whose history, full of dispatches, cites the
atrocities committed during this period of time. We have a
convention we sign that clearly defines these acts as genocide.
We have a historical knowledge of the facts which we accept
that would amount to genocide. But we are unwilling to
reference it as genocide.
If we cannot accept the past, we cannot move forward. So I
find it very difficult to be sending diplomats of the United
States to a country in which they will go, and I hope you will
go, as some of your predecessors have gone, to a genocide
commemoration, and yet never be able to use the word
``genocide.'' It is much more than a question of a word. It is
everything that signifies our commitment to saying ``never
again.'' Yet we can't even acknowledge this fact, and we put
diplomats in a position that I think is totally untenable.
Nevertheless, I appreciate your straightforward answers to
my questions. I have one other set of questions for you, Mr.
Wohlers, and only caught the tail end of my colleague's
questions, so I hope they are not redundant. This whole issue
of Macedonia; it's more than a name. There are historical
realities here. There is concern of irredentism, as well as
concerns with the fact that one of the first acts of the new
Prime Minister was to erect a 72-foot high bronze statue of
Alexander the Great in the central square of the city of
Skopje, a monument challenging Alexander's Hellenic roots,
costing $13 million in a country with 32 percent unemployment;
and teaching children what is greater Macedonia and making
claims of a greater Macedonia, when we know that 52 percent of
that land mass is in Greece.
Some people say, why are they fighting over a name? This
has real significant consequences. Do you go into this
assignment fully appreciating that?
Mr. Wohlers. Yes, Senator; I believe I do. You're correct,
completely correct, in saying this is more than just a name.
This is an issue of identity. We have worked in the past and,
if confirmed, I will continue to do so, with the Macedonian
authorities, as we have also in Athens with our Embassy there,
to impress upon both sides the need to move forward on this
issue with a great sense of compromise, a great sense of
respect for each other's histories and traditions, a
willingness to make the painful compromises that are necessary
to resolve this very delicate issue.
As you said, it's an issue which is very emotional for both
sides. We want to make sure also, and I would do so if
confirmed, that neither side is engaging in any kind of
provocative or inflammatory rhetoric or actions, which can only
make the process even more difficult. It's hard enough as it
is. Otherwise, as I said earlier, we would have resolved this
long ago. But it requires real leadership on both sides to move
forward on this very difficult issue.
Senator Menendez. Well, I know that the previous government
had rejected U.N.-offered names that described solely FYROM's
sovereign territory. Such names included ``Northern Macedonia''
and ``Upper Macedonia,'' which Greece accepted.
I always worry when we refer to some issues in the world as
emotional issues. Sometimes that characterizes it in a way that
makes them seem irrational. Senator Rubio and I, who sit on
this committee, have a very strong stance on U.S. Cuba policy.
Some people like to describe that as emotional. We have a very
significant view as to what U.S. foreign policy should be.
In this case, I hope when we ascribe the word ``emotional''
to it, it is not trivializing that. Because for both of these
countries, and certainly Greece, this is far more than a name.
This is questions of territory, identity, and a concern of
those who have aspirations of getting territory that is clearly
within the Hellenic Republic possibly being desired and sought
after by its neighbor.
Mr. Wohlers. Well, I agree completely, Senator.
Emotionalism is not irrationalism. I didn't mean to equate
those. If confirmed, I would work very closely with the
Macedonian authorities, as I said, to make sure there are no
movements of irredentism. I think we're trying to make sure
that does not happen. The policy of the Macedonian Government
has been that they do not have any irredentist claims on
Greece. But should there be anything like that, I would request
that you would let me know so we can work with the authorities
to make sure it does not continue. There's no place for that.
That will only make the issue more difficult.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Madam Chair, for your
courtesy.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Heffern, I have an issue I'd like to bring up with you
about Armenia as it affects Idaho, believe it or not. Certainly
it doesn't rise to the level of the issue concerning the
Ottoman Empire or whether Alexander the Great was a Macedonian
or a Greek. Those are things that have been around a long time.
But we have--every year in Rexburg, ID, which is in eastern
Idaho, there is an international dance festival and I wind up
sometimes, I guess, refereeing the issuance of the visas for
the people there. I have to tell you, working with the State
Department is a real pleasure. A lot of us are critical of
various agencies of the Federal Government, but the State
Department really tries hard to accommodate people. I've
personally been present on some of the visa interviews and
watched, personally observed how they're done, and those people
do a great job of that.
But let me tell you what's going on. One of the groups that
they like to participate in this dance festival--and it's a
dance and folk festival that memorializes and celebrates the
various cultures around the world, and Armenia is important in
that regard. They have--in the past they've applied for visas
and have had difficulty with the State Department, being told
they need one kind of visa and then it doesn't work out.
Because of the bureaucratic difficulties last year, they
weren't able to attend last year. We're having issues again
this year on it. It's in late August, so it probably won't be
on your watch. But I want to put this on your radar screen so
that when you get a call from me in 2012 you'll know what this
is all about.
Having said all of that, again I really compliment the
State Department on how they handle these. You know, I think
Americans don't really realize, out of the 7 billion people on
the face of this planet, how many of them want to come here for
one reason or another, many of whom who want to come here and
not leave here. They've got to sift through all these, and they
really do a great job.
But in any event, we're having difficulties with it. We're
still having difficulties with it. We're going to continue to
work on it, and after you confirmed I hope that you remember
this and if it comes across your desk I hope you remember this
country boy from Idaho telling you that we need some help in
that regard.
To your wife, I have to tell you that it isn't just the
spouses of the Foreign Service people. Senate spouses make a
lot of difference, too, as I'm sure Senator Shaheen will
confirm. They're very important to us. And that's particularly
true when we are traveling internationally with our spouses.
So thank all three of you for your service to America.
Thank you for willing to take on these positions, particularly
in the difficult times that the world is in right now.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Risch.
I want to go back, Mr. Wohlers, to Macedonia. I think we do
appreciate how deeply felt the name issue is for people on both
sides of the border, whether it's Macedonia or Greece. But as
you point out, this is an issue that really cries out for
resolution. In your statement you pointed out that Macedonia
received candidacy status for the EU in 2005, ahead of most of
its neighbors, several of whom now have surpassed it. Croatia
has now been accepted. Serbia is well on the road to candidacy
status. And both of those countries are undertaking the
difficult challenges that they need to in order to be accepted
into the EU.
As you pointed out, the future for Macedonia clearly is
with the Euro-Atlantic institutions. It's with the EU, it's
with NATO. And their lack of a resolution to this question is
having a significant impact on their economic status and on
their ability to move forward. So I do appreciate your
commitment to doing everything that we can from the U.S.
perspective to encourage them to go to the table and to help
find a resolution to this difficult issue.
Can you talk about what the current state of interethnic
relations is in Macedonia, and are all of the parties who
have--many of whom have been in the news in the last year or
so, committed to continued territorial integrity, or do you
think that the country could eventually break down along ethnic
lines?
Mr. Wohlers. Well, Senator, I think that the basis for
movement forward on the ethnic issues there is the framework
agreement, the Ohrid Framework Agreement of 2001. As I said,
August 13 will be the 10th anniversary of that event. They have
made considerable progress in those 10 years in terms of
interethnic relations. There is considerably more local
government, where the areas and municipalities with minority
populations have much more control of their daily lives. They
have considerably improved the hiring of ethnic minorities,
both in the government and in staffing in the military. There
is greater use of the minority languages and symbols, and the
largest ethnic Albanian party is the junior partner in the most
recent government and will be in the new government as well and
will have significant positions of power in that government.
So there has been considerable progress since 2001. That
having been said, that progress has slowed recently and we're
concerned about that. We have made that clear to the
authorities, the Macedonian authorities, that there needs to be
continued and further progress on this.
A number of laws have been passed but not implemented. Of
course, it's easy sometimes to pass laws; it's something else
to implement them and to move forward. So we will be
encouraging them to move forward on many of these issues to
continue the improvement in the ethnic relationship.
One of the problems, as you pointed out, is integration
into the Euro-Atlantic community, of which the ethnic Albanians
in particular are very supportive, and the longer that doesn't
take place the more uncertainty they have.
But I don't see any indications at this point that there's
any desire to break off or to split the country apart. I think
they're committed to a unified Macedonia. They're working in
the government. They're working in all the ministries.
Certainly we will continue to work there, should I be
confirmed, to continue that process.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. That's encouraging.
So finally, what in your view can the United States and the
EU, for that matter, do to encourage the Macedonians to solve
their current political crisis over the opposition's boycott of
Parliament and the prospects for new elections?
Mr. Wohlers. Well, they had elections in June and they're
moving forward toward a new government. So we're hopeful now
with this newly developed parliament that we won't have that
issue. Obviously, if you're not in Parliament you can't--if you
don't play, you can't affect things.
We've never been, obviously, in favor of boycotts. They
need to be involved in the governmental process. But they've
got a new Parliament starting shortly. I believe that they will
be playing constructive roles, all the parties. We'll certainly
be encouraging them to do that, and I would do that should I be
confirmed.
So I think we're moving forward. There are still,
obviously, many issues to be resolved, and we will be working
closely with the Macedonian authorities through our assistance
programs, through our public outreach, to do just that.
Senator Shaheen. Great. Thank you.
Finally, Mr. Moser, on Moldova. There have been informal
talks under way to resolve the Transnistria conflict. Do you
have any assessment of where those informal talks are and
whether there's more that we can or should be doing to try and
encourage those talks and a resolution?
Mr. Moser. Well, I will say the first thing that you have
to be happy about is that we had a set of informal talks. The
good news is on this that we're scheduled to have another set
in the fall, that the parties did not agree to break off
negotiations, but to agree to get together again in the fall,
although the United States stands firmly committed that
official talks will begin again, and that is the goal that
we're pressing for.
Now, if confirmed, I will be the Ambassador to Moldova and
I will try to work extensively with outreach both to the
officials in Chisinau and also the officials in Tiraspol to try
to press them toward bringing this conflict toward resolution,
because I do believe that in my role of being in the country
that people-to-people contact can help them to get to talk to
each other.
Senator Shaheen. Are there other regional players who are
playing a role in this, both positive and negative? Has
Russia's support for the separatists exacerbated the issues
there?
Mr. Moser. Well, I would put it this way, is we have to
first of all praise Ukraine for its efforts to try to work
toward resolution. In fact, the Russians have made very clear
in their statements that they want to work toward a resolution
of this conflict. So I think at this point all the other actors
in the equation are working toward a positive resolution. We
just need to get the parties that are really involved--and that
is the officials within the country--to really come to serious
negotiations.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Several times during this afternoon's discussions we've
pointed out that Moldova is one of the most economically
depressed countries in Europe. Has it been hit even harder by
the global economic downturn and are there plans under way in
the government to help reform their economy? I think you
mentioned some of those. Have they made any positive progress?
Mr. Moser. Well, at the time in 2010 the IMF gave a $600
million stabilization fund to the Moldovans, and they've been
helping the Moldovans take the right measures economically.
Now, one positive report I recently read in the Moldovan press,
that in the first quarter of 2011 reports are that their
economy grew by 8.4 percent. Now, that is probably a rebound
from a previous period of depressed growth, but this is
actually a very positive development.
But if confirmed, one of my goals is to really work with
them to really work toward the real goal, which is to make a
business climate that is conducive to international investment.
This is something in our long-term stake. We really are--I am
really seriously committed to our policy of a Europe whole,
free, and at peace, and you can't get there unless you take a
country that borders on the European Union and make sure that
it shares in the economic progress.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Senator Risch, do you have any other questions?
Senator Risch. No, thank you very much.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Well, then I will again thank all of you. I look forward to
a speedy confirmation. Hopefully that will happen. And I think
we'll move to the next panel. Hopefully we will be able to get
them out before too late this afternoon.
First on our second panel is Tom Countryman, who has been
nominated to be the Assistant Secretary of State for
International Security and Nonproliferation. Tom is a career
member of the senior Foreign Service, serving most recently as
the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and
Eurasian Affairs, specifically focusing on Balkan issues. I can
tell you in that capacity I have had a chance to work with him
and he is very knowledgeable and his expertise will be very
much missed on that issue.
Tom has also a great deal of experience working on
international security issues, previously serving in the Bureau
of Political-Military Affairs as foreign policy adviser to the
Commandant of the Marine Corps and on the National Security
Council staff.
Finally, we will consider the nomination of Jeffrey
DeLaurentis to be Alternate Representative of the United States
of America for Special Political Affairs in the United Nations,
with the rank of Ambassador, and Alternate Representative of
the United States of America to the Sessions of the General
Assembly of the United Nations.
As a Foreign Service officer, Jeffrey has served in a
number of positions in the State Department, especially focused
on Western Hemisphere and United Nations issues. He currently
serves as Deputy Assistant Secretary for South America.
Again, as each of you give your opening statements feel
free to introduce any family or friends who are here to support
you. So I'll ask you to begin, Mr. Countryman.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS M. COUNTRYMAN, OF WASHINGTON, NOMINATED TO
BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AND
NONPROLIFERATION
Mr. Countryman. Thank you, Chairman Shaheen, and good
afternoon. I appreciate you making time to consider my
nomination.
I thank you also for the kind words that you and other
Senators and my colleagues have said about the Foreign Service
family. It applies with the deepest gratitude also to my
family. Let me introduce first my wife, Dubravka, and my son,
Andrew. My elder son, Stefan, is away studying physics at
Columbia University. They are my strength, they are my joy,
they are what propels me to give the best possible effort to
creating a more secure future for them.
I'm sincerely humbled by the honor of appearing before you
and asking for your confidence and by the honor of being
President Obama's choice to serve as Assistant Secretary of
State for International Security and Nonproliferation. I'm
grateful for the confidence the President and Secretary Clinton
have shown in nominating me and I'm fully aware of the
important responsibilities that I will undertake on behalf of
our country should I be confirmed.
While managing the ISN Bureau will be a new responsibility
for me, I'm not a new face at the State Department and I've
worked with you, your staff, and many on the Hill in my
previous positions. I believe my experience in Washington and
in building international partnerships abroad will serve us
well if you choose to confirm me. I'm also keenly aware of the
importance of consulting with Congress early and often. My
hope, if confirmed, is that we will have a close relationship
that will allow us to communicate, not only when we face a
national security crisis, but in the quieter times in between,
so that we can better prepare for the future.
As you know, in his April 5, 2009, speech in Prague, the
President committed the United States to seeking the peace and
security of a world without nuclear weapons and committed us to
take concrete steps toward that end. His remarks laid out an
ambitious nonproliferation agenda that includes working to
strengthen the global nonproliferation infrastructure regime,
including by strengthening compliance with these obligations,
working toward a new framework for civil-nuclear cooperation,
ensuring that terrorists never acquire a nuclear device, and
securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world
within 4 years.
This agenda is ambitious, but I believe it is essential. I
believe it is achievable, and if confirmed I will work
vigorously to make it a reality.
ISN's agenda, of course, is not only nuclear-related.
Nonproliferation in today's context also includes addressing
biological, chemical, missile, and destabilizing conventional
weapons capabilities. Here also we have much important work
before us. The Biological Weapons Convention Review Conference
will occur later this year. At this important multilateral
gathering, we will have a chance to build global capacity to
combat infectious diseases, prevent biological terrorism, and
promote confidence in the biological nonproliferation regime.
The world looks to our leadership in areas involving export
controls, bio, chemical, and nuclear safety and security, and
dealing with the proliferation challenges of Iran, North Korea,
and Syria. If confirmed, I will pursue these tasks vigorously.
The government's work in this area is vital to keeping America
and our partners secure.
I've barely scratched the surface of the critical work to
which I will be committed if confirmed. The continued growth
and success of programs and initiatives such as the
Proliferation Security Initiative, the Global Initiative to
Combat Nuclear Terrorism, the Export Control and Related Border
Security Assistance Program, the United States Security Council
Resolution 1540, and the Global Threat Reduction Program are
all essential pieces of our effort.
These cooperative initiatives reflect positive and concrete
steps that we've already taken on the road to increased
international security and nonproliferation. They also
highlight the singular work that the State Department does in
cooperation with other agencies, building long-term capacity to
stem proliferation and serving as the connective tissue among
agencies tackling this threat overseas.
If confirmed, I will contribute my energy and dedication to
the work of many professionals in the Department, across the
government, and in Congress already engaged in these important
endeavors. Together we will continue to ensure that the United
States is up to the task of realizing the ambitious and bold
vision laid out by the President in Prague.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, for your time and your
attention, and of course I'm happy to answer all of your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Countryman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas M. Countryman
Good afternoon, Chairman Shaheen, Ranking Member Barrasso, and
members of the committee. Thank you for making time to meet with me
today to consider my nomination.
Madame Chairman, before I begin my testimony, please allow me a
moment to recognize members of my family who have joined me today for
this important occasion: my wife, Dubravka, and my son, Andrew. My
elder son, Stefan, is away studying physics at Columbia University.
Their support strengthens my resolve and furthers my commitment to
work each day toward a safer and more secure world not only for all of
us, but for generations to come.
I am sincerely humbled by the honor of appearing before the
committee, and by the honor of being President Obama's choice to serve
as Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and
Nonproliferation. I am grateful for the confidence that the President
and Secretary Clinton have shown in nominating me for this position,
and I am fully aware of the important responsibilities that I will
undertake on behalf of our country should I be confirmed.
While managing the ISN Bureau will be a new responsibility for me,
I am not a new face at the State Department, and I have worked with
many of you and your staff in my previous positions. I believe that my
experience both in Washington and in building international
partnerships abroad will serve me well if you chose to confirm me. I am
also keenly aware of the importance of consulting with the Congress
early and often. My hope, if confirmed, is that we will have a close
relationship that will allow us to communicate not only when we are
facing a national security crisis, but also in the quieter times in
between, so that we can better prepare for the future.
As you know, in his April 5, 2009, Prague speech, the President
committed the United States to seeking the peace and security of a
world without nuclear weapons, and to taking concrete steps toward that
end. His remarks that day also laid out an ambitious nonproliferation
agenda that includes: working to strengthen the global nonproliferation
regime, including by strengthening compliance with nonproliferation
obligations; working toward a new framework for civil nuclear
cooperation; ensuring that terrorists never acquire a nuclear device;
and securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world within 4
years. This agenda is ambitious but I believe it to be both essential
and attainable. If confirmed, I will work vigorously to make it a
reality.
ISN's agenda is not only nuclear-related. Nonproliferation in
today's context also includes addressing biological, chemical, missile,
and destabilizing conventional weapons capabilities. Here too there is
much important work before us.
As one example, the Biological Weapons Convention Review Conference
will take place at the end of this year. At this important multilateral
gathering we will have a chance to build global capacity to combat
infectious diseases, prevent biological terrorism, and promote
confidence in the biological nonproliferation regime.
Similarly, the world looks to our leadership in areas involving
export controls; biological, chemical, and nuclear safety and security;
and dealing with the proliferation challenges of Iran, Syria, and North
Korea. If confirmed, I will vigorously pursue these tasks. Indeed, the
government's work in this area is vital to keeping America and our
partners secure.
I realize that I have barely scratched the surface of the critical
work to which I will be committed, if confirmed. The continued growth
and success of programs and initiatives such as the Proliferation
Security Initiative, the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism,
the Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance Program,
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540, and the Global Threat
Reduction Program are all essential to our efforts. These cooperative
initiatives reflect positive, concrete steps we have already taken on
the road to increased international security and nonproliferation. They
also highlight the singular work that the State Department does,
building long-term capacity in partner countries to stem proliferation
and serving as the connective tissue between other agencies tackling
this existential threat overseas.
If confirmed, I look forward to contributing my energy and
dedication to the work of the many professionals in the Department,
across the government, and in Congress who are already engaged in
important nonproliferation endeavors. Together, we will continue to
ensure that the United States is up to the task of realizing the bold
and ambitious vision laid out by the President in Prague.
Thank you, Madame Chairman, Ranking Member Barrasso, and members of
the committee for your time and attention today and for your
consideration of my nomination. At this time, I am happy to answer your
questions.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much.
Mr. DeLaurentis.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY DeLAURENTIS, OF NEW YORK, NOMINATED TO BE
ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR
SPECIAL POLITICAL AFFAIRS IN THE UNITED NATIONS, WITH THE RANK
OF AMBASSADOR, AND ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA TO THE SESSIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF
THE UNITED NATIONS
Mr. DeLaurentis. Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Barrasso,
and other distinguished members of the committee, I am honored
to appear before you today as President Obama's nominee to be
the Alternate Representative for Special Political Affairs at
the United Nations. I am grateful to the President, Secretary
Clinton, and Ambassador Rice for this opportunity and for their
confidence in me.
I should say up front that unfortunately my wife, Jennifer,
is traveling overseas for professional reasons, so is not here
with me today.
In his March speech dedicating the Ronald H. Brown
Building, the new home of the United States Mission to the
United Nations, President Obama said, ``The world is more
secure and the interests of the United States are best advanced
when we act collectively.'' That basic truth underlies the very
purpose of the United Nations, as well as the broader
commitment of the United States to provide energetic and
sustained global leadership at the U.N. to deepen our security.
If confirmed, I will work to advance America's interests
and values at the United Nations as we work with the
international community to forge common responses to common
problems. As Ambassador Rice has noted, ``America can't police
every conflict and every crisis and shelter every refugee.'' We
live in an interwoven age of threats that pay no heed to
borders. Now more than ever, American security and well-being
are inextricably linked to those of people everywhere. So our
security depends on our ability to work together with others to
confront these threats.
Now more than ever, the U.N. provides a crucial venue for
countries to come together, shoulder their responsibilities,
and carry together the costs of upholding peace and security.
Of course, the United Nations is far from perfect. We must
continue to be clear about the U.N.'s shortcomings. But let us
also remember the indispensable role the U.N. plays in tackling
the threats and challenges of the 21st century: preventing
conflict, helping halt the spread of nuclear weapons, isolating
terrorists and human rights abusers, and advancing American
values.
I have had the privilege of spending nearly half of my
Foreign Service career in multilateral diplomacy. Each
assignment has reinforced my view that our efforts at the U.N.,
although challenging at times, unquestionably advance American
interests and values. If confirmed, I will work to bolster U.N.
peacekeeping and political missions in Afghanistan, Iraq,
Sudan, Haiti, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and
elsewhere. I will seek to strengthen peacekeeping mandates,
prevent abuses by peacekeepers, and give the U.N. what it needs
to more effectively protect civilians. I will work to ensure
full and rigorous implementation of Security Council sanctions
on Iran and North Korea, as well as other council sanctions
targeting individuals and companies associated with terrorism,
atrocities, and transnational crime. I will strongly encourage
the U.N.'s efforts to advance democracy and human rights in the
Middle East and elsewhere and press for equality and women's
rights, and I will support the administration's efforts to lead
the charge for comprehensive reform of the U.N. and to help the
U.N. fulfill its potential. If confirmed by the Senate, I'll be
a strong advocate for American interests and values.
Madam Chairman, I am grateful to this committee for
considering my nomination and, if confirmed, I will look
forward to working closely with the members and staff on these
critical issues. Thank you and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeLaurentis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey DeLaurentis
Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Barrasso, and other distinguished
members of the committee, I am honored to appear before you today as
President Obama's nominee to be the Alternate Representative for
Special Political Affairs at the United Nations.
I am grateful to the President, Secretary Clinton, and Ambassador
Rice for this opportunity and for their confidence in me.
Before proceeding further, let me introduce my wife, Jennifer, who
is with me today.
In his March speech dedicating the Ronald H. Brown Building--the
new home of the United States Mission to the United Nations--President
Obama said, ``The world is more secure and the interests of the United
States are best advanced when we act collectively.'' That basic truth
underlies the very purpose of the United Nations--as well as the
broader commitment of the United States to provide energetic and
sustained global leadership at the U.N. to deepen our security. It is
also the tenet that has shaped a good part of my own career at the
State Department over the last 20 years. If confirmed, I will work to
advance America's interests and values at the United Nations, as we
work with the international community to forge common responses to
common problems.
As Ambassador Rice has noted, ``America can't police every
conflict, end every crisis, and shelter every refugee.'' The U.N.
brings 192 countries together to share the cost of providing stability,
aid, and hope in the world's broken places.
We live in an interwoven age of threats that pay no heed to
borders--from terrorism to pandemic disease, from criminal networks to
environmental degradation. Now more than ever, Americans' security and
well-being are inextricably linked to those of people everywhere. So
our security depends on our ability to work together with others to
confront these threats. Now more than ever, the U.N. provides a crucial
venue for countries to come together, shoulder their responsibilities,
and carry together the costs of upholding peace and security.
Of course, the United Nations is far from perfect. Progress
sometimes comes too slowly. It is all too easy to find examples where
the U.N. could be more efficient and effective, and where it has
stumbled in the past. We must continue to be clear about the U.N.'s
shortcomings. But let us also remember the indispensable role the U.N.
plays in tackling the threats and challenges of the 21st century,
preventing conflict, helping halt the spread of nuclear weapons,
isolating terrorists and human rights abusers, providing desperately
needed medicine and shelter, combating global poverty, promoting
democracy, and advancing American values.
I have had the privilege of spending nearly half of my Foreign
Service career in multilateral diplomacy, including two assignments at
the U.S. Mission to the U.N. in New York and one at the U.S. Mission to
the U.N. in Geneva. Each assignment has reinforced my view that our
efforts at the U.N., although challenging at times, unquestionably
advance American interests and values. At the U.N., we react to today's
crises while trying to avert those to come. At the U.N., we pursue
actions that will make us more secure. And because of the U.N., the
international community does not always look to America to solve every
problem alone.
Madam Chairman, I would welcome the opportunity to return to
multilateral work if confirmed. Under the leadership of President
Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Ambassador Rice, our entire approach
toward multilateral diplomacy is being reinvigorated--and it has
produced results for the United States at the U.N. The State
Department's Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review noted that
the United States must partner with other countries to better address
issues of shared concern and to reform and reshape international
organizations so they can effectively confront 21st century challenges.
It recommended that we update our approach to multilateral diplomacy,
expand the ranks of diplomats skilled in multilateral diplomacy and
improve links between our multilateral and bilateral diplomacy,
especially with respect to our engagement with the United Nations. It
would be my highest honor to pursue these goals in order to better
advance our country's interests at the U.N.
U.S. national security depends on a more effective approach to
fragile states, an approach that is comprehensive enough to prevent us
from having to intervene multiple times in a country emerging from
conflict. Fostering security and reconstruction in the aftermath of
conflict is a central national security objective. The United Nations
plays a leading role here by organizing, directing, and promoting
peacekeeping and stability operations, and setting the stage for peace-
building and development. In today's difficult fiscal environment, if
confirmed, I will work to ensure that U.N. peacekeeping resources are
deployed efficiently, effectively, and within the parameters of
approved mandates.
If confirmed, I will work, in particular, to bolster lifesaving
U.N. peacekeeping and political missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan,
Haiti, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and elsewhere. I will seek to
strengthen peacekeeping mandates, prevent abuses by peacekeepers and
give the U.N. what it needs to more effectively protect civilians. I
will work to ensure full and rigorous implementation of Security
Council sanctions on Iran and North Korea as well as other Council
sanctions targeting individuals and companies associated with
terrorism, atrocities, and transnational crime. I will strongly
encourage the U.N.'s efforts to advance democracy and human rights in
the Middle East and elsewhere, and press for equality and women's
rights. And I will support the administration's efforts to lead the
charge for comprehensive reform of the U.N. and to help the U.N.
fulfill its potential.
If confirmed by the Senate, I'll be a strong advocate for American
interests and values.
Madam Chairman, I am grateful to this committee for considering my
nomination, and if confirmed, I will look forward to working closely
with the members and staff on these critical issues.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you both very much for your
statements.
Dr. DeLaurentis, as you as a representative of the United
States look at America's role at the U.N. and concerns that we
have with respect to the U.N., can you elucidate on what you
think the biggest challenges that we face there are? Does it
have to do with the organization of U.N. operations? Does it
have to do with particular issues that are before the U.N.
right now? Are there other things that we're especially
concerned about?
Mr. DeLaurentis. Madam Chairman, thank you for that
question--it's a broad one.
Senator Shaheen. It is.
Mr. DeLaurentis. First and foremost, in these difficult
budget times, it's important to remember that the U.N.
maintains international sanctions regimes, deploys peacekeepers
in Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Haiti, and
of course U.N. missions support our troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
We're constantly working with the U.N. to improve its
budgets, become more cost effective, make peacekeeping better,
include benchmarks in the mandates of peacekeeping missions,
and also improve the logistic and other kinds of support for
peacekeeping missions.
We're always looking for ways to improve the operations of
U.N. peacekeeping and, of course, throughout the U.N. system.
Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Since you mentioned peacekeeping, how
would you characterize the U.N.'s record on peacekeeping for
the last decade?
Mr. DeLaurentis. Of course, peacekeeping has grown over the
past decade, but I think it's been very good and it's getting
better. The U.N. has 120,000 troops all around the world, as I
mentioned, working on many missions that are important to the
United States. The U.N. has actually managed to close a couple
of missions in the last decade in Chad and Nepal. We are
constantly reviewing every mission with each mandate renewal,
looking again to improve operations as they continue.
Senator Shaheen. What's our position on reform of the
Security Council?
Mr. DeLaurentis. Madam Chairman, thank you for that
question. It's a difficult issue, one that the U.N. has been at
work on for a long time. But I think it's important that the
Security Council be relevant and efficient to address the
challenges of the 21st century. As a result, we are open in
principle to a modest expansion of both permanent and
nonpermanent members.
For the permanent members, in particular, they need to be
strong advocates and players in the maintenance of
international peace and security. They should be strong
advocates for the promotion and protection of human rights.
They should be democracies and again large players in the
activities of the Security Council.
There are discussions under way at the U.N., which we
participate in. There aren't any proposals so far that have
garnered widespread support among the membership, so I suspect
that we'll be at this for some time to come.
Senator Shaheen. As we're looking at a potential expansion
of the Security Council, are we assuming that any potential
permanent member should also have a veto?
Mr. DeLaurentis. No, the administration would be opposed to
any expansion of the veto beyond those members who already have
it.
Senator Shaheen. Can you talk about what steps we're taking
to discourage the effort at the U.N. to seek recognition of an
outside peace deal with Israel between the Palestinian
Authority and, for that matter, to recognize Palestine as an
independent state?
Mr. DeLaurentis. Senator, the administration's position on
this is very clear. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the
U.N. in September will not lead to the creation of a
Palestinian state. All our efforts at this moment are focused
on bringing about direct negotiations between the parties.
That's where we believe all the attention should be and any
efforts at the U.N. will not be helpful in that regard.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Let me just point out that a number of us on the committee
had the opportunity to meet with former Chilean President
Michele Bachelet, who is now heading the Office of Women at the
U.N.
Mr. DeLaurentis. Yes.
Senator Shaheen. I think we applaud the consolidation of
programs affecting women under that office. I think her
leadership has been very impressive and I think--I hope it's an
indication that the U.N. will continue to recognize what has
become a more important part of American foreign policy, and
that is that if we can ensure and improve the role of women in
communities and in countries around the world that that's a
stabilizing factor, it's an important economic factor in terms
of how the countries do, and that that will continue to be a
very important priority for the U.N.
Mr. DeLaurentis. Thank you, Senator. I couldn't agree with
you more, and if confirmed, I will certainly work hard toward
that effort. It's been very clear that increasing women's
participation in conflict resolution and peace processes has
been enormously helpful, and American leadership has
contributed very much to the number of very strong U.N.
Security Council resolutions that are a good framework and base
to proceed with these issues and strengthen them further. So I
actually look forward very much to working on these issues.
Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Mr. Countryman, you talked about Iran, North Korea, and
Syria. Can you talk about how you will work in your new role,
should you be confirmed, to strengthen the nonproliferation
regime and how we prevent those countries or discourage those
countries from moving forward with weapons of mass destruction?
I suppose Syria is not yet on that path, but certainly Iran and
North Korea are.
Mr. Countryman. Thank you, Chairman Shaheen. The effort to
prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction requires
us to use a variety of different instruments, including
diplomatic, political, economic, intelligence, and military
strengths, all the different strengths that this government can
bring to the table.
In order to strengthen those efforts, I would first focus
on ensuring that the State Department, and particularly the ISN
Bureau, if I'm confirmed, is doing the maximum to coordinate
with the other agencies of the U.S. Government; and second, to
ensure that we are being consistent with our friends around the
world who share our goals, that we demonstrate a coherence and
a consistency in our policy, that gives them every reason to
join with us in continuing the pressure on Iran, on North
Korea, and on others who are seeking to proliferate and create
weapons of mass destruction.
Senator Shaheen. Some of us from this committee had the
opportunity to meet with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov
yesterday and one of the things that he suggested was that Iran
might be ready to come back to the table on negotiations around
developing a nuclear weapon. Do we have any indications that
that in fact might be the case?
Mr. Countryman. Both Jeff DeLaurentis and I worked with
Ambassador Lavrov in New York and if you have an indication
from Minister Lavrov that's an indication that it is so. We do,
of course, seek----
Senator Shaheen. An indication it's an indication?
Mr. Countryman. It's an indication that--he's well
informed, a very capable diplomat, and we have really excellent
cooperation in the P5+1, the five permanent members plus
Germany, in devising a strategy that makes clear our
determination to have Iran come back into compliance with its
international obligations.
That effort proceeds well. Whether this is the moment to
resume negotiations, at a time when Iran is increasing defiance
of its obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency
and its obligations to the U.N. Security Council is a tough
question. But we are, of course, prepared, as the President has
been throughout this administration, both to engage with Iran
to work out a new relationship, but at the same time to make
clear that we expect Iran to come into full compliance with its
obligations.
Senator Shaheen. So as you pointed out, the President in
his Prague speech talked about the importance of moving the
world in the direction of ending our nuclear weapons at some
point in the future, and the administration has said that it
``will lead a global effort to negotiate a verifiable treaty
ending the production of fissile nuclear materials for weapons
purposes.''
Can you talk about how the administration will include
unrecognized nuclear weapons states like Iran in a cutoff
treaty?
Mr. Countryman. Thank you, Senator. I can only talk in the
most general terms because the obligation to lead the
negotiation of such a treaty will fall to who I hope will be my
future colleague, Assistant Secretary Gottemoeller in the Arms
Control and Verification Bureau. It is a goal that we are
determined to pursue. We believe that the P5, the five
permanent members of the Security Council, must lead this
effort.
But the question you put your finger on, how to bring in
nonrecognized nuclear-capable states, is not one that's
resolved and I'm afraid I won't be the one to resolve it.
Senator Shaheen. Can you talk about how we'll work to
overcome Pakistan's objections to proceeding with negotiations
in the Conference on Disarmament?
Mr. Countryman. Again, only in general terms. I would be
happy to come back with colleagues in order to get into more
detail, but in general we have done everything we can to
promote a productive agenda of cooperation with Pakistan in the
many specific areas that nonproliferation encompasses, from
border security to security of nuclear materials.
In our strategic dialogue with Pakistan and in the
nonproliferation part of that dialogue with Pakistan, which I
would support if confirmed, we are seeking to convince them of
the advantages to Pakistan and world security of such an
approach.
Senator Shaheen. Is there any indication of the extent to
which the recent announcement that we're going to be
discontinuing a portion of our aid to Pakistan is going to have
any impact on the ability to negotiate with Pakistan on those
other issues of nuclear proliferation?
Mr. Countryman. Very good question, Senator. I think the
only part of that that I'm really qualified to speak to is to
reaffirm that the assistance that we give to Pakistan for
programs related to nonproliferation in the fields I mentioned,
such as border control, we provide that money because it is in
the United States interests, because it contributes directly to
our security.
I think that Pakistan has recognized that it shares that
interest with us and we certainly hope to continue that
cooperation.
Senator Shaheen. The final document of the 2010 NPT treaty
review conference also called for India and Pakistan to accede
to the NPT and to abandon their weapons programs. What steps,
if any, are we taking to persuade India and Pakistan to do
that?
Mr. Countryman. As I noted, Senator, we have a
nonproliferation and a strategic dialogue with both India and
Pakistan. In this dialogue and in our ongoing contact with
each, we seek to have them take steps that improve the security
of nuclear materials and that do not encourage additional
proliferation in both countries. We hope that gradually we can
create the conditions under which they will seriously consider
joining the NPT. I think we must conclude that it's realistic
that we won't reach that goal in the immediate future, but we
continue to work toward it in our bilateral cooperation with
both states.
Senator Shaheen. We announced, or the administration
announced, its intention to support India's full membership in
the Nuclear Suppliers Group in November 2010, as well as the
Missile Technology Control Regime, the Australia Group, the
Wassenaar Arrangement. Are we also expecting that India will
bring its export control regimes in conformity with these
groups' guidelines before it joins?
Mr. Countryman. Thank you, Senator. We are working both
with India and with the existing members of those four export
control regimes toward the goal that we promised in November
2010. It is our expectation that India would meet the standards
of those regimes prior to joining.
Senator Shaheen. Good.
I don't have any further questions for right now, but I
would be remiss, Dr. DeLaurentis, if I didn't go back and ask
you a final question about Libya, since that has been so much
of the part of the national discussion here. Do you expect any
further action on Libya at the U.N. and is there any reason to
be optimistic about the U.N.'s further engagement in Libya that
will help provide a resolution to the conflict there?
Mr. DeLaurentis. Thank you, Senator. It's a very good
question, unfortunately, I was not a part of the negotiations
in New York. Of course, the two Security Council resolutions
provided the framework for the current action with respect to
the protection of civilians clearly in harm's way, the arms
embargo, and so forth.
I think there is reason for optimism. We're beginning to
see an international consensus that comes closer to our
position that Qadafi has to go, has to step down, and we need
to move toward a democratic transition. Of course, there's a
U.N. envoy involved and things are changing on a daily basis.
But I think in general we can be optimistic, and I think we can
be proud that we averted a humanitarian catastrophe.
Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you both very much again for
your testimony here today, for your willingness to serve. I
hope that we can move forward with speedy confirmations of both
of you so that you can start your new positions as soon as
possible.
I will point out that the record will stand open for 48
hours until the close of business on Friday July 15 for any
further comments or statements.
Thank you all. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:27 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses of Paul Wohlers to Questions Submitted
by Senator Richard G. Lugar
Question. In your view, should Macedonia's accession to NATO
continue to depend on resolution of its name dispute with Greece? What
other measures, besides resolution of the name dispute, must Macedonia
undertake to accede to NATO?
Answer. The United States supports Macedonia's membership in NATO.
Macedonia has fulfilled key criteria required of NATO members and will
receive an invitation to join as soon as the dispute with Greece over
its name is resolved. Heads of State and Government concluded at NATO's
2008 Bucharest summit--and reaffirmed at the Strasbourg-Kehl and Lisbon
summits--that ``an invitation to the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia will be extended as soon as a mutually acceptable solution to
the name issue has been reached.''
Macedonia participates in the Membership Action Plan (MAP) process
and continues to be an active participant in the Partnership for Peace
(PfP) and its Planning and Review Process (PARP). With 163 site
protectors, army mentors, and medical personnel, it maintains one of
the highest per capita contributions to NATO's International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF). Macedonia has implemented key defense reforms
in support of its NATO aspirations and should continue to enhance the
deployability of its armed forces and improve its interoperability with
NATO forces.
Question. What effect would Macedonia's accession to NATO have on
regional stability?
Answer. Regional stability in Southeast Europe is a foreign policy
priority of the United States, and we support the full integration of
Macedonia into Euro-Atlantic institutions to further that priority. As
a NATO aspirant country, Macedonia has become a valuable contributor to
regional security. It provides small contingents in support of the EU
peacekeeping mission in Bosnia and provides support to the KFOR mission
through a Host Nation Support Coordination Center.
The Euro-Atlantic integration process results in domestic reform
not only in the area of security but also in rule of law,
democratization, and the development of civil society. By fulfilling
NATO membership criteria, Macedonia is reinforcing its ability to
withstand internal and external crises, thus aiding in the
stabilization process throughout the region. Assuming the name issue is
resolved, Macedonia's successful accession to NATO would serve as an
example to other NATO aspirants in the region, demonstrating that the
necessary reforms can be accomplished, membership is in fact
achievable, and NATO's open door policy is true and unwavering.
Question. Please describe Macedonia's energy security situation.
What steps would you advocate as Ambassador to promote its energy
security?
Answer. Macedonia imports a significant amount of electrical power,
which underscores both the importance of Macedonia's participation in
the Energy Community and the need for increased energy efficiency and
use of renewable sources. The key for Macedonia's energy security is
diversification. Of domestic production, roughly 30 percent comes from
hydroelectric sources and about 70 percent comes from coal. It is
estimated that the capacity for hydroelectric power generation can be
increased with several projects that are in the development stage.
Through USAID assistance programs, the United States has helped
Macedonia realize its Energy Community commitments to ensure a rational
energy market and has funded the development of the Energy Efficiency
Strategy and Action Plan, as well as the Action Plan for the Renewable
Energy Strategy and demonstration projects to encourage more energy
efficiency. Likewise, we have assisted in the development and passage
of a new comprehensive energy sector law and are supporting the
development of the key required secondary legislation to encourage
investment in renewable sources such as wind and solar. If confirmed, I
will continue to support programs that lead to energy diversity and
help reduce Macedonia's import dependency.
Question. What sectors of the Macedonian economy are in most need
of foreign investment? How would you seek to increase U.S. investment
in Macedonia?
Answer. Macedonia lags behind other countries in the region in
attracting foreign direct investment, yet there are real opportunities.
For instance, two U.S. companies have invested in production facilities
near Skopje for the production of auto parts and electronics. The
companies investing in these facilities are using them to expand into
markets in Europe and elsewhere. In addition to small manufacturers,
investment opportunities exist in agriculture and technology.
Lack of progress on NATO and EU integration and the inability of
the judiciary to provide reliable, impartial, and timely settlement of
disputes are obstacles to attracting more investment. If confirmed, I
would continue to support our mission's efforts to address these
obstacles through our assistance, public engagement, and in meetings
with the Government, so that we can help Macedonia realize its full
potential as an economic partner.
______
Responses of William Moser to Questions Submitted by
Senator Richard G. Lugar
Question. Several seizures of uranium have occurred in Moldova over
the past year. Could you please provide a list of U.S. programs in
Moldova for the past two fiscal years that advance U.S.
nonproliferation objectives?
Answer. Members of the interagency Nuclear Trafficking Response
Group (NTRG), which is chaired by the Department of State, have been
working closely with the Government of Moldova in recent months to
break up nuclear trafficking networks. The NTRG coordinated the USG
response to the recent law enforcement operations in Moldova, including
the seizure of uranium-238 in August 2010 and the June 2011 seizure of
highly enriched uranium (HEU). The NTRG continues to facilitate
followup actions with Moldova and other countries as we work together
to investigate the smuggling networks involved.
U.S. programs in Moldova focused on nonproliferation include:
The State Department's Export Control and Related Border
Security (EXBS) Program, which restarted in Moldova in November
2010, has coordinated with other federal agencies to organize
seminars and tabletop exercises to enhance Moldovan
capabilities in detecting and interdicting smuggling of weapons
of mass destruction.
The Department of State's Nuclear Smuggling Outreach
Initiative (NSOI) initiated a dialogue with Moldova in 2010 on
combating the smuggling of illicit nuclear material. On July
19, the U.S. Ambassador to Moldova signed the ``Joint Action
Plan between the Government of the United States of America and
the Government of the Republic of Moldova on Combating
Smuggling of Nuclear and Radioactive Materials.'' This Joint
Action Plan expresses the intention of the two governments to
take steps to enhance the capabilities of the Republic of
Moldova to prevent, detect, and respond effectively to any
attempts to smuggle materials that could be used to make an
improvised nuclear device.
The Department of State's Preventing Nuclear Smuggling
Program (PNSP) plans to fund projects that are part of the NSOI
Joint Action Plan, starting in the autumn of 2011. PNSP plans
to help Moldova build specialized Counter Nuclear Smuggling
Teams, host a workshop to review Moldova's laws on nuclear
smuggling, and help Moldova further strengthen its national
response plan to ensure effective coordination in responding to
incidents of trafficking in nuclear or radioactive materials.
On July 19, the U.S. Ambassador to Moldova signed the
``Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of Energy
of the United States of America and the Customs Service under
the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Moldova Concerning
Cooperation to Prevent Illicit Trafficking in Nuclear and Other
Radioactive Material.'' The memorandum of understanding will
allow the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) to provide radiation detection systems at
strategic locations at Moldova's borders, to thwart nuclear
smuggling and prevent illicit movement of nuclear and
radioactive materials.
The Department of Defense's Cooperative Threat Reduction's
Proliferation Prevention Program (CTR PPP) is discussing with
Moldovan officials possible projects to enhance WMD detection
and interdiction capabilities on the borders with Ukraine and
around the region of Transnistria. Moldovan officials have
welcomed possible assistance. CTR officials anticipate further
discussions in the coming months.
On nonnuclear proliferation risks, the United States has
cooperated with the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe (OSCE) in the destruction of Soviet-era rockets and
cluster munitions left in the territory of Moldova under
control of the central authorities.
Question. Please describe how the programs mentioned above are
coordinated with U.S. programs in Ukraine. Do you believe that these
programs could be better coordinated? If so, please describe.
Answer. The Department of State's Nuclear Smuggling Outreach
Initiative Joint Action Plan on nuclear smuggling to be signed with
Moldova is modeled after a similar plan established with Ukraine in
2006. The Joint Action Plan specifically calls for Moldova to bolster
its cooperation on countersmuggling efforts with international
partners, including Ukraine.
The legal review and national response plan workshops that the
Department of State's Preventing Nuclear Smuggling Program plans to
host in Moldova are modeled after similar workshops it hosted in
Ukraine. The Preventing Nuclear Smuggling Program is planning a visit
to Moldova, Ukraine, and Slovakia this fall to help develop Counter
Nuclear Smuggling Teams in all three countries. One of the goals of
these teams is to foster cooperation among law enforcement counterparts
in the region.
The Department of Energy's work in Moldova to provide radiation
detection systems on the border and to upgrade physical security at
Moldovan facilities parallels such work in Ukraine. Assistance for
border security in both countries will be mutually reinforcing, as both
countries share a border known to be a popular route among smugglers.
Those responsible for the State Department's Export Control and
Related Border Security (EXBS) programs in Chisinau and Kyiv
communicate regularly regarding their work, and the programs share the
same regional EXBS Advisor, who is posted at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv.
The two EXBS programs plan closer cooperation in coming years to assist
in training Moldovan and Ukrainian border guards and other law-
enforcement authorities via joint exercises in both countries.
Question. Is the U.S. Government aware of the origins of the seized
uranium? If so, please describe.
Answer. Detailed analysis of the uranium seized by Moldovan police
on June 28, 2011, has not been completed. Since this case is still
open, all of the information on this matter is highly sensitive as
Moldova continues its investigation in cooperation with the United
States.
Question. A bill to repeal Jackson-Vanik for Moldova has been
pending for the last several years. Please describe administration
efforts to push for passage of this bill (S. 334 and its House
companion) in 2011, including meetings held with House and Senate
committee staff and House and Senate leadership staff on this issue.
Answer. Since 1997, the United States Government has found Moldova
to be in compliance with Jackson-Vanik emigration requirements, and the
Obama administration has extended to Moldova conditional normal trade
relations status. The Obama administration supports terminating the
application of Jackson-Vanik and extending Permanent Normal Trade
Relations (PNTR) to Moldova, because the country has satisfied all the
freedom of emigration requirements of Jackson-Vanik, and because U.S.
exporters to Moldova will not enjoy WTO benefits and protections until
the application of Jackson-Vanik is lifted. During his March visit to
Chisinau, Vice President Biden delivered a message of support for
granting PNTR to Moldova, both publicly and privately. Administration
officials have also discussed the termination of the application of
Jackson-Vanik with House and Senate staff .
The administration's top trade priorities with Congress include
trade agreements with Korea, Colombia, and Panama, Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA), and renewal of trade preference programs (e.g.,
Generalized System of Preferences and the Andean Trade Preference Act).
We look forward to working with Congress on lifting Jackson-Vanik's
application to Moldova as our trade agenda advances.
Question. What tangible steps will you take as Ambassador to
increase U.S. investment in Moldova?
Answer. If I am confirmed as U.S. Ambassador to Moldova, I will
enhance our trade and investment promotion efforts and build upon them.
The key to making Moldova more attractive to U.S. investors and
exporters is improving Moldova's overall business and investment
climate, and the USG has been actively working on this priority with
the Moldovan Government. For example, the U.S. Agency for International
Development has two programs dedicated to this effort:
The Business Regulatory and Tax Administration Reform
Project works with the Moldovan Government to reduce the
administrative burdens on the private sector, streamline tax
administration, reduce opportunities for corruption, improve
access to government information, and strengthen public-private
sector dialogue.
The Moldova Rapid Governance Support Program, provides
rapidly implemented, short-term expert assistance to Moldovan
Government ministries and offices to support implementation of
key reforms in the areas of judicial administration,
agricultural subsidies, customs, fiscal decentralization,
internal government communications, and implementation of an e-
government strategy.
As a result of these efforts, over 17,000 businesses now save an
average of 4 hours/month using the rapid tax declaration system
developed under the Business Regulatory and Tax Administration Reform
Project. Moldova's State Licensing Chamber recently launched its one-
stop shop, which allows businesses to combine what used to require four
or more separate applications, presented by hand to different agencies,
into a single filing. Meanwhile, changes in construction laws have
shaved 70 days and over $1,000 in fees from the process of acquiring
permits.
If confirmed, I will continue to focus on improving Moldova's
investment climate, because foreign direct investment and two-way trade
can play an important role in boosting exports and employment and
reducing poverty.
______
Responses of John Heffern to Questions Submitted by
Senator Barbara Boxer
Question. As you know, countless experts have documented the
horrific atrocities of the Armenian Genocide of 1915 to 1923, when more
than 1.5 million Armenians were marched to their deaths in the deserts
of the Middle East, murdered in concentration camps, drowned at sea,
and forced to endure unimaginable acts of brutality at the hands of the
Ottoman Empire--now modern-day Turkey.
That is why it is so hard to understand how Turkey continues its
state-sponsored denial of this terrible crime.
How is the administration working to urge Turkey to finally
acknowledge the Armenian Genocide? What efforts have been
undertaken to date?
Answer. The President has said that a full, frank, and just
acknowledgement of the facts is in all our interest. In his April 23,
2011, statement, he noted that history teaches us that our nations are
stronger and our cause is more just when we appropriately recognize
painful pasts and work to rebuild bridges of understanding toward a
better tomorrow. With this in mind, he strongly supports efforts by the
Turkish and Armenian peoples to work through their painful history in a
way that is honest, open, and constructive. The U.S. Government
supports the efforts of individuals in Armenia and Turkey to foster a
dialogue that acknowledges their history, sponsoring programs that
foster contacts between the Armenian and Turkish peoples.
Over the last decade, the United States has provided approximately
$3.5 million to support activities aimed at strengthening relations
between the people of Armenia and Turkey. These include initiatives to
increase people-to-people connections such as research projects,
conferences, documentary production, and exchange and partnership
programs with the goal of increasing cross-border dialogue and
cooperation. These programs are focused on bringing together Armenian
and Turkish NGOs, think-tank researchers, academics and business
leaders at the grassroots level by creating opportunities for them to
work together on common projects that will benefit both countries. If I
am confirmed, I will continue to promote not only government-to-
government discussions, but also people-to-people cultural and economic
contacts and partnerships, and other cross-border and regional
initiatives.
Question. Recently, the Government of Azerbaijan threatened to
shoot down civilian airplanes if Nagorno Karabakh goes ahead with plans
to reopen its civilian airport that has been closed since 1991.
According to news reports, the head of Azerbaijan's Civil Aviation
Administration said that ``the law on aviation envisages the physical
destruction of airplanes landing in'' Nagorno Karabakh.
How has the United States Government responded to these
threats? Is there an effort underway with the Government of
Azerbaijan to encourage it to back down? How will the United
States respond once the airport is open?
Answer. U.S. officials have made clear repeatedly that the threat
or use of force, including against civilian aircraft that pose no
threat themselves, is unacceptable, and runs counter to commitments
made by the Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia to seek a peaceful,
negotiated settlement.
The United States Government has urged both sides to work together
to resolve all issues of commercial aviation safety prior to the
planned opening of the proposed airport. On April 1, the Azerbaijani
Foreign Ministry declared that ``Azerbaijan will not use force against
civil facilities." Also, the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan have
both confirmed to the Minsk Group cochairs in early April that they
will not use force against civil aircraft.
Question. Can you please provide your views on the following
statements made by President Obama? Do you disagree with them? If so,
why?
``Nearly 2 million Armenians were deported during the Armenian
Genocide, which was carried out by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to
1923, and approximately 1.5 million of those deported were killed.''--
Senator Obama, Question for the Record to Ambassador Yovanovitch, June
19, 2008.
``The occurrence of the Armenian genocide is a widely documented
fact supported by an overwhelming collection of historical
evidence.''--Senator Obama, Statement Commemorating the Armenian
Genocide, April 28, 2008.
``The Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion,
or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an
overwhelming body of historical evidence.''--Senator Obama on the
importance of U.S.-Armenia Relations, January 19, 2008.
Answer. In his April 23 Armenian Remembrance Day statement, the
President solemnly remembered as historical fact that 1.5 million
Armenians were massacred or marched to their deaths from 1915-1923. The
President's views on this subject are well known; they have not
changed.
Like all executive branch officials, I have a responsibility to
represent the policy of the President on this and all other issues. If
I am confirmed as the personal representative of the President to
Armenia, I will continue to do so.
Question. Does the United States Government support the inclusion
of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in the Minsk Group process? If not,
please provide a detailed explanation.
Answer. The United States supports the current format of
negotiations for the Minsk Group process, which has been agreed to by
both the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides. At this stage in the
negotiation, the USG believes it is best to continue on this basis. Any
final settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) conflict must be
acceptable to the Karabakhi communities. The Minsk Group cochairs
travel regularly to NK to meet with the de facto NK authorities.
Question. In 2010, trade between the United States and Armenia
totaled approximately $189 billion (both imports and exports). What
steps are being taken by the administration to increase trade between
our two countries?
Answer. The U.S. and Armenian governments have a robust dialogue
focused on trade and investment issues between our two countries as
part of the U.S.-Armenia Joint Economic Task Force (USATF)--which has
been meeting regularly since 1999. We are committed to using this forum
to enhance bilateral trade opportunities and improve the business
climate in Armenia. As part of that effort we are using the USATF to
encourage business-to-business contacts, identify sectors for reform,
and to advocate for U.S. companies who want to expand their business
with Armenia. The next USATF meeting is scheduled for September of this
year.
Over the past several years, our countries have concluded
agreements that advance greater cooperation. In November 2008, the U.S.
Government and the Government of Armenia concluded a comprehensive Open
Skies agreement to expand and liberalize bilateral civil aviation
relations between the two countries. In 2009, Armenia and the United
States signed an agreement that will facilitate science and technology
cooperation in numerous areas of mutual interest including information
technology, intellectual property, earth sciences, and others. This
year we signed an MOU to jointly analyze Armenia's potential
conventional and unconventional energy resources.
In order to increase bilateral trade and investment, we intend to
organize a trade mission in the coming year that will bring Armenian
business people on a sector-specific trip to the United States. They
will have the chance to attend trade shows and connect with U.S.
businesses interested in export, as well as having the opportunity to
develop markets for Armenian exports. While this idea is still in the
development phase--we are considering how we might fund it--if I am
confirmed this would be one of my first orders of business upon
arriving in Yerevan.
Our diplomatic engagement and assistance programs continue to
address the underlying impediments to doing business in Armenia. The
USG is actively working with the Armenian authorities to create a more
favorable trade and investment environment, including through reform of
its tax administration and customs procedures, improving its legal
system, and addressing corruption that stifles investment in Armenia.
USAID's Mobilizing Action Against Corruption (MAAC) project is now
providing input to the Armenian Government's efforts to develop a
revised anticorruption strategy. Armenian Intellectual Property Rights
(IPR) specialists attend U.S. Patent Office training to improve
Armenian patent and copyright law, improving IPR protection in Armenia
and making the country more attractive to U.S. businesses.
Other U.S. Government programs work directly with Armenian
entrepreneurs and companies: USAID's Competitive Armenian Private
Sector (CAPS) and Enterprise Development and Market Competitiveness
(EDMC) projects aim to enhance business and management skills, increase
access to financial services for Armenian businesses, and encourage
enterprise collaboration and joint ventures. Our Business Advisory
Services program provides technical and consulting services to Armenian
companies, helping them to improve their operations and enter new
markets. U.S. Government assistance moneys have supported the Civilian
Research and Development Fund in Armenia since the 1990s. This project
identifies and funds technological innovations that have promising
commercial applications, and pairs Armenian scientists and
businesspeople to develop these innovations.
Should I be confirmed, I intend to work to provide U.S. businesses
with information about opportunities in Armenia, and to provide
Armenian businesses insight about how American businesses operate.
Promotion of trade and business cooperation between the United States
and Armenia will require greater awareness of Armenia and the Caucasus
as a whole by U.S. businesses. Some sectors, such as information
technology, already have significant U.S. investment. But others,
financial services and insurance for example, hold largely untapped
potential.
Finally, I believe that the key to unlocking Armenia's economic
potential--and opening up more opportunities for U.S.-Armenian business
cooperation--lies in the resolution of regional conflicts. If
confirmed, I will support the USG's continued efforts to open the land
border with Turkey and to achieve a peaceful solution to the Nagorno-
Karabakh conflict. Armenia's economic integration into the wider region
remains an important U.S. policy objective.
Question. If confirmed, will you commit to comprehensive engagement
with the Armenian Community in California and throughout the United
States on a regular basis? For example, will you commit to holding
public community forums with Armenian Americans throughout the United
States?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I would look forward to visiting and
meeting with members of the Armenian American community in California,
throughout the United States, and in Armenia, as my predecessors have
done. It would be a valuable opportunity to understand their concerns,
update them on the status of the U.S.-Armenia relationship, and to
discuss a host of relevant issues.
Question. In a July 29, 2008 letter to then-chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee Joseph Biden, Acting Assistant Secretary
for Legislative Affairs Matthew Reynolds wrote of ``the mass killings
and deportations of Armenians committed by Ottoman soldiers and other
Ottoman officials in 1915'' and noted that ``the administration
recognizes that the mass killings, ethnic cleansing, and forced
deportations of over 1\1/2\ million Armenians were conducted by the
Ottoman Empire. We indeed hold Ottoman officials responsible for those
crimes.'' Does the administration ascribe to this policy statement?
Do you agree that U.S. diplomats serving in the Ottoman
Empire during the Armenian Genocide documented a systematic,
government-sponsored campaign ``with intent to destroy, in
whole or in part'' the Armenian population?
Answer. In his April 23 Armenian Remembrance Day statement, the
President solemnly remembered as historical fact that 1.5 million
Armenians were massacred or marched to their deaths from 1915-1923. The
President's views on this issue are well known; those views have not
changed. The administration mourns this terrible chapter of history and
recognizes that it remains a source of great pain for the people of
Armenia, and for all those who believe in the dignity and value of
every human life.
I have read the statements of Ambassadors Morgenthau and Elkus, the
statements of other U.S. officials in Turkey at the time, as well as a
number of books on this subject. I am acquainted with the history of
the tragic massacres and deportations that occurred at the end of the
Ottoman Empire, and with U.S. policy in that regard. The individual
stories are heartrending; the magnitude of these terrible acts--over
1.5 million killed or forcibly deported--defies comprehension.
______
Responses of John Heffern to Questions Submitted by
Senator Robert Menendez
Question. In your opening statement you state that ``President
Obama has recognized and deplored the horrific events that took place
in the waning days of the Ottoman empire'' and note that he has
``publicly called the massacre of 1.5 million Armenians at the time one
of the worst atrocities of the 20th century.'' I welcome that
statement, but note that it refrains from laying blame for these
events.
Do you or does the administration agree that the mass
killings, ethnic cleansing, and forced deportations of over 1.5
million Armenians were conducted by the Ottoman Empire?
Does the administration recognize the Turkish Republic as
the successor state to the Ottoman Empire? Who then was
responsible for the murder of over 1.5 million Armenians from
1915-1923?
Answer. In his Armenian Remembrance Day statement on April 23, the
President solemnly remembered the horrific events of 1915, when 1.5
million Armenians were massacred or marched to their deaths in the
final days of the Ottoman Empire. With his statement, the President
honors the victims of these events and expresses American solidarity
with the Armenian people; his views on this subject have not changed.
This was an atrocity that we and the world must never forget, so
that it is never repeated. We mourn this terrible chapter of history
and recognize that it remains a source of great pain for all those who
believe in the dignity and value of every human life.
The President has said that the achievement of a full, frank, and
just acknowledgement of the facts of what occurred in 1915 is in all
our interests.
Question. Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, of which the United States has
both signed and ratified, states:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:
``(a) Killing members of the group;
``(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the
group;
``(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or
in part;
``(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the
group;
``(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another
group.''
Therefore, would not the facts that you acknowledge in your opening
statement, during the period of 1915-1923, meet the definition under
Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide?
Answer. In his April 23 Armenian Remembrance Day statement, the
President solemnly remembered as historical fact that 1.5 million
Armenians were massacred or marched to their deaths from 1915-1923. The
administration mourns this terrible chapter of history and recognizes
that it remains a source of great pain for all those who believe in the
dignity and value of every human life.
The President has said that the achievement of a full, frank, and
just acknowledgement of the facts of what occurred in 1915 is in all
our interests. He strongly supports the efforts of Turkey and Armenia
to normalize their bilateral relations. The President believes that
together, Armenia and Turkey can forge a relationship that is peaceful,
productive, and prosperous.
I have a responsibility to represent the policy of the President.
The President's views on this issue are well known; those views have
not changed. If I am confirmed as the personal representative of the
President to Armenia, I will carry out this responsibility.
Question. Please describe the facts or circumstances, including
historical instances, that constitute the act of genocide as described
in Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide.
Answer. The United States became a State Party to the Convention on
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1989. When
ratifying the Convention, the United States set forth an understanding
with respect to the definition of genocide provided in Article II.
Article II provides:
``In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following
acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national
ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
``(a) Killing members of the group;
``(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the
group;
``(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or
in part;
``(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births in the
group;
``(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another
group.''
The U.S. ratification instrument set forth several reservations and
understandings to the Convention, including:
Reservations:
``(1) That with reference to article IX of the Convention, before
any dispute to which the United States is a party may be submitted to
the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this
article, the specific consent of the United States is required in each
case.
``(2) That nothing in the Convention requires or authorizes
legislation or other action by the United States of America prohibited
by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United
States."
Understandings:
``(1) That the term `intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a
national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such' appearing in
article II means the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in
substantial part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as
such by the acts specified in article II.
``(2) That the term `mental harm' in article II (b) means permanent
impairment of mental faculties through drugs, torture or similar
techniques.
``(3) That the pledge to grant extradition in accordance with a
state's laws and treaties in force found in article VII extends only to
acts which are criminal under the laws of both the requesting and the
requested state and nothing in article VI affects the right of any
state to bring to trial before its own tribunals any of its nationals
for acts committed outside a state.
``(4) That acts in the course of armed conflicts committed without
the specific intent required by article II are not sufficient to
constitute genocide as defined by this Convention.
``(5) That with regard to the reference to an international penal
tribunal in article VI of the Convention, the United States declares
that it reserves the right to effect its participation in any such
tribunal only by a treaty entered into specifically for that purpose
with the advice and consent of the Senate."
In his April 23 statement, the President solemnly remembered as
historical fact that 1.5 million Armenians were massacred or marched to
their deaths from 1915-1923. The President has said that the
achievement of a full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts of
what occurred in 1915 is in all our interests.
Question. The U.S. State Department chronicled the effort to
exterminate Armenians in the early 1900s--The Honorable Henry
Morgenthau, U.S. Ambassador to Turkey from 1913-16 wrote in July 16,
1915, telegram to the Secretary of State, ``Deportation of and excesses
against peaceful Armenians is increasing and from harrowing reports of
eye witnesses it appears that a campaign of race extermination is in
progress under a pretext of reprisal against rebellion.''
The U.S. Consul in Aleppo, Jesse Jackson, reported to Ambassador
Morgenthau on June 5, 1915, ``It is without doubt a carefully planned
scheme to thoroughly extinguish the Armenian race.''
The U.S. Consul in Harput, Leslie Davis, reported to Ambassador
Morgenthau on July 24, 1915, ``It has been no secret that the plan was
to destroy the Armenian race as a race, but the methods used have been
more cold-blooded and barbarous, if not more effective, than I had at
first supposed.''
Ambassador Morgenthau was succeeded by the Honorable Abram I.
Elkus, who served as Ambassador from 1916-17. On October 17, 1916,
Elkus telegrammed the Secretary of State about the extreme measures
sanctioned by the Turks, stating ``In order to avoid opprobrium of the
civilized world, which the continuation of massacres [of the Armenians]
would arouse, Turkish officials have now adopted and are executing the
unchecked policy of extermination through starvation, exhaustion, and
brutality of treatment hardly surpassed even in Turkish history.''
Are you aware of these cables and the well-documented
history of the events that took place during this time? Do you
believe that the atrocities that took place and the deaths of
1.5 million Armenians fit the Genocide Convention's definition
of acts that constitute genocide?
Answer. I have read these cables, the statements of Ambassadors
Morgenthau and Elkus, the statements of other U.S. officials in the
Ottoman Empire at the time, as well as a number of books on this
subject. I am acquainted with the history of the tragic massacres and
forced exile that occurred at the end of the Ottoman Empire, and with
U.S. policy in that regard. The individual stories are heartrending;
the magnitude of these terrible acts--over 1.5 million killed or
forcibly deported--defies comprehension.
In his April 23 Remembrance Day statement, President Obama has
solemnly remembered the horrific events of 1915-1923. His views on the
issue are well known; they have not changed. I have a responsibility to
represent the policy of the President. If I am confirmed as the
personal representative of the President to Armenia, I will carry out
this responsibility.
Question. The history of the Armenian genocide is well documented
by our own diplomats. Is today's State Department and are our diplomats
constrained from acknowledging the historical record that was developed
by their predecessors?
Answer. No, Senator; neither the State Department nor its diplomats
are constrained from acknowledging that these diplomatic accounts from
that period exist, or that they make the references you have detailed.
As I noted previously, I have read these historical accounts and other
sources. Like all executive branch officials, I have a duty to
represent the policy of the President on this and all other issues. If
I am confirmed as the personal representative of the President to
Armenia, I will do so.
The President's position on this issue is stated in his April 23
Armenian Remembrance Day statement, wherein he has solemnly remembered
the events of 1915, and noted that 1.5 million Armenians were massacred
or marched to their deaths.
Question. Do you dispute any of the documented records I've
described [in questions 2-4] above?
Answer. I am familiar with, and do not dispute, the authenticity of
the records you have described from that era.
Question. Are you aware that in 1981, President Ronald Reagan
issued a proclamation acknowledging the ``genocide of the Armenians''?
Answer. I am aware of and have read President Reagan's 1981
proclamation.
Question. In addition to Ronald Reagan's proclamation, I would also
direct your attention to the U.S. Government's filing before the
International Court of Justice in 1951, wherein the United States
stated that: ``the Turkish massacres of Armenians, the extermination of
millions of Jews and Poles by the Nazis are outstanding examples of the
crime of genocide.''
Are you familiar with this filing and the references
therein? Do you dispute its accuracy?
Answer. I am familiar with the U.S. Government's filing before the
ICJ in 1951. The U.S. Government acknowledges and mourns the mass
killings and forced deportations that devastated over 1.5 million
Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire. The administration also
understands that many Americans and many Armenians believe that these
horrible acts should be called ``genocide.'' President Obama's views on
this subject are well known; they have not changed.
In his April 23 statement on Armenian Remembrance Day, the
President solemnly remembered the events of 1915-1923, and stated that
a full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts is in all our
interests. He strongly supports the efforts of Turkey and Armenia to
normalize their bilateral relations. The President believes that
together, Armenia and Turkey can forge a relationship that is peaceful,
productive, and prosperous.
Question. The United States has never denied the fact of the
Armenian Genocide--wouldn't you agree? And former Senators Barack
Obama, Joseph Biden, and Hillary Clinton each acknowledged the fact of
the Armenian Genocide during their tenure as Senators--wouldn't you
agree?
Answer. The administration has never denied the horrific events of
1915. These were atrocities that we and the world must never forget, so
that they are never repeated.
In his April 23 Armenian Remembrance Day statement, the President
solemnly remembered as historical fact that 1.5 million Armenians were
massacred or marched to their deaths from 1915-1923. The President's
views on this subject are well known; they have not changed. The views
of Vice President Biden and Secretary Clinton during their tenures in
the Senate are also well known.
Question. You are aware, are you not, that the International
Association of Genocide Scholars, the preeminent body that specializes
in genocide and holocaust studies has repeatedly and unequivocally
affirmed the fact of the Armenian Genocide? Do you disagree with the
International Association of Genocide Scholars?
Answer. I am aware of the conclusions of the International
Association of Genocide Scholars.
Like all executive branch officials, I have a duty to represent the
policy of the President on this and all other issues. The President's
position on this issue is stated in his April 23 Armenian Remembrance
Day statement, wherein he has solemnly remembered the events of 1915,
and noted that 1.5 million Armenians were massacred or marched to their
deaths. If I am confirmed as the personal representative of the
President to Armenia, I will carry out this duty.
Do you then agree that genocide took place against the
Armenian people?
Answer. Yes, Senator; I am familiar with the work of the
International Association of Genocide Scholars and, as I noted
previously, with the historical reporting by State Department officials
at the time. Like all executive branch officials, I have a duty to
represent the policy of the President on this and all other issues. The
President's position on this issue is stated in his April 23rd Armenian
Remembrance Day statement, wherein he has solemnly remembered the
events of 1915, and noted that 1.5 million Armenians were massacred or
marched to their deaths. If I am confirmed as the personal
representative of the President to Armenia, I will carry out this duty.
Question. Were you instructed not to use the term genocide when
referring to the Armenian Genocide of 1915?
Answer. No; I received no such instructions.
I have a responsibility to represent the policy of the President.
The President's position on this issue is stated in his April 23
Armenian Remembrance Day statement, wherein he solemnly remembered the
events of 1915, and noted that 1.5 million Armenians were massacred or
marched to their deaths. If I am confirmed as the personal
representative of the President to Armenia, I will carry out this
responsibility.
Question. How can we expect Turkey to come to terms with its past
when we, as Americans, are unwilling to speak honestly about the
Armenian Genocide?
Answer. The President has said that a full, frank, and just
acknowledgement of the facts is in all our interest. In his April 23,
2011, statement, he noted that history teaches us that our nations are
stronger and our cause is more just when we appropriately recognize
painful pasts and work to rebuild bridges of understanding toward a
better tomorrow. With this in mind, he strongly supports efforts by the
Turkish and Armenian peoples to work through their painful history in a
way that is honest, open, and constructive. The U.S. Government
supports the efforts of individuals in Armenia and Turkey to foster a
dialogue that acknowledges their history, sponsoring programs that
foster contacts between the Armenian and Turkish peoples.
Question. Does the United States have military or economic
interests in Turkey that influence its decision on whether to use the
word ``genocide,'' when discussing the massacre of 1.5 million
Armenians from 1915-1923?
Answer. Turkey is a longstanding NATO ally of the United States, an
important partner in promoting peace and stability in the broader
Middle East, and one with which we share democratic values. We seek to
maintain strong United States-Turkey relations, just as we seek to
maintain strong United States-Armenia relations. We believe our
partnership will deepen with Turkey as it reconciles with its past and
with Armenia. We continue to encourage Turkey to engage productively
with Armenia on the normalization protocols, and clear the way to open
its shared border, reinstitute transportation, communication, and
utility links between the two countries, and establish diplomatic
relations.
Question. In the June 23, 2011, readout of President Obama's calls
with the Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents, the President told both
leaders that ``now is the time to resolve the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict'' and to ``offer the people of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and
Nagorno-Karabakh a better future for themselves and for their
children.'' Does the administration support the reinstatement of the
elected representatives of the people of Nagorno Karabakh to the Minsk
Group process? Both the Armenian and Nagorno Karabakh Republic
Governments have called for Karabakh's reinstatement into the process,
considering the Karabakh Government was a signatory to the cease-fire
agreement and was a party to the Minsk Group negotiations until 1998.
Answer. The United States supports the current format of
negotiations for the Minsk Group process, which has been agreed to by
both the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides. At this stage in the
negotiation, the U.S. Government believes it is best to continue on
this basis. Any final settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) conflict
must be acceptable to the Karabakhi communities. The Minsk Group
cochairs travel regularly to NK to meet with the de facto NK
authorities.
Question. Azerbaijani officials, including President Aliyev, have
indicated they are looking to return to war with Armenia. President
Aliyev has repeatedly stated that ``only the first stage of war is
over,'' and the Defense Minister stated in February 2011 that
Azerbaijan is ``seriously preparing'' for war. In the meantime, the
State Department is considering granting an export license for
Azerbaijan to buy its first ever satellite. In a recent Eurasianet
article, U.S. Air Force officials state that even if the satellite is
only for communications purposes, it will give Azerbaijan a military
advantage. In light of Azerbaijan's repeated threats to renew its
aggression in the region, which Turkey, a NATO member could join, is
the administration concerned about the signal the sale of such
technology would send to Azerbaijan? Wouldn't it make more sense to
wait on this sale until we are certain that the Azeris are committed to
real action on the Basic Principles for peace?
Answer. The proposed sale has been notified to Congress. DOD and
State have analyzed the proposed sale and are prepared to license the
export of the satellite, associated ground support equipment and
simulators to Azerbaijan, having taken into account political,
military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.
The Department of State understands that Ex-Im Bank performed a
thorough examination of all aspects of the transaction. This
examination, which included a review of the satellite supply contract
as well as the operating characteristics of the satellite, determined
that, based on the information provided, the representations made by
the Government of Azerbaijan and in accordance with Ex-Im Bank's
policies and procedures, the satellite was designed and is intended for
commercial operations. In addition, the Government of Azerbaijan signed
a covenant stating that they would only lease the use of the satellite
to civilian, nonmilitary entities, both within and outside of
Azerbaijan.
The administration has determined that the operating
characteristics of the satellite are designed and produced for
commercial communications only. With these understandings, and the
additional covenant given to Ex-Im bank during financing negotiations,
the U.S. Government does not object to the sale.
Question. Previous Ambassadors to Armenia have held public
community forums with Armenian Americans around the country throughout
their tenure. Will you commit to regularly hold such forums throughout
your term, which will be on the record and open to the community in
large in cities, such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Boston,
Chicago, and Washington, DC, where there are large Armenian American
communities?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I would look forward to visiting and
meeting with members of the Armenian American community both in the
United States and in Armenia, as my predecessors have done before. It
would be a valuable opportunity to understand their concerns, update
them on the status of the United States-Armenia relationship, and to
discuss a host of relevant issues.
______
Responses of Thomas Countryman to Questions Submitted
by Senator James E. Risch
Question. Article IV of the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of
Nuclear Weapons of 1968 (``NPT'') affirms ``the inalienable right of
all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production, and use
of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in
conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.'' However, given the
NPT's overriding provisions to promote nonproliferation--that is,
Articles I, II, and II--the operative meaning of this provision remains
a subject of deep debate.
(a) With regard to the research, production and use of
sensitive nuclear fuel-making technologies, what do you
understand to be the limits in a state's exercise of this
right? Does a state have a right to any nuclear technological
activity short of inserting fissile material into a nuclear
explosive device?
Answer. Article IV affirms this ``inalienable right,'' but with
that right come important Treaty-prescribed responsibilities to
demonstrate to the international community that nuclear activities are
exclusively for peaceful purposes. To that end, the NPT provides that
non-nuclear-weapon States (NNWS) Parties to the NPT must conduct any
nuclear activities in compliance with Articles II and III. Article II
prohibits manufacturing or acquiring nuclear weapons, or other nuclear
explosive devices, and seeking or receiving assistance in their
manufacture, a clear treaty limit on the use of nuclear technology.
Article III requires that NNWS Parties accept IAEA safeguards on all
source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear
activities within their territories or under their jurisdiction or
control. Bilateral IAEA safeguards agreements underpin NNWS Article II
obligations, with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from
peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
The 2010 NPT Review Conference agreed by consensus to a number of
actions that will strengthen the IAEA's ability to verify compliance
with safeguards agreements, and thereby deter noncompliance, and the
United States and other Parties are working vigorously to carry these
actions out. These actions include the following: all cases of
noncompliance should be resolved; all NPT Parties should have
safeguards agreements required by Article III; all Parties should
ensure that the IAEA has all political, technical, and financial
support to enable it to apply safeguards as required by that article;
and all states should bring into force the IAEA's Additional Protocol.
(b) To what extent should the exercise of this right be
conditioned by a state's full compliance with its Article III-
required safeguards obligations with the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA)? Please relate your answer to the case of
Iran, which is in noncompliance with its international
obligations to the IAEA and U.N. Security Council.
Answer. Non-nuclear-weapon states that are Party to the NPT have a
clear legal obligation to accept IAEA safeguards, as required by
Article III. That they may suffer consequences for not doing so is
demonstrated by the fact that Iran's non-compliance with its
international nuclear obligations has led the UN Security Council to
prohibit Iran from such nuclear fuel-cycle-related activities as
enrichment and reprocessing and to prohibit the international community
from assisting or cooperating with Iran on such activities.
Question. Under the U.S.-U.A.E. ``123'' civil nuclear cooperation
agreement, the United Arab Emirates obliged itself not to develop or
possess in its territory uranium enrichment, spent fuel reprocessing,
or other nuclear fuel-making technologies.
Should the United States make the U.S.-U.A.E. ``123'' civil
nuclear cooperation agreement's prohibition against nuclear
fuel-making technologies the standard for all future U.S. civil
nuclear cooperation agreements in the Middle East? If so, then
what would you do to promote that standard throughout the
region?
Answer. As we proceed to contemplate nuclear cooperation with other
potential partners, the United States will continue to seek to limit
the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technologies through whatever
mechanisms are most appropriate and have the greatest chance of
success, including consideration of UAE-type commitments.
NOMINATIONS
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
David S. Adams, of the District of Columbia, to be Assistant
Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs
Joyce A. Barr, of Washington, to be Assistant Secretary of
State for Administration
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Udall
presiding.
Present: Senators Udall and Webb.
Also present: Representative Gary L. Ackerman
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall. Thank you for coming this morning. Great to
have you all here. We will bring the committee to order.
We meet this morning to consider two important nominations
to the State Department: Ambassador Joyce Barr to be Assistant
Secretary of State for Administration, and David S. Adams to be
Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs.
I think it's safe to say that without the important work of
the Bureau of Administration, the Department of State would not
be able to accomplish the multitude of missions our country
requires it to accomplish. I'm sure that like our individual
Senate offices, the administrative work is often little noticed
when things go well and heavily scrutinized when there are any
issues, no matter how small, that don't go so well.
So I try to tell my administrative staff that I appreciate
the hard work they do in my office. I believe that the same
appreciation should be given to the State Department Bureau of
Administration, which, if confirmed, you will lead.
Your hard work is appreciated by the millions of Americans
and foreign nationals it serves both in country and overseas.
The Bureau of Administration's multitude of tasks include
support for the Department of State programs, embassies, and
consulates. Some of these programs include logistical
management, utilizing small and disadvantaged businesses for
contracting, supporting FOIA requests, managing commercial
services, and making sure the Department of State meets goals
for strengthening Federal environmental, energy, and
transportation management, and increasing the use of
alternative fuel vehicles in the Department of State's vehicle
fleet.
One of the most important items that the Bureau of
Administration is responsible for is procurement. It is also
one of the areas in which the Department of State receives the
most scrutiny. In recent years, there have been reports from
the Office of Inspector General (OIG) which have called into
question some of the Bureau of Administration's Office of
Procurement Executive practices, as well as highlighting areas
for improvement.
For example, a 2006 Office of Inspector General report
found that ``oversight is the most important function for which
OPE''--the Office of Procurement Executive--``is responsible
and also its most problematic.''
In addition to procurement, the Bureau of Administration's
Office of Acquisitions Management is another vitally important
office for the Department of State. The same 2006 OIG report
described the Office of Acquisitions Management as follows,
``While OPE is the office and oversight arm of the department's
procurement and Federal assistance functions, AQM is the
operational workhorse responsible for 80 percent of the
Department's worldwide acquisitions. The Office provides a full
range of professional contract management services, including
acquisition planning, contract negotiations, cost and price
analysis, and contract administration to all the Department's
domestic bureaus and overseas posts.''
I believe that Ambassador Barr is well-qualified to take on
this important assignment. Ambassador Barr currently serves as
the international affairs adviser and deputy commandant for the
Industrial College of the Armed Forces at the National Defense
University. Prior to this assignment, Ms. Barr served as
executive director for the East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Bureau at the Department of State from 2007 to 2009, and as
U.S. Ambassador to Namibia from 2004 to 2007.
Since joining the Foreign Service in 1979, Ms. Barr has
held numerous assignments both in Washington and abroad.
In addition to the nominee to be Assistant Secretary of
State for Administration, we will be considering the nominee to
be Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs. The Assistant
Secretary of Legislative Affairs is the principal liaison
between the Department of State and the Congress.
Communicating with Congress is the most important mission
of the Assistant Secretary of Legislative Affairs. In addition,
the Assistant Secretary of Legislative Affairs staff on the
Hill is almost always the first point of contact for Senate
staffers working on behalf of their respective Senators and
Representatives.
For example, as the Arab Spring gained momentum, it was the
Bureau of Legislative Affairs who worked to keep our staff up
to date regarding events on the ground and who helped us
provide vital assistance to constituents who were in the
region.
I hope to hear more from both nominees.
Ambassador Barr, I hope to hear more about what you will do
as Assistant Secretary of State for Administration to continue
the good work that is already being done at the A Bureau. You
will be leading dedicated and talented individuals who carry
out the important work of the Department of State.
And, Mr. Adams, I also look forward to hearing from you
about how much you will work to continue and improve the
important line of communication between Congress and the
Department of State.
But before we get started with your testimony, I would like
to recognize a former colleague of mine from the House of
Representatives, Representative Gary Ackerman, from the Fifth
District of New York.
Representative Ackerman would like to introduce Mr. David
Adams.
Representative Ackerman, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY L. ACKERMAN, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
U.S. CONGRESS
Representative Ackerman. Thank you very much, Chairman
Udall.
I'm delighted today to be able to introduce Deputy
Assistant Secretary of State for House Affairs, David S. Adams,
who the President has nominated to serve as Assistant Secretary
of State for Legislative Affairs.
David is up to this job, and I know that he will do it
extremely well. I know this because over the course of 24 years
of working for me that that's the only way that David ever did
anything.
I met David in 1985, when along with the gavel for the
House Post Office and Civil Service Subcommittee on Human
Resources, I inherited a young man from Connecticut. Even
though David was only a couple years out of college, he
immediately showed a remarkable capacity for effective
legislative work, attention to detail, and professionalism far
in excess of his actual age and experience. I hired him on the
spot.
Over the years, David moved with me to the House Committee
on Foreign Affairs, as I moved from subcommittee to
subcommittee, and region to region, one gavel after another, he
moved from professional staff to staff director, while also
serving for a time as the legislative director in my personal
office.
Though I've watched him get older, his maturity, judgment,
and discretion have been consistent from day one. In every role
in which I've placed him, David was superb. Quietly,
efficiently, and without fail, David got things done with T's
crossed, i's dotted, and with perfect pitch.
Even while working his way at night toward a master's
degree in political science from American University and later
a master's in business administration from Loyola College,
David's work, whether in the preparation of statements,
constructing legislative deals, negotiating conference reports,
arranging hearings, it was always thorough and reliable, always
timely, always true to my guidance and intentions.
He knows what you do, and he knows how important that is.
I can tell you from long experience that David understands
the Congress. He understands the legislative process inside and
out. And most of all, he understands the duties and needs and
the pressures that face those of us honored to be elected to
serve here.
He knows the legislative branch was put first in the
Constitution, and that Congress is a separate and equal branch
of government, not an afterthought or a box to be checked off.
David's honesty, integrity, and patriotism, in my mind, is
simply beyond question or doubt. He is completely trustworthy
and truthful, incapable of misleading or betraying any trust or
confidence. He simply couldn't do that. He always delivers.
He is exactly the kind of person we want in a position of
trust and responsibility in the United States Government. And
I'm not surprised, first, that Secretary Clinton stole him and,
second, that she now wants to promote him.
She is a very smart person.
If you want to do something good for our country, increase
David's responsibilities at the State Department. The more you
ask of him, the more pleased you will be with the results.
I would urge the committee to forward his nomination to the
Senate, and that you urge your colleagues to confirm him as
Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall. Congressman Ackerman, thank you very much
for that very strong statement in support of Mr. Adams.
We very much understand you are on a very busy schedule and
that you have taken time to be here to weigh in on his behalf.
And you're welcome to stay here as long as you like, but please
feel free to leave if you have other commitments. We very much
appreciate that.
And, Mr. Adams, why don't we start with you?
I know that you may have friends and family members that
you would like to introduce that are here to support your
effort.
And let me say, as far as family, I know these positions
are a tremendous commitment on your part, and it's usually the
family that backs all of us up I think in public service. So we
very much appreciate the sacrifices that they make.
And why don't you introduce your family members or friends,
and then proceed with your testimony?
And then we'll proceed to Ambassador Barr.
STATEMENT OF DAVID S. ADAMS, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
Mr. Adams. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm here today with my wife, Andrea, and my mother and
father, John and Cindi Adams.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it's an honor to
appear before you today as President Obama's nominee to serve
as the next Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs at the
Department of State.
I'm grateful for and humbled by the confidence the
President and Secretary Clinton have demonstrated in me by this
nomination. I must admit that after my 24-year career as a
congressional staffer, I am far more accustomed to sitting in
the seats behind members rather than testifying before them,
but I want to assure you that my experience as a staffer will
inform my work, if confirmed.
I consider myself a creature of the institution and am
proud to have spent most of my career working in the Congress.
It is this deep appreciation and respect for the role of
Congress that I will take with me to this new job, if
confirmed.
With the committee's indulgence, I'd like to take this
opportunity to thank my mother and father, John and Cindi, whom
I just introduced, for all of the support they provided to me
over the years. The foundation they established during my
childhood gave me the tools to get here.
I'd also like to thank my wife, Andrea, whose love,
support, and encouragement is with me at all times.
Last, I'd like to thank Congressman Ackerman for his very
generous introduction and, frankly, for giving me a chance back
in 1985.
As you're well-aware, this year has been an especially
challenging one for the State Department, the administration,
and the Nation. The challenges and opportunities presented to
us by the Arab Spring, in addition to our ongoing work in the
frontline states of Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, require
the department to be in ever-closer communication with the
Congress.
The magnitude of such change means that if we are to be
successful, there must be a true partnership with the Congress.
It is a responsibility I take very seriously, and I commit to
you that I will do everything that I can to continue the close
working relationship between the Department and the Congress,
if confirmed.
The Department of State's Bureau of Legislative Affairs is
not a policy bureau, but rather is a place where the executive
and legislative branches interact.
If confirmed, I see my role as more than just a messenger
between the State Department and the Congress. I see my role as
a facilitator, an interpreter, if you will, to help Department
officials understand the views and the needs of the Congress,
while providing the Congress with clear and concise information
about the Department and its policies.
The Bureau is also a constituent service operation, a role
with which you are all familiar. The State Department has two
offices on Capitol Hill, including one in the Senate Russell
Building, ready to assist you and your staff.
You can count on the bureau to help constituents with lost
or stolen passports, sort out visa issues, provide travelers
with up-to-date information about countries around the world.
You can also rely on the bureau to assist when constituents
need help overseas in emergency situations.
If confirmed, I will continue to ensure this bureau
provides a ready resource whenever your constituents require
assistance.
As a former Member of this Chamber, the Secretary
understands and appreciates the shared constitutional
responsibilities in the oversight and execution of U.S. foreign
policy. She places a high priority on the Department's
relationship with the Congress, and I pledge to you, if
confirmed, I will work to ensure that the Congress has the
timely and accurate information it needs to carry out its role
effectively.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today, and I look forward to answering any of your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Adams follows:]
Prepared Statement of David S. Adams
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is an honor to appear
before you today as President Obama's nominee to serve as the next
Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs at the Department of State.
I am grateful for and humbled by the confidence the President and
Secretary Clinton have demonstrated in me by this nomination.
I must admit that after a 24-year career as a congressional
staffer, I am far more accustomed to sitting in the seats behind
members rather than testifying before them. But I want to assure you
that my experience as a staffer will inform my work, if confirmed. I
consider myself a creature of the institution and am proud to have
spent most of my career working in the Congress. It is this deep
appreciation and respect for the role of Congress that I will take with
me to this new job, if confirmed.
With the committee's indulgence, I would like to take this
opportunity to thank my mother and father for all the support they have
provided to me over the years. The foundation they established during
my childhood gave me to tools to get here. I would also like to thank
my wife, Andrea, whose love, support, and encouragement is with me at
all times.
As you are well aware, this year has been an especially challenging
one for the State Department, the administration and the Nation. The
challenges and opportunities presented to us by the Arab Spring, in
addition to our ongoing work in the frontline states of Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Pakistan, require the Department to be in ever closer
communication with the Congress. The magnitude of such change means
that if we are to be successful, there must be a true partnership with
the Congress. It is a responsibility I take very seriously, and I
commit to you that I will do everything I can to continue the close
working relationship between the Department and Congress, if confirmed.
The Department of State's Bureau of Legislative Affairs is not a
policy bureau, but rather, is the place where the legislative and
executive branches interact. If confirmed, I see my role as more than
just a messenger between the State Department and the Congress. I see
my role as a facilitator; an interpreter, if you will, to help
Department officials understand the views and needs of the Congress
while providing the Congress with clear and concise information about
the Department and its policies.
The Bureau is also a constituent service operation, a role with
which you are all familiar. The State Department has two offices on
Capitol Hill, including one in the Senate Russell Building, ready to
assist you and your staff. You can count on the Bureau to help
constituents with lost or stolen passports, sort out visa issues, or
provide travelers with up-to-date information about countries around
the world--you can also rely on the Bureau to assist when constituents
need help overseas in emergency situations. If confirmed, I will
continue to ensure that the Bureau provides a ready resource whenever
your constituents require assistance.
As a former member of this Chamber, the Secretary understands and
appreciates the shared constitutional responsibilities in the oversight
and execution of U.S. foreign policy. She places a high priority on the
Department's relationship with the Congress, and I pledge to you, if
confirmed, I will work to ensure that the Congress has timely and
accurate information it needs to carry out its role effectively.
Thank you again for opportunity to appear before you today, and I
look forward to answering your questions.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr.
Adams.
And we will first proceed with Ambassador Barr's testimony,
and then questions to both of you.
Ambassador Barr, welcome. Great to have you here.
And please, as Mr. Adams did, introduce your family or
friends that are here before you begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JOYCE A. BARR, OF WASHINGTON, TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ADMINISTRATION
Ambassador Barr. I'm joined today by a close personal
friend, Alexey, who is sitting here to my right.
Senator Udall. Great. Thank you.
Welcome.
Ambassador Barr. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
it is an honor to appear before you today as the President's
nominee to serve as the Assistant Secretary for Administration.
I want to thank President Obama and Secretary Clinton for
their trust and confidence in nominating me for this position.
The rest of my family could not be here today, but I want
to express deep appreciation for their love and guidance
throughout my career.
This is the second time that I've had the privilege to
appear before this committee for confirmation. I thank the
Members and the Senate for their support for my previous
nomination as U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Namibia.
For the past 32 years, I have served the American people as
a Foreign Service officer at the State Department. If
confirmed, it would be an honor and a privilege to continue
that service as Assistant Secretary for Administration.
The mission of the Bureau of Administration is to provide
effective and efficient global support for U.S. diplomacy. The
Bureau's wide variety of programs and services provide the
platform to advance America's interests and values.
The Department meets urgent national security challenges by
developing and focusing the country's civilian power. The
Bureau is on the frontline of this effort, supporting this
growing and changing mission.
One of the Department's strategic goals is to effectively
manage transitions in the frontline states. The Bureau of
Administration is heavily involved in this transition through
its coleadership of our effort to transition Department of
Defense support in Iraq to the Department of State. Providing
the tools America's diplomats need to get the job done in
difficult environments, while making sound and prudent
decisions over the use of taxpayers' funds is a highly visible
part of this mission.
As a service organization, the Department of Administration
responds not only to its internal customers, but to Congress
and the American people as well. If confirmed, I would take
this responsibility seriously.
As a former Ambassador and a regional executive director, I
learned the value of maintaining consistent and transparent
processes so that others trust you and maintain their support
for the system. I will keep this lesson in mind, if confirmed.
Accountability and efficiency are critical to leading the
Bureau of Administration. The Department is developing and
implementing training to improve the performance of contracting
officer representatives throughout the Department. Ensuring
that the department gets good value for dollars spent is vital
to maintaining confidence in the State Department's stewardship
of taxpayer funds.
I look forward, if confirmed, to working with Congress and
oversight agencies to maintain appropriate management controls.
Technology allows the Bureau to measure what it does and
provides the data to generate good decisionmaking. It has
successfully implemented solutions that help personnel to work
smarter and more cost-effectively.
If confirmed, I will drive that process forward and
continue efforts to become more efficient.
Finally, collaboration is important to ensuring
accountability and reducing costs in an interagency
environment. The relationships I've built throughout the U.S.
Government in the course of my career should help me focus on
these outcomes.
If confirmed, I look forward to working with you, your
distinguished colleagues, and your staffs.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today. I welcome any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Barr follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joyce A. Barr
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is an honor to appear
before you today as the President's nominee to serve as the Assistant
Secretary for Administration. I want to thank President Obama and
Secretary Clinton for their trust and confidence in nominating me for
this position. My family could not be here with me today but I want to
express deep appreciation for their love and guidance throughout my
career.
This is the second time that I have the privilege to appear before
this committee for confirmation. I thank the Members and the Senate for
their support of my previous nomination as U.S. Ambassador to the
Republic of Namibia.
For the past 32 years I have served the American people as a
Foreign Service officer at the State Department. If confirmed, it would
be an honor and a privilege to continue that service as Assistant
Secretary for Administration.
The mission of the Bureau of Administration is to provide effective
and efficient global support for U.S. diplomacy. The Bureau's wide
variety of programs and services provide the platform to advance
America's interests and values. The Department meets urgent national
security challenges by developing and focusing the country's civilian
power. The Bureau is on the frontline of this effort, supporting this
growing and changing mission.
One of the Department's strategic goals is to ``Effectively manage
transitions in the frontline states.'' The Bureau of Administration is
heavily involved in this transition through its coleadership of our
effort to transition Department of Defense support in Iraq to the
Department of State. Providing the tools America's diplomats need to
get the job done in difficult environments, while making sound and
prudent decisions over the use of taxpayer funds is a highly visible
part of the mission. Ongoing efforts to strengthen and sustain all of
the Department's domestic and overseas activities are a fundamental
part of Bureau operations. By employing successful management
practices, and encouraging innovation, the Bureau built a reputation
for effectiveness and transparency.
As a service organization, the Bureau of Administration responds
not only to its internal customers but to Congress and the American
people. If confirmed, I would take this responsibility seriously. I
served overseas in challenging environments, was responsible for the
management operations of 45 overseas posts as Executive Director for
the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs and was U.S. Ambassador to
Namibia. From these experiences I learned the value of maintaining
consistent and transparent processes so that others trust you and
maintain confidence in the system. I will keep this lesson in mind if
confirmed.
Accountability and efficiency are critical to leading the Bureau of
Administration. The Department of State is developing and implementing
training to improve the performance of Contracting Officer
Representatives throughout the Department. The Department's ability to
ensure that it gets exactly what it pays for is vital to maintaining
confidence in our stewardship of taxpayer funds. I look forward, if
confirmed, to working with Congress and oversight agencies to maintain
appropriate management controls while further refining our processes to
meet increasingly complex needs. To overcome the many challenges the
Department faces while operating worldwide, we must continue our focus
on oversight and accountability.
Technology allows the Bureau to measure what it does and provides
the data to generate good decisionmaking. It has successfully
implemented solutions that help personnel to work smarter and more cost
effectively. If confirmed, I will drive that process forward and
continue efforts to become more efficient. The Bureau is deeply
committed to advancing the Department's efforts to ``go green.''
Technology investments enabled the Department to save money, cut energy
use, and reduce its carbon footprint. If confirmed, I intend to
actively support that work. The Bureau developed a consolidated
information system that significantly streamlined the Department's
global logistics operations and tightened management controls. These
investments pay significant future dividends for the USG. If confirmed,
I intend to actively pursue similar projects.
A collaborative approach is important to ensuring accountability
and reducing costs in an interagency environment. The relationships I
built throughout the U.S. Government in the course of my career should
help me focus on these outcomes. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with you, your distinguished colleagues, and your staffs.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
welcome any questions you may have.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Ambassador Barr, for your
testimony, and I'll start my questions with you.
Previous OIG reports have stated that there has been an
intense amount of pressure due to the increased procurement and
contracting workload at A Bureau.
How will proposed budget cuts impact your ability to
perform contract oversight? And do you currently have
sufficient personnel to perform proper oversight?
Ambassador Barr. Well, one thing that we've done within the
past 2 years, while working with the Department of Defense to
provide security for our frontline states, is to adopt a
working capital fund by actually charging other bureaus a
procurement fee, so that we have the flexibility to surge
toward priorities. This way we've been able to hire more
contracting professionals to increase our oversight, and it
also gives us the flexibility to move our effort toward
contingency operations.
Another thing that we've done is basically increased
training not only of our contracting officers, but of our
contracting officer representatives as well. Contracting
officer representatives are the people that have the eyes on
the ground overseas, that can monitor the contract and make
sure that taxpayers do get good value for their money that we
spend.
Senator Udall. So in your opinion, you believe you do have
sufficient personnel to do this oversight?
Ambassador Barr. Yes, I do believe that. But of course, if
we do face significant cuts, we are going to have to
reprioritize in order to make sure that we do our high-priority
missions, and this could affect other operations.
Senator Udall. The Office of Inspector General's January
2011 report cited a number of issues pertaining to contract
management and risks of trafficking in persons in the Middle
East. I'm hopeful that you will work to help remedy many of
these problems and move the Bureau forward after these OIG
findings.
What was especially disconcerting for me was the finding in
the OIG report that ``more than 70 percent of workers
interviewed''--these are contract workers--from the host
country doing work for the Department of State reported ``they
live in overcrowded, unsafe, and unsanitary conditions . . .
Workers' housing facilities range from shared apartment
buildings with common areas to labor camps and converted
commercial lots. Two-thirds of the housing OIG observed fell
within the space parameters of a U.S. minimum-security prison
cell. However, 20 contract workers occupying the quarters OIG
visited had less personal space then a U.S. minimum-security
prison cell.'' And that I just quoted from the report.
As you can tell by these descriptions, they are not
descriptions of how the United States aspires to treat those
workers who work on behalf of the American people, doing
contract work for the embassies overseas. I'm confident that
you will address these issues, but I would like to hear
specifically from you about how you plan to make progress in
contracting to help alleviate and improve the conditions of
these contract workers.
Ambassador Barr. Thank you for the question.
First of all, I used to be a human rights officer earlier
in my career, so I'm very sensitive to issues like trafficking
in persons. And these are things that are very near and dear to
the American public, and not activities that we want to foster
in any way.
In that inspection report, the inspector general did not
find any incidents of trafficking in persons, but we of course
have taken this to heart. We include training about trafficking
in persons for our contracting officers and contracting officer
representatives. We have also instituted a number of changes in
how we oversee these contracts, making sure that we have
someone from Diplomatic Security that is housed either on the
compound or very close to the compound. We have taught people
what to look for. There've been changes in the camps
themselves--no alcohol. We have provided training in cultural
sensitivity for people that have oversight of those contracts.
And I can guarantee you that the State Department does take
this very seriously. It is a public perception issue for us,
and we are working very hard to make sure that these conditions
are improved.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Ambassador.
The International Law Enforcement Academies help train
foreign law enforcement to combat international drug
trafficking, criminality, and terrorism. The ILEA Web site
states that a major goal of the academy is to enable foreign
law enforcement to ``efficiently combat crime in their
respective countries, and at the same time, prevent the
movement of transnational criminal elements to the United
States and throughout the world.''
Most of these law enforcement academies are located
overseas, as you know. However, one is located in Roswell, NM.
I believe this academy has served the goals of the Department
of State well. However, I have become concerned about the
program because of delays with issuing a request for proposals
and contract issues which resulted in the cancellation of class
at the academy.
What can your office do to make sure this issue does not
repeat itself, and that ILEA in Roswell, NM, can continue to
offer the courses needed to train foreign law enforcement?
Ambassador Barr. I'm very familiar with that program. When
I was U.S. Ambassador in Namibia, I did have the opportunity to
visit ILEA in Botswana. So I recognize and personally
appreciate the very good work that they do.
Right now, we actually have two different contracts that
are active and that we're working on for the institution in New
Mexico.
One part, which I think deals with operations and
maintenance, is controlled by the Bureau of Administration.
That contract is out for request for proposals, and we hope to
have those responses in by the end of this week.
I think there's another contract that has been released by
the International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Bureau. And I
don't have all the details on that, but I think that they were
trying to see if there were some parts of that contract that
might be workable for the Small Business Administration.
But I will be glad to take your concerns back, and see if
we can get more information for you.
[The written information provided by Ambassador Barr
follows:]
The 2010 training schedule, which ended in mid-December 2010,
included delivery of 10 sessions, the typical number of training
sessions each year for International Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA) in
Roswell. All 10 sessions planned for 2010 were completed as planned and
funds were made available to New Mexico Tech for this purpose.
The Office of Acquisition Management (AQM) and the Bureau of
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) are
diligently working on two procurement actions for the ILEA Roswell
program--one for maintenance of the facility and one for law
enforcement training. INL and AQM conducted a preproposal conference
for the facility maintenance contract at the ILEA on June 28, 2011, and
proposals for this contract, which is handled by AQM, are due on July
21, 2011. Proposals for the law enforcement training contract, handled
by INL, are due on August 8, 2011. INL intends to have the program
running as soon as practicable after both contracts have been awarded.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much.
And I see Senator Webb is here, and I would like to
recognize him for questioning or any opening statement he might
have.
Senator Webb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to come down, first, to express my best wishes and
congratulations to the two nominees. I'm clearly going to
support them, and I wish them the best in carrying out their
responsibilities.
But I would like to take this opportunity to hopefully get
some clarification on a policy that has been taking place from
the Office of Legislative Affairs as it relates to its
relations with individual Members of the Senate.
Let me begin, Mr. Adams, by saying that I have worked in
different capacities up here for a long time. I was committee
counsel in the House at one point. I spent years in the
Pentagon, and then of course, my work over here.
I have never seen a situation where substantive letters
that go to a policymaker in the Department have been answered
by the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs or the
Acting Assistant Secretary of Legislative Affairs, rather than
an individual who is clearly in a line position to be
responsible for policy.
I'm not the only Member of the Senate who has had some
concerns about this. Senator Corker, when we were discussing an
issue of substance with respect to Libya, made a comment in the
Congressional Record. I'm going to quote from his comment,
because I agree with it. He said, ``Today, 1 day shy of 8 weeks
later, I finally received a response'' to a longer letter he
had sent to Secretary Clinton. ``This response did not come
from Secretary Clinton. It did not come from Secretary Gates.
This response came from the Acting Assistant Secretary of State
for Legislative Affairs and only paid lip service'' to the
original letter.
That's not an isolated situation, and it's, quite frankly,
very frustrating.
I watched your opening statement from my office before I
came over here. You made the comment to the effect that the
principal responsibilities of your position are to serve as an
interpreter of policymakers, and I would strongly agree with
you that is among your principal responsibilities. In this
position you do not develop the policies that you communicate.
Would you agree with that?
Mr. Adams. Thank you, Senator.
Yes, this is not a policymaking bureau.
Senator Webb. Right. So, it's a little disconcerting when
Members of the Senate write very specific policy-oriented
letters asking for the positions of the Secretary of State or
the key person in a line function, and receive a response from
your office. It's not personal; it's just a question of
structure here.
Would you agree that that is a rather unusual situation? It
doesn't happen at the Pentagon.
Mr. Adams. Well, Senator, thank you very much for the
question.
First, let me assure you that the Department takes all of
our correspondence that we receive from members of the
committee and Members of the Congress generally very seriously.
You should be assured that letters that we get are tasked
to the relevant bureaus, so that the policy experts who know
the substantive answers to the questions are the ones who
actually draft the responses.
The second point that I would make is that the Bureau of
Legislative Affairs, as you noted, and under the direction of
the Secretary, is responsible for maintaining the Department's
relationships with the Congress. And part of that
responsibility includes ensuring that we provide timely and
thorough answers to the Congress.
I'd also point out that it is our role in addition to make
sure that the senior policymakers in the Department know what
Members are thinking about, what they're talking about, so when
correspondence comes in to the Bureau from the Congress, we
make sure that senior policymakers see it, including the
Secretary and others.
The last thing that I would say, in terms of who actually
signs the letters, is that we have conceived of this in a
similar way to requests that the Secretary gets for hearings
and for briefings. She often can't accommodate all of those,
and so she relies on members of the various bureaus who have
responsibility for the subject matter to come and brief the
Congress, or to testify, as the case may be. And in a similar
way, she has delegated the responsibility for ensuring that
correspondence comes back to the Hill, to the Bureau of
Legislative Affairs.
Senator Webb. Well, having been on the other end drafting
those letters as a staffer many, many years ago, and I know the
coordination involved. But, I also recognize that it doesn't
always get up to the person at the top.
But I think you would agree that there are differences
between responses generated directly from your office, even
though they're coordinated, on something like when a committee
hearing is scheduled, and the responses that relate to the
development of policy. Whether it's just in some of the letters
that I have forwarded to you, or signed and moved to the
Secretary--on Burma, on a TIP report, on Libya--there's a list
of them. I'm not alone here.
And the question becomes one of accountability. Since you
are not a policymaker, and you are signing a letter, there's no
real indication that the official in charge is accountable for
what is in the letter. It doesn't have to be the Secretary of
State.
So I'm raising this, and I'm hopeful, perhaps, with
Secretary Burns moving into the Deputy Secretary position, that
we can resolve it.
But it's a matter of real concern when we're trying to
figure out what the exact policies are in our executive branch,
and where the changes might appropriately be made.
Mr. Adams. Well, Senator, I certainly appreciate the
sentiment. And I would just like to assure you again that the
responses that come for the Bureau of Legislative Affairs
reflect the Department's policies.
Senator Webb. I understand what you're saying, but let me
reemphasize that there's no accountability, true
accountability, in that process, as there is when an individual
who is responsible for the policy will sign the letter and take
accountability.
Mr. Adams. Well, Senator, I'm happy to take this back to
the Department and review the policy in terms of who signs the
letters.
Senator Webb. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
And I would agree with Senator Webb. I think it's very
important when the Congress is overseeing policy, and trying to
inquire into the areas of development of policy, that we have
policymakers speak out and answer those questions, whether it's
in a hearing format or a letter format. So I think Senator Webb
makes a very, very good point.
Ambassador Barr, one of the recommendations from a 2006 OIG
report was that, ``The Bureau of Administration in coordination
with the Bureau of Diplomatic Security should establish a plan
to progressively consolidate local guard contracting in the
Office of Acquisitions Management.''
The 2006 OIG report also stated that, ``few of the areas of
procurement call so obviously for reform as local guard
contracting estimated to cost the Department approximately $218
million in fiscal year 2006. Budgetary pressures appear to be
forcing change, and the cost of savings could total millions if
professional contracting officers are used rather than less
experienced Embassy personnel. The result should be essential
protective services at the most cost-effective price.''
I could not agree with this finding more. I believe that
our Embassy and consulate personnel must have the best
protection possible, but that the protection must be cost-
effective. I believe that A Bureau has already made great
strides toward improving contracting in this area.
What more will you do to continue this progress? And what
else needs to be done to improve contracting in this area?
Ambassador Barr. Thank you.
We've made significant progress in this area. We have
approximately 105 contracts that protect about 160 different
consulates and embassies. And most of them have been
consolidated here in Washington and are handled back here,
where we have the expertise.
I think right now we have less than 20 contracts that are
being administered overseas. As you pointed out, this does help
us to provide more effective oversight. It helps us to reduce
costs. And when we have to make changes in contractors at the
last minute, it's easier to put somebody else in to make sure
that the Embassy has the security it needs.
We will continue to press toward consolidation. It is a
bureau priority. I'm very aware of this one in particular. I've
had a briefing on it already, so it's something that is on my
plate, if I'm confirmed.
Senator Udall. Great. Thank you.
Ambassador Barr, the State Department intends to hire
nearly 5,500 private security contractors for Iraq security
after the U.S. military leaves at the end of the year. In
addition, it is estimated that nearly 84 percent of the State
Department's personnel in Iraq will be contractors. How many of
these contractors will be doing inherently government work? And
what is State doing to reduce the number of contractors and
increase the State Department personnel?
Ambassador Barr. First of all, we do not use contractors to
do inherently government work. This is our starting point. We
try to use contractors where it makes sense, where the jobs do
not require discretion or judgment on behalf of the U.S.
Government, and where it helps us to reduce costs.
One of the things that we've done in general with regard to
contracting security services for Iraq and Afghanistan is we've
let a very large contract and selected eight different
contractors and they bid on individual task orders. For
example, they can bid on a task order to provide static guard
services in Afghanistan.
This way we get a very good price because they compete
against one another, but we've already taken a good look at who
they are and what their business practices are.
We've worked very closely with the Department of Defense,
who has a lot of expertise in contracting, to upgrade our
services. We've also hired about 200 more Diplomatic Security
agents, many of whom who have oversight of our contracting in
the frontline states, so that we have people on the ground who
understand what we're trying to do, and make sure that the
quality remains high.
Senator Udall. Ambassador, it's good to hear that you don't
have contractors doing inherently governmental work, and I hope
that you will continue that practice within the State
Department.
Shifting to another area here, the Department of State has
been recognized as a leader on utilizing small businesses for
contracting.
What will you do to continue these efforts? And do you
agree that the continued utilization of small businesses,
including minority and women-owned business, will help the
United States develop and maintain the entrepreneurial spirit
needed to compete in the 21st century?
Ambassador Barr. Well, we find that this is one way for the
State Department, who is normally focused overseas, to have an
impact here in the United States. It's a very high priority
with us. The person that has primary responsibility for that
function is located in my front office. I've already started to
become familiar with the program.
When we look at contracts, it's one of our first
considerations, is to see if this is the type of work that
small businesses might be able to do.
Also it helps us to build expertise, so that we have a
wider pool of potential partners to get things done. We feel
this is our part in developing professionalism, getting people
used to working with the Federal marketplace, and just widening
knowledge of some of the things that the U.S. Government does.
This is how we interact in a different way with the American
people.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Ambassador Barr. Thank you for
that answer, and thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Adams, you already have extensive experience working
with the legislative branch, and what I'm wondering, and this
is along the lines that Senator Webb also questioned, what
should be done to improve communication with the House and the
Senate, to make sure that Congress receives the information
needed to effectively make legislative decisions?
Mr. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that
question.
I think all of the courtesy calls I did with Senators and
staff in the runup to the hearing, I heard a consistent message
from people about the nature of communication and the frequency
of communication. So I think that one of the things that I will
try to do, if confirmed, is to have the Department be much more
visible up here on the Hill in a variety of different ways, and
to try to think creatively about forums that are different than
simply the usual hearing forum or briefing forum. And maybe
there are other ways where we can get senior officials and mid-
level officials up here more frequently to talk to members and
to talk to staff, and do so on the broad range of topics that
the Department covers.
So I think, in that way, I would try to broaden what the
Department does up here, so that senior officials are seen more
frequently, and mid-level officials are seen more frequently,
with staff, and the communication is better.
Senator Udall. I think that would be a very welcome change,
and we look forward to that.
Should reporting to Congress be reduced, increased, or kept
at current levels? I know the QDDR stated that the State
Department has an onerous reporting requirement, and that the
work to issue reports to Congress is having an impact on other
essential functions of the Department of State.
In what areas can reporting to Congress be reduced or
streamlined, in your opinion?
Mr. Adams. Thank you, Senator.
I do think it's a consistent position of the Department
that reporting requirements can be become burdensome and over
time.
I think where we would want to look at this is reports that
have been required for a very long period of time, so reports
that are 5 years old, 10 years old. So the question I think
should be, are those reports still necessary? Is that
information still required by the Congress? Has the issue
matured or moved on, so that the report itself is not as
relevant?
So I think those are the areas that we would look to, in
terms of trying to reduce the reporting burden.
Senator Udall. One of your other responsibilities, I think,
is working with other agencies, the USAID and others that have
responsibility for international issues. What will you do to
work with USAID staff to ensure that State and USAID
effectively work together to carry out the policies of the
United States?
Mr. Adams. Thank you for that question.
Sort of in the role of Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, if confirmed, I think I would want to try to bring
both State and USAID and other sort of national security agency
Legislative Affairs offices together, so that we have, as the
Secretary has said, whole-of-government approach, so that the
Congress can see that the agencies are coordinated, that we're
interlocked, that we talk to each other, and that the policies
and programs that we present to the Congress are coordinated in
an effective fashion. So I would work hard at that, if
confirmed.
Senator Udall. That concludes my questions to all of you.
Not having other Senators, except Senator Webb come, we will
keep the record open for 24 hours for any questions or
statements for the record. We would ask both of you, if you get
those questions, to promptly get them back, so that we can move
forward with your nomination.
We very much appreciate your public service. Appreciate you
being here today.
And with that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:46 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record
Responses of Joyce Barr to Questions Submitted by
Senator Richard G. Lugar
Question. The State Department's Inspector General in 2010 found
that several problems identified in earlier years remained unresolved.
In particular, the OIG found that some contract files were incomplete,
lacked key documentation, and sometimes could not be located in the
absence of a contract specialist. How are these problems being
addressed?
Answer. In October 2010, the Office of Acquisitions Management
(AQM) issued a Memorandum to AQM personnel that all contract files
shall be in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation Subpart 4.8,
Government Contract Files. The Florida Regional Procurement Support
Office of AQM has implemented e-filing for all contract files. AQM is
evaluating that system and is in the early planning stages of
implementing a similar e-filing system for all other AQM offices and
divisions. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the processes put
in place to address problems identified in the inspection are completed
and effective.
Question. The OIG in 2010 called for another comprehensive review
of the Office of Acquisitions Management in accordance with the
Government Accountability Office's framework for assessing federal
agencies' acquisition functions. Has such a review been conducted? If
so, what were the results? Do you concur with the OIG's assessment? If
so, what would you do to ensure that recommendations are fully
implemented?
Answer. The Office of the Procurement Executive conducted a review
of the Acquisitions Management Office in 2010. Among the findings were:
The percentage of dollars competed increased from 58 percent
in FY 2006 to 82 percent in FY 2009;
Bid protests and Board of Contract Appeals activity was not
significant;
Online reverse auctions resulted in cost savings and
excellent small-business participation;
The Department achieved excellent results in meeting
socioeconomic contracting goals for contract awards to small
business, small disadvantaged businesses and woman-owned
businesses;
Contracting Officers should document review of the Excluded
Parties List to avoid debarred and suspended contractors;
The Department should improve accuracy of contract data
reporting;
Action should be taken to track contract expiration dates to
improve follow-on acquisition planning;
Internal controls to ensure approval of service contracts
extending beyond 5 years needed to be strengthened;
Market research should be improved;
To ensure compliance with Federal Acquisition Regulation
requirements, all contractors with delivery order contracts
should be provided a fair opportunity to compete.
I concur with the assessment of the OIG that file documentation
needs to be improved and the OPE review recommendations discussed
above. If confirmed, I will make the completion of these
recommendations a priority.
Question. In February 2010, the OIG recommended that the Bureau of
Administration review its Web site content and revise it to ensure the
organization charts are explicit and fully detail the authorities and
responsibilities for the offices within its purview. Also, they
recommended that the Bureau should update its Web site, at least
quarterly, to ensure OpenNet customers and outside visitors know who to
contact and how to do business with its offices and divisions. Have
these two items been implemented?
Answer. Based on the February 2010 OIG inspection, the Bureau of
Administration reviewed its Web site content and ensured an
organization chart existed for each major directorate. The Bureau's
main Web portal allows for OpenNet customers and outside visitors to
access an ``Organizations'' tab. The ``Organizations'' tab lists every
directorate in the Bureau, with a direct link to their respective
organization chart. Each organization chart then lists each director by
office and name. To ensure accuracy, each directorate maintains and
updates its own organizational charts.
To ensure we meet the quarterly update requirement, the Executive
Director will chair a meeting of all the Bureau Web site content
managers quarterly. Furthermore, the Executive Office has assigned a
permanent Bureau Webmaster who will disseminate requirements to all
Bureau content managers and will conduct quality control reviews at
least quarterly as well.
Question. Does the Bureau have sufficient resources and personnel
to provide effective oversight of contracts? Do contract specialists
receive adequate training for their jobs?
Answer. The Department of State Acquisition Human Capital Plan
outlines the staffing strategy for the Acquisitions Management Office
(AQM). With implementation of a working capital fund, AQM now has
appropriate resources to adequately staff contract specialists. AQM is
on track to achieve the staffing goals of the Human Capital Plan.
Bureaus such as International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL)
and Diplomatic Security (DS) have also significantly increased
resources devoted to contract administration.
Contract Specialists receive all training required by the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). Training requests are centrally
managed in AQM to ensure training is obtained in a timely manner.
The Department devoted significant effort this past year on
improving the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) function.
Training has been revised to focus on skill building and providing
practical examples. Functional experts and experienced CORs were used
as Subject Matter Experts to build the training. Detailed guidance on
complex issues such as trafficking in persons was issued. Guidance was
issued requiring appraisal factors on contract administration to be
included in COR performance appraisals. A COR award was created to
recognize the significant contributions of CORs to the goals of the
Department. A standing COR working group was formed to continue the
focus on improving the COR function.
I recognize the critical role the COR plays in contract oversight.
If confirmed, I intend to continue to build on these foundations to
strengthen that function.
Question. In recent years, the Administration and Diplomatic
Security Bureaus have worked to consolidate local guard contracting in
the Acquisitions Management Office's Worldwide Operations Division. Is
that office--or is Diplomatic Security--going to be responsible for
contract administration for guards in Iraq? If so, will it include all
the contracted personnel providing security? The State Department
intends to hire approximately 5,500 private security contractors for
Iraq after the U.S. military leaves.
Answer. The Office of Acquisition Management (AQM) is the
Department's authority for contracting security services supporting our
mission in Iraq, as well as our other posts worldwide. The Bureau of
Diplomatic Security's Office of Overseas Protective Operations (DS/IP/
OPO) is the program office responsible for managing and overseeing the
fulfillment of contract security services in Iraq. AQM and DS/IP/OPO
work closely together to award, oversee, and ensure contract compliance
of all Department security contracts in Iraq in accordance with the
standards set forth in the Department's Worldwide Protective Services
(WPS) base contract and the overarching Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR). The Department views contract administration as a joint
responsibility between DS and the A Bureau.
The WPS base contract is the mechanism through which the Department
awards task orders for both static and movement security services in
Iraq and Afghanistan. Four security task orders have been released for
Iraq. The task orders will be completely stood up by spring 2012, and
the Department will have approximately 5,100 security contractors
providing guard and movement security services.
Question. With 84 percent of the State Department's projected
17,000 personnel in Iraq slated to be contractors (of all kinds)--
according to Secretary Clinton's March 10 testimony before the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related
Programs--how is the Department going to ensure adequate administration
and oversight of such large contracts?
Answer. With approximately 14,000 contractors projected to be in
place in January 2012 in Iraq, the Department recognizes the need for
robust oversight of the vital life support, security, and medical
services they will provide. The Department's contracting oversight plan
for Iraq is attached.
iraq--contract management/oversight plan
Much of the U.S. Government's success in Iraq will depend on an
effective contracting effort as the mission transitions from military-
led to civilian-led. Unlike other U.S. embassies, the Department is not
operating in a permissive environment in Iraq. Such a nonpermissive
environment means that we cannot depend on local services such as a
static guard force or a cleaning crew made up of host-country
nationals, nor can we patronize markets, gas stations, or local shops.
This is why the U.S. Government is so heavily dependent on
contractors--at least until the security environment improves. To
ensure we meet this critical goal, the Department has developed a
contracting strategy that takes into account life support, security,
transportation, communications, and facilities.
Our primary Contracting Team is located in Washington, DC, where it
can draw on headquarters expertise. In Iraq, there are multiple levels
of technical oversight, depending upon the complexity of each contract.
In February 2008, the Office of Acquisition Management converted to a
fee-for-service organization, charging a 1-percent fee on all
procurements. Since that time, we have hired 102 additional staff for
contract administration.
In conflict zones such as Iraq, the Department's Contracting
Officer Representatives (CORs) are required to maintain special
vigilance against trafficking in persons, and awareness of the
practices of labor brokers and recruiters. CORs must brief contractor
program management to ensure there is no trafficking of persons or
other unethical conduct. Programs with a significant in-country
contractor presence require COR review and documentation of the
adequacy of contractor employees living conditions.
Additional information about the Department's significant contracts
follows.
Police Development Program
Since 2006, the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement (INL) has continued to enhance its contract oversight,
which for Iraq includes a Washington-based COR, COR support staff,
contract administration personnel in the field, and an entire program
office to assist with contract accountability.
Currently, INL has 10 contract administration personnel deployed in
Iraq, and two more personnel in the pipeline.
During the next year, INL will adjust the contract administration
staffing level at post and at headquarters commensurate with the
reduction in INL administered contractual services.
INL has made several improvements for contract oversight, including
(1) using the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plans (QASP) for
contractor accountability; and, (2) implementing standard operating
procedures for further specificity in oversight roles and
responsibilities.
In addition, INL has planned a monitoring and evaluation (M&E)
program to be staffed by four M&E subject matter experts in Baghdad,
Basrah, and Erbil. The more senior of the four M&E advisors will report
to the Deputy Director of the INL Office at Embassy Baghdad. The M&E
program will provide ongoing monitoring and regular evaluations of INL
programs in Iraq.
To prepare for the M&E program, INL is conducting an institutional
assessment of Iraq's criminal justice system. Assessments will be
completed of the police, corrections, and courts sectors over the
course of the next several months. These assessments will permit INL to
gauge the performance of its Iraq programs and to better direct
resources to areas of greatest need and potential improvement.
Private Security Contractor Management Plan
The State Department uses private security contractors (PSCs) to
help meet the extraordinary security requirements in critical threat
and nonpermissive environments. Through operational changes already
implemented and an examination conducted during the Department's
Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR) process, State is
ensuring proper management, oversight, and operational control of the
private security contractors we deploy overseas. The Department
institutionalized many of these changes through the new Worldwide
Protective Services (WPS) contract awarded in September 2010, which
incorporates lessons learned to ensure that private security
contractors perform their requirements in a professional, responsible,
culturally sensitive, and cost effective manner.
The Department currently employs approximately 2,700 PSC personnel
in Iraq, including 900 supporting protective security details in
Baghdad, Erbil, and Tallil and 1,800 providing static guard services to
facilities under Chief of Mission (COM) authority in Baghdad. Following
the transition in Iraq, there will be 100 direct-hire special agents
and 106 security specialists to manage approximately 7,000 contractors
to protect U.S. Government employees and facilities under COM authority
in Baghdad, Erbil, Mosul, Kirkuk, and Basrah.
DS's plan for management, oversight, and operational control of PSC
personnel includes:
Ensuring professionalism and responsibility through improved
direct oversight of security contractor personnel:
DS agents at each post will serve as managers for the
Static Guard and Personal Protective Security programs;
DS agents at each post will also serve as Contracting
Officer's Representatives (CORs) and Assistant CORs (A/COR)
for the direct management and oversight of the WPS
contract;
DS personnel at each post will be assigned as Government
Technical Monitors (GTMs) to assist the COR and A/COR in
the oversight of the WPS contract.
Direct-hire Diplomatic Security personnel (DS agents or
SPS officers) provide direct operational oversight of all
protective motorcades.
Diplomatic Security personnel will continue to conduct
frequent, unannounced health and welfare after-hours visits
to WPS housing compounds. Collocation of contractor life
support areas on Embassy, consulate, or EBO compounds will
enhance after-hours oversight of contractor personnel;
Revised mission firearms policies strengthen rules on the
use of force and new less-than-lethal equipment fielded as
a means to minimize the need for deadly force;
Video recording systems and tracking systems installed in
vehicles to enhance oversight and contractor
accountability; and
All incidents involving a weapons discharge and other
serious incidents are thoroughly investigated by the
Regional Security Office.
Improving the image of the security footprint through
enhanced cultural sensitivity:
Mandatory country-specific cultural awareness training for
all security contractors prior to deployment to Iraq;
Revised standards of conduct, including a ban on alcohol;
and
Interpreters included in protective security details.
Achieving greater efficiencies through new contract terms:
One set of terms and conditions, enhancing the ability to
provide appropriate and consistent oversight;
Reduced acquisition timelines;
Larger number of qualified base contract holders, thereby
increasing competition and controlling costs;
Timely options in the event a company fails to perform;
More efficient program management compared to multiple,
stand-alone contracts; and
Computerized tracking of contractor personnel to aid in
reviewing personnel rosters used to support labor invoices.
As the security environment improves, the Department will
transition to a more traditional mode of operation. This transition has
begun in Erbil, where our static guard force includes a significant
number of local nationals. As the Department transitions in Iraq,
roughly two-thirds of the guard force in Erbil will be comprised of
local nationals.
Contract oversight for PA&E, LOGCAP IV, and the Linguist/Subject Matter
Expert Contracts
A&E works exclusively on the Embassy compound where they perform
Operations and Maintenance services. Their Contracting Officer's
Representative (COR) is the Deputy Facilities Manager. Between the
Facilities Manager and the Deputy, all work performed by PA&E is
visible and verifiable on a daily basis and a detailed review is
conducted on at least a weekly basis with critical work being checked
more frequently. Billing and staffing levels are reviewed monthly with
the Financial Management Officer where reconciliation of differences in
billing can be researched. All problems, if any, are immediately
reported to the Contracting Office in Washington for immediate
appropriate action.
All residents of the Embassy compound are customers. They are quick
to observe and report any work that has not been performed in
accordance with the contract requirement.
Linguist/Subject Matter Expert (L/SME) contracts are reviewed by a
COR in Washington, DC, for the offices served in Iraq. The contractor's
timesheets are verified, by an individual designated by the contracting
officer as Government Task Managers (GTM) and, who has firsthand
knowledge of the contract requirements, contractor employee's
attendance and deliverables. This is the person to whom the L/SME
reports to on a daily basis. An erroneous entry on a timecard would be
readily noticed and a timely correction made. Government managers at
this level are experienced and very detailed in their review.
The COR is a recognized expert in technical areas of the contract
requirements and it would be difficult to imagine a scenario where a
contractor could exploit lack of oversight. Further, while
comprehensive in nature, the L/SME contract is not physically large.
From experience, one COR with a responsive base of Government managers
is more than adequate to verify contractor performance as well as
secure adequate internal controls.
While it is most effective for the State Department to use its own
competitive process to award most contract actions, the Department is
also leveraging DOD resources where DOD has superior capabilities in
theater. LOGCAP has been a success story since State inherited the Task
Order from the Coalition Provisional Authority in 2004. The DOD Program
Manager for LOGCAP publicly stated in 2006 that State was the only
organization that ``gets'' LOGCAP. He meant that State was the only
LOGCAP customer that was holding the line against abuse of LOGCAP
services while maintaining a perfect life/health/safety record while
carefully expanding the capability of the Task Order to facilitate
other nongovernment organizations as deemed necessary by the Chief of
Mission (COM) and ensuring that reimbursement were paid to LOGCAP
promptly.
The ``charter'' for LOGCAP was direct and strictly dictated by DOD
and State--one COR from the Department of State and one Administrative
Contracting Officer (ACO) from the Department of Defense. There was, as
well, close coordination between LOGCAP Rock Island Contracting Command
(RICC) and State.
Issues that were prevalent at other DOD Task Order sites did not
occur under the COM Task Order. Electrical grounding safety, always
problematical, was constantly reviewed and tested. Food production
remained at the highest standard. No abuse of vehicle dispatch or fuel
operations was ever observed and the LOGCAP Contractor took steps to
reduce numbers of vehicles on several occasions to further COM policy.
State has been served by two LOGCAP Task Orders. One is the COM
Task Order in the International Zone (IZ). The other task order is the
DOD task order that supported State when a State organization was
resident on the other task order's site.
This arrangement was approved by the RICC as a Quid Pro Quo
arrangement after analysis indicated that DOD entities were also being
serviced by the COM task order and in roughly even amounts.
Standard arrangement for LOGCAP Task Orders is to have oversight
and administration performed by the Defense Contract Management Agency
(DCMA). DCMA remains critical to the performance of LOGCAP Task Orders
and the LOGCAP Program Manager has assured State that DCMA will remain
on the State/DOD team for both LOGCAP IV and any follow-on replacement
for LOGCAP. The caveat is that DCMA wants to see the size and level of
effort before stating their specific requirements for an administration
team and cost for providing the team.
The policy remains in place that there is a single COR and ACO.
While it is unavoidable that the contractor and State managers talk,
nothing official can take place until the COR provides review and
concurrence and the ACO approves and directs. DCMA requests the Quality
Assurance Representatives (QAR) to perform periodic checks to test and
report deficiencies and concerns to the ACO and COR. Weekly cost and
program review meetings chaired by the ACO provide near real-time
information in a manner that the ACO can identify problems and provide
course correction if the contractor performance varies from a standard.
State fully expects to continue its successful relationship with
DCMA and LOGCAP. The technical success is proven. Costs are contained
because oversight shows that work is being accomplished on time and
within budget.
The Office of Acquisitions Management has a dedicated, qualified
team of Contracting Officers and Contract Specialists assigned to
manage the Department of State contracts as well as to provide any
assistance to the LOGCAP program supporting the U.S. Mission in Iraq.
There are currently two Department of State employees located at the
Embassy who provide the COR responsibilities for the LOGCAP program. We
believe these two positions are adequate to provide the necessary
oversight enforcing contractor performance and internal controls. If,
on occasion, it becomes necessary to temporarily increase this number,
the Office of Acquisitions Management is prepared to deploy TDY
employees to Post to provide the necessary support.
Facility Construction
For the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations' (OBO) construction
projects, there is a Washington-based Contracting Officer, and the
onsite project manager is the COR. There is significant scrutiny of
both contractors and subcontractors, as well as their employees.
Contractors for the construction of new office and other buildings must
name all subcontractors at the time of proposals, and they are part of
the proposal evaluation. When we construct buildings, foreign firms
receive local checks for adverse information. Contractor and
subcontractor employees going on to a construction site must have name
and other records checks performed by the Regional Security Officer
(RSO) in advance and in consultation with local officials.
For OBO construction projects, onsite ``man camps'' (living and
dining quarters) are expected to meet strict health and safety
standards. When OBO Project Managers become aware of quality of life
issues, on or offsite, they first notify the Site Security Manager (a
trained DS specialist), then the RSO, who will then notify appropriate
authorities. OBO ensures that emergency medical services are provided
(by the embassy medical team if necessary) and that evacuations are
handled appropriately.
Question. In September 2007, Blackwater personnel accompanying a
State Department convoy shot and killed several Iraqi civilians. What
changes, if any, were made to the acquisition process as a result of
this incident?
Answer. Contract administration processes were strengthened as a
result of the Blackwater incident. Direct-hire government personnel now
accompany protective details. Tracking devices and video equipment in
each motorcade provide a record of incidents to allow for a better
analysis of what occurred. Contractor reporting of incidents has been
improved. Also, DS has increased the number of contracting officer's
representatives and government technical monitors to work in theater
where Worldwide Protective Services (WPS) task orders are being
performed so that overall contract oversight is enhanced, including the
contractor staffs' adherence to contract required standards of conduct.
I have attached a list of further actions undertaken to strengthen
management and oversight of the WPS contract.
For the DS Worldwide Protective Services (WPS) contract, DS has
increased staffing to more than 200 direct-hire personnel to administer
the contract and its task orders to ensure contract compliance of
approximately 5,100 contractor employees.
Other key elements include:
Ensuring appropriate levels of professionalism and
responsive operational responsibility through direct
operational control and oversight of security contractor
personnel:
DS Special Agents at each post serve as managers for the
Static Guard and Personal Protective Security programs;
DS Special Agents at each post serve as Contracting
Officer's Representatives (CORs) and Assistant CORs (ACORs)
for the direct management and oversight of the WPS contract
to assist the Contracting Officer;
DS personnel at each post are assigned as Government
Technical Monitors (GTMs) to assist the COR and ACOR in the
oversight of the WPS contract.
Direct-hire DS personnel (DS Special Agents or Security
Protective Specialists) provide operational control of
protective motorcades.
Collocation of contractor life-support areas on Embassy,
Consulate, or Embassy Branch Office compounds will enhance
after-hours oversight of contractor personnel;
Revised mission firearms policies further strengthen
post's rules on the use of force, and less-than-lethal
equipment has been fielded as a means to minimize the need
to employ deadly force;
Video recording and tracking systems are installed in each
motorcade;
All incidents involving a weapons discharge or other
serious incidents are thoroughly investigated by the
Regional Security Officer (RSO); and
The Office of Acquisitions Management has a dedicated,
qualified team of contracting officers and contract
specialists assigned to administer PSC contracts. They will
make regular field visits to each post to conduct reviews
of PSC contracts.
Improving the image of the security footprint through
enhanced cultural sensitivity:
Mandatory country-specific cultural awareness training for
all security contractors prior to deployment to Iraq;
Revised standards of conduct, including a ban on alcohol;
and
Interpreter support provided for protective security
details.
Achieving greater efficiencies through new contract terms:
One set of terms and conditions enhances the ability to
provide uniform, appropriate, and consistent oversight;
Reduced acquisition timelines;
Larger number of qualified base-contract holders, thereby
increasing competition for each task order while
controlling costs;
Timely options in the event a company fails to perform;
More efficient program management compared to multiple,
stand-alone contracts;
Computerized tracking of contractor personnel to aid in
reviewing personnel rosters used to support labor invoices;
and
Regional auditors from the Defense Contract Audit Agency
(DCAA) will be assigned to each company receiving a WPS
task order.
Question. What sort of agreement have the State Department and
Defense Department worked out so that the diplomatic missions in Iraq
continue to receive life support services under the LOGCAP IV contract?
Please describe the key provisions of the agreement. How have the
payments for the services been worked out, and who will be responsible
for quality control and contract administration?
Answer. The State Department and Defense Department have concluded
an interagency agreement utilizing authority provided under the Economy
Act (21 U.S.C. 1535) to ensure that State will continue to receive life
support services under the LOGCAP IV contract. Key provisions include
basic life support and core logistics services with a reimbursable
method under specific task orders. LOGCAP IV is a DOD contract
administered by the Army Contracting Command-Rock Island (ACC-RI) with
ACC-RI delegating oversight to Defense Contract Management Agency
(DCMA), and the Department of State provided Contracting Officer
Representatives.
Question. How is the Office of Procurement Executive balancing its
oversight of overseas procurement and its oversight of the Acquisitions
Management Office?
Answer. The Office of the Procurement Executive has two Divisions
focused on procurement oversight. The Evaluation and Assistance
Division focuses on oversight of overseas procurement operations
through staff assistance visits to overseas posts, desk officer
oversight by geographic region, and model contracts and documentation
to assist contracting personnel with transaction support. Overseas post
procurement reviews are scheduled to cover every geographic region
annually. Three to four posts are visited per region. Desk Officers are
in daily contact with procurement officials at overseas posts to offer
assistance.
The Policy Division conducts regular reviews of domestic
procurement operations such as the Acquisition Management Office,
Library Services, Language Services and the Foreign Service Institute.
Special Topic Reviews, such as an examination of Award Fee Contracts,
are scheduled when the Procurement Executive determines the need to
look more closely at a specific topic.
Question. How will you ensure that current practices and procedures
for managing, operating and maintaining the Department's real estate
holdings are cost-effective?
Answer. The Department has a long history of comprehensive
management and oversight of its real estate portfolio, both overseas
and domestic. It has aggressively engaged the General Services
Administration (GSA) and other service providers to ensure competitive
prices on rents, operating costs, utilities, and other real estate and
construction requirements. As the portfolio stands today, space
utilization meets or exceeds GSA standards, operating costs reflect our
best efforts to manage costs while providing appropriate levels of
service, and strategic planning encompasses the real property goals of
this administration and the Congress.
If confirmed, I will ensure the continued use of aggressive
performance standards for office space utilization, workstation-to-
office ratios, and the many modern mobile workforce initiatives
beginning to be utilized by Federal agencies. I will continue to
evaluate the Department's real estate portfolio, looking for
opportunities to relocate ``back office'' operations to lower cost
locations, as we have done successfully with our finance and visa
processing operations. I will continue efforts to consolidate warehouse
and other logistics operations, Automated Data Processing, similar
Information Resource Management functions, and bureaus that currently
are spread out in multiple locations throughout the Washington
metropolitan area.
Finally, if confirmed, I will insist that future GSA leases on the
Department's behalf include purchase options to the extent practical,
and continue the Department's practice of working with GSA to seek
opportunities to purchase leased buildings where we have made
substantial investments, and to look for other existing federal
properties where initial investments could yield long terms savings of
rental payments.
Question. The State Department's Inspector General in 2009 was
critical of inadequate management controls over the work performed by
operations and maintenance contractors.
What sort of management controls exist, and what steps will
you take to strengthen these controls? Do you have sufficient
personnel--both in terms of numbers and expertise--to perform
contract oversight?
Does the Bureau still rely on labor-hour contract staffing?
If so, is this necessary, and what are you going to do to
address the costly nature of such contract work?
Answer. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) focused on three
issues in its 2009 review: (1) project file documentation; (2) staff
training; and (3) questions regarding District of Columbia taxes on
some construction/ renovation work orders. The A Bureau's Office of
Operations' (A/OPR) action plans on all three issues have been
reviewed, approved, and validated by the OIG subsequent to that review.
All project files are now maintained by Contracting Officer's
Representatives (CORs) and Project Managers, including an appropriately
detailed scope of work, an independently derived government cost
estimate (IGE) using appropriate estimating tools for the work,
documentation of at least three competitive bid solicitations, a
reconciliation of any IGE-to-bid cost discrepancies, and a best-value
selection. Project Managers are required to document any changes in
scope as the work proceeds, all inspections and commissioning as the
work is completed and final closeout of costs and invoices. Quality
assurance staff, which is independent of the project staff, are
responsible for periodic reviews of project files to ensure compliance
with this requirement.
All CORs receive required training and must maintain their COR
certifications. In addition, all building/project managers overseeing
work performed under contract are required to receive similar training.
After initial COR training is completed, all staff involved with any
work using contractors must complete 40 hours of additional training
every 2 years. This training is consistent with governmentwide guidance
issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Federal
Acquisition Regulations (FAR).
Regarding D.C.-user tax issues, A/OPR, on the advice of the Office
of Acquisition Management and the Office of the Legal Adviser, has
clarified conditions under which D.C. tax rules apply to services
rendered by operations and maintenance contractors. Language has been
written into the new contracts spelling out how taxes are to be/or not
to be invoiced. Payments are scrutinized to ensure precedence is not
established that would be detrimental to the Department.
The Office of Facilities Management Services (FMS) continues to
utilize labor-hour contract staffing. This will continue to be
necessary at some level to meet mission requirements until additional
Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) staff is authorized. However, since the OIG
report, OPR/FMS has been gradually reducing its reliance on labor-hour
contracting staffing by using part-time government employees where
possible and by reallocating existing staff based on an organizational
analysis conducted by the Department of State's Office of Resource
Management Analysis (RMA).
Question. What will you do to ensure that the Office of
Authentications responds to requests by the public, businesses, and
other government agencies in a timely manner? Does the office have
sufficient personnel and resources to handle its workload?
Answer. Due to the increased workload in the Office of
Authentications, turnaround time on document processing has increased
over the last 2 years. To address this issue, the office has allocated
two additional staff positions from the Bureau of Administration's
allotment. The new employees are expected to be on board this summer.
In the meantime, the Bureau has detailed other Bureau staff on a part-
time basis to help address the Office's increased work-load. An e-mail
address for Members to inquire about the status of authentication
requests on behalf of constituents was also recently established. The
Department gives the highest priority to customer service and is
working hard to deal with the increased demand.
Question. What is the status of Fly America provisions?
Answer. The Department's policies and regulations (14 FAM 583) are
consistent with the guidelines of the General Accounting Office and
mirror the Federal Travel Regulations (FTR) used by other agencies
government wide. Information and reminders are provided to employees on
a regular basis regarding the provisions of the Fly America Act. Two
levels of management controls are in place to ensure the provisions are
complied with: (1) To fly on a foreign carrier, employees must provide
approved written certification that no American air carriers are
available to provide the requested service or a reasonable alternative,
and (2) bookings on foreign carriers by the Department's Travel
Management Centers are reported to the Contracting Officer's
Representative for the travel contract.
NOMINATIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
Hon. Earl Anthony Wayne, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to
Mexico
Arnold Chacon, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Republic of
Guatemala
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert
Menendez, presiding.
Present: Senators Menendez, Udall, Lugar, and Rubio.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Menendez. Good morning. This hearing will come to
order.
Today the Senate Foreign Relations Committee considers two
nominations, Ambassador Earl Anthony Wayne to be the Ambassador
to Mexico and Mr. Arnold Chacon to be Ambassador to Guatemala.
First, let me welcome the nominees and their families and
friends. I will have some brief introductory remarks, and then
I will turn to Senator Lugar. I believe Senator Rubio is on his
way. And then we will turn to our nominees.
Let me congratulate you on your nominations. If you are
confirmed, you will serve as the President's representative and
be called upon to implement the policies of the United States
Government, and protect and advance the interests of the
American people.
The countries you are being called to represent are
countries that share a strong historical relationship with us
and with one another. Both countries face challenges in the
areas of governance, citizen security, human rights, and
impunity issues, civilian/military relations, and judicial and
security sector reform.
Organized crime, including trafficking of drugs, weapons
and people, threatens the stability of both nations, and has
resulted in a serious threat to the security of the citizenry.
And in the case of Guatemala, the survival of its nascent
democracy.
In Mexico, nearly 40,000 people have died as a result of
drug-related violence in the last 4 years, and in Guatemala, 36
years of civil war and fragile democratic institutions have
provided a haven for traffickers and gangs seeking new
territory from which to expand their trade. However, I also
recognize that this is a joint battle, a two-way street, in
which the United States is part of sharing the responsibility
to meet the challenge, and, therefore, also part of sharing the
burden. We must reduce domestic demand, find the political will
to curtail the flow of weapons and money going southward, and
focus our political attention and resources on impeding this
growing threat to regional stability.
I was encouraged by Secretary Clinton's attendance at a
Central American Security Conference in Guatemala last month. I
am also encouraged by the Justice Department's decisions last
week to enhance reporting requirements for gun dealers in four
southwest border states; California, Arizona, New Mexico, and
Texas, that make sales of two or more semiautomatic rifles in a
5-day period of guns greater than .22 calibers, with the
ability to accept a detachable magazine. Those are all steps in
the right direction.
However, this is a relationship that is far more than about
narcotics trafficking. Our economic relationship with the
region and Mexico particularly is very important. The United
States-Mexico goods trade totaled $393 billion in 2010, with
United States exports exceeding $160 billion a year.
Mexico is a major export market for United States
machinery, cars, mineral fuel, oil, plastics, grains, meat, and
soybeans. We are fortunate to enjoy a strong political and
economic relationship with Mexico from which we derive mutual
benefits. It is a relationship that goes back to the very
essence of the founding of our country. And the number of
United States citizens of Mexican descent is one of the largest
of any given country in the world. Therefore, we have a very
deep and important relationship. To me, as the chair of the
Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, this is one of the most
important relationships we have.
Our Ambassador to Mexico is the custodian of this important
multifaceted relationship, and it is a position which demands
knowledge of the region, the ability to simultaneously manage
multiple portfolios, and a respect for the independent
political and cultural traditions of our nations.
The challenges each of you face vis-a-vis your host
governments will be unique. Rest assured that we are vested in
your success. If confirmed, you will both play a vital role in
the work that will build upon our common successes and combat
some of the most pressing challenges. We look forward to your
testimony.
With that, let me turn to Senator Lugar, the distinguished
ranking member of the full committee, for his comments.
Senator Lugar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would
like to defer to Chairman Rubio in the event he has any
comments before my opening.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD LUGAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Lugar. I join the chairman in welcoming our
distinguished nominees this morning. I appreciate this
opportunity to examine not only their credentials, but also
current United States policy toward Mexico and Guatemala.
Over many decades, we have taken for granted the benefits
of peaceful relationships with bordering countries.
Our neighbors have been among our most important trading
partners, with Canada currently ranking first in overall trade
with the United States, and Mexico ranking third.
Historically, few great powers have enjoyed the type of
sustained regional stability that we have experienced. But in
recent years, that regional stability has been shaken as Mexico
has struggled with criminal violence, debilitating corruption,
and drug financed cartels.
In January, the Mexican Government pegged the number of
people killed during its 4-year military-led crackdown on
organized crime at more than 34,000. Those murdered, included
government officials, police officials, military personnel, and
others who were deemed a threat to the cartel's business
interests or leaders. Mexico's insecurity and cartel violence,
spilling into Central American countries, was exacerbating
security challenges.
Concern is particularly acute in Guatemala, and it appears
that the burgeoning presence of Mexican drug traffickers is
adding another layer of violence to a country already burdened
by crime and corruption. Senior Guatemalan officials have
warned that the Guatemalan security forces need a major
overhaul to keep the Mexican drug gangs in check.
Guatemala is seen as an ideal transit point for the cocaine
traveling from Colombia through Mexico to the United States.
Guatemala has a large unguarded border with Mexico.
It has ports on the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico.
It has hundreds of grass airstrips near large plantations that
are suitable for light aircraft, and the security forces are
under resourced relative to the drug gangs.
Events in Mexico and Guatemala have clear security
implications for the United States, Americans traveling in the
region and the United States/Mexican border. But this
instability has also commercial consequences. Hopes for much
stronger trade relationships that can help the United States
and the entire Western Hemisphere compete with China, Japan,
and the EU are suffering as a result.
And given U.S. interest in the stability and prosperity of
our southern neighbors, the United States has been working with
these countries to confront lawlessness. The Merida Initiative,
a multiyear Federal partnership, provides equipment and
training and support of law enforcement efforts to curb the
flow of illegal narcotics to the United States, Mexico, and
Central America. It is the framework for this relationship.
Though much remains to be done, the Merida Initiative has
opened a new era of United States/Mexican law enforcement
cooperation. It is far more extensive than previously
attempted.
The stakes are high for both countries. Sustained
lawlessness in large areas of Mexico complicate the United
States efforts to combat drug smuggling and illegal
immigration, and to generate increasing drug-related violence
on our side of the border. For Mexico, degrading the capacity
and influence of the cartels in Mexico is a near existential
national security objective.
Today I look forward to the nominees' perspectives on the
Merida Initiative and on efforts by Mexico and Guatemala to
fight corruption within their own ranks. How can we enhance our
cooperation with these governments in ways that benefit the
United States security? These are basic questions for our
session today, and I thank the chair for recognizing me.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Senator Lugar.
Senator Rubio.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Rubio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the ranking
member. And I'll be brief because I think everything that I
wanted to say has been covered by your statements, which I
think both have touched upon all the key issues.
The only things I would add are, first, that it is
important to remind ourselves of the importance of our
relationship with Mexico. There are a lot of important things
happening all over the world, but there are few, if any,
relationships around the world more important than the one we
have with our neighbors in Mexico.
Prosperity and security in Mexico is a positive for the
United States and vice versa. And this relationship that we
have is critical on a number of fronts.
On the economic front, it is about having a trading partner
with an expanding economy, both, as a manufacturer for things
that we use for our companies, but also as a consumer hopefully
as our economy begins to grow.
On the security side, I think just to state the obvious
that the issues that are going on in Mexico are inextricably
linked with issues that are happening across the border here in
the United States. And so, the relationship between Mexico and
the United States is a critically important one, perhaps as
important as virtually any other relationship we have anywhere
else in the world. And I hope we will continue to give it the
importance that it deserves in this committee. I know certainly
the subcommittee has.
Guatemala is important as well. First of all, the promise
in Guatemala now for over two and half decades, moved away from
autocratic rule and toward an electoral democratic process. And
that is a net positive that we should continue to encourage.
The democratic institutions in Guatemala have survived for
two and a half decades, but they are still fragile and will
require us to continue to invest in them and be a partner with
them in that regard. This is particularly important in light of
the challenges that Guatemala faces, as does all of Central
America. As we have increased the pressure on drug trafficking
in the Caribbean, more and more of the trafficking has moved
toward the Central American corridor, and we see the results of
that all throughout Central America. It is critically important
the United States continue to have a strong partnership.
I personally am deeply engaged in the future of both of
these countries because we have close family friends,
relatives, and plenty of constituents in the State of Florida
that have deep personal, family, and business links to both of
these countries. And so, the assignment that both of you are
going to have are critically important. As I said to you when
we met, I intend to be in touch with you both personally on a
number of issues, hopefully mostly good news, and every now and
then some challenges.
So, thank you for your service to our country and your
willingness to serve in these very important posts. And we look
forward to working with you in the years to come, and are
interested in your testimony here today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Senator Rubio.
Before we hear your testimony, let me briefly introduce
each of our nominees.
Ambassador Earl Anthony Wayne, nominee as the Ambassador to
Mexico, is a career ambassador. Since 2009 he has served as the
Deputy Ambassador to Afghanistan and coordinating director for
Development and Economic Affairs.
In 2006 through 2009, he served as U.S. Ambassador to
Argentina.
Ambassador Wayne has also served in the Department of
State's Economic and Business Affairs Bureau and the Bureau of
European Affairs, as well as the National Security Council.
He holds degrees from Harvard University, a more
distinguished university, Princeton in New Jersey, from
Stanford University, and the University of California at
Berkeley. Ambassador, we look forward to hearing from you
today.
Arnold A. Chacon is the nominee to be the Ambassador to
Guatemala. He is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service
and currently serving as the Deputy Chief of Mission at the
Embassy in Madrid where I recently had the opportunity to meet
and work with him in my role as the chairman of the U.S.-Spain
Business Council. And you did an excellent job. We appreciate
your engagement with us.
Mr. Chacon has a long history with the Bureau of the
Western Hemisphere Affairs, having held, amongst others, the
positions of Director of Andean Affairs, Deputy Director of
Central American Affairs, Deputy Chief of Mission in Ecuador,
political counselor in Peru, political officer in Chile, and
staff assistant to the Chief of Mission in Mexico.
Mr. Chacon received a B.A. in international affairs from
the University of Colorado at Boulder.
So, let me welcome both of you. If you have family or
friends you want to introduce, please do so to the committee.
We understand they're an important part of your commitment to
public service.
And with that, I'll start with Ambassador Wayne. We ask you
to summarize your testimony to about 5 minutes or so. We will
include your full testimony in the record.
STATEMENT OF HON. EARL ANTHONY WAYNE, OF MARYLAND, TO BE
AMBASSADOR TO MEXICO
Ambassador Wayne. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
Senator Lugar, Ranking Member Rubio. Thank you for your
statements with which I found probably total agreement, I would
say, in all your points. And we welcome your interests.
Senator Menendez. That is a good start in your
confirmation. [Laughter.]
Ambassador Wayne. Very much welcome your interest in Mexico
and Guatemala and the region.
It is an honor to be here before you as President Obama's
nominee to serve as United States Ambassador to Mexico. I am
grateful to both the President and to Secretary Clinton for
their trust and confidence.
I am very humbled to be sitting here and thinking about
helping to guide bilateral relations with Mexico as Ambassador.
The United States relationship with Mexico is unique, and its
enormous and depth and in its direct impact on American
security and prosperity, as each of you said.
Our complex bilateral relations affect many Americans
throughout the country in their daily lives. Our two economies
and societies are indispensably interconnected, giving us a
shared responsibility for challenges both nations face.
More than $1 billion in trade crosses the United States-
Mexico border each day, and almost 1 million people cross that
border legally each day.
If confirmed, I will need the advice and the wisdom and the
partnership of many, including the United States Congress, to
help me carry out my responsibilities and to manage creatively
our vital relationship with Mexico.
I believe my 36 years in America's diplomatic service
provide experiences that will help me perform this mission
well. Let me give a couple of examples.
My 6 years as Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and
Business Affairs gave me the opportunity to deal with the full
range of U.S. economic interests issues and agencies. My work
underscored the special role which Mexico plays as our partner,
and I worked closely with the United States agencies which are
essential to managing relations with Mexico.
My many years working with the European Union and its
members were a practical lesson in building and deepening
cooperation with a major U.S. partner on many difficult and
complex issues. I learned the benefits of investing and
building the mechanisms and the structures of cooperation. They
helped us tackle difficult bilateral issues, and they provided
the basis to take on cooperatively the broader challenges in
the world.
Helping to oversee United States-Canada relations let me
experience directly our relations with our close neighbors,
touch American lives, and how problem-solving requires that we
consult closely and coordinate closely with many actors on both
sides of the border.
Serving as Ambassador to Argentina provided excellent
experience in using our public diplomacy tools to address
misperceptions about the United States. And I also learned
firsthand how supporting and expanding people-to-people
relationships and exchanges, whether they involve education, or
music, or business, or even the fight against trafficking in
persons, really helped improve perceptions of the United
States.
In both Argentina and Afghanistan, I worked closely with
United States law enforcement agencies and host government
officials in fighting drug trafficking, and in supporting host
government efforts to strengthen rule of law institutions.
In my 2 years in Afghanistan, helping to oversee our
massive assistance programs, underscored the key role which
effective interagency teams and close engagement with host
government teams play in providing assistance to a partner
nation. Building frank and trusting dialogue was essential both
within the U.S. teams and with our partners.
In addition, my experience managing a huge Embassy in Kabul
and the hundreds of civilians that we have in the provinces
seasoned my ability to guide a large and complex set of
operations, such as we have in Mexico.
At present, issues related to security, crime, and law
enforcement dominate the headlines about Mexico, but the
interests we share and the common challenges we face with
Mexico are much broader. If confirmed, I pledge to work closely
with you, Mr. Chairman, and your colleagues in Congress to
further strengthen this multifaceted relationship.
Central to U.S. efforts over the last 3 years, as several
of you noted, has been the Merida Initiative. Although our
cooperation under Merida began by addressing the need to combat
and weaken transnational criminal organizations, it has
expanded to include longer term objectives to strengthen
justice sector institutions, to reinvigorate border management,
and to reinforce Mexico's efforts to create strong, resilient
communities in areas impacted by the heightened violence. The
strong support of Congress for the Merida Initiative has been
and remains essential.
As of late June, the U.S. Merida team has delivered a
cumulative total of $465 million in equipment, technical
assistance, and training since the Initiative began in 2008.
The United States plans to achieve a cumulative total of
almost $900 million delivered by the end of this year.
One of my principle objectives if confirmed will be to work
with Mexican and United States colleagues to assure that we
successfully accelerate Merida implementation, and that we are
achieving our Merida objectives.
While United States assistance is vital, the Government of
Mexico and the Mexican people bear most of the burden
financially, politically, and in terms of human lives in this
fight against transnational organized crime. Of the estimated
40,000 or so deaths attributed to narco-violence since December
2006, nearly 2,000 were members of the Mexican Security
Services. And the 2011 Mexican budget allocates over $10
billion for security.
United States Government personnel in Mexico have been
victims of criminal violence also, and the safety of our
personnel serving in Mexico must be a top priority.
Over the last two decades, the economic relationship
between the United States and Mexico has been transformed. Our
economic ties are now among the deepest in the world. Trade,
for example, has quadrupled to reach nearly $400 billion in
2010, making Mexico our second-largest export market and our
third-largest trading partner.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that trade with
Mexico supports more than 6 million United States jobs, and for
26 States, Mexico is the largest or second-largest export
destination. In fact, we do not merely trade with Mexico and
Canada; we make things together. This kind of mutual
integration helps the United States be more competitive in the
world. If confirmed, I will work to support the mutual benefit
and strength of our economic ties.
But it is the ties between our people that help make the
relations with Mexico so unique. One in ten Americans are
estimated to be of Mexican descent, while more than 1 million
Americans call Mexico home. Tourism brings 10 million more to
Mexico each year, and there are countless people-to-people
exchanges and links between our two societies. If confirmed, I
will work to support the many benefits that come from these
people-to-people ties and exchanges.
The future security and well-being of the United States is
rooted in a vibrant partnership with a stable, prosperous, and
competitive Mexico, that shares the values of democracy, rule
of law, and open markets at home and abroad. Such a partnership
requires a whole of government approach by both partners and a
spirit of good faith and trust between us. If confirmed, I will
do my very best to help this partnership prosper and achieve
the mutual benefits possible for the peoples of the United
States and Mexico.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Wayne follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ambassador Earl Anthony Wayne
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rubio, and members of the committee,
it is an honor to be here today before you as President Obama's nominee
to serve as the next United States Ambassador to Mexico. I am grateful
to both the President and Secretary Clinton for their trust and
confidence.
I am humbled by the thought of helping to guide our bilateral
relationship with Mexico as Ambassador. The United States relationship
with Mexico is unique in its enormous breadth and depth and in its
immediate, direct impact on American security and prosperity. This
complex, multifaceted bilateral relationship affects Americans in their
day-to-day lives and involves virtually every department of the Federal
Government and a host of State and local authorities whose interests
are closely linked to what happens in Mexico. Our two economies and
societies are indispensably interconnected, giving us a shared
responsibility for the challenges both nations face. More than a
billion dollars of trade crosses the United States-Mexico border each
day, providing jobs and resources to people across both countries, and
almost one million people cross the border legally each day in the
course of their daily routines.
If confirmed, I will need the wisdom, advice and partnership of
many, including the U.S. Congress, to help me carry out my
responsibilities and to manage creatively our vital relationship with
Mexico. I believe my 36 years in America's diplomatic service offer
experience and tools which will help me perform this mission well. Let
me share a few examples.
Serving 6 years as Assistant Secretary of State for Economic
and Business Affairs has provided me intensive experience
dealing with the full range of U.S. economic interests and
issues, including many involving Mexico and Latin America.
Those years underscored for me that very special role which
Mexico plays as our economic partner bilaterally and in our
ability to compete globally. I also learned well the importance
of a ``whole of government'' approach to managing international
policy and the vital role played by the private sector and
civil society in achieving America's economic well-being.
My many years working on U.S. relations with Europe, and
especially the European Union, taught me the importance of
patiently building and strengthening international partnerships
despite the time and investment needed to establish trust and
prove the value of cooperation. In the case of the EU, our
cooperation covers a tremendously wide range of issues,
including some which are very technical but have enormous
impact. My work with Europe also made clear that our
partnerships are vital not only for bilateral issues but also
for the work we can undertake together on broader international
challenges.
Helping to oversee United States-Canada relations taught me
how relationships with our close neighbors touch American's
lives and demand very close consultations with a wide range of
U.S. institutions (Federal, State and local) to find solutions.
My years as Ambassador to Argentina taught me the importance
of addressing how others view the United States, for good or
otherwise. Our public diplomacy and efforts to strengthen
people-to-people relationships via education, the media,
culture, tourism, and partnerships among civil society
organizations can make a big difference for good in relations
between nations.
My service in Argentina and Afghanistan also helped me to
live the importance of building strong cooperation against
crime and drug trafficking and the dedication needed to bolster
rule of law institutions.
And my 2 years in Afghanistan underscored the key role which
effective interagency teams and regular, close engagement with
host government teams play if we are to successfully provide
effective assistance to meet urgent needs of our partner
nation. Frank and open dialogue in designing and implementing
programs, in monitoring and evaluating the results, and in
solving problems is essential.
If confirmed, I hope my experience will help guide our
multidimensional relationship with Mexico. At the present, issues
related to security, crime and law enforcement tend to dominate the
headlines, but I want to emphasize that the interests we share and the
common challenges we face are much broader and our interaction with
Mexico must reflect this. I would hope to try to make this point often
with my words and actions, if confirmed.
Our bilateral ties have never been stronger, despite the challenges
of relations as complex as we have with Mexico. If confirmed, I pledge
to work closely with you, Mr. Chairman, and your colleagues in Congress
to maintain and deepen these ties. In particular, with your continued
support, we have the opportunity to strengthen the institutions and
mechanisms to manage creatively the full range of issues the United
States and Mexico share as we move forward.
merida and the security dimension
Central to our efforts over the last 3 years has been the Merida
Initiative. Although our cooperation under the Merida Initiative began
by addressing the immediate need to combat and weaken Transnational
Criminal Organizations (TCOs), we have expanded these efforts to
include longer term Rule of Law institutional objectives (augmenting
the capacities of civilian law enforcement and security entities,
strengthening judicial and other state institutions to resist
corruption and improve the administration of justice); reinvigorating
border management; and reinforcing Mexico's efforts to create strong,
resilient communities in areas impacted by narco-violence.
This overall strategy remains sound. The strong support of the
Congress for the Merida Initiative has been, and remains, essential to
its success. As of late June, the Merida Initiative team has delivered
a cumulative total of $465 million in equipment, technical assistance,
and training since the Merida Initiative began in December 2008. One of
my principal objectives, if confirmed, will be to work with my Mexican
and United States colleagues to accelerate the implementation of the
activities and to assure that we are achieving our Merida objectives.
The Merida Initiative has sparked remarkable progress in our law
enforcement cooperation. The Cabinet-level Merida High Level
Consultative Group, which last met on April 29, under the chairmanship
of Secretary Clinton, brings the leaders of the Departments of Defense,
Homeland Security and Justice, among others, together with their
Mexican counterparts to review progress and guide the work agenda of
our enhanced engagement. In Mexico City, U.S. and Mexican colleagues
work together daily to develop, design, carry out and evaluate our
cooperative activities.
While U.S. assistance is a vital contribution, the Government of
Mexico and the Mexican people bear most of the burden--financially,
politically, and in terms of human lives--of this fight against
Transnational Organized Crime. Of over 40,000 deaths attributed to
narco-violence since December 2006, nearly 2,000 were members of the
Mexican security services. The Mexican budget for 2011 allocates over
$10 billion to security spending. In addition to the costs that Mexico
has borne, U.S. Government personnel in Mexico have also been
victimized by the violence perpetrated by the cartels and criminal
gangs. The safety of all U.S. Government officials serving at our
mission in Mexico must be a top priority. The U.S. Government employs a
range of equipment and techniques to keep them safe, and maintains an
ongoing dialogue with the Mexican Government regarding the safety of
our personnel and their families as they serve our Nation in Mexico. If
confirmed, I am committed to continuing and intensifying this
engagement, and our support for the Mexican Government's struggle
against these criminal gangs.
Building Resilient Communities
Building strong and resilient communities in areas most affected by
narco-violence is a key part of the joint Merida strategy. Under the
Todos Somos Juarez (``We are all Juarez'') program, the Mexican
Government has engaged local community groups on priorities to keep
kids out of crime, create new role models, and lure others from a world
of violence. New initiatives under Merida will support the Government
of Mexico in Juarez and give greater emphasis to work with state and
local governments who have jurisdiction over the majority of the crimes
committed in Mexico. This is a huge task but an imperative one, and, if
confirmed, I will give these efforts every attention.
As the President and Secretary Clinton and others have said, we
recognize that the problem of illicit drugs and trafficking is a shared
one and that we in the United States bear shared responsibility for the
problem as well as the solution. If confirmed, I will work to
strengthen our efforts to impede illegal weapons trafficking and
increase efforts to control money laundering and bulk cash transfer of
illicit drug money to Mexico.
As I stressed in my opening, our bilateral agenda with Mexico is
too expansive and too important to allow the relationship to be defined
exclusively by a single component part. We cannot ignore the important
economic partnership we have with Mexico.
the economic dimension--facilitating trade and enhancing
competitiveness
In the last 20 years, the economic relationship between the United
States and Mexico has been transformed, in magnitude and quality. The
resulting economic ties between our two countries are now among the
deepest in the world.
There are many different signs of this transformation. Trade, for
example, has more than quadrupled in the last 20 years to reach nearly
$400 billion in 2010, making Mexico our second-largest export market
and third-largest trading partner. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce
estimates that trade with Mexico supports more than 6 million U.S.
jobs. Those workers know that Mexico is one of our best customers--it
is a middle-income country with a growing middle class that wants to
buy a lot of the same products that Americans do. That gives our
companies a natural advantage in serving the Mexican market, as their
success in sending exports there makes clear.
Mexico is a neighboring country but the benefit of its market
extends far beyond the border. For 26 U.S. States, in fact, Mexico is
the largest or second-largest export destination. Apple growers in
Washington, cattle ranchers in Colorado, and electronics manufacturers
in California all benefit from the demand of Mexican consumers, among
dozens and dozens of other American industries. But the data shows even
the smallest American businesses--the small and medium-sized
enterprises--are most likely to trade with the markets that are the
closest to home: Mexico and Canada. All around the country, in
businesses big and small, Mexico is an important customer for American
products.
In today's globalized economy, business activities are linked
across countries like never before. Mexico is no exception. Much of our
bilateral trade takes place within the same industry or even within the
same firm, as a result of cross-border investments that have
facilitated multinational production systems and supply chains. In
fact, we don't merely trade with Mexico and Canada. It's much more than
that: we make things together. Indeed, each country has invested
heavily in each other with about $8 billion of Mexican investment in
the United States and $95 billion of U.S. investment in Mexico. This
kind of mutual integration helps make the United States more
competitive in the world, and it puts American workers at the center of
the regional economy. That is a new and different dynamic than was at
work 20 years ago, and it is a positive one that positions us to
compete more effectively against commercial rivals from around the
world.
Our economic partnership with Mexico is vital to our own
prosperity. If I am confirmed, nurturing this component of our
bilateral relationship will be a central element of my job in Mexico
City.
Building a 21st Century Border
Our security agenda and our economic agenda with Mexico meet at our
common border, one of the busiest borders in the world. Nearly 1
million legitimate travelers and more than a billion dollars' worth of
goods legally cross each day. The U.S.-Mexico Bilateral Executive
Steering Committee (ESC) was established to formulate and implement
joint concrete steps designed to enhance our economic competitiveness
and ensure that the border can meet the increasing demands put upon it
and enhance the use of its untapped economic potential. Improvements in
border-crossing infrastructure and operations are necessary to
facilitate legitimate trade and travel, keeping our trade flows secure,
reducing congestion, and lowering business costs.
Facilitating Secure and Efficient Transportation Linkages
Managing the flow of legitimate travelers and goods across the
border also depends on getting them to the border or port of entry
efficiently. The ESC is working with stakeholders on both sides of the
border to see that regional infrastructure plans are coordinated and
consistent, so trade and travel can smoothly flow to and through the
border areas of both countries. A new pilot project designed to improve
the efficiency of cross-border long-haul trucking, which will lower the
cost of commercial traffic even as it ensures that U.S. safety
standards are met--will benefit American consumers, workers, and
exporters.
Removing Unnecessary Regulatory Differences
Cumbersome and unnecessary regulatory differences raise costs for
consumers and businesses and make it more complicated to protect the
environment, health and safety of our citizens. The U.S.-Mexico High
Level Regulatory Cooperation Council is examining ways to increase
regulatory transparency, strengthen the analytic basis of regulations,
and help make regulations more compatible.
Ensuring Access to Clean and Reliable Energy
Mexico is our second-largest oil supplier, and expanded
cooperation, including on clean and renewable energy, can be crucial to
the energy security that makes our economy go. Mexico has significant
wind, solar, and geothermal energy production potential and has set a
specific greenhouse gas reduction target of 50 percent from 2002 levels
by 2050. Under the Bilateral Framework on Clean Energy and Climate
Change, there are initiatives to limit greenhouse gas emissions,
promote the development and use of clean energy technologies, and
improve energy efficiency and reliability. Mexico and the United States
also share stewardship of the Gulf of Mexico and are committed to
developing its offshore energy resources safely, responsibly, and
equitably.
people-to-people ties
One in ten Americans is estimated to be of Mexican descent, while
more than a million Americans call Mexico home, and tourism brings more
than 10 million more to Mexico for short stays. Indeed, the U.S.
consular operation in Mexico is the largest in the world in terms of
workload and staff. More broadly, Mexicans and Americans have access to
each other's TV programs and movies, we watch and cheer each other's
athletes, we enjoy each other's music and cuisine, and we send our
children to each other's schools for exchanges and study. These people-
to-people ties deserve to be cherished and strengthened by cooperation
between our governments. The strength of these human ties can help us
overcome problems that arise. If confirmed, I will work to these ends.
conclusion
The future security and well being of the United States is rooted
in a vibrant partnership with a stable, prosperous, and competitive
Mexico that shares the values of democracy, rule of law, and open
markets at home and abroad. Such a partnership requires a ``whole of
government'' approach by both partners and a spirit of good faith and
trust between us. We have made great strides toward building that kind
of partnership in recent years. Despite the evident challenges, the
U.S.-Mexico partnership is replete with promise. If confirmed I will do
my very best to help this partnership prosper in order to achieve the
mutual benefits possible for the peoples of the United States and of
Mexico.
Senator Menendez. Thank you.
Mr. Chacon.
STATEMENT OF ARNOLD CHACON, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO
THE REPUBLIC OF GUATEMALA
Mr. Chacon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar, and
Senator Rubio. Thank you for granting me the opportunity to
appear before you today as President Obama's nominee to serve
as United States Ambassador to Guatemala. I am grateful to
President Obama and to Secretary Clinton for the trust and the
confidence they have shown in sending my nomination to you for
advice and consent.
With your permission, I would like briefly to introduce my
family who is here. They have provided much love and support
throughout my career, and I am deeply grateful. My wife, Alida
Chacon, is also a member of the U.S. Foreign Service. Two of my
three children are here, Sarah and Jonathan. My eldest is
unable to be here. She is studying law at Stanford in
California. I also have my cousin, Berta Romere Fonte; her
husband, Michael; and their son, Gabriel, with me today. And
finally, my dear friend and mentor, Ambassador Vincenzo Arcos,
is here joining us today, as well as our dear friend, Ms. Eli
Ledahowsky.
Mr. Chairman, as a career member of the Foreign Service, I
have had the privilege to serve my country at home and abroad,
including five tours in Latin America. Most recently, as you
noted, I served as the Deputy Chief of Mission in Madrid. And
should you choose to confirm me, I will draw upon these
experiences in an effort to advance United States goals in
Guatemala.
Guatemala faces a number of grave challenges, including
trafficking in drugs, weapons and people, high rates of
violence, impunity and corruption, limited access to education,
and employment for the nation's burgeoning youth population,
and chronic malnutrition--child malnutrition.
As Secretary Clinton said during her June 22 conference of
support for the Central American security strategy in Guatemala
City, ``No single country can overcome such daunting challenges
on its own.'' If confirmed, I commit to promoting respect for
human rights and economic and social inclusion for all members
of society through full partnership with the governmental and
people of Guatemala, which seek to define and implement long-
term solutions that address the underlying causes of
insecurity.
Strengthening security requires a whole of society effort,
and civil society must be a full partner in this endeavor. The
Central American Regional Security Initiative, or CARSI, will
be an important tool allowing us to focus assistance where it
is needed most.
Guatemala's Presidential, legislative, and local elections
will take place this September. The United States is supporting
an Organization of American States electoral observation
mission, and we hope for free, fair, and nonviolent elections.
If confirmed, I welcome the opportunity to consult with members
of this committee and your colleagues in Congress to shape
appropriate U.S. policies leading up to and following the
elections.
Guatemala has made important strides toward reconciling
with its past. This year in a precedent-setting step forward,
President Colon's Declassification Commission facilitated the
public release of nearly 12,000 documents dating back to the
internal armed conflict. I look forward, if confirmed, to
working with the Guatemalan Government, civil society, and the
private sector, to foster further transparency and dialogue.
I am keenly aware of the critical role Guatemala's dynamic
private sector must play in shaping Guatemala's future. If
confirmed, I will encourage the private sector to support
efforts to create decent jobs for working people. I will
reiterate to both the government and the private sector the
need for Guatemala to uphold its commitments under the
Dominican Republic, Central America, and U.S. Free Trade
Agreement, including the imperative of effective enforcement of
labor laws.
Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, I will work to ensure the
protection of American citizens in Guatemala. And this begins
with the safety of our Embassy staff and their families.
Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, if confirmed and
entrusted with this office, I look forward to working with you
and your colleagues in Congress to address the opportunities
and challenges that await the next United States Ambassador to
Guatemala.
I thank you again for granting me the privilege of
appearing before you today, and I would be pleased to answer
any questions you and your colleagues may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chacon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Arnold Chacon
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for granting
me the opportunity to appear before you today as President Obama's
nominee to serve as the United States Ambassador to Guatemala. I am
grateful to President Obama and Secretary Clinton for the trust and
confidence they have shown in sending my nomination to you for advice
and consent. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with you
and your colleagues to advance the interests of the United States.
With the chairman's permission, I would like to take a moment to
introduce my family and to thank them for their love and support. With
me today are my wife, Alida, also a member of the U.S. Foreign Service,
as well as two of my three children, Sarah and Jonathan. My brother,
Michael Chacon of Denver, CO, is also here. Unfortunately, my eldest
daughter, Helen, a student at Stanford Law School, could not be with us
today.
As a career member of the Foreign Service, I have had the privilege
to serve my country at home at the Department of State and abroad,
including five tours in Latin America in Honduras, Chile, Mexico, Peru,
and Ecuador. Most recently, I served as the Deputy Chief of Mission in
Madrid. Should you choose to confirm me, I will draw upon these
experiences in an effort to advance U.S. goals in Guatemala. And if
confirmed, I look forward to consulting with this committee in this
effort.
Guatemala today faces a number of grave challenges, including
trafficking in drugs, weapons, and people; high rates of violence;
impunity and corruption; limited access to education and employment for
the nation's burgeoning youth population; and chronic child
malnutrition. As Secretary Clinton said during the June 22 Conference
of Support for the Central American Security Strategy in Guatemala
City, no single country can overcome such daunting challenges on its
own. If confirmed, I commit to promoting respect for human rights and
economic and social inclusion for all members of society. Through full
partnership with the government and people of Guatemala, we seek to
define and implement long-term solutions that address the underlying
causes of insecurity. If confirmed, I will work with Guatemalan
leaders, including the President and his or her ministers, the Attorney
General and the Police Reform Commissioner, as well as members of civil
society and the international community, including the International
Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala, to support efforts to reform
rule of law and justice sector institutions.
Strengthening security requires a whole-of-society effort, and
civil society must be a full partner in this endeavor. The Central
America Regional Security Initiative, or CARSI, will be an important
tool, allowing us to focus assistance where it is needed most. CARSI
will continue to build the capacity of civilian law enforcement
personnel and institutions, assist the government in maintaining an
effective state presence throughout the country, strengthen the
capacity of investigators, prosecutors, and judges to prosecute cases
to conviction, and work to mitigate the root causes of crime and
insecurity that lead to youth membership in gangs.
Guatemala's Presidential, legislative, and local elections will
take place this September. The United States is supporting an
Organization of the American States electoral observation mission, and
we hope for free, fair, and nonviolent elections. If confirmed, I
welcome the opportunity to consult with members of this committee and
your colleagues in the Congress to shape appropriate U.S. policies
leading up to and following the elections.
Guatemala has made important strides toward reconciling with its
past. In a major step forward this year, President Colom's
declassification commission facilitated the public release of nearly
12,000 documents dating back to the internal armed conflict. This was a
precedent-setting, long-awaited step, and reflects a commitment to
transparency. I look forward, if confirmed, to working with the
Guatemalan Government, civil society, and the private sector to foster
further transparency and dialogue.
The United States is Guatemala's top trading partner and largest
foreign investor with two-way trade of $7.7 billion and U.S. investment
of over $960 million, particularly in the manufacturing, wholesale
trade, finance, and insurance industries. If confirmed, I will focus on
our valuable trade and investment relationship and seek to increase
business opportunities for U.S. companies in the Guatemalan market. One
way I will specifically work to strengthen economic ties with
Guatemala, if confirmed, will be to advocate for transparency and the
rule of law in business transactions as Guatemala improves its business
environment and strengthens its economy. If confirmed, I also intend to
engage with Guatemala's dynamic private sector, as I am keenly aware of
the critical role they must play in shaping Guatemala's future. I will
seek opportunities for enhanced trade leading to job creation in both
the United States and Guatemala, and encourage the private sector to
support efforts to create decent jobs for working people. At the same
time, if confirmed, I will reiterate to both the government and the
private sector the need for Guatemala to uphold its commitments under
the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade
Agreement, including the imperative of effective enforcement of labor
laws.
Most importantly, if confirmed, I will work to ensure the
protection of American citizens in Guatemala. This begins with the
safety of our Embassy staff and their families.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, if confirmed and
entrusted with this office, I look forward to working with you and your
colleagues in Congress to address the opportunities and challenges that
await the next U.S. Ambassador to Guatemala.
I thank you again for granting me the privilege of appearing before
you today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you and your
colleagues may have.
Senator Menendez. Thank you very much.
We will start off with rounds of 7 minutes, and then see
where we go from there.
Ambassador Wayne, you were the Deputy Ambassador and
coordinating director for Development and Economic Affairs in
Afghanistan. As such, did you have oversight of USAID's
programs in Afghanistan?
Ambassador Wayne. Yes, sir, I did.
Senator Menendez. OK.
Ambassador Wayne. It was a new position created to look
over all of our assistance programs, USAID, also the law
enforcement agencies. Anyway, we were helping to build capacity
for the Afghan Government.
Senator Menendez. Did you do any audits? Were there any
audits conducted while you were there?
Ambassador Wayne. There were a whole range of inspections
done when I was there, both internal inspections by the AID.
There were some--there was GAO work done. We had, as you know,
a special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction. So,
there were multiple inspections that have been done.
Senator Menendez. I ask that question because obviously we
have a very significant presence in Mexico with the Merida
Initiative and other engagements. In Afghanistan, my
understanding is that we have powerplants we have built to the
tune of $250 million which cannot be operated because the
Karzai government cannot afford diesel fuel to operate them.
Hence, we build a plant, we spend a quarter of a billion
dollars, and they are not operational.
Ambassador Wayne. Well, there is a powerplant near Kabul,
and there was a critical inspection report done that was
critical making those points that this plant was built to run
on diesel fuel, and the plant is perfectly operational, and
does operate. But the point was made that the diesel fuel is
very expensive, and that now there is energy coming down from
Uzbekistan, electricity, that is the primary source of energy
for Kabul.
The plant was constructed--begun a number of years ago,
including before I got there. But the notion, as I understand
it, at the time that they began constructing the plant was that
it was not clear that there was going to be electricity coming
from Uzbekistan, and that it was only over a several year
period while this plant was being built that the electric
connection was made and the agreements were reached with
Uzbekistan.
And the arrival of electricity in Kabul has made a
tremendous difference. So, in part, yes, the plant was
constructed as what has turned out to be a secondary----
Senator Menendez. It is my understanding we are doing the
same thing in Kandahar. My point here is not to go through an
Iraq thing, I will do that a different time and in a different
location. But if we are going to spend $250 million on a plant
that at the end of the day, for whatever reason, is
operational, but not being operated, I question the long-term
thinking of our investment decisions in terms of assistance.
So, I turn now to Mexico and look at the Merida Initiative.
And I say to myself, we are doing something that I have
supported, that is incredibly important. And I believe it
speaks to shared responsibility with the Mexican people and the
Mexican Government. But are we making the right investments in
Merida to achieve our mutual goals, to help the Mexican
Government both fight the narcotics traffickers and, at the
same time, build the institutions that are necessary for long-
term justice and transparency in Mexico?
Ambassador Wayne. Well, you pose exactly the right
questions, Senator. And those were the same questions that we
were posing, say, in Afghanistan also as we looked at our
programs.
I think in my initial review of what we are doing in
Merida, it does seem that we are moving in the right direction
to provide that kind of outcome. There has been a mix, I think
as you know, of equipment delivered, but also training and
technical assistance, which is training by the specialized
people working together. And that really has touched a large
number of Mexican officials. For example, there have been about
13,000 federal police prosecutors, correction staff, that have
received rule of law and capacity building training over the
past 3 years, and another 23,000 have received training on the
transformation that is going on between the inquisitorial
justice system to an oral accusation based system in order to
reform the whole set of rule of law institutions in that
country. These are efforts to actually teach the practitioners
how to learn from best practices around the world. And, of
course, we are doing this in full support and with the full
cooperation of the Government of Mexico to pursue their
objectives.
Equipment has been delivered--11 helicopters, new computer
systems, and immigration related systems to allow for better
biometric tracking and other tracking of immigrants coming in
and out of the country. But all of this, as far as I have been
able to tell so far in preparing for this, is directed at
achieving the objectives that you supported in funding this.
One of the things that I want to be sure about if I am
confirmed is that we are really moving toward, in a measurable
way, achieving these objectives. We owe it to ourselves and to
you and to the American people to have credible proof that
there is progress being made. There has been some success. As
you know very well, the Government of Mexico has taken out of
operation 29 or so of the leaders of the cartels during this
period. I think at least some of that is due to the good
information-sharing mechanisms and structures that have been
built up. But there is a lot more to do.
Senator Menendez. Well, I certainly applaud President
Calderon. I mean, I believe he is the first Mexican President
that has really taken on the drug traffickers; and as he has
taken them on, increased violence has ensued. I worry, however,
when I listen to some of the voices here in the United States
and in the Congress that want us to fight the drug traffickers
but constantly speak about the violence. Unfortunately, you
cannot fight the drug traffickers and not have violence ensue
as a result of it.
And so, they use that as an aspersion about what is
happening in Mexico, when in fact, had the Mexican President
not taken on the cartels in a very frontal and decisive way,
then there would not have been the ensuing violence. So, it is
a complex concern that people in the United States portray in a
certain way, but at the end of the day, is the very essence of
what we want to see in one dimension.
I have many other questions about economics and whatnot,
but my time has expired, and I will turn to Senator Lugar.
Senator Lugar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chacon----
Senator Menendez. Senator Lugar, if I may, just one moment.
Senator Lugar. Yes.
Senator Menendez. I want to welcome Ambassador Arcos back
to the committee. He has been here many times in the past. From
when I first came to Congress, he has been an insightful voice
on much of what we do in the Western Hemisphere and beyond. And
it is great to see him looking so well. There is life after the
State Department I see. [Laughter.]
I am sorry. Senator Lugar.
Senator Lugar. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chacon, I want to inquire about the hundreds of
American families who are attempting to adopt children in
Guatemala, and those adoptions have been in limbo now for the
better part of 4 years with endless delays. And this has
caused, it seems to me, suffering by children who would have
had many years of emotional, intellectual development here with
those dedicated families.
I commend my colleague, Senator Mary Landrieu, who recently
visited Guatemala with a delegation in hopes of prodding the
government to resolve these issues.
I want to know, first of all, are you aware of the dilemma,
and do you pledge to try to work tirelessly to resolve these
situations so that this will benefit Guatemalan children as
well as our relationship with Guatemala?
Mr. Chacon. Thank you, Senator Lugar. Yes, I am well aware
of this problem that is a heart wrenching issue, to be sure. It
involves hundreds of America families, prospective adoptive
parents. I understand at this point there is some 350 to 400
pending cases. To be sure, this is down from the thousands that
there were originally. If confirmed, you can count on me
committing my support to American families during this trying
time. I will urge the Government of Guatemala to put in place a
Hague compliant process, and to address these issues as soon as
possible.
Senator Lugar. I appreciate very much that testimony, and I
am certain that will be reassuring to the many families who
have spent countless thousands of dollars, as well as their own
personal efforts to help resolves these cases.
Let me ask likewise with regard to Guatemala, that there
currently is a ban on United States international military
education and training funds in Guatemala. Would you discuss
the reasons for that and how this might be resolved so that
Guatemala has better ability to work with the United States in
terms of border security and the drug trafficking, which we
have commented on in our opening statements?
Mr. Chacon. You are correct, Senator, in that there is a
ban against providing assistance to Guatemalan army, IMET and
FMF assistance per congressional mandate.
We provide lots of assistance to the Guatemalan army corps
of engineers, to the Guatemalan navy, and the Guatemalan air
force. We also provide peacekeeping training assistance as
well. All of our training is vetted in accordance with Leahy
amendment provisions, and we are very scrupulous on that front.
The challenge in Guatemala, of course, is standing up a
civilian law enforcement capacity. They should have the primary
role, and our programs are directed in that effort.
We do provide the military with assistance from our
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement Fund and
from counternarcotics assistance from the Department of Defense
because they play an important secondary role in supporting the
civilian law enforcement effort in Guatemala.
The situation hopefully is evolving. It takes a whole of
society effort to deal with this problem of narco-trafficking
and crime. And if confirmed, I will pay close attention to what
is needed, evaluate our programs for their efficacy, and look
to see how we might be able to expand our assistance in this
regard.
Senator Lugar. Well, what do you think will be needed for
the lifting of this specific ban on U.S. military education and
training at this point?
Mr. Chacon. As you know, I am just reading into Guatemala.
I have a lot to learn yet. I hope to consult with my country
team on the ground if confirmed to find out where we can best
place our assistance. And, as I said, we are open to looking at
every avenue of assistance that Guatemala needs, because this
is certainly a dire situation that they are facing.
Senator Lugar. Ambassador Wayne, let me ask, it has been a
long-time discussion with Mexico about its oil industry. And
sometimes in our hearings, as oil has been mentioned, it raises
enormous emotions. I can remember going to conferences in
Mexico in which people equated oil almost the same as our
blood, the equivalent, and, therefore, touching any part of
this was really out of the question.
On the other hand, the oil industry has been in decline now
for some time. This has meant loss of income for Mexico and
loss of energy security really for the Western Hemisphere
because of the Mexican-United States relationship. This should
be very important for us.
Do you see any possibilities in this circumstance of the
relationship evolving in a different way in which the
nationalistic monopoly might really lead to some degree of
foreign investment, some refurbishing of the vitality of the
oil industry of Mexico?
Ambassador Wayne. Well, Senator, you correctly described
the sensitivity of the energy issues in Mexico. And clearly any
evolution in their policies will have to come out of a domestic
consensus in Mexico.
What I can say is that we have been having a regular
dialogue on these important energy issues. Mexico is our second
supplier for oil. We have been exploring also alternative
energy sources and how we can support that, including such
things as wind energy in Baja, CA, and how that can be helpful,
both for Mexico and potentially for the United States.
We have been looking intensely at a number of the technical
issues on the electricity grid that crosses the border and to
make sure there is more efficiency and more consistency in
that. And we have talked about delineating our maritime border,
which is also very important in the gulf for these questions.
But I think that, to come back to your main question, there
will have to be an evolution in thinking in Mexico. And, of
course, it is a very important topic. And I know they are
coming into an electoral year. My guess is that the election of
the new President will be the primary thing being debated in
this upcoming year. But, of course, we are ready to work
constructively with our partners on this very important topic.
Senator Lugar. Thank you very much, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Menendez. Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Menendez.
We just recently--and I am directing my question here to
Mr. Wayne. Mr. Wayne, we just had a recent meeting of the
Mexico-U.S. Interparliamentary Group. Senator Menendez was
there, and I think spoke to some of the issues. We had
participation by, I think, 8 to 10 Mexican parliamentarians,
and then pretty good participation on our side. And it was
really obvious that there are a lot of challenges that we have
with Mexico.
And one of them has to do with the North American
Development Bank, which I think you are probably familiar with,
that grew out of NAFTA. And we discussed that at this meeting.
And according to multiple economic studies, including studies
by the World Bank, ecological services also provide economic
benefits to the people.
And with regard to reforms of the North American
Development Bank, I believe there is still work that needs to
be done to improve basic services, such as clean water and
clean air in the region. And I think that was really the thrust
of this bank being put into place.
Do you believe there is a way to continue this mission
while also opening the North American Development Bank to
reforms, which can improve economic development, such as
allowing the NAB Bank to be used as a funding source to help
renewable energy companies get off the ground? And would the
administration support such negotiations in the future?
Ambassador Wayne. Senator, first, welcome.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Ambassador Wayne. It is a pleasure to have you here. And,
second, I am very happy that there is a lively
interparliamentary exchange going on with Mexico. In my
experience, where we have a good exchange between Parliaments
and Congresses, we really have a good relationship. So, thank
you for doing that. Thank you, Senator Menendez, also for
participating in that exchange.
On the NAB Bank itself, I am going to have to say I will
need to go back and study that a bit. When I last left NAB Bank
activities, the NAB Bank was struggling to get going on its
basic mission. I now understand that they have been quite
successful in launching and supporting projects related to the
environment in many areas within its domain of responsibility.
I would be very happy to take back and work with my
colleagues and talk with them about possibilities for that
future mandate, in addition to consolidating and continuing the
very important role that it has right now.
And I know it is making--I am really happy that it is
making a difference on both sides of the border. That was its
intention when it was established, and it took a few years to
get going. But I am happy that it is now fully active and
engaged.
Senator Udall. Great. Well, that is good to hear. Changing
direction and focusing a little bit on what I believe Senator
Menendez focused earlier on the Merida Initiative, do you think
we should be worried as a country with Mexico headed into this
2012 Presidential election about possible changes or change in
position by their government on the Merida Initiative? We heard
from the parliamentarians, and they seem to be very strong on
the fact that they thought whoever was elected based on
positions already taken, that there would be solid support.
But I am wondering what your thoughts are on this, and do
you see changes in the making? Are you going to be going to
Mexico with the idea of influencing the process so that we
have--obviously not getting involved in the Presidential
election, but doing what you can to make sure that we have
solid support there from any administration?
Ambassador Wayne. Well, certainly if confirmed, Senator, I
will look forward to meeting with the range of political
leaders and actors in Mexico and discussing as the primary
point that will come up, of course, our ongoing cooperation,
and the importance of that cooperation, the good that has been
done in that, and the challenges ahead.
I have heard the same thing in my initial consultations
that you heard from your Mexican congressional colleagues, that
there is a strong consensus that this effort needs to continue.
There has been criticism, as I understand, of course, of the
level of violence, but I have not heard of any alternative
strategies that have been put forward.
I think that if confirmed, I will very much try to do is to
maintain and strengthen the consensus for our cooperation in
this battle against transnational criminal organizations. And I
think there, of course, since Mexico is really on the front
line here in this shared effort, that is a very strong interest
across the political spectrum in continuing this effort.
Senator Udall. Thank you. And just a quick question here to
Mr. Chacon.
As you are aware, the Guatemalan people have a chronic
malnutrition problem with their children, and it is persistent,
and it has a strong ethnic and geographic dimensions. The
relative level is 69 percent in indigenous populations and 35
percent nonindigenous.
How will proposed cuts to USAID impact the efforts to
combat hunger and poverty in Guatemala?
Mr. Chacon. Thank you, Senator. You are so right about the
shocking statistics about chronic child malnutrition in our
hemisphere, worse than even in the African Continent. This is
an area that our USAID mission targets very, very carefully and
seriously. We have some $97 million devoted to assistance to
such programs so that we can attack the underlying problems
that really account for many of Guatemala's issues.
Three Presidential initiatives. One is Feed the Future, a
very important and effective and well-funded program. Obviously
we would love to have more resources, but the resources that we
have, I think we are able to make an important impact. We do
have an international global health initiative as well that
affects and serves this population. But if confirmed, I will
ensure that our taxpayer dollars are spent very effectively in
this most important area.
Senator Udall. Thank you. And sorry for running over a bit.
Appreciate your courtesies.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Menendez. Senator Rubio.
Senator Rubio. Thank you. And, again, thank you both for
your willingness to do this.
Let me touch upon something I talked about with both of you
when we met individually, and that was trafficking in persons,
which I think is a global problem. It is not an issue just in
Mexico, Guatemala, or the Western Hemisphere. It is a global
problem.
What I am concerned about, and I know you have shared that
as well, is that this demand for trafficking in persons is
combined with the dysfunctional immigration policy that we have
in this country, and the presence of transnational criminal
organization in the region that facilitate this. I hope this
will be a priority for both of you.
First, is that something you think could be a cornerstone
of our involvement and our engagement with these governments?
And, second, any ideas you may have now or in the future--I
know you mentioned in your opening statements about people-to-
people contacts and the implications that has had on human
smuggling. But any thoughts you could share with us about what
we can do on this end of the equation to make that a priority
issue.
Ambassador Wayne. Senator, thank you very much. I fully
agree with the priority that you have suggested on trafficking
in persons. When I was Ambassador to Argentina, this was one of
my highest priorities, and I was very, very pleased that
working with Argentine officials and civil society, we did make
some significant progress in that country in taking on this
problem.
It is a very, very serious problem for Mexico, for its
Central American neighbors. The Government of Mexico recognizes
that trafficking is a serious problem. It has taken steps to
stop traffickers, to prosecute them, to assist victims. But
there is more clearly that needs to be done.
Right now, the capacity needs to be bolstered in Mexico.
There is very good will, and there are very good individuals.
Secretary Clinton recently recognized a prosecutor from Mexico
for her efforts to get the first convictions in trafficking
cases.
What I can say is that we need to continue to be good
partners. Sometimes that is providing technical assistance,
training, sometimes equipment, and encouragement. But the real
efforts, of course, has to be on the part of the Mexican
officials to strengthen their practices to get all of their law
enforcement people, really to give this the priority that it
deserves. And it is going to be an ongoing effort, and if
confirmed, it will be a priority for me.
Mr. Chacon. Senator, I would echo Ambassador Wayne comments
about this being a high, high priority for me if confirmed.
Guatemala has come a ways in improving their record. They were
on a Tier Two Watch List, and they are now at a Tier Two. And
that is because the government financed shelter for adults and
primarily women that they constructed in the last year that has
gone a long way to addressing this problem.
Too often when we look at security initiatives, I think we
overlook the gender perspective. And I am grateful to our
Congress that has encouraged legislative reforms in Guatemala
to bring Guatemala into line with international standards
regarding discrimination, violence against women.
Guatemala is under funding the units necessary for
investigating these horrible crimes, and in particular child
sex tourism is something they need to pay more close attention
to.
Again, if confirmed, this is an area that my team and I
will be actively engaged in.
Senator Rubio. Interrelated to that is the issue that, or
course, I think domestically often dominates the conversation
with regards to Mexico, but I think all of Central America, and
that is these issues regarding migration. Obviously the border
issue is an important one, but what we have in the region more
than just a border is a corridor, a migration corridor, that
extends throughout Central America.
I want to put aside the legal aspects of it for a moment,
and these are all very important. Border security is important.
Adherence to the law is important. The economic impacts of
immigration, positive and negative, are important.
I want to focus for a second on the human aspect of it and
the humanitarian aspect of it, because the things that are
happening in that corridor, along that desert on both sides of
that border from a human perspective, are atrocious. You have
individuals that are dying in the desert, people that are being
preyed upon by gangs and others in the region.
I recently read a couple of reports that cite something
that just chills up my spine where right before making the
journey, some women stop and get access to birth control
medication because they expect to be raped in that transition
point. Whether it ends up happening or not, that is the
expectation. This is a humanitarian issue of extraordinary
proportions, and I think it will be a major issue we will both
confront.
An honest assessment of it is that both sides of the border
have contributed to this problem. I wanted to see any insight
you have right now on what are the drivers behind this, because
for someone to submit themselves to this sort of horrifying
process, the drivers behind it have to be significant.
And I understand what the domestic drivers are here on this
end of it, and we have to focus on those in an honest way. I am
interested in any perspective you have now, or maybe you can
share in the future once you are in your posts, because this
has to be confronted. The humanitarian aspect of this has to be
confronted holistically. And I was hoping you could share any
thoughts you have on that because I do think that will be an
important point moving forward.
Ambassador Wayne. Senator, obviously you are correct, the
humanitarian costs and suffering that go on both from Mexican
immigrants and from Central American immigrants trying to pass
through Mexico and come into the United States deserve our full
attention.
The drivers of these movements I want to get in place in
Mexico, if you confirm me, first before giving you a full view.
But clearly there is economic opportunity. There is not seeing
the prospect for your future in your home area that really does
drive people to try and make this long, and as you say, they
often know it is going to be a perilous journey.
I have read several studies in preparing for this hearing
that have noted how the flows from Mexico have actually dropped
off over the past several years. And they have cited three or
four different reasons for that: one, the economic downturn in
the United States; two, the steps that we have taken to
reinforce a presence at the border; three, the challenges of
the dangers along the way; and then, four, some of the
alternative opportunities that are available in Mexico for
education and for jobs.
And I think this needs to remain a priority area of
attention for us, and I will be very happy after I have been on
the ground for a while, if you all give me the nod, to share
some more thoughts with you about that.
Mr. Chacon. Senator, you raise a very, very important
issue. I think some of the drivers, certainly with respect to
Guatemala, is the fact that it has one of the most unequal
income distributions in the world, I think number 12. Fifty-one
percent of the country lives in poverty, and 74 percent of that
number involve the indigenous.
This is why we are seeking to have an integrated strategic
approach, regional approach to this problem. As you know,
Secretary Clinton was recently in Guatemala for an important
security conference. But in addition to the seven Central
American Presidents, you had the President of Mexico and the
President of Colombia there. I think that was an important
signal that there is a shared responsibility, and that the
countries need to work together to promote the respect for
human lives and the rule of law. And if confirmed, I will
ensure that our programs are targeted for those that are the
most affected by the poverty in Guatemala.
Senator Menendez. Thank you. Let me return to you,
Ambassador.
First of all, is it your view that the border between the
United States and Mexico is a shared responsibility?
Ambassador Wayne. Yes, sir. There is a northward and
southward flow.
Senator Menendez. And in that respect, to what extent has
the controversy surrounding ATF's Fast and Furious operation
created challenges in our bilateral efforts, particularly to
combat firearms trafficking?
Ambassador Wayne. Well, I have been, of course up until
now, an observer, as you are, or even less than you are because
you are an elected Member of the Senate. But clearly there has
been a critical reaction in Mexico to the reports about this
operation. And clearly there is a controversy in the United
States upon the reports of this operation. But all I know about
it, very honestly, is what I have read in the press.
Senator Menendez. If you are confirmed by the Senate, would
you tell this committee that you will take control at your
Embassy of ensuring that you are informed of any operations
that take place by ATF or any other entity as it relates to
such operations like Fast and Furious?
Ambassador Wayne. Yes, sir. I am a strong believer in Chief
of Mission authority. I am a strong believer that there needs
to be transparency on any operations by U.S. Government
agencies with the ambassador within the country of
responsibility. And not only because of the ambassador's
responsibility, but for the effectiveness of these operations.
There needs to be transparency. There needs to be an
understanding of what is planned and a discussion of the
possible pros and cons of any said operation before it is
undertaken.
Senator Menendez. Turning to a different page--this is part
of your expertise--how do we strengthen what are already very
strong economic ties with Mexico? Mexico's growth rate is
something we would like to see actually take place here. How do
we strengthen those ties and enhance upon, at the same that we
have all of these border issues, including cross border
commercial traffic?
Ambassador Wayne. Well, one of the priorities under the
Merida Initiative is creating a 21st century border. And as
part of that initiative, we have set up several mechanisms
actually to start looking at the border from the point of view
of increasing efficiency in addition to increasing security.
And looking at the plans for improving infrastructure, looking
at ways in which you might not have 2-hour delays by having
different procedures that can allow certain kind of goods that
might be precleared, passed through in a faster way.
That work is going on right now precisely with one of the
goals being increasing the efficiency, the competitiveness, of
that border for both partners.
Of course, in addition, the dialogue that we have Mexican
officials and between private sectors with the American and
Mexican investors on both sides of the border, to get their
perception as to what things could help our competitiveness.
There is a regulatory dialogue, for example, that is now
going on to look at regulations on both sides that may be
impeding travel, and is there a way to make those regulations
more harmonious so that businesses on both sides can function
more efficiently? And I think it is these kind of dialogues to
identify the specific steps that we can take that can help
increase efficiencies.
And once you have these dialogues going on, also you start
picking up what are the key issues that need to be addressed,
even if they cannot be fixed in the next 6 months? What do you
need to have as your agenda over the several years ahead? And I
look forward to participating and encouraging that kind of
dialogue also.
Senator Menendez. And one final question before I turn to
Mr. Chacon. I do not want you to feel as if no attention it's
being paid to you.
Let me ask you, even as we applaud the Mexican Government's
efforts to take on the narcotics cartels, the reality is, there
is always potential for abuses of human rights. In that
respect, the Mexican military, the federal police have become
primary recipients of U.S. security assistance. And yet, there
is an alarming, growing volume of human rights complaints, of
abuses, that include arbitrary detention, torture, and unlawful
killings allegedly committed by members of the Mexican
military.
Will you as the Ambassador pay significant attention to
these issues working with Mexican authorities?
Ambassador Wayne. Yes, sir, I will, definitely. Human
rights has to be a high priority. I believe it is a high
priority for many in Mexico also. And I know that we do have a
vibrant and regular dialogue with Mexican officials when these
allegations come forward. And I certainly will have that as a
priority if I am confirmed. Thank you.
Senator Rubio. Mr. Chacon, I have been very interested in
the reality that as we support Merida we sort of like squeeze
the balloon at one end, and then it pops out at the end. That
means Central America and, of course, Guatemala at the
forefront of that.
I am worried that, notwithstanding CARSI, that capacity to
be able to deal with the challenge by Central American
governments certainly, and Guatemala as a prime example of it,
is challenged. How do we help the Guatemalans build up its
capacity to confront the threat that is already within its
midst, and do it in a way that makes a significant difference?
If you were there, what would you view as priorities and
recommendations to the committee to be able to effectuate this
in a more powerful way?
Mr. Chacon. Thank you, Senator. I think fundamentally the
challenges to create safe streets so that Guatemalans can live
in their neighborhoods, their children can go to school, they
can take public transportation without, you know, facing, you
know, these horrible criminal acts against them. And to do
that, we need to continue to work on many different fronts.
As you know, the effect of the balloon requires an
integrated regional strategy. We cannot just look at Guatemala
in a vacuum. We are paying particular attention to the northern
triangle countries of Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala
because the threat is transnational in nature. They are very
similar and have similar challenges.
That means getting at the networks and the nodes of the
criminals and the contraband that have effected these
countries. It means supporting government accountability. There
are a couple of successful projects in Guatemala of community
policing where you have the input of community, and it's
working well in a couple of the areas where it has been tried.
Again, it is a matter of giving the Guatemalan people
confidence.
To be sure, Guatemala needs to reestablish a state presence
in areas that are vulnerable, and that can be both in Guatemala
City neighborhoods, urban neighborhoods, as well as in remote
areas. But they need to do a better job of projecting and
improving their security so that in fact they can provide the
social services to these areas that need them so much.
And finally, again, they need to coordinate and cooperate
with their neighbors. And this is a shared responsibility. They
need to devote more resources themselves because we are a
partner in this effort, and without their political will, we
cannot accomplish what we need to.
Senator Menendez. Well, I appreciate those answers,
particularly the statements about having and working with the
Guatemalans to have their access toward all of their whole
country. I note unfortunately in the northern Peten region of
Guatemala, 27 laborers on May 14 were slaughtered and
decapitated by members of the international criminal band known
as Las Zetas. And this is an example unfortunately of the
challenge that exists.
So, if confirmed, I would really appreciate your input as
to what are the capacity issues and our ability to strengthen
capacity. I am totally for working in the regional context in
Central America, but working regionally without capacity
individually is a problem. And so, I look forward to hearing
your insights when you are on the ground as it relates to that.
Mr. Chacon. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Menendez. Let me ask you two other questions, and
then I will stop. Human rights has been an issue here. Outgoing
Ambassador McFarland has been vocal in his support for human
rights and for victims of human rights violations, even
accompanying victims to their trials. And his active engagement
has been very highly acclaimed and valued by Guatemalan civil
society organizations. Would you continue to make that a
priority of your ambassadorship should you be confirmed?
Mr. Chacon. Absolutely, Senator. That is what distinguishes
us from the world, the fact that we promote sincerely respect
for human rights and rule of the law. And that will be my
highest priority to continue in that tradition.
Senator Menendez. Finally, we have presidential elections
coming up, and to me as one observer, both of them raise some
concern about Guatemala's democracy moving forward. Otto Perez
Molina was a general during the counterinsurgency campaign in
the 1980s, and he was director of military intelligence in the
1990s. Human rights groups have raised questions about his ties
to death squads and his pledge to combat crime with a mano dura
(an iron fist). At the same time, he is also known for efforts
to advocate for legal and security reform and for his role as a
military negotiator for the peace accords. So, I look at an
individual with two different trajectories, and I wonder which
one is going to appear should he be elected president.
On the other hand, Sandra Torres, who is in a--I do not
know whether she will be a candidate or not based upon the
supreme court's decisions. But what does the message of the
election of either candidate send about the country's
commitment to democracy, security, and human rights?
Mr. Chacon. Senator, since Guatemala's return to democracy
in 1985, they have had some six elections that were
characterized as free and fair. In a country with a troubled
past, I think that is a significant accomplishment. I think it
speaks to their commitment to democracy. It is imperfect.
We urge the candidates to run responsible campaigns, to
abstain from inflammatory rhetoric that could incite violence,
and to abide by all of the applicable rules of the electoral
process. Underpinning our support for democracy, there again,
is making very clear, reiterating time and again the importance
of respect for human rights in whatever that they do.
Senator Menendez. Yes, Senator Lugar.
Senator Lugar. Ambassador Wayne, finally, the long-standing
trucking dispute between the United States and Mexico has been
resolved. If you can, describe what problems remain there with
the resolution. Has the truck situation flowed freely, or are
there obstructions that you will need to work on?
Ambassador Wayne. Well, Senator, you are correct that this
has been a longstanding and difficult issue. And I was very
happy to see on July 6th the signing of an agreement to move
toward resolving these differences.
As you know, Mexico had put a number of retaliatory tariffs
in place, in fact, more than 2 billion dollars' worth of
tariffs. And as part of the agreement, they will remove those
tariffs on U.S. goods, including, I believe, probably some
agricultural goods from your State. So, we are very happy with
that. They will be cut in half immediately, and they will
disappear within a few months.
The new program is still a limited program, and it has
specific conditions on it. And this was designed, I am told,
after consultations with Members of Congress, with safety
advocates, with industry representatives, and others who raised
a wide range of concerns.
So, for example, the trucks will be required to comply with
all Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and they must have
electronic monitoring systems to track compliance.
The Department of Transportation will review the complete
driving record of each driver and require drug testing with
samples to be analyzed by the Department of Health and Human
Services at certified laboratories in the United States.
The Department will also require drivers to undergo an
assessment of their ability to understand the English language
and read our traffic signs. And the agreement assures that U.S.
carriers can have reciprocal rights in the United States.
I think the need right now is to just start implementing
the agreement to see that it works well in practice, and helps
address the concerns that have been expressed in the United
States from some sectors. But it is, I think, an important step
forward, and it should be, I hope, if all goes well, a boost to
our bilateral economic relationship.
Senator Lugar. I appreciate your explaining that in detail
as a part of our hearing record because it is very important
that we work closely, and that will be your responsibility if
confirmed to make certain that all of these details and
requirements are met, likewise, that that tariffs are reduced.
And so that much we have hoped for in terms of our trade with
Mexico will not be obstructed.
Ambassador Wayne. Exactly.
Senator Lugar. But I join you in relief that some progress
has been made and that an agreement is important.
Without getting into difficulties here, and this may be an
issue essentially for you to discuss. But what can be done
really to bridge differences that were caused by the expulsion
of Ambassador Pascual from Mexico? What lingering issues lie
from that situation?
Ambassador Wayne. Well, I think what is essential is that
we do have a relationship where we can be frank and that we
have confidence in each other. And what I can report, it is my
understanding that a kind of cooperation on a range of issues
has continued during this period of time, and has continued
with good results, as is evidenced by the trucking agreement.
It will certainly be my intention, if confirmed, to work to
build that kind of a relation of confidence with President
Calderon and his administration, with other political actors in
the country, with civil society, and to reach out in as many
ways as possible to have a good dialogue with key members of
Mexico's society, and to use that to strengthen the
relationship that we have between us.
Very fortunately, the relationship is so big and so strong
and so important that it does continue. But as you well know,
even in these big strong relationships, it needs good tending
along the way by many different people. And I look forward,
with your approval, to being one of those good tenders.
Senator Lugar. Finally, in addition to an election that
will be held in the United States for the Presidency in 2012,
there will be an election held in Mexico in 2012.
Ambassador Wayne. Right.
Senator Lugar. And at least initially, in some of the
campaign oratory, if one can project that far along, there have
been at least some fears in the United States that the
contenders would take the Merida Initiative less seriously or
somehow move away from the intensity of leadership in this area
that President Calderon has exemplified. Is this the case, or
do you have any feel for electoral politics and the trend of
affairs, because clearly if there was some downplaying of this
cooperation with regard to gang warfare and so forth, that
would be very, very sad for both of our countries.
Ambassador Wayne. Senator, I agree with you. As you know
much better than I, once you get into an election, you are not
sure where the issues will take you and where the candidates
will place themselves.
In my understanding so far, certainly there has----
Senator Menendez. That is a very diplomatic way of saying
that. [Laughter.]
Ambassador Wayne. That is 36 years of training in there,
sir. [Laughter.]
Ambassador Wayne. My understanding so far, there has, of
course, been criticism as well as support for the current
efforts. But I have not, in my queries to date, have not seen
anybody who has put forward an alternative plan to the good
cooperation that is going on and the basic strategy that is
going on. There will no doubt be some candidates that will be
critical.
I think the job of all of us, partially me as Ambassador
and all of us who care about the relationship and have
dialogued with Mexican officials and members of that society,
in the months ahead will be to stress the importance of this
cooperation. And then try to determine where the basis of
consensus is across the spectrum for this important
cooperation.
Senator Lugar. Well, your efforts in this respect will be
tremendously important.
I just wanted to conclude by saying that I appreciate the
service that both of you have given to our country, and
likewise to the relationships between the United States and the
nations in which you have served. And I look forward to
supporting both of you very strongly as diplomats of stature
and people who I believe will have the confidence of the
American people, and should likewise have the confidence of
Mexicans and Guatemalans.
Thank you for your appearance today.
Ambassador Wayne. Thank you very much.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Senator Lugar. Let me just
finish off on a point Senator Lugar made.
Of course we recognize the sovereign right of Mexico's
people to decide their country's course and future. I would
say, however, that regardless who controls a majority in Mexico
after the next elections, Mexico's sovereignty is challenged
not from the outside, but from within. And it would be an
enormous setback to see an effort that would allow the cartels
to act with impunity inside of Mexico, and of great concern to
many of us in the United States Congress. But I trust that at
the end of the day, the great leaders in Mexico will understand
that their country's future will either be determined by its
people or determined by the drug lords. And I think it will
choose their people instead.
I appreciate both of your testimonies.
The record will remain open for another 48 hours for any
member who wishes to ask questions in writing. If you do
receive a question, I would urge you to answer it expeditiously
so the committee can move forward in the process of your
confirmation hearing.
And seeing no other members, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record
Responses of Ambassador Earl Anthony Wayne to Questions Submitted by
Senator Richard Lugar
Question. Please explain how, if confirmed, you intend to monitor
the use of Merida Initiative resources to ensure that programs funded
under the initiative are not used for military activities, which may be
viewed as inconsistent with the promotion of human rights in Mexico.
Answer. The Merida Initiative supports Mexico and the Mexican
Government's commitment to improving respect for human rights. The
United States and Mexico regularly discuss human rights concerns at all
levels of government.
In addition to the human rights components that are integrated into
Merida Initiative training, other U.S. agencies also support programs
to promote human rights. For example, the United States conducts human
rights training and education for police, prosecutors, and other
officials to promote implementation of international human rights
standards. This program includes participation in a master's program in
human rights for 300 police officials, with the curriculum structured
for law enforcement. Additionally, security assistance has been used to
train mid- and senior-level Mexican military leaders on human rights
while operating against a nontraditional foe.
The U.S. Government is committed to continuing to work with Mexico
to make sure that efforts to improve respect for human rights in the
military and police are institutionalized. For example, the U.S.-Mexico
Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue meets periodically to discuss the
promotion of human rights in Mexico's security forces. In this
dialogue, the United States provides expertise and shares lessons
learned on issues such a military justice reform, codes of conduct and
rules of engagement, and transparency and public information-sharing
techniques. For the United States, the U.S. Chief of Mission and Under
Secretary for North America chair meetings, with the participation of
senior DOD civilian and uniformed officials.
As required by U.S. law, the Department of State vets security
force personnel receiving U.S. assistance or training to ensure there
is no credible allegation of human rights violations committed by those
individuals. The U.S. Government will continue to do so.
The Office of Defense Cooperation at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico
City is responsible for monitoring the equipment provided to the
Mexican military as part of its normal interaction with their
counterparts.
Additionally, if it were alleged that programs funded under the
Merida Initiative were used for military activities, which may be
inconsistent with the promotion of human rights in Mexico, U.S.
authorities would follow up immediately to ensure proper use of U.S.-
supported programs.
If confirmed, I would remain committed to the promotion of human
rights through our Merida Initiative programs to both the military and
civilian sectors of the Mexican Government.
Question. Please explain your views regarding accusations that the
Calderon administration has not been as tough on the Sinaloa Cartel as
with other cartels.
Answer. President Calderon has publicly stated that the Mexican
Government will aggressively pursue and bring to justice all
transnational criminal organizations operating within Mexican borders.
Under President Calderon's leadership, 29 drug cartel bosses and
numerous lower level criminals have been removed, including Sinaloa
cartel leaders Ignacio Coronel Villareal, in July 2010, Hector Eduardo
Guajardo Hernandez, ``El Guicho,'' in May 2011, and Martin Beltran
Coronel, ``The Eagle,'' in May 2011. The Mexican Government continues
to investigate and combat transnational criminal organizations.
We admire the work and determination of President Calderon and are
doing what we can to support the brave efforts of his government and
the Mexican people to combat all transnational criminal organizations
operating in Mexico.
The United States and Mexico have intensified law enforcement
cooperation and we remain committed to supporting the Mexican
Government's efforts to disrupt and dismantle criminal organizations in
Mexico.
This unprecedented level of cooperation between our two governments
has made an important contribution to Mexico's ability to apprehend
leaders of transnational criminal organizations and to counter the
transnational criminal threat to Mexico and the United States. It is a
fundamental part of the U.S. commitment to meet its coresponsibility
for the threats of transnational crime.
This intense level of cooperation is in the interests of both the
United States and Mexico, and we intend to sustain it.
Question. Please explain your views regarding allegations that
Mexico's Secretary of Public Security Genaro Garcia Luna is linked to
organized crime.
Answer. The Department of State takes all allegations of links to
organized crime seriously. If confirmed, I will also take such
allegations very seriously and the U.S. Embassy team will follow up
appropriately.
President Calderon is leading Mexico's courageous efforts to combat
transnational criminal organizations and their brutal violence. He has
mobilized his entire government on this effort and has demonstrated a
strong commitment to anticorruption and professionalization
initiatives.
The United States and Mexico have expanded our bilateral
cooperation to combat organized crime significantly. A central player
in President Calderon's efforts is the Public Security Secretariat
(SSP) headed by Secretary Garcia Luna. Secretary Garcia Luna is a
career law enforcement officer, under whose leadership, the SSP has
become a more effective and professional civilian law enforcement
institution. Cooperating with the U.S. Government through the Merida
Initiative, Garcia Luna has welcomed U.S. training for a new generation
of college-educated federal police investigators at the SSP academy in
San Luis Potosi. The United States has worked with Garcia Luna's team
to provide advanced IT systems support to Plataforma Mexico, the SSP's
national crime database. We have transferred helicopters and other
nonlethal materiel that SSP has used to prosecute its frontal assault
against the Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs). In August
2010, Garcia Luna purged one-tenth of all federal police officers
(3,200 out of 34,500) for failing lie-detector, toxicology, and other
exams.
Mexico is overhauling many parts of its law enforcement and
judicial systems to fight corruption, improve transparency, ensure
respect for human rights and the rule of law, and increase civilian
involvement.
Internal controls across the Government of Mexico's federal
agencies are being implemented to help minimize corruption and improve
government effectiveness. These long-term reforms will strengthen a
culture of lawfulness able to thwart corruption and improve governance.
Question. Mexico decreased the value of its retaliatory tariffs by
half on July 8, after the United States and Mexico signed an MOU to
implement the new cross-border trucking pilot program. Mexico has
promised to lift the remaining 50 percent of the tariffs when the pilot
program actually begins (i.e., when the first Mexican trucking company
gets provisional authority to operate under the pilot program).
Administration officials have said this would not happen before the
``first weeks of August 2011'' but there are still a lot of procedural
steps that have to complete before then. Is the administration still on
track to meet that goal of mid-August, or is there a new estimate of
when the pilot program would become operational (and the tariffs
completely suspended)?
Answer. Shortly after the signing of the MOU on July 6, the U.S.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) received and is now
evaluating several applications from Mexican long-haul carriers to
participate in the new cross-border trucking pilot program. There are
several administrative actions that must take place before FMCSA can
grant authority to a Mexican carrier. These include: the Department of
Transportation's Inspector General concluding a review of FMCSA's
preparations for the pilot program; FMCSA issuing a Report to Congress
outlining steps it is taking to address any issues identified in the
Inspector General's report; FMCSA conducting an extensive preauthority
safety audit (PASA) to verify an applicant's suitability for expanded
operations on U.S.roads; and FMCSA providing public notice of the
results of the audit. We are told by FMCSA that these actions are
expected to take approximately 60 days.
According to the terms of the MOU signed with Mexico, the remaining
50 percent of the retaliatory tariffs against U.S. products will be
removed once FMCSA approves the first Mexican company for participation
in the program. Decisions on the first group of applicants are expected
by early September. If one of the applicants passes the preauthority
safety audit and is approved for participation in the program, the
tariffs would be suspended at that time, even if actual trucking
operations do not begin immediately.
______
Responses of Arnold Chacon to Questions Submitted by
Senator Richard Lugar
Question. For the past 4 years, the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala has
been involved in assisting families who were in the process of adopting
Guatemalan children when the Government of Guatemala changed its
international adoption law. While a large number of these ``transition
families'' have successfully completed their adoptions, there are
approximately 400 U.S. citizens whose adoptions have not yet been
completed. These families have undergone considerable burden and
expense in trying to complete these adoptions and even worse, the
children they had hoped to adopt have spent an additional 4 years in an
orphanage. Can you explain how you might lead the U.S. Embassy in
resolving these cases?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to leading the Embassy's efforts to
urge Guatemalan authorities to resolve pending cases. I would do so by
supporting and encouraging the Guatemalan Government's continued but
expeditious investigation of pending adoption cases and by calling for
specific measures toward case resolution. I would urge Guatemalan
authorities to separate ongoing investigations into criminal rings from
individual adoption cases wherever possible and focus Guatemalan
resources on concluding the cases. Resolving these pending cases will
be one of my top priorities, if confirmed.
Question. During her most recent visit to the United States, the
head of the Guatemalan central authority, the CNA, shared that she
would like to explore implementing a pilot program that would allow
international adoption to resume in Guatemala, but only for those
children who are unable to find a home in Guatemala. She shared that
there are approximately 300 cases of older, special needs children and
children who are members of larger sibling groups which international
adoption could find homes for. Can you explain what the U.S. position
would be on the development of such a program?
Answer. In November 2009, the CNA announced a limited 2-year pilot
program that would have resumed intercountry adoption of a small number
of identified older children, groups of siblings, and children with
special needs, under a new Hague-compliant process. The United States
submitted a letter of interest in the program in December 2009.
However, the United States withdrew our letter of interest on October
5, 2010, due to continuing concerns about fraud and corruption in the
Guatemalan adoption process, a lack of information regarding controls
and safeguards in place for the pilot program, and the lack of a Hague-
compliant system. Since then, the CNA has demonstrated no progress
toward implementing a pilot program with a Hague-compliant process. The
Department of State would welcome movement toward the development of a
transparent Hague Adoption Convention compliant pilot program, and
stands ready to work with the CNA toward that goal, in the best
interest of the children.
While the Department of State would welcome implementation of a
Hague-complaint pilot program in the future, the remaining pending
transition cases are our top priority. We continue to call for the
prompt resolution of the remaining pending cases. We support the
Guatemalan Government's continued and thorough investigation of pending
adoption cases, and we have urged Guatemalan authorities to focus
resources on concluding them, and to separate the criminal
investigations of adoption fraud from the evaluation of the children's
eligibility for adoption wherever possible.
Question. According to news reports, the United States and
Guatemala are negotiating a ``labor action plan'' to address U.S.
claims that Guatemala has failed to adequately enforce its labor laws,
which Guatemala is required to do under CAFTA. Why is the United States
pursuing this action plan instead of seeking binding arbitration under
CAFTA?
Answer. As you know, the United States Government requested
consultations with the Government of Guatemala in July 2010 regarding
its apparent failure to effectively enforce its labor laws as required
by the CAFTA-DR. Throughout consultations, the United States has urged
Guatemala to take significant and concrete actions to address what the
United States considered to be systemic weaknesses in its enforcement
of labor laws. While Guatemala has taken some positive steps over the
past several months, its actions and proposals have been insufficient
to resolve our concerns.
In May 2011, the United States took the next step in the dispute
settlement process by invoking a meeting of the Free Trade Commission
under Chapter 20 of the CAFTA-DR.
The Free Trade Commission meeting was held on June 7, and
discussions continue with the Government of Guatemala about the
significant and serious steps Guatemala needs to take to improve its
labor law enforcement. If the Government of Guatemala fails to take
these steps and our concerns are not resolved, the United States may
pursue the matter further under the CAFTA-DR by requesting the
establishment of a dispute settlement panel to consider the matter. If
confirmed, it will be a priority of mine to continue to work with the
government to ensure that workers' rights are fully respected.
______
Response of Ambassador Earl Anthony Wayne to Question Submitted by
Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.
Question. Many supporters of NAFTA argued that its passage 16 years
ago would improve the conditions for Mexican workers. The International
Labor Organization and other labor groups continue to criticize
conditions in Mexico, especially the repression of the National Union
of Mineworkers. As Ambassador, what will you do to promote fundamental
labor rights in Mexico?
Answer. Strengthening respect for worker rights around the world is
critical to achieving the U.S. foreign policy goals of promoting
democracy, human rights, free trade, and international development. In
Mexico, the U.S. Government employs a number of tools to realize
progress on worker rights and employment policy. Through consistent
labor-related diplomacy, including by Embassy Mexico City's Labor
Officer, the United States advocates for worker rights directly with
the Mexican Government. The administration engages with governmental
and nongovernmental actors to monitor the protection of collective
bargaining rights; use by employers of protection contracts negotiated
between management and nonrepresentative unions; union organizing
efforts; labor trafficking, especially of women, youths, and migrants;
conditions for workers in Mexico's large informal sector; and other
issues. U.S. Ggovernment-supported programming in Mexico includes a
labor rights strengthening program undertaken by the AFL-CIO's
Solidarity Center and an International Labor Organization initiative to
improve efforts to combat child labor, especially in agriculture. The
North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) provides a
mechanism for the United States (and Canada) to work regularly with
Mexico on labor matters of mutual interest. If confirmed, I would
ensure that the Embassy gives priority to promoting fundamental labor
rights in Mexico using all of these tools, mechanisms, and contacts.
NOMINATION
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 21, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
Sung Y. Kim, of California, to be Ambassador to the Republic of
Korea
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:33 a.m., in
Room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jim Webb
presiding.
Present: Senator Webb.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM WEBB,
U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Webb. Good morning. The hearing will come to order.
Today the committee will consider the nomination of
Ambassador Sung Y. Kim to be the United States Ambassador to
the Republic of Korea.
As all of you will notice, I took the liberty of putting a
map of Asia up here today. And I do this because sometimes when
we look at different countries in Asia, we forget to think of
them in the context of how they fit together politically,
economically, and especially geographically.
I've often said that Northeast Asia is the only place in
the world where the interests of China, Russia, Japan, and the
United States directly intersect. And in the middle of this is
a divided Korean Peninsula with an erratic, volatile regime on
one end, and a key strategic ally, economic partner, and
democratic nation on the other.
It's important to remember that South Korea is the focal
point for maintaining stability in this region, even as we work
together to bring a lasting peace to this entire area.
If we do not have stability in Northeast Asia, you cannot
have stability anywhere else in Asia. And that underlines the
vital importance of the relationship that the United States
shares with South Korea.
Last year, the United States and Korea commemorated the
60th anniversary of the start of the Korean war. I was
fortunate to have had the opportunity to participate in
remembrance activities here and in Korea that symbolized the
incredible devotion of both countries to democracy, peace, and
stability.
Sixty years ago, East Asia was a vastly different region
than it is today. Struggling to reorganize itself following
World War II and the departure of major colonial powers, East
Asia found itself at the nexus of the cold war competition
between communism and democratic rule.
The region held a great deal of uncertainty. The United
States provided an important service in maintaining stability
so that nations could recover from conflict, just as it
provides an important service today in maintaining a strategic
balance in this vital region.
In 1950, when North Korea invaded South Korea, the United
States and the rest of the international community faced a
critical decision: To become involved or to lose the stability
we had gained and allow a nascent democracy to fail.
In the end, more than 33,000 American soldiers paid the
ultimate price and another 100,000 were wounded during this 3-
year conflict in an international but largely American effort
to bring peace to the Korean Peninsula. These sacrifices forged
a bond with the South Korean people that has not been forgotten
and instead has flourished.
Today, South Korea is one of the United States most
important security allies and economic partners. We currently
station 28,000 American soldiers in Korea as a deterrent to
aggression. South Korea contributes more than 40 percent of the
cost of hosting these troops.
It's important to understand that these troops are deployed
not only in defense of South Korea, but also to ensure
America's larger security needs as the most important
stabilizing influence in East Asia.
North Korea's inventory of ballistic missiles currently
exceeds 800 airframes, which are capable of reaching targets
not only in Korea, but also in Japan, the United States
territory of Guam, and even the Aleutian Islands. The regime
continues to research an intercontinental ballistic missile
capability, in addition to its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Our close relationship with South Korea has demonstrated
its value time and again in response to North Korean
provocations, including last year's sinking of the South Korean
naval ship, the Cheonan, and its artillery attack on Yeonpyeong
Island. Our coordination with South Korea and our coordinated
show of strength prevented further escalation of these
incidents.
Even as we look for openings to resume dialogue with North
Korea, given that country's unpredictability and opaqueness,
this joint approach is essential to maintaining stability on
the Korean Peninsula, ensuring that North Korea is not allowed
to act with impunity.
For this reason, I have supported resumption of food aid
and other humanitarian assistance to North Korea only in strict
coordination with our allies in the region--South Korea and
Japan. This approach is also important for demonstrating to
China, as North Korea's closest diplomatic ally and largest
trading partner, that it should exert its influence to bring
about more responsible behavior from North Korea and to take
positive action to bring about North Korea's eventual
denuclearization.
Our security concerns and the strength of this alliance
transcend the peninsula itself. South Korea, a country with a
population of only 48 million, has transformed itself into a
global economic power and a highly developed society. South
Korea is now the world's 13th-largest economy. In 2010, our
bilateral trade topped $86 billion, making South Korea the
United States seventh-largest trading partner.
Unfortunately, the success of this economic relationship
has been tempered in recent years by our inability here in
Washington to complete a free trade agreement with South Korea.
Our two governments signed an agreement in 2007. Four years
later, it has yet to be ratified.
It should be emphasized that this is an agreement between
two mature economies. New export opportunities in the agreement
can generate good-paying American jobs and contribute to our
economic recovery.
Just as importantly, this agreement demonstrates our
ability to follow through on commitments to free trade and to
cement our role as a guarantor of stability in East Asia.
Upon returning from a visit to Korea last June, I called
for a swift resolution of outstanding concerns with this
agreement. The administration resolved those concerns in
December.
At this point, the agreement is in the hands of Congress.
In my view, we should set aside minor differences and work
together to gain swift passage of this vital trade agreement.
And without passage, we, the United States, risk falling behind
our trade competitors, losing economic benefits, and weakening
an important strategic alliance.
Ambassador Kim, I would like to welcome you today and point
out the obvious: If confirmed, you will be representing the
United States in South Korea at a critical time.
Next year, South Korea will have National Assembly and
Presidential elections, just as we will. China's leadership
will be undergoing a generational change. And North Korea has
declared that 2012 will be ``a year of prosperity,'' marking
the 100th anniversary of the birth of Kim Il-sung.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of our nominee, and
welcome you, again, here today.
And before receiving the testimony, I'd like to take a
moment to introduce Ambassador Kim. And at this point, I'd also
like to introduce, for the record, a statement that Senator
Kerry, as chairman of the full committee, has submitted.
[The prepared statement of Senator Kerry follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator John F. Kerry, Chairman,
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee convenes to consider
the nomination of Sung Kim to be the next U.S. Ambassador to the
Republic of Korea (ROK). Mr. Kim, our current Special Envoy for the
Six-Party Talks on North Korea's nuclear program, is a wise and
deserving choice to be our country's chief diplomat in South Korea.
Over the course of his distinguished career in the Foreign Service,
Mr. Kim has served in many positions that have prepared him well for
this job, including the Director of the Office of Korean Affairs,
Political-Military Unit Chief in Embassy Seoul, and Economics Officer
there. A Korean American who speaks fluent Korean, Mr. Kim will be able
to interact confidently with the South Korean Government and people. If
confirmed, he would be the first American of Korean heritage to serve
our country in this post--a testament to the success of Korean
immigrants who first began coming to the United States roughly 150
years ago.
Mr. Kim's deep expertise in Korean affairs will allow him to make a
seamless transition with outgoing Ambassador Kathy Stephens. This is
critically important, as alliances, like all relationships, need
constant nurturing. If confirmed, Mr. Kim's tenure as Ambassador will
span elections and political transitions in South Korea and its
neighbors. As South Korea prepares for National Assembly and
Presidential elections next year, issues such as the reported release
of ``Agent Orange'' dioxin on U.S. military bases in South Korea could
threaten to derail cooperation, if not handled in a prompt, transparent
manner and with proper humility. I am glad that Mr. Kim seems to fully
appreciate this reality.
His near-term, to-do list will be full of tasks vital to advancing
U.S. economic interests, as well as promoting regional peace and
stability. Arguably job one will be to help facilitate the passage and
implementation of the Korea-U.S. (KORUS) Free Trade Agreement. Congress
should send Mr. Kim to Seoul with a ratified KORUS FTA. That would
deliver a powerful message that the United States and South Korea are
long-term strategic partners who are deeply invested in each other's
futures, and that the United States intends to remain a Pacific power.
KORUS will create tens of thousands of new jobs in both our countries,
lay the groundwork for further U.S. trade and investment in the most
economically dynamic region on Earth, and reverse a disheartening trend
where America's regional rivals have been prospering at our expense.
South Korea's FTA with the European Union went into effect earlier this
month, so U.S. companies are now effectively at a competitive
disadvantage. We are running out of time. Congress must act now or
leave South Korea's own legislature with little time to pass the FTA
before its April elections. At stake is nothing less than our national
competitiveness and our national security.
On the security front, the good news is that the U.S.-ROK alliance
is as strong today as it has ever been. But the goal of building a
lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula remains elusive. We must, on an
urgent basis, explore steps that can reduce the threat posed by North
Korea and return the North to a path toward denuclearization. Make no
mistake: Given North Korea's recent irresponsible conduct, staying in a
diplomatic holding pattern invites a dangerous situation to get even
worse.
Apart from the security challenge posed by North Korea, we must
also deal with an evolving humanitarian crisis there, as chronic food
shortages threaten to morph into widespread famine. In consultation
with Seoul, the United States should join with the European Union and
other donors to fashion a carefully targeted aid program to feed the
most vulnerable populations, provided that the DPRK permits robust
monitoring.
Finally, Mr. Kim will be charged with helping to build the global
partnership envisioned by Presidents Obama and Lee Myung-bak in June
2009. South Korea is emerging as an important global actor, making
valuable contributions to reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan and the
greening of our planet. Seoul's hosting of the G20 summit last year,
and the Nuclear Security Summit in 2012 shows that South Korea has
arrived as a diplomatic force on the world stage. Its recent pledge to
triple its overseas development budget by 2015--in an age of austerity
no less--exemplifies South Korea's growing global role. If confirmed, I
hope Mr. Kim will work to continue this positive trend.
I congratulate Sung Kim for being nominated to serve his country in
this important role, and I commend the President for making such a wise
choice. I urge my colleagues to speed Mr. Kim on his way to Seoul.
Senator Webb. Ambassador Sung Kim is a career member of the
Foreign Service, presently serving as a special envoy for the
six-party talks, leading the day-to-day engagement with the
other six-party countries.
He has extensive experience with United States-Korean
relations, serving as director of the Office of Korean Affairs
at the State Department, political military unit chief at the
U.S. Embassy in Korea, and as an economic officer at that
Embassy. In addition, he has served in Hong Kong, Malaysia, and
Japan.
He graduated from the University of Pennsylvania and from
Loyola University Law School, and also from the London School
of Economics with a master of law. And prior to joining the
Foreign Service, he was deputy district attorney in Los
Angeles.
Ambassador Kim brings a distinguished record to this
position. There's, I think, a great deal of enthusiasm for his
confirmation.
And, Ambassador, I welcome you, and I know you have some
very special family members who are with you today. And if
you'd like to introduce them and anyone else, friends or
family, before you begin your testimony, we would be grateful
to you for doing that.
So, welcome and the floor is yours, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. SUNG Y. KIM, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE AMBASSADOR
TO THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Ambassador Kim. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I'm deeply honored to be here before you as President
Obama's nominee to be the U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of
Korea. I'm deeply grateful to the President and Secretary
Clinton for the confidence they have shown in me.
And if confirmed, I look forward to working very closely
with this committee to strengthen our alliance and very special
partnership with the Republic of Korea.
Mr. Chairman, many people are responsible for me being here
today. Throughout my public service, I have benefited greatly
from distinguished mentors, generous colleagues, and smart and
dedicated subordinates. I'm grateful that many of them are here
with me today.
As he has done throughout my life, my older brother is here
to watch over me, to support me, and I'm grateful that he's
here. Most importantly, I want to express my special gratitude
to my wife, Jae, and our two daughters, Erin and Erica.
Diplomatic service is a special privilege, but it is not
always easy for the family. And even though my daughters
sometimes tell me to go out and get a real job, so that they
can stop moving around, they're always there for me, and I'm
grateful.
When my parents brought me to the United States over 35
years ago, they could not have imagined that I would have the
opportunity to serve as the first Korean-American Ambassador to
the Republic of Korea. But I do recall that from the very early
days, my parents encouraged me to go into public service. They
were very proud when I joined the Foreign Service and thrilled
when I chose to focus on East Asia, especially South Korea.
Having dedicated much of my professional life to the U.S.-
ROK partnership, my hope is that, if confirmed, I will be able
to draw on my experience and expertise to expand and enhance
the bond between our two countries.
In the space of a few decades, the Republic of Korea has
emerged from a half-century of occupation, division, and war to
join the top ranks of free and prosperous nations. This
stunning achievement is testimony to the talent, determination,
and sacrifices of several generations of Koreans. As a Korean-
American, I deeply respect and appreciate what they have been
able to accomplish.
Part of this amazing success story, of course, is due to
the strong and constructive partnership between our two
countries. As we reflect on our shared history of sacrifice and
success, and as we examine opportunities and challenges facing
us, we are convinced that it is more important than ever to
continue to strengthen our countries' relationships.
As President Obama said recently, ``Our alliance has never
been stronger than it is today.'' But it can be better. And we
are working on a number of initiatives to make it stronger and
more balanced, with the ROK military assuming more
responsibility for South Korean defense.
We're also realigning our basing arrangements to ensure
that we are best able to meet the challenges of the 21st
century. We want a smaller footprint that creates less of an
impact on ROK civilians, but which provides the robust
deterrent necessary to maintain peace and stability on the
peninsula.
I was personally involved in many of these initiatives in
my earlier assignments, and, if confirmed, I will work very
closely with the new U.S. Forces Korea Commander, General
Thurman, to ensure smooth implementation.
Our economic relationship with Korea is one of our most
important. As you pointed out, Chairman, Korea is a trillion
dollar economy and our seventh-largest trading partner. The
U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, pending passage by Congress
and Korea's National Assembly, will provide significant
economic and strategic benefits for both countries.
For the United States, this agreement will create
substantial export opportunities for U.S. goods and services
and support tens of thousands of export-related jobs in the
United States. It will strengthen our economic partnership and
lay an important foundation for the United States and Korea to
work together to address regional and global challenges in the
future.
If confirmed, I will work closely with Korea, with
Congress, and with U.S. Government agencies to ensure smooth
implementation of the agreement, so that both countries can
seize the important benefits that the agreement is to provide.
Another central part of the U.S.-ROK partnership is our
cooperation on challenges posed by North Korea. Having focused
on this much of the past few years, I hope to continue to
contribute to our common efforts to achieve the verifiable
denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and better lives for
the long-suffering people of North Korea.
Our two countries are also finding ways to cooperate on a
wide variety of issues not directly related to trade or Korean
Peninsula security. We work together in such diverse areas as
counterpiracy operations off the coast of Somalia and post-
conflict and disaster stabilization efforts in places like
Haiti and Afghanistan. We also cooperate on green growth
efforts to promote environmentally sustainable economic growth.
These are the kinds of activities that bring solutions to
common challenges facing the global community and the types of
initiatives I hope to advance, if I'm confirmed.
I also look forward to contributing to the already strong
people-to-people ties between our two countries. Just last
year, nearly 500,000 South Koreans took advantage of the Visa
Waiver Program and traveled to the United States. In total,
nearly 900,000 South Korean tourists and businessmen visited
the United States last year, a 38-percent increase over the
previous year. These recordbreaking numbers make Korean
tourists the seventh-largest tourist group in the United
States.
As a Korean-American, the importance of these everyday
contacts between Koreans and Americans has special resonance
for me.
Mr. Chairman, it would be the highest honor for me to serve
our country as the U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Korea. If
confirmed, I will lead a complex and multiagency diplomatic
mission consisting of 575 employees. I will do my very best to
ensure that all members of that community and their families
have the leadership, security, and support they need to get
their jobs done.
Thank you for considering my nomination. I look forward to
your questions, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Kim follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sung Y. Kim
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am honored to appear
before you as President Obama's nominee to serve as Ambassador to the
Republic of Korea (ROK). I am deeply grateful for the confidence that
the President and Secretary Clinton have shown in me and if confirmed,
I look forward to working closely with this committee to strengthen our
alliance and very special partnership with the Republic of Korea.
Many people are responsible for me being here today. Throughout my
public service, I have benefited greatly from distinguished mentors,
generous colleagues, and smart and dedicated subordinates. I am
grateful that many of them are here with me today. Most importantly, I
want to express my special gratitude and appreciation to my family--my
wife, Jae, and our two daughters, Erin and Erica. Diplomatic service is
a special privilege, but it is not always easy for the family. I am
extremely grateful for their patience and support.
When my parents brought me to the United States some 35 years ago,
they could not have imagined that I would have the opportunity to serve
as the first Korean-American Ambassador to the Republic of Korea. But I
do recall that from the very early days, my parents encouraged me to go
into public service. They were so proud when I joined the Foreign
Service and thrilled when I chose to focus on East Asia, especially
Korea. Having dedicated much of my professional life to the U.S.-ROK
partnership, my hope is that, if confirmed, I will be able to draw on
my experience and expertise to expand and enhance the bond between our
two countries.
In the space of a few decades, the Republic of Korea emerged from a
half-century of occupation, division, and war to join the top ranks of
the world's free and prosperous nations. This stunning achievement is
testimony to the talent, determination, and sacrifices of several
generations of Koreans. As a Korean-American, I deeply respect and
appreciate what Koreans have been able to accomplish. Part of this
amazing success story, of course, is due to the strong and constructive
alliance and partnership between our two countries.
Last year marked the 60th anniversary of the start of the Korean
war. As we reflect on our shared history of sacrifice and success, and
as we examine the regional and global opportunities and challenges, we
are convinced that it is more important than ever to continue to
strengthen and nurture our two countries' partnership.
As President Obama said recently, ``our alliance has never been
stronger than it is today.'' But it can be even better. We are working
on a number of initiatives to make it stronger and more balanced, with
the ROK military assuming more responsibility for South Korean defense,
including wartime operational control in 2015. We are also realigning
our basing arrangements to ensure that we are best able to meet the
challenges of the 21st century. We want a smaller footprint that
creates less of an impact on ROK civilians, but which provides the
robust deterrent necessary to maintain peace on the Peninsula. I was
personally involved in many of these initiatives during earlier
assignments, and, if confirmed, I will work closely with the new U.S.
Forces Korea Commander General Thurman to ensure smooth implementation.
Our economic relationship with Korea is one of the world's most
important. Korea is a trillion dollar economy and our seventh-largest
trading partner. The U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, pending passage
by Congress and Korea's National Assembly, will provide significant
economic and strategic benefits for both countries. For the United
States, this agreement will create substantial export opportunities for
U.S. goods and services and support tens of thousands of new export-
related jobs in the United States. It will strengthen our economic
partnership and lay an important foundation for the United States and
Korea to work together closely to address regional and global economic
challenges in the future. If confirmed, I will work closely with Korea
and with Congress and other U.S. Government agencies to ensure smooth
implementation of the agreement so that both countries can seize the
important benefits the agreement is to provide.
Another central part of the U.S.-ROK partnership is our cooperation
on challenges posed by North Korea. Having focused on this much of the
past few years, I hope to continue to contribute to our common efforts
to achieve the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a
peaceful manner and better lives for the long-suffering people of North
Korea. If confirmed, I look forward to coordinating closely on
negotiating strategy as well as efforts to deter provocative actions by
North Korea.
Our two countries are also finding ways to cooperate and
collaborate on a wide variety of issues not directly related to trade
or Korean Peninsula security. We work together in such diverse areas as
counterpiracy operations off the coast of Somalia, post-conflict and
disaster stabilization efforts in places like Haiti, where a ROK
company is developing an industrial complex that will bring tens of
thousands of jobs to Haiti, and Afghanistan, where the ROK runs a
Provincial Reconstruction Team working to train local Afghans and
strengthen peace and civil society. We also cooperate on green growth
efforts to promote environmentally sustainable economic growth. These
are the kinds of activities that bring solutions to common challenges
facing the global community and the types of initiatives I hope to
advance, if I am confirmed.
I also look forward, if confirmed, to contributing to the already
strong people-to-people ties between our two countries--in educational
exchange, the arts and culture, sports, and in other fields. Last year,
nearly 500,000 South Koreans took advantage of the Visa Waiver Program
and traveled to the United States. In total, nearly 900,000 South
Korean tourists and business travelers visited the United States in
2010, a 38-percent increase over 2009. These recordbreaking numbers
make Korean tourists the seventh-largest tourist group to the United
States. As a Korean-American, the importance of these everyday contacts
between Koreans and Americans has special resonance for me.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it would be the highest
honor for me to serve our country as the U.S. Ambassador to the
Republic of Korea. If confirmed, I will lead a complex, multiagency
diplomatic mission consisting of 575 employees, including staff at the
U.S. Embassy in Seoul and the American Presence Post in Busan. I will
do my very best to ensure that all members of that community and their
families have the leadership, security, and support they need to get
their jobs done.
Thank you for considering my nomination. I look forward to your
questions.
Senator Webb. Thank you very much, Ambassador Kim.
And let me just first say that you danced pretty quickly
over the special members of your family who are here today, so
I'd just like to point out your parents who have come here from
Korea to be at this hearing. Is that correct?
Ambassador Kim. No. Actually, my parents could not make it.
My father passed away some years ago and my mother is in
California. She's here in spirit, though, sir.
Senator Webb. OK.
Well, you have a whole row of family members here that I
would like to introduce. If you all would just stand up and say
hello.
Ambassador Kim. They're a bit shy.
Senator Webb. I know. That's fine. [Laughter.]
You are too. That's why I'm saying this.
Stand up and say hello.
I think you've got a lot of people here who are very proud
of you today. We want to give them some recognition.
Ambassador Kim. Stand up. [Laughter.]
Senator Webb. OK.
Ambassador Kim. Mr. Chairman, if I could start with, at the
end is my wife, Jae; my niece, Sarah; my older daughter Erin;
the younger one, Erica; my nephew, Nam-Gu; and my brother, Jun.
Senator Webb. Welcome to all of you. I know how proud you
must be.
You mentioned, again, the nature of this special
relationship. And I'd like to point something out from my own
visits.
This is a unique relationship, I think, in terms of the
overt value that the people in South Korea place on what the
American military members did after 1950, I say as someone
who's been around the military since the day I was born, who
had what I view as the honor and the privilege of serving my
country in the war in Vietnam. Many, many family members have
served.
I was really moved, I have to say, when I visited Korea and
was taken to the war memorial in Seoul, where they not only
remember the sacrifices of the Korean soldiers, but they have
the name of every American who gave the ultimate sacrifice
during that war.
It's very, very moving to see that.
Then when I met with the director of veterans from the
government, I learned that the Korean Government actually sets
aside money every year to bring American veterans back to Korea
with their families to thank them.
So a lot of people can talk the talk, but that's just a
tremendous amount of credibility in the gratitude that's shown
to the special relationship that we have.
Let me ask you about another piece of this. We're going to
get into more substantive areas, but you mentioned the ties
between the greater American community and Korea, South Korea.
Could you give us a breakdown on the Korean-American community
in the United States, where they are and the types of
activities that they do to make sure this relationship is
cemented?
Ambassador Kim. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
If I could just make one comment on your comments regarding
Korea's appreciation for Korean war veterans. One of the most
meaningful and touching experiences I experienced as a
political officer in Seoul was to participate in events
commemorating the 50th anniversary of the end of the Korean
war. And as you suggested, Mr. Chairman, the Korean Government
had used its funds to bring Korean war veterans to Seoul to
express appreciation.
And I was moved and touched, because I also benefited from
the sacrifices made by American soldiers who participated in
the Korean war. So to see the Koreans' actual appreciation for
that was a very important experience for me.
Regarding Korean-American communities, there are
approximately 2 million Korean-Americans in the United States.
As a rough breakdown, I think California has the most. And
that's where I grew up. New York also has a huge South Korean
community. And growing numbers are coming to this area as well.
In Virginia, Annandale is the home of the Korean-American
community in this area. I don't know the exact number. And I'd
be happy to get you the exact breakdown, but those are sort of
the major areas.
Chicago also--Chicago and Atlanta are also home to huge
Korean-American communities.
Senator Webb. May I ask you for your views on the free
trade agreement? And actually, let me put it in this context:
What do you think the implications would be if we fail to pass
the free trade agreement?
Ambassador Kim. Mr. Chairman, the President and the
Secretary have both made very clear our commitment to getting
the free trade agreement done.
The administration would like to see the Korea-U.S. Free
Trade Agreement, along with the other two pending free trade
agreements and TAA, get done as quickly as possible. And I
believe the administration is in conversations with
congressional leaders about getting it done.
I think the numbers are compelling. Just tariff cuts alone
would lead to an increase of 11 billion dollars' worth of
exports from the United States to Korea, which would equate to
tens of thousands of jobs being created in the export-related
areas.
Additional exports and additional jobs will be created from
nontariff cuts through the FTA. We'll also have access to the
huge service market in Korea.
So I think the numbers are compelling. I very much hope
that we'll be able to get it done as quickly as possible.
I think, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the implication is
that it will have to send a signal about our ability to follow
through on our commitments. This agreement was negotiated
through a very difficult process. It's an agreement that stands
to provide huge benefits to both countries. And I think it
would serve our interests to get it done as quickly as
possible.
Senator Webb. Would you characterize the South Korean
economy as a mature economy, in the same sense as the United
States?
Ambassador Kim. Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman.
It is a vibrant economy. It continues to enjoy substantial
growth.
I'd like to use the anecdote that if you go to electronic
shops these days, South Korean products are at the very top of
display areas. You see LG, Samsung, et cetera. I think that's a
small indication of the growth of the South Korean economy, and
I would definitely consider it to be a mature economy.
And this is why I think, as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman,
this is an agreement between two mature economies, and there's
no reason why it should not be done.
Senator Webb. I'm going to say I have a view on this that
because these economies are mature economies this is not the
same type of a trade agreement that people have been concerned
about in the past, when you have truly emerging economies with
very low wage scales running the risk of pulling American jobs
away from this country because of artificially low wage scales.
In my examination of this and consideration of it, is that
the threat to the American workforce it is not of any magnitude
that should cause American workers concern. I'd like to hear
your thoughts on that.
I'm not preaching to the choir here, but I think people
need to hear the views of those who are going to be
implementing it.
Ambassador Kim. I would very much agree with that
assessment, Mr. Chairman.
This is an agreement that was carefully negotiated. It is
an agreement between two mature economies, and it stands to
provide substantial benefits to both countries.
As I mentioned earlier, just tariff cuts alone would result
in tens of thousands of jobs being created in the United States
in the export arena.
Without getting into a detailed comparison of this
agreement versus other free trade agreements, I would say that
there is really no reason why we should not implement this
agreement.
Senator Webb. Is it correct to say that the E.U. just
signed an agreement, or recently signed, and is ready to
implement an agreement that's very similar to this one?
Ambassador Kim. That is my understanding as well, Mr.
Chairman.
The E.U. agreement is complete and is already being
implemented.
Senator Webb. You mentioned in your testimony that you had
some involvement in the issue of the relocation of the American
military in Korea. Would you describe what you worked on in
that area?
Ambassador Kim. Yes, sir.
As the political military unit chief at our Embassy in
Seoul, I had the opportunity to participate in negotiations on
base relocations. That was both on the Yongsan relocation to
move the Yongsan base away from downtown Seoul down south to
Pyeongtaek, and also the land partnership plan related
realignments in other parts of Korea.
I think what we want to try to accomplish is to have a base
or military presence that makes sense, that makes sense in
terms of minimizing impact on Korean civilians, but also in
terms of maximizing deterrent capability to make sure that we
are able to defend South Korea against any aggression.
I am a strong supporter of those initiatives, and, if I'm
confirmed, I will do my very best to make sure that they're
implemented in a timely manner. I think it's good for the
alliance, it's good for the South Korean public, and I think it
makes a lot of sense in terms of our strategic ability to
defend the peninsula.
Senator Webb. There's been some concern over here in the
Congress, and I'm one of those who has articulated this
concern, with the way in which this relocation has been
approached in terms of lack of what the Armed Services
Committee called a business case for some parts of the
relocation, including what's now called tour normalization, but
also the basic momentum that has taken place because of the
funding streams for different parts of the relocation. As I'm
sure you're aware, there have been three different funding
streams that have gone into construction programs and these
sort of things.
And one of them is command discretionary funds where the
American commander can just divert money into projects without
the oversight of the Congress, which is money on hand for
programs.
And the other has been South Korean burden-sharing programs
where you had trade-for-trade different pieces of property, and
as a result construction of facilities and those sort of things
have taken place, again, without the Congress having been able
to see the clear plan and the strategic concept.
And then third, there's the money that comes from the
Congress itself. And we have asked for greater justification,
particularly on this concept of tour normalization where
they're proposing to bring up to 50,000 family members into
Korea. You think about the infrastructure that goes into that:
housing, schools, medical, et cetera.
This is an area of concern I want to hear from you about,
and I want, hopefully, for you to bring this concern to Korea
when you take on your post. The concern being that Congress
does not want to be in a position of being forced by the
momentum of these other two funding streams to have to make
decisions that may not be the best-case solution.
Are you familiar with these different funding streams? Have
you worked in that area?
Ambassador Kim. I'm generally familiar, Mr. Chairman. I had
a chance to read the report you issued with your colleagues,
and, of course, we understand the important points you raised.
My colleagues in the Department of Defense are obviously
well-aware of the budgetary constraints and the need to be
prudent in pursuing any aspects of this. I had the chance to
speak to Under Secretary Flournoy just a couple days ago about
the tour normalization issue. And what I understand is that the
matter is still under consideration at the Pentagon and that no
decisions have been made, but that my colleagues in the
Pentagon are well-aware of your concerns, of course.
Senator Webb. We may be in further touch on that.
If you could just walk us through this, because you've been
very involved in your present position, how do characterize the
motivations behind the North Korean attacks on the Cheonan and
Yeonpyeong Island? Do you see this in a larger scale? Or do you
see these as separate items that aren't connected to something
larger?
Ambassador Kim. Mr. Chairman, what I've discovered over the
years in working on North Korea is that it is very difficult to
determine what exactly they are thinking.
The events last year, the attack on the Cheonan and the
shelling on Yeonpyeong Island, were horrible, irresponsible
acts. And frankly, it is difficult to come up with a rational
explanation for the North Korean decision to launch those
attacks.
We, of course, as you pointed out earlier, sir, stood by
our allies during this very difficult period.
If the North Koreans believe that such provocative,
irresponsible actions will bring them concessions from us or
the ROK, they're mistaken. We abhor those attacks, and we
called on North Korea to refrain from all such provocative
actions in the future.
There is, of course, the theory that North Korean behavior
often comes in cycles, that, having gone through a round of
negotiations through the six-party process in 2007-08, that
they were prepared to enter into a cycle of provocations, and
that in fact, now, they're ready to return to diplomacy and
negotiations.
Well, we're not convinced that they really are ready to
return to serious diplomacy and negotiations, and this is why I
think Seoul and Washington both have been very cautious in not
just rushing back to the negotiating table. Because, in light
of what has happened in the past 2 years, I think that the
North Koreans need to prove that they will in fact be a serious
partner when the negotiations resume.
Senator Webb. There are two schools of thought on these
incidents that I'd like to hear your views on. One is that
they're providing something of a testing time during this
potential for change of leadership in the North as to the
possible successors of the current leadership. Second is that
the United States could be encouraging China to do a great deal
more with the relationship that it has with North Korea in a
more overt way, in order to encourage more positive behavior.
What do you think about those two schools of thought?
Ambassador Kim. We understand that the succession process
is moving forward.
I'm familiar with the theory that the actions last year
were related to the succession process. Frankly, it would be
very disappointing if in fact they believe that their
succession process would somehow be helped by such provocative
and irresponsible actions.
It's difficult to say how quickly they will move forward
with the succession process, but I think our advice to
Pyongyang would be that, if they want the succession process to
move forward smoothly, they should focus on responsible
behavior, living up to international obligations and
commitments, refraining from provocative actions, and beginning
a meaningful dialogue with the South.
Attacks against the Cheonan and the shelling on Yeonpyeong
Island will not help their process.
With regards to China's role, Mr. Chairman, as Secretary
Clinton pointed out on many occasions, we do believe that China
has a unique responsibility, given their status as the chair of
the six-party process, given their unique relationship with
North Korea, that China has a special responsibility to make
sure that North Korea lives up to its obligations and
commitments, refrains from provocative actions, and returns to
the path for negotiations and diplomacy in a much more
forthcoming manner than it has in the past.
Senator Webb. This past year and a half, from my
perspective here in the Senate, has resulted in the potential
for much stronger relations between South Korea and Japan.
We've seen that demonstrated not only in the visits that I've
made to the region but the frequent discussions that we have
with representatives of both governments here in Washington.
I'm wondering what you think about that?
And also, about what might be done with this very emotional
issue--to assist the Japanese in these very emotional issues of
the Japanese citizens who were abducted by North Korea, where
they're looking for accountability?
Ambassador Kim. Mr. Chairman, we applaud President Lee
Myungbak's commitment to improving relations with Japan. Japan
is one of our closest friends, as is Korea.
We believe it makes sense strategically, and on many other
levels, that Japan and Korea maintain strong, positive
relations. And we're encouraged that both President Lee and the
Japanese Prime Minister are committed to improving their
relations.
The Japanese abductee issue is one of the more difficult
issues. We have a great deal of sympathy for the Japanese
public on this tragic issue, and we have continued to support
their efforts to reach resolution of that issue.
It appeared that we had a small window of opportunity to
make some progress, because in the summer of 2008, Japan and
North Korea reached an agreement outlining a path forward on
investigations and findings related to the abductees situation.
But unfortunately, with the collapse of the six-party process
in December 2008, they have made no progress on that agreement.
And I think if and when we resume dialogue with the North
Koreans, whether in a bilateral setting or in the six-party
process, we will again remind the North Koreans of the need to
address Japan's concerns on that difficult issue.
Senator Webb. Thank you.
What is the current line of thinking in the State
Department with respect to the food aid issue to North Korea?
Ambassador Kim. Sir, we have made no decision on the food
aid request from the World Food Programme. You know, we do have
a great deal of concern about the humanitarian situation in
North Korea, but there are a number important factors that need
to be considered before we can make a decision on whether to
provide food assistance to North Korea.
No. 1 is, of course, the extent of the need, just how
urgently they need it.
No. 2, we need to consider competing needs. I mean, our
resources are not unlimited, and I think we have to carefully
take into consideration what other needs are out there.
No. 3, and this is particularly relevant to the North
Korean situation, is our ability to monitor delivery of food
assistance. North Korea, as you know, has a mixed record in
this regard. And so before we make any decision on food aid, we
would want to be sure that we would have in place a robust and
intrusive food aid monitoring protocol, so that we can be sure
that the food will actually go to those who need it and not
diverted to the military.
Senator Webb. What are your thoughts about the principal
issues, any that I have not addressed, that would be high on
your priority list in terms of our relations with South Korea?
Ambassador Kim. Thank you very much for that question, Mr.
Chairman.
You know, the United States-Korea relationship has so many
important dimensions that I actually have a very long list of
things that I would like to accomplish, if I'm confirmed by
Congress.
If I could just highlight a couple that are dear to me.
Obviously, we need to strengthen the alliance. It's one of the
most important security relationships. The trade relationship
is greatly important to both countries.
But I also want to focus on our cooperation beyond economic
relations and security of the Korean Peninsula. I mean, Korea
is becoming a major player on issues of great regional and
global significance. I think it's a wonderful development, and
I think this trend is irreversible.
And, for example, the Secretary, based on the signed
memorandum of understanding regarding development assistance,
Korea is becoming a major donor in that area. I think that
policy reflects Korea's economic growth, but it also reflects
Korea's understanding that they have something to give to the
global community.
And we welcome this trend, and we look forward to being a
very strong partner with them on things like development
assistance, environmental issues, et cetera.
Another area that I would like to focus on is something
that I mentioned at the conclusion of my testimony, which is
people-to-people ties. It really does have special meaning for
me because I'm a Korean-American.
And on the depth of our relationship in the people-to-
people area and cultural exchanges, academia, arts, sports, it
is wonderful. And I hope that, if confirmed, I will have an
opportunity to really bring that to a new level.
Senator Webb. Well, we thank you very much for your
testimony today, and for your continued willingness to serve
our country.
The committee hearing record will be open for potential
questions from other Senators until close of business tomorrow.
You may receive other written questions.
But, I wish you the best. I'm obviously going to support
your nomination, and I know how proud your family members must
be.
And with that, the best of luck. This hearing is closed.
[Whereupon, at 11:13 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record
Response of Sung Y. Kim to Question Submitted by Senator Marco Rubio
Question. At a time when the United States and the Republic of
Korea are seeking to further strengthen our trade and economic
relationship, I would like to get your thoughts on a matter involving a
U.S. investment firm in Korea.
In short, Lone Star Funds, a U.S. private equity firm whose
investors include charitable organizations, educational endowments, and
public and private investment funds, is for a third time attempting to
sell its controlling stake in the Korea Exchange Bank (KEB), one of the
largest banks in Korea. Over the past 5 years, Lone Star has made two
previous attempts to sell KEB but those sales were terminated due to
political and bureaucratic delays in Korea. Recent media reports
confirm further bureaucratic delays on a decision on Lone Star's latest
effort to sell the bank--a decision that risks the sale of the bank and
billions of dollars for Lone Star's investors.
I understand the current U.S. Ambassador to Korea, Ambassador
Stephens, has raised this matter on a number of occasions with her
counterparts in Seoul.
What measures would you take to encourage the Korean
Government to resolve the delays affecting the regulatory
approval necessary for Lone Star to sell KEB?
Answer. I am familiar with the Lone Star case, and, if confirmed, I
will continue to raise our concerns about the case with Korean
officials. The State Department and other agencies have conveyed our
concerns about this case on numerous occasions, urging Korean
authorities to rule on Lone Star's application to sell its KEB stake
strictly on its merits, in a transparent and timely manner. We have
pointed out that delays in approving the sale of Lone Star's stake in
KEB lead to uncertainty among international investors and can harm
Korea's efforts to attract foreign investors. Our Embassy in Seoul has
been following this case closely and has discussed our concerns with
senior levels of the Korean Government.
The Financial Services Commission (FSC) is currently waiting for
the Seoul High Court to resolve some outstanding matters, including a
criminal case against Lone Star's former head in Korea, before
approving the sale of Lone Star's KEB stake to Hana Bank of Korea. I
understand Lone Star and Hana Bank have recently extended their
contract till the end of the year. The Department and the Embassy will
continue to monitor developments and raise Lone Star's concerns. If
confirmed, I will engage relevant senior Korean officials at the
earliest possible opportunity and seek their cooperation on
facilitating an expeditious resolution of this case. More broadly, if
confirmed, I plan to work closely with the American business community
in Korea and become an energetic advocate for their efforts.
NOMINATIONS
----------
TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
Hon. Francis Joseph Ricciardone, Jr., of Massachusetts, to be
Ambassador to the Republic of Turkey
Hon. Norman L. Eisen, of the District of Columbia, to be
Ambassador to the Czech Republic
Hon. Robert S. Ford, of Vermont, to be Ambassador to the Syrian
Arab Republic
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeanne
Shaheen presiding.
Present: Senator Shaheen, Menendez, Casey, Coons, and
Lugar.
Also present: Senator Joseph Lieberman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Shaheen. This hearing will come to order. Good
afternoon, everyone.
Today we have two panels of nominees, but we're doing this
a little differently today. So we're actually going to hear
from all three nominees in the first panel, and then we'll do
questioning of Mr. Ford in the second panel.
We're fortunate to have Senator Lugar here with us, and we
want to try and accommodate his schedule, as well as Senator
Lieberman's schedule.
So on our first panel we will consider the nominations of
Norman Eisen to be Ambassador to the Czech Republic and Francis
Ricciardone to be Ambassador to the Republic of Turkey. And on
our second panel, we will be considering the nomination of
Robert Ford to be Ambassador to Syria.
Senator Casey from Pennsylvania will be here. He chairs the
Subcommittee on Near Eastern Affairs, and he will chair
Ambassador Ford's questioning portion of the second panel.
All of the posts being considered today are critical in
strengthening U.S. influence in safeguarding American interests
around the globe. I look forward to discussing the challenges
and opportunities the United States faces in these three
important countries.
Now, as I said, we're doing this a little bit differently
today. And one of the differences is that both of our nominees
on the first panel were nominated last year to serve in these
same positions. I think I chaired one of those nomination
hearings last year.
But both nominations were thoroughly considered and
approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and both
were held up on the Senate floor and were not ultimately
confirmed by the full Senate.
Seeing the importance of having an Ambassador in these
critical countries, the President chose to recess appoint both
Ambassador Ricciardone and Ambassador Eisen to their positions.
As a result, the two men have been serving as Ambassadors in
Prague and Ankara over the course of the last 7 months.
As many of you know, a recess appointment by the President
lasts for only 1 calendar year. So these two men have been
renominated and the committee will reconsider their
nominations.
As the subcommittee chair on European Affairs, I was
supportive of those nominations last year, and I intend to
support their nominations once again. Since both men have
already been serving in these roles, we'll have an excellent
chance to hear from them directly about the challenges they've
already seen and their plans for the future.
So welcome back to the committee, gentlemen. Thank you both
for being willing to go through the nomination process again
and to continue to take on these difficult responsibilities at
a very important time for our country.
So first today, we will consider the U.S. relationship with
the Czech Republic. As an important ally of the United States
in Central Europe, the Czech Republic has demonstrated
exceptional leadership in Europe, particularly with respect to
engaging the region's eastern neighborhood and pressing for
further European integration.
The Czech Republic has made some impressive contributions
to international peacekeeping efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and
Kosovo. In addition, the country's unique experience with
democratic transitions should provide some lessons for the
United States as we navigate the ongoing transitions in the
Middle East and North Africa.
Today we also consider the U.S. relationship with Turkey.
Turkey remains a critical NATO ally with a predominantly Muslim
population in a volatile and geopolitically strategic region of
the world. Recent events throughout the Middle East and North
Africa have increased Turkey's strategic importance as a center
of power in this complex region.
There is little doubt that Turkey will continue to play an
influential role in many of the national security threats
facing the United States. I remain a proponent of a strong
bilateral relationship with Turkey and its continued
integration into Europe. However, it's also important to
recognize where we have differences.
Turkish troops continue to occupy the Island of Cyprus, and
the Turkish Government needs to do more to support a just
solution in Cyprus.
In addition, Turkey's vote against a fourth round of
sanctions on Iran in the U.N. Security Council raises concerns
that the United States and Turkey do not share the same threat
assessment with respect to Iran's nuclear weapons program.
So I want to just briefly introduce our two nominees, and I
know that Senator Lieberman is here to provide an introduction
for Ambassador Eisen, so I will let him do most of that
introduction.
And as I mentioned previously, Senator Casey will be
introducing our second panel nominee, Ambassador Ford, when he
gets here.
I want to welcome Ambassador Ricciardone, who is a highly
distinguished, long-time career Foreign Service officer. He is
the former Ambassador to Egypt, the former Deputy Ambassador to
Afghanistan, and he served previously in Turkey and throughout
the Middle East. He speaks a number of languages, including
Turkish and Arabic. And finally, and most importantly, from my
perspective, he is a graduate of Dartmouth College in New
Hampshire.
So again, congratulations to all of you on your
nominations, and I appreciate your willingness to come before
the committee.
As I said, we're fortunate to have Senator Lugar, who is
the ranking member of this committee here with us this
afternoon, and I know that he would like to make a statement.
Senator Lugar.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Lugar. I am very pleased to join you, Madam
Chairman, in welcoming our nominees to three very important
countries.
Our relationships with these countries are excellent, and
we appreciate this opportunity to review events in each of the
three as we welcome Ambassador Ricciardone, Ambassador Eisen,
and Ambassador Ford to this committee once again.
Turkey is at the center of several critical issues,
underscoring its importance as an ally. In particular, I hope
to hear Ambassador Ricciardone's perspective on the recent
resignations of Turkey's top military leaders and the effect
this will have on political stability.
Moreover, we will be interested to hear more about dynamics
related to upheaval in Syria, Turkey's expanding participation
in regional diplomacy, and its ongoing role in the creation of
a southern energy corridor.
The Czech Republic remains a very important ally in Central
Europe. I will be interested to hear from Ambassador Eisen
about ramifications of Prague's recent announcement that it
will not participate in the current plan for the European
Phased Adaptive Approach to missile defense.
Regional energy interconnections and diversification in the
Czech Republic also remain fundamental to the United States and
European efforts to improve energy security for the region.
Finally, this hearing is an important opportunity for the
committee to review events in Syria. The Syrian regime appears
committed to the use of violence to suppress the will of its
people.
In the last few months alone, more than 1,700 people have
been killed with more than 10,000 imprisoned. The toll on
Syrian civilians--including children--gets worse by the day.
Despite the regime's efforts to cut off the Internet, cell
phones, and other forms of communication, the images continue
to get out and the world has borne witness to these
brutalities. The causes of peace, stability, and economic
advancement would benefit from a swift transition to a new
leadership and a more representative government for all the
Syrian people.
The alternative is almost certainly a cycle of ever-
widening violence and the prospect of sectarian conflict.
The regime, of course, seems intent on playing up the
prospects of sectarian strife, and has sought the aid of
Tehran, as a means to hold on to power.
We must explore ways to work with our allies to present a
clear and unequivocal message to President al-Assad and those
around him that the violence must stop and that a credible
political transition must begin immediately.
I note that the Government of Turkey has taken a strong
stance in this regard, given the potential for increasing
refugee flows. Syria's Government and business elite must
understand that the current path will only deepen their
isolation and intensify consequences for the regime and its
leaders.
I look forward to our discussion with the nominees.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Senator Lugar.
And, Senator Lieberman, we're delighted to have you with us
to introduce Mr. Eisen.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Lieberman. Thanks very much, Madam Chair and
Senator Lugar. It's an honor to be here.
I should express my appreciation to you on behalf of the
nominees that you did not join the herd leaving Washington
after the vote at noon. And thank you for convening this
hearing.
I'm here to introduce Ambassador Eisen. I'd be remiss if I
didn't simply say that I have had the opportunity to get to
know Ambassador Ricciardone and Ambassador Ford, and these are
two extraordinary public servants, great, courageous, informed
representatives of the United States in the countries on which
they have served and are serving now.
I'm really honored to be here to introduce Norm Eisen. This
is not a political duty. It's really a personal pleasure,
because Ambassador Eisen and his wife, Lindsay, and his
daughter, Tamar, are personal friends of mine and my family.
And as you mentioned, I guess the reason I'm asked is that
Norman is one of those stateless people who lives in
Washington, DC, so I occasionally do double duty by introducing
such people.
As you mentioned, Senator Shaheen, Ambassador Eisen was
nominated and given a recess appointment to this point at the
end of last year. Prior to his nomination, he had a
distinguished career as a lawyer here in Washington, and then
was special counsel for ethics and governmental reform in the
White House.
I regret that it was necessary for the President to make a
recess appointment in this case, but perhaps there is a silver
lining here in that we can now judge Ambassador Eisen based on
his performance over the past 6 months. And that, from all that
I have heard, has been really exemplary.
Since arriving in Prague, Ambassador Eisen has been a
whirlwind of activity, winning plaudits from everyone from the
Czech Government to the American Chamber of Commerce, whose
leader has said, ``In your short time in the country, you have
already made a significant impact and you have proven to be one
of the most effective Ambassadors to hold this post.''
He has been a tireless advocate for America's national
interests in the Czech Republic, whether with regard to
imposing sanctions against Iran or winning contracts for
American companies.
And with your permission, I would like to insert in the
record a list of essentially thank you's and testimonials from
American companies who have been doing business in the Czech
Republic.
Senator Shaheen. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
Ambassador Eisen--Our Washington grapevine delivered the news this
week that you might be undergoing your confirmation in the near future.
If this is so, I would like to express our fervent hope that it is
successful, because your presence in the Czech Republic has been and
will be essential to our common efforts to advance the interests of
U.S. business and to improve the standing of our country in the crucial
region of Central Europe. In the months since you have taken the
leadership role here, you have not only invigorated our community and
increased the stature of our country in the eyes of Czech citizens, but
you have also contributed substantially to the reform of public
procurement and to the promotion of scientific education--two top
priorities of the business community. Furthermore, your endeavors on
behalf of Westinghouse and other U.S. companies have expanded their
export possibilities, which should add much needed jobs in the U.S.
manufacturing sector. In your short time in the country, you have
already made a significant impact, and you have proven to be one of the
most effective ambassadors to hold this post. We sincerely hope that
the Senate will allow us to continue our common work here, and, again,
you have both our best wishes and strongest support during the
confirmation process.--Weston Stacey, American Chamber of Commerce in
the Czech Republic.
______
I would like to say loud ``Thank You'' for organizing the e-health
event last week in the Ambassador's residence. The event was beyond our
thoughts or expectations--perfect location, perfect audience, and
overall level of the event was unprecedented. It turned out to be who
is who in Czech health care with representation from MoH, VZP, other
insurance funds and hospitals. Thank you so much for having this
opportunity and have support and help from you and Veronika. The fact
that we had presence of his Excellency, the Ambassador himself was
taking the meeting on another level. Please let me know how we can
express our thanks and gratitude--I believe this was the support of the
U.S. commercial programs at its best. Thank you so much Stu and have a
great coming Easter.--Matej Adam, IBM Healthcare.
______
You and your U.S. Commercial Service team members all did much more
than an outstanding job. This was the best and most amazing business
trip of my life! I believe that this trip has opened many doors that no
other business development tool could have. All of the exchanges were
of the most professional and of an extraordinarily competent level. The
U.S.C.S. Representatives in Frankfurt, Prague, and Vienna are
consummate professionals and true U.S. Ambassadors. Thanks so much to
everyone for this major career and law practice milestone.--William N.
Hulsey III, Esq., HULSEY, P.C., Senior Research Fellow, IC2
(Innovation, Creativity & Capital) Institute, University of Texas at
Austin.
______
I am writing you to thank you for the work your team, specifically
Mrs. Obrusnikova, performed in support of my short visit to Prague last
week. Hana's knowledge of the Czech Republic's aerospace industry and
her enthusiasm in assisting Industrial Metals is to be highly
commended. As before, Hana was able to secure appointments on short
notice, and rearrange for an alternative meeting last-minute when one
of the planned visits was cancelled. During a 2009 Gold Key visit for
Industrial Metals, Hana arranged meetings with different companies, two
of which have become regular customers (Aero Vodochody and Jihostroj).
In light of the growth of the regional aerospace industry, we are now
renewing our efforts in Czech Republic and with Hana's continuing
support hope to expand the sales to these and other customers.--Marcel
Zondag, Industrial Metals.
______
Great job on the call this afternoon with Robert for Mathnasium! It
means a lot to us trade specialists in ODO to be able to transition our
clients to knowledgeable and capable commercial specialists in OIO, and
to know they will get excellent service. I look forward to continuing
to work with you to make something good happen for Mathnasium in the
Czech market!--Brent E. Omdahl, Atlanta Export Assistance Center.
______
I just wanted to send a quick not to thank you for the visit last
week. I think it went extremely well thanks to your efforts. Thanks
again for all your hard work, and I look forward to working together in
the future as we move forward in the Czech Republic. Excellent!! I
would highly recommend using this service. Not only were they very
effective through the initial phases of the activity, but have
continued to provide support and guidance through the followup phase.
Outstanding service!!--Zach Sorrells, European Operations-Eureka
Research International.
______
I'll write ANOTHER e-mail to you praising all the meetings you set
up on behalf of Publish on Demand global and Strategic Book publishing.
This e-mail is ONLY about my own publishing company participating in
your FREE offer for the U.S. Commercial service catalogue show. I want
to thank you for including our catalogue and our titles in your
presentation! It was great to see you at the Business Centre. You were
always busy with meetings and your materials were well-done. I think
it's GREAT that you're having the followup event in early June. I will
send you a couple more sample books for you to display. Thanks so much!
It was so great to meet you, Jana, and to have all your help. My week
in Prague was a totally positive experience and I will be doing lots of
e-mail, mail, and even some phone call followup so hopefully we will
see LOTS of sales that I can share with you for both companies!
--Jan Yager, Publish on Demand.
______
Just a note to let you know that our participation in the Prague
Book Fair was helpful and provided at least one very good lead for us.
Hana Whitton from the Oxford Literary Agency, which specializes in
translation rights sales into various Eastern European markets, asked
to be put in touch with us via the U.S. Commercial Service's stand at
Prague. The U.S. Commercial Service has been a tremendous asset for our
Press. Thank you and your colleagues for your capable assistance!
--Katherine McGuire, University of Pennsylvania Press.
______
The offered service was beyond our expectations. Very efficient,
fast service and extremely experienced and qualified staff. Very highly
recommended to any other U.S. company looking for a rep. in the Czech
Republic. Extremely satisfied with the service and the outcome. Thank
you so much and keep up the good service. The services that you
provided are beyond our expectations. I am really thankful to
accommodate our request and research the market within such a short
period. The data and all the candidates you recommended are very
efficient and professional companies in our field. Thank you for your
ongoing support and for organizing all these 4 meetings within such a
short notice.--Pierre Hatem, American Foodservice Concepts Corp.
______
The Commercial Service is an exception resource. My contact in the
Czech Republic, Veronika, was very friendly and accommodating--even
providing more resources after the completion of our project. I wasn't
extremely satisfied with the results of the service, but that is more
likely a result of the Czech Republic not having a readiness for our
products than it is a reflection on the Commercial Service. I would
still surely recommend this service to any and all!--Stephanie Johnson,
Mirabella Beauty.
______
The assistance from both the Arizona and Prague offices was
exceptional.--Scott Meehan, Positron Public Safety Systems/Intrado.
______
Veronika Novakova was amazing to work with . . . She did a lot of
work on our behalf and it turned out to be very successful. Also would
like to thank Mr. Chris Damm from San Jose office for his continued
hard work and time in helping set up all our IPS.--Leigh Lindenbaum,
Universal Exports Limited (UXL).
Senator Lieberman. For more than 2 years before Ambassador
Eisen arrived in Prague, the United States had no Ambassador in
the Czech Republic, which spurred doubts and fears among our
Czech allies--and as you said, they have really been great
allies--about our commitment to their country. This is not a
situation that we, in our national interests, should repeat.
So I hope that we can give a full confirmation to
Ambassador Eisen this time. The Czech Republic has been an
extraordinary partner and ally of the United States, from the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the promotion of democracy
worldwide. The Czechs are really now among our best friends and
allies in Europe, and they deserve to have an Ambassador from
our country that is confirmed by the full Senate.
Finally, as you may know, Norman Eisen has a deep personal
connection to the Czech Republic, his mother having been born
there. Both and she and his father survived the Holocaust, and
it is indeed a profound historical justice, an act of justice,
that the Ambassador's residence in Prague, which was originally
built by a Jewish family that was forced to flee Prague by the
Nazis, and which in turn the Nazis took over as their
headquarters, now 70 years later, is occupied by Norman and his
family.
And I might, on a point of personal privilege, add that
they observe the Sabbath there every Friday night and Saturday.
So if you need any evidence that there is a God, I offer that
to you.
The story of Norm Eisen and his family and their path back
to Europe is a classic American story, a reflection of what our
country is about at its very best. And that is also precisely
why the Ambassador has proven such an effective representative
of our Nation, our interests, and our values; and, again, why I
hope the committee can lead the Senate in sending him back to
Prague as our Ambassador as quickly as possible.
Thank you very much for this opportunity.
Senator Lugar. Madam Chairman, are there members of the
families here?
Senator Lieberman. They are.
Senator Shaheen. Yes, I think we should ask, as you're
giving your testimony, Ambassador Eisen and Ricciardone, that
you should feel free to introduce your families and let us
welcome them as well.
Senator Lieberman. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senator
Lugar.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. Thank you
especially for sharing the last story about the residence for
the Ambassador.
As I said, we are going to begin the panel with Ambassadors
Ricciardone and Eisen. And we will also be hearing the opening
statement from Ambassador Ford, and then we will save his
question and answer period for the second panel.
So I will ask you if you could begin, Mr. Eisen. And again,
feel free to introduce family or friends who are here with you.
STATEMENT OF HON. NORMAN L. EISEN, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Ambassador Eisen. Madam Chair, Senator Lugar, Senator
Coons, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity
to be here again in connection with my nomination by President
Obama to continue serving as the United States Ambassador to
the Czech Republic.
I am honored to have the confidence and the trust of the
President, of Secretary Clinton, in representing our country.
Since you asked, I would like to introduce my wife, Lindsay
Kaplan, an associate professor of English at Georgetown
University, and our daughter, Tamar.
Representing the United States in Prague is a family
effort, and I believe that the Czech people have come to
appreciate my family as much as I do--well, almost as much as I
do.
When I was last before the committee, I reflected upon my
extraordinary good fortune as a first-generation American. From
the vantage point of our small fast-food restaurant in Los
Angeles, where I grew up, my mother, a Czechoslovak Holocaust
survivor, and my father, an immigrant from Poland, could never
have imagined that their son would someday serve as a United
States Ambassador.
As Senator Lieberman noted, and as my mother put it
recently, just a little more succinctly, ``The Nazis took us
away in cattle cars, and now my son has returned representing
the mightiest nation on Earth.''
As that sentiment suggests, my mission in the Czech
Republic is strongly informed by my deep sense of obligation to
this country, to the United States.
Since my arrival in Prague in January, I have worked with a
talented Embassy team in three principal areas. First, the
defense and security relationship between the two countries;
second, commercial and economic ties; and third, shared values,
particularly the shared values of good governance and of civil
rights for all.
In each area, the relationship was good. But we have worked
with the Czech Government, with officials across the political
spectrum, with Czech civil society, and with the Czech people
to make it great.
In the defense and security realm, the Czechs are staunch
allies. Over the past year, they increased their contributions
in Afghanistan to over 700 soldiers and civilians. Czech
personnel operate in some of the most dangerous parts of the
country, and they have suffered numerous casualties there.
When I recently visited Afghanistan to thank Czech and
United States personnel for their service, U.S. soldiers that I
met with gave the Czechs high praise. That included General
Petraeus, who explained the critically important
responsibilities that our Czech allies are carrying out side by
side and day by day with their U.S. partners in Afghanistan.
The Czechs are also a staunch friend of Israel and a strong
supporter of United States policy toward Iran. They are one of
our very best allies in Europe on those issues and across the
board. In their own neighborhood, the Czech Republic is a
leading advocate within the European Union for countries like
Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova, through the EU's Eastern
Partnership Initiative. Elsewhere, from Cuba to Burma to
Belarus to North Korea, the Czechs are champions of human
rights.
We in Embassy Prague are proud to work with our Czech
partners on these issues.
Looking ahead to the future of our defense and strategic
partnership, we are broadening our security cooperation,
developing an approach that goes beyond any single narrow focus
to one with multiple areas of specialized cooperation where the
Czechs excel. The Czechs are world-class strategic partners in
areas ranging from helicopters; to chemical, biological,
radiological, and nuclear mitigation; to PRTs, Provincial
Reconstruction Teams.
In the economic and commercial area, Embassy Prague has
actively advocated for American business during my tenure. We
have an open door for U.S. firms, and I have met with dozens of
American companies, from the very largest to the smallest.
When they have concerns in the Czech Republic, we
vigorously work to resolve them, engaging all the way up to the
highest levels of government, if necessary. I've also
encouraged Czech investment in the United States, traveling
with government officials and Czech businesses to scout
business opportunities here that will generate good, high-
paying jobs in the United States.
In our commercial and economic work, we have particularly
emphasized civil nuclear cooperation. The Czechs have six
operating nuclear reactors and are planning an expansion worth
up to $27.5 billion. It is one of the largest opportunities for
U.S. businesses of its kind anywhere in the world.
If Westinghouse, the U.S. competitor, wins that bid, it
will mean an estimated 9,000 new, good jobs in the United
States, across the United States. To support that bid, we have
adopted a whole-of-government approach here in the United
States and with Embassy Prague to establish a broad civil
nuclear strategic partnership between our two countries.
So from fostering new relations between United States and
Czech R&D facilities, to making regulatory exchanges, to
working together to improve nuclear safety, our two nations are
building a model civil nuclear relationship for the 21st
century.
My third area of emphasis has been the shared values that
bind our two countries together. Czech and Slovak national
aspirations in the 20th century were first realized by the
Pittsburgh and Washington declarations signed right here in the
United States after World War I by President Wilson's great
friend and Czechoslovakia's first President, a revered name in
my home growing up, Tomas Masaryk.
The United States helped liberate Czechoslovakia from the
Nazis, supported the resistance against communism, and then
helped transform the goals of the Velvet Revolution into
reality.
I have carried that message of friendship the length and
breadth of the country, visiting almost 20 cities and regions
outside of Prague in just about 6 months on the job.
My message is one of warm friendship but also candor. I
have supported the initiatives of those in the Czech
Government, the opposition, NGOs, business, and the Czech
public who are working for good government and against
corruption. I believe we are building a model in Prague of how
to respectfully but forcefully engage on those issues.
We have also worked with the Czech Government to promote
equal rights and opportunities for all Czech citizens,
irrespective of their origin or faith, including the Roma. My
presence in Prague as the child of a Czechoslovak victim of
Nazi persecution is by itself a powerful message in the fight
against extremism and for human rights. Working with the
talented interagency team at Embassy Prague, I have taken every
opportunity to engage with the Czech people and their
government to advance our common goals and values.
I am so, so honored to be asked to represent our country
and our government.
Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for this
opportunity to appear before you. I welcome any questions you
may have.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Eisen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ambassador Norman L. Eisen
Madam Chair and members of the committee, it is a privilege to be
here again in connection with my nomination by President Obama to
continue serving as the United States Ambassador to the Czech Republic.
I am honored to have the confidence and trust of the President and
Secretary Clinton in representing our country. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I would like to introduce my
wife, Lindsay Kaplan, an associate professor of English at Georgetown
University and our daughter, Tamar. Representing the United States in
Prague is a team effort and I believe the Czech people have come to
appreciate my family as much as I do.
When I was last before the committee, I reflected upon my
extraordinary good fortune as a first-generation American. From the
vantage point of our small fast-food restaurant in Los Angeles where I
grew up, my mother, a Czechoslovak Holocaust survivor, and my father,
an immigrant from Poland, could never have imagined their son would
someday serve as a United States ambassador. As my mother put it
recently, ``the Nazis took us away in cattle cars, and now my son has
returned representing the greatest nation on earth.'' As that anecdote
suggests, my mission in the Czech Republic is strongly informed by my
deep sense of obligation to America.
Since my arrival in Prague in January, I have worked with a strong
Embassy team--Americans and Czechs--in three principal areas: defense
and security; commercial and economic; and shared values, particularly
the shared values of good governance and civil rights for all. In each
area the relationship was good--and we worked with the Czech Government
across the political spectrum, and with Czech civil society and the
Czech people to make it great.
In the defense and security realm, the Czechs are staunch allies.
Over the past year, they increased their contributions in Afghanistan
to over 700 soldiers and civilians. Czech personnel operate in some of
the most dangerous parts of the country, and have suffered numerous
casualties there. When I recently visited Afghanistan to thank Czech
and U.S. personnel for their service, U.S. soldiers gave the Czechs
high praise and General Petraeus explained the critically important
responsibilities our Czech allies are carrying out.
The Czechs are also a staunch friend of Israel and strong supporter
of U.S. policy toward Iran; they are one of our very best allies in
Europe. In their own neighborhood, the Czech Republic is a leading
advocate within the European Union for countries like Georgia, Ukraine,
and Moldova through the EU's Eastern Partnership Initiative. Elsewhere,
whether in Cuba, Burma, Belarus, or North Korea, the Czechs are
champions of human rights and we in Embassy Prague are proud to work
with them on those issues.
Looking ahead to the future of our defense and strategic
partnership, we are broadening our security cooperation and developing
an approach that goes beyond any single narrow focus to one with
multiple areas of specialized cooperation where the Czechs excel. The
Czechs are world-class strategic partners in areas ranging from
training Afghan helicopter pilots and crews to Chemical Biological
Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) mitigation to Provincial Reconstruction
Teams in Afghanistan.
In economic and commercial ties, Embassy Prague has actively
advocated for American business during my tenure. We have an open door
for U.S. firms, and I have met with dozens of American companies, from
the largest to the smallest. When they have problems, we vigorously
work to resolve them, engaging all the way up to the highest levels of
government. I have encouraged Czech investment in the United States,
traveling with government officials and Czech businesses to scout
business opportunities here that will generate jobs.
We have particularly emphasized civil nuclear cooperation. The
Czechs have six operating nuclear reactors and are planning an
expansion worth up to $27.5 billion that is one of the largest
opportunities for U.S. business of its kind in the world. If the U.S.
competitor wins the bid, it will mean an estimated 9,000 new, high-
paying jobs in the United States. To support that, we have adopted a
whole-of-government approach to establish a broad civil nuclear
strategic partnership between our two countries. From fostering new
relations between U.S. and Czech R&D facilities, to regulatory
exchanges, to working together to improve nuclear safety, we are
building a model civil nuclear relationship for the 21st century.
My third area of emphasis has been the shared values that bind our
two countries together. Czech and Slovak national aspirations in the
20th century were first realized by the Pittsburgh and Washington
declarations signed in the United States after WWI by President
Wilson's great friend and Czechoslovakia's first President, Tomas
Masaryk. The United States helped liberate Czechoslovakia from the
Nazis, supported the resistance against communism, and helped transform
the goals of the Velvet Revolution into reality. I have carried that
message the length and breadth of the country, visiting almost 20
cities and regions outside of Prague in just 6 months on the job.
My message is one of warm friendship and also candor: I have
supported the initiatives of those in the Czech Government, the
opposition, NGOs, business and the public who are working for good
government and against corruption. I believe we are building a model in
Prague of how to respectfully engage on those issues.
We have also worked with the Czech Government to promote equal
rights and opportunities for all Czech citizens, irrespective of their
origin or faith, including the Roma. My presence in Prague as the child
of a Czechoslovak victim of persecution is by itself a powerful message
in the fight against extremism and for human rights. Working with the
talented interagency team at Embassy Prague, I have taken every
opportunity to engage with the Czech people and their government to
advance our common goals and values.
I am so honored to be asked to represent our country and our
government. Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for
this opportunity to appear before you. I welcome any questions you may
have.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much.
Before we go on to Ambassador Ricciardone, I want to just
recognize--I understand the Ambassador from the Czech Republic
to the United States is in the audience. So I want to recognize
him.
Very nice to have you join us.
And I don't know if there are any other members of the
diplomatic corps here, but welcome to all of you.
So, Ambassador Ricciardone.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANCIS JOSEPH RICCIARDONE, JR., OF
MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY
Ambassador Ricciardone. Madam Chair, members of the
committee, I am very honored to appear before you today as
President Obama's nominee as Ambassador to the Republic of
Turkey, having, as you mentioned, served in that capacity as a
recess appointee since this past January.
I am grateful to the President and to Secretary Clinton for
their trust and confidence in me.
And with me today is my wife and life partner, Marie, whom
I married in Enfield, NH, almost 4 decades ago, who has been my
partner throughout our Foreign Service adventures in Turkey,
and long before in Iran and everywhere. So she is with me, and
our daughters were unable to join us, but we all have family
connections to Turkey and a great fondness for that country.
Marie has studied and taught there as well.
During my 33-year career in the Foreign Service, I have had
the pleasure and the privilege of having served in Turkey
previously three times. And through this period, I have
observed Turkey's continuing transformation into a more
democratic and more open and more economically vibrant, modern
state, and as a player with growing influence on the world
stage.
Throughout this change and development, has been one
constant, and that has been Turkey's continued commitment to
its partnership with the United States and the NATO alliance.
It is also a member of the G20 now and has one of the fastest
growing economies in the world.
And noting Turkey's history as a majority Muslim nation and
as a secular democracy that respects the rule of law, President
Obama has cited Turkey's critical role in helping to shape the
mutual understanding and stability not only in its
neighborhood, but around the world.
If confirmed, I will continue to do everything I can to
reinforce Turkish-American cooperation in support of our common
goals, which are rooted in the security alliance and our shared
democratic values.
For decades, Turkey and the United States have cooperated
intensively to promote regional stability, including by
countering terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction; resolving regional conflicts; promoting energy
security; expanding trade, investment, and economic
development; and, essential and integral to all of those,
strengthening democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
Several such strategic priorities merge in the cases of
particular and immediate consequence, including in Iraq and
Afghanistan, the quest for peace between Israel and all its
neighbors, and Iran's evident pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Other conflicts, as you've mentioned, Madam Chair, with
historical antecedents require no less sustained and intensive
joint attention and cooperation, including the unresolved
issues of Cyprus and the normalization of relations with
Armenia.
I have been privileged to serve in Ankara during the Arab
Spring, during which I have strived to enlist Turkish support
for the NATO role in Libya, for a successful transition to
democracy in Egypt, and in collaboration with my colleague and
friend next door in Syria to pressure the regime in Syria to
cease its brutal repression and to heed the will of its people.
And just as the Turkish Government has played an important
role in promoting these political transitions, its government
and private sector are also keen to support economic
development in Egypt and Tunisia that are so critical to long-
term stability in the region by increasing their trade and
investment in those countries. And wherever possible, Turkey as
a government and Turkish firms are looking for partnerships
with American firms.
While we share many goals with Turkey, one of the most
important is countering global terrorism and networks, and
Turkey has been one of our strongest partners in that pursuit.
Just last month, Turkish security officials arrested an alleged
al-Qaeda cell that was plotting to bomb Western interests in
Turkey, including the United States Embassy.
We support Turkey's own foremost security objective of
defeating the terrorist violence, which the PKK continues to
perpetrate, and which has led to the deaths of over 30,000
Turks since the 1980s.
We strongly support Turkey's efforts to improve the human
rights and economic situation for the Kurds, and their
democratic participation as full citizens, and the rights also
of other communities of vulnerable groups in Turkey.
As the United States maintains its longstanding support for
Turkey's aspirations to join the European Union, we will
continue to press for the reforms required for accession. It's
important to note the Turkish citizens themselves are demanding
further progress on promoting human rights and the rule of law,
most certainly including freedom of speech and religious
freedom.
And in my return to Turkey, it has been my privilege to
meet with the heads of each of the religious minorities, the
ancient Jewish community of Istanbul; His All Holiness
Bartholomew II, whom I had first met over a couple of decades
ago with the then-First Lady, Secretary Clinton, and met again
2 weeks ago with the Secretary; the head of the Syriani Church;
and the head of the Armenian Church as well; as well as the
Baha'i community leader.
The United States supports a transparent and inclusive
constitutional reform process to strengthen Turkey's democracy.
We regard freedom of expression as central to democracy, and we
believe the reform process offers a unique opportunity to
strengthen the protections afforded to journalists, to
nongovernmental organizations, and to minorities.
The President and the Secretary have established economic
cooperation with Turkey as a strategic priority and have
emphasized the importance of supporting American firms and
promoting Turkish-American trade and investment. During the
President's April 2009 meeting with Turkish President Gul, both
leaders agreed to elevate our economic relations to the level
of our already strong political and military relations. So
Turkey is a leading focus in the President's new export
initiative to double United States exports globally in 5 years.
It has been a special privilege to return to Ankara over
these past 6 months to strengthen the communications and the
friendship between our two peoples in all fields of private as
well as official endeavors, including the fields of education,
science, and health.
I know this committee and this Senate have strongly
supported public diplomacy, and I have tried to make a special
effort to communicate with the Turkish people and bring private
American groups and Turks together.
I believe that increasing contacts and communications
between Americans and Turks must be a primary means of
advancing our interests on all of the issues we face together
today.
So, Madam Chair, ranking member, Senator, if confirmed to
continue my service as Ambassador in Ankara, as in my service
in all other posts in the past, I will trust to your support
and advice, and that of your colleagues and constituents who
are interested in the interests the United States has at stake
in Turkey.
Thank you so much for this hearing.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Ricciardone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ambassador Francis J. Ricciardone
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am honored to appear
before you today as President Obama's nominee to serve as Ambassador to
the Republic of Turkey, having served in that capacity as a recess
appointee since January 20, 2011. I am grateful to President Obama and
Secretary Clinton for their trust and confidence in me. With me today
is my wife, Marie, who both studied and taught in Turkish universities.
During my 33-year career in the Foreign Service, I have had the
pleasure of having previously served three times in Turkey, most
recently as the Deputy Chief of Mission and Charge d'Affaires from 1995
to 1999. Through more than three decades I have observed Turkey's
continuing transformation into a more democratic, more open, and more
economically vibrant, modern state and a player with growing influence
on the world stage. If confirmed, I look forward to continuing to work
with you and your colleagues, as well as with the many private American
organizations with a strong interest in Turkey and throughout the
region, to advance United States interests in this critically important
and complex relationship.
Turkey remains as ever a key ally and strategic partner of the
United States and an important member of the NATO alliance. It is also
a member of the G20 with one of the fastest growing economies in the
world. Noting Turkey's history as a majority Muslim nation and as a
secular democratic state that respects the rule of law, President Obama
has cited Turkey's ``critical role in helping to shape mutual
understanding and stability not only in its neighborhood, but around
the world.'' If confirmed, I will continue to do everything possible to
reinforce Turkish-American cooperation in support of our common goals.
For decades, Turkey and the United States have cooperated
intensively to promote regional stability, including by countering
terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction;
resolving regional conflicts; promoting energy security; expanding
trade, investment, and economic development; and, essential and
integral to all of these, strengthening democracy, human rights, and
the rule of law. Several such strategic priorities merge in cases of
particularly immediate consequence, including in Iraq and Afghanistan,
the quest for peace between Israel and all its neighbors, and Iran's
evident pursuit of nuclear weapons. Other conflicts with historical
antecedents require no less sustained and intensive joint attention and
cooperation, including the unresolved issues of Cyprus and
normalization of relations with Armenia. I have been privileged to
serve in Ankara during the ``Arab Spring,'' during which I have strived
to enlist Turkish support for the NATO role in Libya, for a successful
transition to democracy in Egypt, and pressure on the regime in Syria
to cease its brutal repression and to heed the will of its people. Just
as the Turkish Government has played an important role in promoting
these political transitions, the Turkish Government and private sector
are keen to support economic development in Egypt and Tunisia that are
so critical to long-term stability in the region, by increasing their
trade and investment in these countries. Wherever possible, they are
looking for partnerships with U.S. companies.
Let me describe Turkey's role in relation to our foreign policy
priorities. If confirmed, my continued responsibility will be to
strengthen Turkey's cooperation with us in all of these areas, as a key
bilateral partner and also as an essential NATO ally.
United States-Turkey cooperation in Iraq and Afghanistan has been
robust and critical to our success. Turkey shares our vision of a
stable Iraq and actively helps the Iraqi people develop a sovereign
state that is at peace with itself and its neighbors. This requires
progress in Iraq's security, political, and economic infrastructure,
and in each of these areas Turkey has been an essential partner for our
mission. Turkey's high-level strategic dialogue with the Government of
Iraq and its outreach to the Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government have
contributed to the stability of Iraq. Turkey also is contributing to
Iraq's progress by hosting regional meetings on political and economic
cooperation, and through trade and investment that promote Iraq's
reconstruction and help develop Iraq's oil and electricity
infrastructure.
Additionally, Turkey is a crucial logistics hub, supporting U.S.
forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly 70 percent of the air cargo for
our mission in Iraq transits Incirlik Air Base, which is also the
primary refueling stop for flights to Afghanistan. Turkey provides
blanket clearance for U.S. aircraft supporting these operations and
authorizes the use of its bases and ports to support humanitarian and
reconstruction operations in Iraq, as well as the retrograde of U.S.
forces from Iraq over the course of 2011. The Habur Gate border
crossing serves as a key line of communication to Iraq; through it, 25
percent of our fuel and 40 percent of other sustainment requirements
enter Iraq. There are more than 1,700 U.S. military personnel stationed
in Turkey. Turkey has a long tradition of hospitality to our service
men and women, including hosting the USS Eisenhower in January.
Turkey is one of our strongest partners in the fight against
international terrorism. Turkey and the United States are working
together to fight the regional transit and support of international
terrorists, and last month arrested an alleged al-Qaeda cell plotting
to bomb western interests in Turkey, including the U.S. Embassy. I have
urged the Turkish Government and Parliament to pass stronger
legislation against terrorist financing, and hope the Parliament will
pass the Government's bill when it reconvenes this autumn.
We support Turkey's foremost security objective of defeating the
terrorist violence which the PKK continues to perpetrate, which has led
to the deaths of over 30,000 Turks since the 1980s. We support Turkey's
operations against the PKK; we cooperate with EU partners to cut off
PKK facilitation efforts in Europe; and we support the growing
cooperation between Turkey and Iraq, including the Kurdistan Regional
Government, against the PKK elements that find refuge in Iraq. We are
in consultations with Turkey to step up law enforcement cooperation
against terrorism. Turkey's leaders also recognize the need for
political, economic and cultural measures to counter PKK terrorism.
Turkey's ``National Unity Project'' or ``Democratic Opening'' aims to
improve the human rights and economic situation for Kurds and other
communities of vulnerable groups in Turkey. We believe that further
pursuit of this initiative can help not only to undermine the terrorism
still conducted by the PKK, but it will also advance and strengthen
Turkish democracy and the human rights of all Turks. A record number of
Kurds were elected as independents to Parliament in June and we commend
their professed commitment to participation in a nonviolent, lawful
political process to secure the full rights of all Turkey's Kurds as
Turkish citizens.
From my current service in Ankara as well as my tenure as Deputy
Ambassador in Kabul, I can attest that Turkey has also been an
essential partner in Afghanistan, where it has longstanding cultural
and historical ties and has been a leading proponent of Afghanistan's
unity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. Turkey shares our goal
of a stable Afghanistan that can protect itself from al-Qaeda and any
other terrorists who would use that country as a base for international
terrorist attacks. Turkey has some 1,600 troops serving in the
International Security Assistance Force, commands the Regional Command
for Kabul, and this year has sent still more civilian humanitarian
relief and development assistance experts to establish its second
Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Jowzjan province. It is also a
leader on training the Afghan National Security Forces. Turkey has
pledged to train a brigade's worth of Afghan National Army troops. Just
last week, I was proud to participate in the opening of Turkey's
special training center in Sivas for the Afghan National Police. Turkey
has also pledged $300 million for development projects in Afghanistan,
built schools and clinics, and invested in the repair or construction
of bridges and roads and the drilling of new wells, as well as
facilitated economic development through support to the agriculture,
marble and carpet sectors. In addition to our cooperation with Turkey
through NATO/ISAF and our two Embassies on the ground in Kabul, we see
Turkey undertaking an influential and highly positive role in rallying
international support for Afghanistan's economic development, and in
fostering political reconciliation of its violent conflict with the
Taliban. In support of cooperation between Afghanistan and Pakistan,
Turkey has hosted trilateral summits in Turkey with the participation
of both the Afghan and Pakistani Presidents, and later this year will
host another summit of Afghanistan and its neighbors.
Turkey and Israel are both important partners of the United States.
The two countries have shared vital political, economic, security, and
military ties for many years. The strains in their relations since the
May 2010 Gaza flotilla incident, risk setting back the vitally
important interests of both those countries, and of the United States,
in regional peace and stability. Therefore we have underscored to both
countries the importance to them, to us, and their region of repairing
their mutually beneficial relationship. Secretary Clinton continues to
urge both sides to find a way to put the flotilla incident behind them,
and we hope that efforts toward this goal over the past year will soon
meet with success.
On Iran, we work closely with Turkey on a range of the challenges
we face with Iran. Turkey shares a long border and history with Iran.
Turkey has said that it shares the international community's concerns
about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, and repeatedly has
reaffirmed its commitment to upholding U.N. Security Council
resolutions in this regard. But we have not always agreed on tactics
regarding Iran, particularly with regard to sanctions. Turkey shared
our disappointment that Iran failed to engage meaningfully in the talks
hosted by Turkey in Istanbul last January between Iran and the U.N.
Security Council's permanent five members plus Germany. If confirmed as
Ambassador, I will continue to urge Turkey to persuade Iran to engage
directly and seriously with the IAEA and P5+1 on the international
community's concerns about its nuclear program. On sanctions, we
continue to urge Turkey to fully enforce U.N. sanctions, which Turkey
has publicly pledged to implement. We also are engaging vigorously with
Turkey to ensure that the CISADA (Comprehensive Iran Sanctions,
Accountability, and Divestment Act) sanctions are fully respected and
to educate Turkish entities of the consequences should Iranian
companies attempt sanctioned transactions via Turkey.
The United States continues its longstanding support for Turkey's
aspirations to join the European Union. The prospect of EU accession
has been a strong impetus for Turkish reform. Over the past few years,
Turkey has implemented meaningful political and economic reforms
necessary for EU membership, but more needs to be done. Turkish
citizens themselves are demanding further progress on promoting human
rights and the rule of law, including freedom of the media and
religious freedom. They seek, for example, the rights of minority
religious institutions freely to own their property and operate their
institutions. There could be no more powerful modern testimony to
Turkey's historic legacy of religious tolerance than reopening the
Ecumenical Patriarchate's Halki Seminary. Just this past month, I was
privileged to join Secretary Clinton in advocating for the reopening of
Halki Seminary and protecting the rights of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
during her recent visit to Istanbul, and I will continue my advocacy
until this is addressed. If confirmed, I look forward to celebrating
the reopening of Halki Seminary with His All Holiness Bartholomew, and
the leaders of the Government of Turkey (including the democratic
opposition) who, I dare hope, will show the courage and foresight
needed to redress a historical wrong.
The division of Cyprus has gone on far too long. The United States
encourages the negotiations between the two communities under the
auspices of the U.N. Secretary General, and we urge the leaders of the
two communities to seize the moment to negotiate a settlement that
reunifies the island into a bizonal, bicommunal federation. Turkey and
Greece can play a constructive role in helping the Cypriot parties
toward a lasting solution to their differences, and we continue to urge
them to do so.
Facilitating regional integration is a high priority for the United
States. Rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia will foster increased
stability and prosperity in the entire Caucasus region. We commended
the governments of Turkey and Armenia on signing the historic protocols
on normalization of relations on October 10, 2009, in Zurich. During
her visit last month, Secretary Clinton again urged Turkey to ratify
the protocols, and we will continue to support programs that build
understanding between Turks and Armenians. Last year, the Government of
Turkey permitted Armenians to celebrate religious services at the
ancient Akhtemar Church in Lake Van, for the first time in decades. I
was glad to see increasing numbers of private Turkish citizens turn out
this past spring in five cities across Turkey to protest the 2007
murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, and to call for
justice against the perpetrators. Last week, the courts convicted and
sentenced the murderer to 22 years in prison, and we understand that
official investigations, urged by President Gul himself, continue into
the conspiracy that reportedly supported the heinous assassination.
The President and Secretary Clinton have established economic
cooperation with Turkey as a strategic priority, and have emphasized
the importance of supporting American firms and promoting U.S.-Turkish
trade and investment. During President Obama's April 2009 meeting with
Turkish President Gul, the two leaders agreed to elevate our economic
relations to the level of our already strong political and military
relations. To follow through on this commitment, the United States and
Turkey launched a Cabinet-level dialogue--the Framework for Strategic
Economic and Commercial Cooperation--during Prime Minister Erdogan's
visit to Washington in December 2009. In addition to our official
dialogues, we have launched a public-private sector U.S.-Turkey
Business Council to advise the U.S. and Turkish Governments on
strategies for increasing trade and relationships, improving the
business climate, and eliminating impediments to trade and investment.
Turkey is a leading focus in the President's New Export Initiative to
double U.S. exports globally in 5 years. Turkey's economic role has
only grown in importance since 2009, as its booming economy is
increasingly important to the global economy and to propelling regional
growth. Turkey has set an ambitious goal of becoming a top-10 economy
by 2023, which will triple the size of the economy and create more
opportunities for U.S. firms. The Turkish Government and private
business associations enthusiastically have supported our Global
Entrepreneurship Program, and our ``Partnership for a New Beginning,''
both intended to foster a culture of entrepreneurship, especially among
the young.
Building on our close cooperation in the 1990s that helped make
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) a reality, the United States and Turkey are
working together to bring Caspian gas to European markets for the first
time through a new route called the ``Southern Corridor.'' We welcomed
the June 2010 agreement signed by Turkey and Azerbaijan on the gas
purchase and transit of Azerbaijani gas to Turkey as an important
milestone in laying the foundation for the Southern Corridor. The
corridor would provide commercial benefit for the countries of the
Caucasus and Central Asia and also create a long-term partnership based
on mutual interests with Europe. Overseeing the safe passage of oil
through the Bosporus Straits and the transport of oil through the BTC
pipeline, which pumps nearly a million barrels of oil a day to the
Turkish port of Ceyhan, Turkey plays an important role in world energy
markets.
Many Americans, including my family and I, have had wonderful
experiences living and working in Turkey. It has been a special
privilege to return to Ankara over these past 6 months to strengthen
the communications and friendship between our two peoples in all fields
of private as well as official endeavors, including the fields of
education, science, and health--in which my wife has practiced while on
previous service in Turkey. Led by this committee, the Senate has
formally recognized the importance of public diplomacy. Increasing
contacts and communications between Americans and Turks must be a
primary means of advancing our interests on all issues we face today.
If confirmed, I pledge that all members of U.S. Mission Turkey will
continue warmly to welcome the advice and support of the American
people, both through our elected representatives and through direct and
continuous contact and communication. In particular, I would pledge the
highest standards of service to the American community and American
travelers, whether for business or for the private advocacy of the
cause of freedom and human rights supported by our administration and
our Congress.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, if confirmed to continue
my service as Ambassador, in my service in Ankara as in my past service
at other posts, I will trust to your support and advice, and that of
your colleagues.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
look forward to your questions.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Ambassador Ford.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. FORD, OF VERMONT, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO
THE SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC
Ambassador Ford. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, Senator Lugar, Senator Coons, I'm really
honored to appear before you today, and I'm grateful for the
trust and confidence placed in me by President Obama and
Secretary Clinton in renominating me to serve as the United
States Ambassador to the Syrian Arab Republic at a time when it
is more critical than ever that our voice be heard clearly by
the Syrian regime and, more importantly, by the Syrian people
themselves.
Under the President's recess appointment, I have been
working in Syria since late January. I have to say it has not
been an easy job, but the strategic stakes and the strategic
opportunities for us that we have in Syria now are quite
dramatic. And there is a hugely important story about the
struggle for human dignity now under way in Syria.
I arrived in Syria about a month before the protests
started. In the past 5 months, those protests have grown slowly
in size, and they now extend across all of Syria. The
protesters demand respect for their basic rights, freedom of
speech, freedom to march peacefully, and they demand an end to
corruption, and above all they demand that their government
treat them with dignity.
I want to emphasize here, we talk about the Arab Spring in
Washington. The key word is dignity--treating people with
dignity.
But government's response has been brutal. It has been
outrageous. Nearly 2,000 people have been killed by the Syrian
security forces and thousands more arrested and held in
barbaric conditions. One cannot have but admiration for the
protesters' courage and also their ingenuity, and that they
have stayed generally peaceful despite bullets, beatings, and
the constant risk of arrest and torture.
In my 6 months, I have seen two principal tasks in front of
me. First, to insist to the Syrian officials, and to convince
them, that opening more space for the Syrian people to express
themselves is vital for the credibility of those officials, for
the credibility of that government, and for Syria more largely.
There have been a few small positive steps taken by the
government. They have released many political prisoners. They
have allowed some meetings by the political opposition.
However, as I said, in general, their behavior has been
atrocious. And their recent actions that we read about in the
newspaper these days only underline again that the Syrian
Government is unwilling to lead the democratic transition that
the Syrian people themselves demand.
My second vital function in Damascus is to work with the
Syrian opposition. I have spent enormous amounts of time
discussing with them their ideas for the future and discussing
with them the kinds of questions that other Syrians and the
international community will ask about them.
It's really important now to give Syrians an ear and to
amplify their voices, especially when the international media
is barred from Syria.
I have been trying to draw the attention of the Syrian
regime and the attention of the international community to the
legitimate grievances the Syrian people have with their
government. The Syrian people want to be heard.
I wish the members of this committee could have seen how
enthusiastic the protesters in Hama were to have a chance to
talk to the American Ambassador.
The crisis in Syria, however, is not about the United
States directly. As I said, it offers us opportunities to
promote respect for our principles and our ideals. The Syrian
crisis offers us opportunities eventually to reinforce
stability and peace in the Middle East.
But Syrians must resolve the crisis. The manner in which
the crisis is resolved has to be a Syrian one.
My job is to help establish the space for Syrian activists
and for Syrian thinkers, for Syrian business people, and for
the Syrian people generally to develop and organize the
political transition that must occur if Syria is to be stable
again.
Syria's 23 million people are already thinking about what
happens when Assad is no longer President of Syria. I believe
that we and the Syrian people share a vision of what Syria
could be, an open and democratic country where governance is
based on consent of the governed, a unified and tolerant
country where Arabs and Kurds, Sunnis and Alawites, Christians
and Druze see themselves as Syrians first, and they celebrate
Syria's rich cultural diversity; a strong country at peace with
its neighbors and exercising a stabilizing influence in the
region; a strong country that plays a responsible role in the
broader international community; and a country that does not
support Iranian efforts to destabilize the region or give
support to terrorist groups like Hezbollah.
As the President said on July 31, Syria will be a better
place when a democratic transition goes forward. I and my team
in Damascus, my colleagues at the Department of State and
throughout the U.S. Government, and, most importantly, the
Syrian people are working to make that vision a reality.
Madam Chair, thank you for this opportunity to address the
committee, and I look forward to responding to questions at the
appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Ford follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ambassador Robert S. Ford
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am honored to appear
before you today. I am grateful for the trust and confidence placed in
me by President Obama and Secretary Clinton in re-nominating me to
serve as United States Ambassador to the Syrian Arab Republic at a time
when it is more critical than ever that our voice be heard clearly by
the Syrian regime and, more importantly, the Syrian people.
I last testified before this committee on March 16, 2010. Almost 1
year to the day later, the Syrian regime sparked what has become a
nationwide uprising when it responded with deadly force to a peaceful
protest over the arrest of a handful of youths in Dara'a. Since March
2011, over 1,600 people have been killed and more than 10,000 arrested
in a ruthless attempt to cow the Syrian people into submission--an
attempt that has failed. The Secretary reiterated on August 1 that
President Assad has lost his legitimacy with the Syrian people. And the
President on July 31 laid out my instructions: to stand with the Syrian
people, increase our pressure on the Syrian regime, and work with other
countries to isolate the Assad government.
I want to salute the courage of the Syrians who risk bullets or
vicious beatings or arrest and torture but who will not be intimidated
from demanding their government respect their basic rights. They are
demanding nothing outlandish. They demand simply that the Syrian
Government respect the basic rights laid out in the United Nations
Charter of Human Rights--a charter that the Syrian Government signed.
They want their government to respect the freedoms of speech and
assembly, the right to just and fair governance, and freedom from the
fears and wants that have resulted from decades of corrupt,
incompetent, and brutal rule at the hands of an unaccountable clique.
They want to be treated like human beings--with respect and dignity.
My team and I see it as an integral part of our mission to give
these people an ear and a voice. To amplify their hopes and legitimate
grievances so that the international community and most importantly the
Syrian regime pays attention. I am convinced that my French colleague
and I were welcomed in Hama because after weeks of fearless and
peaceful protest, and on the verge of a potential crackdown, someone
from outside Syria took notice. I wish you could have seen the
eagerness of the Hama people to talk to me about their experiences with
the Syrian intelligence services and how they were determined to push
their demands for respect and dignity from their government no matter
what the pressure from the Syrian Government.
When I return to Syria in a couple days, I will continue through my
actions and my presence to demonstrate solidarity with the Syrian
people and our rejection of the regime's empty promises, senseless
violence, and sectarian fear-mongering.
Assad and his circle will not endure forever, but it is not
entirely clear who or what will follow. An additional focus of my work
on the ground, which I do not advertise widely, is getting to know the
leading activists and assessing their needs and opportunities for the
United States to help. They are independent. They do not want American
military involvement.
The crisis in Syria is not about the United States directly. It
does offer us opportunities to promote respect for our principles and
ideals. It offers us opportunities eventually to reinforce stability
and peace in the Middle East. But Syrians must resolve the crisis. The
manner in which it is resolved must be a Syrian one. I see my job as
helping establish the space for Syrian thinkers, political activists,
and those who lead the street protests to organize their plan for the
political transition that must occur if Syria is to know stability
again. We have had some success in establishing that space through my
frank discussions with elements in the Syrian leadership who claim to
want a political solution to the crisis. And the Syrian opposition is
slowly becoming an effective, broad-based opposition.
While the regime has generally dismissed new U.S. sanctions as
``business as usual,'' President Obama's decision to take the
unprecedented step of designating Bashar Assad personally, and our
efforts to coordinate that step with the Europeans, absolutely stung.
Our coordination on multilateral steps, such as at the United Nations,
also stung. And new sanctions, coupled with the regime's own violence
and mismanagement, have signaled to markets that Syria is increasingly
``radioactive.'' Trade, tourism, investment, and foreign reserves are
down, and the economy is hurting badly. Some of Assad's close business
associates have contacted us to plead their cases. Another part of my
job in Damascus is to identify how we can apply unilateral American
actions to boost pressure and how working with our partners on
multilateral actions we can help bring this crisis to a quicker and
less bloody end. A new U.N. Security Council resolution would be useful
in that effort. As we mull our steps, we aim to ensure that we neither
harm the Syrian people nor prejudice their ability to recover
economically, socially, and politically.
It is time for us to start thinking about the day after Assad.
Syria's 23 million citizens already have. I believe that we and they
share a vision of what Syria could be: an open and democratic country
where governance is based on consent of the governed. A unified and
tolerant country where Arabs and Kurds, Sunnis and Alawis, Christians
and Druze see themselves as Syrians first and celebrate their nation's
diversity. A strong country at peace with its neighbors and exercising
a stabilizing influence in the region. A strong country playing a
responsible role in the broader international community. A country that
does not support Iranian efforts to destabilize the region or give
support to terrorist groups like Hezbollah. As the President said on
July 31, Syria will be a better place when a democratic transition goes
forward.
I, my team in Damascus, my colleagues at the Department of State,
and throughout the U.S. Government and most importantly the Syrian
people are working to make this vision a reality.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to address the
committee. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you all very much for your
testimony.
As I indicated in introducing Ambassadors Eisen and
Ricciardone, you were both recess appointments, so I would
really like to begin this afternoon by asking you each to
address the situations that required your recess appointments,
and why you believe the Senate should confirm you this year?
And I'll ask you to begin, Mr. Eisen.
Ambassador Eisen. Madam Chair, as you noted, the Czechs are
some of our closest allies in the region and in the world, and
an Ambassador was needed after a hiatus to work on critical
issues like Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, and the potential $27.5
billion civil nuclear export opportunity worth thousands of
United States jobs.
It is my understanding that my nomination was held over
concerns about a personnel matter handled by my office when I
worked in the White House. We attempted to resolve those
concerns, but were unable to do so. And given the important
security and economic issues on which we worked with the
Czechs, the President determined that a recess appointment was
appropriate and, indeed, was necessary.
Since my arrival in Prague, we have made strong progress on
all those issues, Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, the nuclear
contract, and many other important areas in the relationship.
Those remain as vital as ever.
And I believe that progress, the energy that not only I
have put in, but the entire Embassy team in Prague together
have put in, and the good work that they and we have done, I
think, is the best case for the continued presence of an
Ambassador in the Czech Republic.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Mr. Ricciardone.
Ambassador Ricciardone. Madam Chair, thank you for the
opportunity to address that question.
As you pointed out yourself, and as Senator Lugar has
pointed out, Turkey is a pivotal country at a critical place
geographically, in a very tense moment of conflict throughout
the region. It has influence in all of those issues that are of
strategic concern to the United States, moreover, internally is
going through a hugely important and deliberate process of
change, the Turkish people deciding their own direction and
their future.
And they do look to us as they go through this. They care
about what we think.
We have an extraordinarily talented Embassy team that I
found on arrival in January, and there is one now, even through
our summer transition. They do the heavy lifting of diplomacy
every day, and they do a lot without an Ambassador, in fact.
But the fact is that having an Ambassador present improves
the United States access and the ability to speak every day
with people at the top of government and the different
institutions of government, including the military as well as
the civilians and with the public in a way that cannot be done
otherwise.
So I am very grateful that the President appointed me. I am
grateful to have been there in particular throughout this
period of the Arab Spring with so much going on in the region,
where Turkey has swung in and helped play a stabilizing role in
those transitions.
I regret I was unable to resolve the concerns of an
individual member of the Senate, a former member of the Senate.
I will be honored and grateful to address any concerns from any
member regarding my past service or my current service in
Turkey or anywhere else.
And I thank you for the opportunity to get at some of that
today, if there are any concerns. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
As I understand, part of the questioning or questions that
were raised had to do with your tenure in Iraq and as
Ambassador to Egypt. Were there any particular concerns that
you would like to address today that were raised?
Ambassador Ricciardone. I was very proud of my service in
Iraq. Before Saddam Hussein went down, I worked with the Iraqi
opposition, the democratic opposition to Saddam Hussein, under
President Clinton and Secretary Albright.
My job was to help organize, support, and invigorate the
Iraqis who were working for a post-Saddam future, and it was
really a privilege to be part of that. I did that to the best
of my ability and closely worked with Members of the Congress
who were keenly interested.
If there are particular questions, I am not entirely sure
what they are. I'm sure I must have antagonized some members of
the Iraqi opposition. I was upholding American policy, not
necessarily what all Iraqis wanted.
I worked very closely in Egypt with not only the government
but very much with civil society. The theory of the case we had
was we had to press on all fronts, starting with a very
stubborn President Mubarak, who was committed and set in his
ways; and with the people around him, with his government, with
his state, and very much with civil society.
I was privileged to go to the headquarters of opposition
movements to continue the flow of funding provided by the
United States through USAID to civil society groups. I
understand that remains an issue with the Government of Egypt,
but I was proud to continue to do that, and I took up the issue
with President Mubarak himself and told him we were determined
to keep doing that.
Again, I'm glad to answer to any particular questions that
may come up.
I made it a point to meet with all of the religious
community leaders. It was one of the great experiences of my
life to have a Passover Seder in Cairo while the imprecations
against the pharaoh were being called down.
I met with His Holiness Pope Shenouda many, many times, and
sought his advice on how best to advance the cause of freedom
for Egypt's Christians. I met with the Greek patriarch. I met
with the Russian Orthodox patriarch.
I took up the cause of the Baha'is with Mubarak himself and
had a small success on that front.
I worked hard and won some and lost others, but that is the
nature of our business.
Glad, again, to address any particular questions on that.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Thank you for the effort to
clarify some of those concerns that had been raised.
I was very surprised, as I am sure a lot of other people
were, to see so many of Turkey's generals step down over the
weekend. And I just wondered if you could give us your
assessment of what that means for the civilian government, what
it means in terms of the military, how do we interpret what
happened?
Ambassador Ricciardone. Thank you, Madam Chair.
As to what this means for Turkey, its democracy, its
civilian government, the Turks themselves are analyzing all of
that and debating it and deciding what it means. And we're
asking them.
For what it means for the United States and our security
relationship with them, I am very, very confident that it has
not caused a setback in any way. On the contrary, this time of
the year, there is always a turnover in the leadership, in any
case. This turnover happened in a different way, by means of a
resignation under evident protest for particular reasons
articulated by General Kosaner. We look forward to working with
the new leadership.
The security relationship, though, goes beyond individuals.
It is based on institutions. Turkey is a state of law and
strong institutions that are durable even though they're
dynamic and in change. I have every confidence that our
security relationship will continue to be strong, that our
military leaders will meet with the new Turkish military
leaders.
I look forward on getting back to Ankara to meeting with
the new military leadership. I am very confident things will be
just fine.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. My time is up.
Senator Lugar.
Senator Lugar. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Ambassador Eisen, the Czech Republic was expected to host
missile defense radar under the Bush administration's missile
defense plan for Europe, but that plan was scrapped in 2009 in
favor of the so-called phased adaptive approach.
Even though Prague recently announced it was not interested
in the administration's current proposal for participation in
the phased adaptive approach, it appears open to considering
future participation in projects.
What do you see as the lay of the land there? Has the
discussion in any way disrupted our relationship? And how would
you propose we proceed?
Ambassador Eisen. Thank you, Senator Lugar.
It has not. This has not disrupted the relationship. This
has been an active subject of conversation.
And I am pleased to tell you that the government is
strongly supportive of the NATO missile defense plan, the
phased adaptive approach as adopted at Lisbon.
You are, of course, quite right that an earlier
conversation that we had with the Czech Government about the
shared early warning system, which was prior to the adoption of
a NATO missile defense strategy at Lisbon, was overtaken by
events.
The Czechs felt that the limited data that they would
receive under the SEW system, the Shared Early Warning, was no
longer necessary today, although we previously made the offer
because of the broader adoption of the phased adaptive
approach.
But part of the result of the good conversations, the good
partnership between the Czech Government and United States,
including the Unites States Embassy in Prague, has been strong,
strong embrace of the phased adaptive approach as adopted by
NATO at Lisbon. So it's full-steam ahead. We're in as good a
place as ever on that.
Senator Lugar. Let me say, you've noted that a key priority
for the United States policy in the Czech Republic is to
enhance regional energy security through means including
diversification. In your view, what are the most pressing areas
for cooperation in this sphere?
Ambassador Eisen. There is a critical energy security issue
in the Czech Republic. One hundred percent of the Czech
Republic's nuclear fuel is supplied by Russia, 70 percent of
their oil, 65 percent of their gas. We've made diversification
a priority of our engagement.
The greatest single opportunity to achieve energy security
is through the expansion of the Czech civil nuclear capacity.
They have six outstanding high-functioning nuclear reactors
now, and a very strong regulator. Unlike other nations, they
have a very strong national commitment, not just a government
commitment, but strong public support, for this critical
alternative energy source in the 21st century.
And we've really focused there not just on the Westinghouse
bid to expand Temelin, which has such a high dollar value,
almost $28 billion potentially, and so many U.S. jobs. But
that's really just one part of this partnership, and we have
worked very hard in Embassy Prague, and, indeed, throughout the
United States Government on the whole partnership. One of the
first things I did was come back to talk to all of the
interlocutors and work on a whole-of-government approach to
build a 21st century partnership between our two countries that
goes beyond just that bid.
So we're working on R&D together. We're working on
education, on regulation together in both our countries. And
that has been an important part of our work.
I traveled recently with the Foreign Minister of the Czech
Republic to Texas to sign an agreement under our Joint
Declaration on Civil Nuclear Cooperation, which we have between
the Czechs and Texas A&M University, a leading provider of
degrees in civil nuclear engineering, and the Czech CENEN, the
Civil Nuclear Engineering Network in the Czech Republic, so our
two nations can build in this area in the 21st century.
Senator Lugar. Is there public support in the Czech
Republic? That is, do ordinary citizens understand this
problem?
Ambassador Eisen. There is, Senator Lugar.
One of the most gratifying moments for me in returning to
my mother's homeland was the rational and the calm approach
that the Czech Republic took post-Fukushima to their energy
needs, the need for energy security, to diversify energy
sources. There is strong national consensus in favor of
expanding nuclear, and a strong government consensus.
And some of the risks factors that one sees elsewhere,
whether it's tsunamis or earthquakes, are not present there. So
it is a very, very good location for that expansion.
We are very pleased to work, again, not just on that bid,
which is certainly important, but on a broad partnership for
civil nuclear energy security that is a model of how our two
nations can work together.
Senator Lugar. Ambassador Ricciardone, I have two parts of
this.
First of all, Turkey remains central for the United States
and European efforts, including the Nabucco pipeline project
and other initiatives, to vie for greater European energy
independence. I would like your views on what progress has been
achieved recently, and where the Nabucco project might stand,
as opposed to rival pipeline projects?
Second, Turkey has been in negotiation with the United
States and NATO on Missile Defense Radar for several years with
no agreement finalized, which as I understand is due to several
outstanding Turkish concerns related to intelligence-sharing
with Israel. How close are we to concluding that deal?
Can you make a comment on Nabucco, as well as the
intelligence-sharing situation?
Ambassador Ricciardone. Senator, on the southern energy
transit corridor, of which the Nabucco is one very good option,
I can say that we are intensively engaged. Diplomats always say
that, and we always say we're optimistic and there is progress.
I believe there actually is.
It is complicated. There are several governments involved.
There are several companies involved. We are in touch with all
of them at top levels.
I can tell you, without betraying any confidences, that
Secretary Clinton raised this issue with the Prime Minister and
the Foreign Minister of Turkey just 2 weeks ago. Ambassador
Morningstar was along. She also raised it with President Gul.
We've been pushing. Prime Minister Erdogan went on to
Azerbaijan since then. I have not had a readout of his
discussions there, but I know he was intending to talk about
this issue.
A key, of course, is getting gas from the Caspian to fill
whatever pipeline is going to come down there. That is the next
step.
We're hoping within the next month there will be an
agreement by the companies concerned, to fill the pipeline,
come to terms on transit fees, and all those technical issues.
We're seized with it. We're working on it, and we're hoping.
On missile defense, Turkey did support, of course, the NATO
statement at Lisbon. They support the NATO effort to have the
phased adaptive approach radar system. We've moved well beyond
that generality to have detailed technical discussions and
legal discussions with the government of Turkey. Naturally,
they want to understand what this will mean for Turkey in all
its technical, political, legal, and certainly security
aspects, how it will make Turkey more secure, as well as the
rest of NATO.
And we believe we are addressing those questions in full
and substantive detail. We hope that the Turkish Government
will feel it has enough information to make a decision very
soon. I will be racing back to Ankara to try to find out more
in regard to that.
Senator Shaheen. Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Madam Chairlady.
Congratulations to both of you on your nominations.
Ambassador Ricciardone, I enjoyed the last conversation we
had, and I want to pursue some items that have developed since
we spoke. One of them is with reference to Cyprus.
As we know, the parties are engaged in pretty intense talks
facilitated by the United Nations Secretary. I look at the
developments, and what's happened with the military in Turkey,
which has, in my view, been part of the challenge in getting to
a solution in Cyprus. And I look at this new development and
wonder how that affects the possibility of making real
progress.
On the flip side, I look at Prime Minister Erdogan's recent
statements, which is to forget about what we were negotiating
in the past. This is now a two-state solution, which is
different than a bizonal, bicommunal federation, and urging
Turkish Cypriots to multiply in greater numbers or expect to
have more settlers from Anatolia. That doesn't seem to be in
line with moving toward a solution.
So can you give me an update on your perspective, since
Turkey is a key player, as to whether or not we're going to be
able to achieve a resolution to the division of Cyprus? Are
those facts complicating opportunities? How do you see it?
Ambassador Ricciardone. Senator, I wish I could do the
diplomatic thing and say I am optimistic and there is progress,
but I don't want to mislead.
On the first part of your question, I don't believe the
changes in the military leadership in Turkey will make any
difference one way or the other in terms of the prospects for
the solution we've been after for so long in Cyprus. I just
don't think it is entirely germane. The military is not calling
the shots on this policy of the government of Turkey.
As to the Prime Minister's statements, I would rather not
parse his statements and say anything here that makes it any
harder than it already is for the United Nations Secretary
General's Special Representative Downer. He has succeeded in
getting President Christofias and the Turkish community leader,
Eroglou, to commit to meeting with some frequency, I believe
twice a week, from now into the fall to press, press, press,
for the only shape of the solution that anyone has ever
considered possible, certainly that we have, which is a
bizonal, bicommunal federation. We continue to uphold that,
support it.
Again, the Secretary of State and Assistant Secretary
Gordon raised this when they were in Istanbul with the Turkish
leadership just a couple of weeks ago.
Senator Menendez. But you really do not believe that
Eroglou could make his own decisions notwithstanding what the
Turkish Government's views are? Do you believe that he could
make independent decisions notwithstanding what the Turkish
Government believes?
Ambassador Ricciardone. I think what the Turkish Government
wants and believes is extremely salient.
I would point out, though, and even since I have been back
to Turkey this time, there have been some tensions in the
relationship between the community in Northern Cyprus and
Ankara that have come out; there have been protests, even, back
and forth.
So they identify themselves as Cypriots, from my
understanding, Turkish Cypriots to be sure, but Cypriots. And
that is a distinct identity.
Beyond that, I wouldn't wish to comment or to hazard a
guess as to how far Mr. Eroglou would go in making decisions
that would be at variance from Ankara.
Senator Menendez. Yes, I wasn't asking you so much about
Eroglou as much as your assignment in Turkey, and its influence
in this decisionmaking process.
I have been following this for almost 20 years now, and it
is clear to me that Turkey has a very significant influence on
whether or not this issue is resolved in a way that it is
acceptable both to Greek and Turkish Cypriots, as well as to
the international community.
And I just get a sense, based upon the Prime Minister's
most recent statements, that it has become more, not less
onerous, to try to achieve that goal.
Let me turn to another issue, which I'm sure you will want
to be diplomatic about, and that is the question of Turkey's
relationship with Armenia. From your view, has the United
States ever denied the fact that there was an Armenian
genocide?
Ambassador Ricciardone. I stand behind President Obama's
characterization of the Yedz Meghern, as the Armenians
themselves call it, the tragic massacre, murder of a million
and a half men, women, and children marched to their deaths in
1915.
I stand behind our characterization of that, and our
efforts of what we're trying to do now.
Senator Menendez. Would you disagree with President Obama's
statements as Senator Obama?
Ambassador Ricciardone. I would not disagree with my
President and his characterization of this, of course not.
Senator Menendez. Would you disagree with Vice President
Biden's characterization as Senator Biden?
Ambassador Ricciardone. They are both now my superiors, and
I certainly would not disagree with their comments, with
their----
Senator Menendez. Would you disagree with the Secretary of
State's characterization of the Armenian genocide as Senator
Clinton?
Ambassador Ricciardone. I certainly would not disagree with
my Secretary of State.
Senator Menendez. You are wise beyond your years.
[Laughter.]
Each of these individuals, the President of the United
States, the Vice President of the United States, and the
Secretary of State, at the time they were Senators,
acknowledged the fact of the Armenian genocide.
And I appreciate, Ambassador, your responses, but here we
are again, playing an incredibly difficult set of
circumstances, where we have nominees to Armenia going to
Armenian genocide commemorations and never being able to use
the word genocide. We have our Ambassador to Turkey, which is
an important party in trying to get beyond this and moving
toward the future, but if you can't recognize the historical
facts, you can't move forward.
And we have our President, Vice President, and Secretary of
State, all who very clearly as members of this body recognized
that there was an Armenian genocide.
It is very difficult to understand how we move forward in
that respect, and a very difficult situation we put our
diplomats in in that respect. But I appreciate your answers.
And I have other questions, but I see Mr. Ford is coming
back, I guess, at some point?
Senator Shaheen. He will be here for the second panel.
Senator Menendez. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Shaheen. Senator Casey.
Senator Casey. Thank you, Senator Shaheen.
And I want to thank both of the nominees for your public
service and for your testimony here today. I know that the time
is short, and we are limited in the topics we can cover, but I
do want to start with Ambassador Ricciardone, as we are going
to be talking later at some length about Syria and the massacre
that is going on there.
It's been my sense, and I think it is a widely shared view,
that over a number of years, if not for more than a generation,
Turkey has been able to play significant role as a regional
balancer of power. Turkey's influence in the region has been
very constructive at times.
And this is one of those times when the world needs the
help that Turkey can provide as it relates to Syria. These acts
of violence against the people of Syria are unacceptable. The
Syrian regime no longer has legitimacy because of those acts of
violence.
I know that Prime Minister Erdogan has been pretty clear,
and I think pretty strong, in his statements regarding what has
been happening in Syria. But I would ask you to reflect upon
and give us your sense of what Turkey's perspective is on this
violence, what Turkey can do in the near term to put pressure
on the Syrian regime, and how Turkey can be a constructive
force within the region on this central question.
Ambassador Ricciardone. Senator, thank you for that
question.
In fact, we have been engaged with Prime Minister Erdogan
directly. I personally have taken a message to him from
President Obama. The President has spoken with him personally.
The Secretary did just a couple of weeks ago.
He, President Gul, and the Foreign Minister have all had
Syria very high on their scope, because, as they point out, as
important as Egypt and Tunisia and Libya all are in their
transitions, Turkey shares an 850-kilometer border with Syria.
There are family relationships. There is an important
trading relationship. Any instability in Syria could have
direct security and economic repercussions on Turkey's vital
national interests.
As you pointed out, Senator, the Prime Minister back in
June had spoken out against what he called the barbarity of the
Fourth Brigade action against Jisr al-Shughour in northern
Syria.
Just yesterday, President Gul spoke, I think for all Turks,
responding to the images on Turkish televisions of what was
going on in Hama by saying that he was horrified and shocked.
And he even noted that, if necessary, sanctions may be on the
table.
This was moving very forward. It's one thing when Western
countries express our outrage and talk about these things, but
when a neighbor as powerful as Turkey says these things, I have
to hope that the Syrian Government will pay attention.
I don't think I'd be betraying a confidence: I think the
Prime Minister has made very clear in public a conversation
with a Senate delegation just about a month ago where, among
other times, we pressed to find out what the Turks were
thinking, the Prime Minister.
He made clear that he was very upset, worried, and
concerned, but he believed that Turkey had to exhaust every
other avenue to induce change and reform in Syria and get them
to stop the violence against their own people, to listen to
their people. He admitted that they had been trying hard, and
they had not been very successful.
The United States, we find ourselves in the same position.
We've tried everything to encourage, press, pressure for
reform. My colleague will speak to those efforts in a few
minutes. And we heard President Gul yesterday expressing
Turkey's sense that perhaps they had reached something like the
end of that patience. We'll have to see.
Senator Casey. I know there's more we could talk about with
regard to Syria, but I wanted to move to the question of Iran.
We know that the Iranian regime has been the subject of a broad
array of sanctions during the past year, and that this has been
a very positive step in the right direction.
There's a lot of unanimity in the region, and well beyond
the region, about sanctions against the Iranian regime. How do
you think the Government of Turkey can become a constructive
force in urging Turkish companies and other businesses in the
region to comply with those Iranian sanctions?
Ambassador Ricciardone. Thank you, Senator.
The Turkish leadership at all levels, whenever we speak
about Iran, are emphatic that they oppose any Iranian effort to
acquire weapons of mass destruction. They point out that they'd
be the first victims not only of such a special weapon but of a
race for such weapons in the region, which they do not want to
see Iran unleash.
They assert that they are firmly enforcing United Nations
Security Council sanctions, including under 1929, for which
they didn't vote.
Beyond that, we have asked for specific help. They say that
the United States laws, specific U.S. sanctions, the CISADA, in
particular, does not apply to Turkey. But they acknowledge that
Turkish firms can be affected. And Turkish firms will have to
make a choice under our law, as to whether to deal with America
and American companies or Iranian ones.
We've asked them to go beyond that and help publicize what
that means in technical detail, and if banks or other companies
want to do business with Iran, help them understand. We're
putting out this information. We at the U.S. Embassy are glad
to spread that information. And we asked Turkish regulators and
government entities to point out and remind their companies the
choices they're going to have to face, and make the information
further available in Turkish to their companies. We're working
with them.
Senator Casey. Let me just say in conclusion, with regard
to Cyprus, I'd associate myself with Senator Menendez's
comments about that subject.
And I know, Ambassador Eisen, we don't have time to ask you
a question, but we'll submit something in writing. I think you
are aware of the high regard I have for you as well. And we
have a lot of mutual friends in Pennsylvania. Thank you.
Ambassador Eisen. Thank you, Senator Casey.
Senator Shaheen. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I want to thank Ambassadors Ricciardone, Eisen, and Ford
for your service over the past year. I clarify that, in my
view, you all three have served with distinction and advocate
for your confirmation, so you can continue in the strong
leadership roles.
I won't stay for the second panel, so I wanted to
particularly commend Ambassador Ford for demonstrating real
leadership and resolve in the face of very difficult
circumstances in Syria by both personally going to and meeting
with demonstrators and protesters in some very difficult
circumstances, and in advocating for our values and our
interests as a nation.
I hope it is clear that many in this body share Secretary
Clinton's statement that President Assad has lost legitimacy to
lead and very grave concern about the path forward in Syria.
And as it relates to Turkey, I'm very concerned about
recent events about what this weekend's resignation of military
leadership really means, about the tension between the secular
military traditions and foundations in the modern Turkish
state, and the increasingly Islamist tendencies of some in the
current administration. And I'm very concerned about Turkey's
relationship with Israel.
To Ambassador Ricciardone, you've chosen a particularly
interesting post to return to, as the questions from other
members of the panel suggested, whether it's the relations with
Cyprus, with Greece, the ongoing challenges in Iran, in Syria,
the relationship with Israel.
There's plenty we could dedicate our time to, and I mean no
disrespect to Ambassador Eisen, who serves with one of our
closest and best allies, but Turkey presents a rich menu of
potential questions to pursue.
Your last comment there about the choice that Turkish
companies must make between facing sanctions under CISADA is
something I strongly support, and I appreciate Senator Casey,
raising the issue.
I think it is very critical that we engage Turkish
business. So I'm grateful for your leadership in the U.S.-
Turkey Business Council in promoting entrepreneurship and
opening United States markets. But I would also urge your
aggressive engagement to the extent appropriate in clarifying
our very strong concerns as a nation about Iran and its
development.
I was pleased to hear in response to previous questions
your view that Prime Minister Erdogan is being engaged and
effective in advocating for I think what is a very broadly
shared multinational concern over the tragic events in Syria
and over the, I would view it, as crimes against humanity by
the Assad regime in murdering their own people.
I also want to associate myself with Senator Menendez's
questions about Cyprus and ask you two questions, if I could,
briefly.
The first would be, what have you been able to do in order
to promote religious freedom? You referenced to meeting with
His Holiness Bartholomew. What path forward do you think there
might be for restoring the property and the Halki Theological
Seminary? And what could we be doing to be a more effective
partner with you in advocating for religious tolerance and
openness in Turkish society?
And then second, what's your assessment of the state of
Turkish-Israeli relations? Turkey, for a very long time, was a
vital ally of Israel, and it's my hope that the recent changes
in military leadership may open a window for improved
relations.
I recognize this is a very difficult moment and getting
past the difficulties of last year's flotilla incident are
quite difficult.
So given the limitations of your role as a diplomatic
representative of the United States, I would welcome any
insights you'd had for us in how we strengthen business ties
and recognize that they are a wonderful ally in a conflict in
Afghanistan and Iraq, and have stood by us in NATO and in many
contexts, while pressing forward religious freedom and the
importance of our strategic relationship with Israel.
Ambassador Ricciardone. Senator, thank you for all those
questions.
Let me start with religious freedom first and then go on to
Israel, and if you wish to pursue Cyprus and CISADA, we can do
that as well.
On religious freedom, I have raised this question with all
the leaders I've been privileged to see, and I made it a point
to call on the community leaders as well.
I wanted the community leaders' perspective, not only on
the property issues. And it's not only with the Greek Orthodox
of course, the senior patriarchate, but also the Armenian
community, the Syrians, have their own parallel sorts of
issues, and I've gone into some detail with them.
We've learned the legal questions. They all have legal
cases at one level or another in the Turkish courts, which
they're prepared to take on to international courts.
I don't want to betray any of their confidences in these
legal things, but they are encouraged by the first-ever
contacts they're having with high leaders of the state, both
substantive ones regarding their issues, and in things that
really matter in that part of the world in particular, and that
is honor and dignity and respect.
The religious community leaders have had the first-ever
visits by high officials of the state to them--not by
themselves to the offices of the Prime Minister and the
Governor, but Governors and the Prime Minister coming to them.
That has not happened before, or in anyone's memory at least,
in the modern history of the republic.
When I've raised these with high officials of the state,
they say, why should you be surprised? We are not afraid of
religion.
And very interestingly, they follow our debates about
personal freedom and religious freedom. And they say, ``here's
how you can understand this, American Ambassador. In your
country, you have in recent years made a distinction between
freedom of religion and the concept of freedom from religion.
And for too long in our modern republic, we focused on
preventing the intrusion of religion in our national life and
political life. We're quite comfortable to be observant
Muslims. Please don't call us Islamists, by the way,'' they
tell us. ``But to the extent, someone is praying as a Christian
or a Jew, it really doesn't bother us at all. Why should it?
It's no threat to the state. On the contrary, we're rather
proud of our diversity, and we're happy to have them do it.''
``As to the property issues, let us take a fresh look at
this and make sure that they get justice.''
I'm very hopeful. Again, I don't want to betray any
confidences. I don't want to overpromise. But I dare be hopeful
that Halki Seminary in particular will be resolved. It's His
All Holiness's anniversary of ordination this year, his 40th
year as a priest, and I know he would very much like to see
that resolved this year. We would, too.
On Israel, I can't speak for Israel--I've spent time there.
I have Israeli friends. I don't claim expertise. But I feel
very certain, having discussed this at length with the Prime
Minister and the Foreign Minister, certainly the military
leadership, that all these Turks, whatever their feelings,
misgivings, and irritation over the terrible flotilla incident
of last year and, over events in Gaza, they understand that to
influence events in the region, to be part of a more peaceful
and prosperous region, which is in their vital national
interest, they need to have a normal, fruitful, respectful, and
full diplomatic dialogue with Israel. And they want to get back
to that.
We've worked very much with both sides. We've reminded each
side of the stake they have in the relationship with the other.
And neither side really needs any reminding; they know the
importance of it.
The Secretary of State, again, has been working on this
personally through her recent visit and otherwise.
I dare to hope that Turkey and Israel will figure this out,
and I certainly hope to see a Turkish Ambassador back in Tel
Aviv very, very soon.
Let me end there, if I may.
Senator Coons. Thank you very much for your hard work, Mr.
Ambassador. It's a vital strategic relationship, and I'm
grateful for your advocacy on behalf of the people of the
United States with the Republic of Turkey.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Coons.
I have to go to preside over the Senate in just a few
minutes, but I did want to raise one more question for
Ambassador Eisen before I go.
Critics of the Obama administration's reset policy with
Russia have suggested that engagement with Russia would come at
the expense of our allies in Central and Eastern Europe. I
wonder if you could speak to the Czech Republic's view of the
administration's reset efforts with Russia.
Ambassador Eisen. I think that the Czech Republic has come
to understand and appreciate the spirit of the reset with
Russia and the benefits that that confers, not just for the
United States-Russian relationship but in the region.
Of course, the President has made Prague a centerpiece of
these issues, going to Prague twice, including--I had the
privilege to accompany him last year for the signing of the
START Treaty with President Medvedev.
I was very pleased. I think it is a token of the--and
indeed, more than a token, a recognition of the importance of
these issues that my Czech government colleagues affirmatively
embrace the so-called Prague Agenda, and took the bull by the
horns and scheduled a conference, an international conference,
on the Prague Agenda not long after I arrived in the Czech
Republic, to commemorate the 1-year anniversary and the 2-year
anniversary of the President's speeches there.
We had representatives from Russia, from the United States,
and from around the world come, including Dr. Gary Samore from
the White House, one of the principal advisers to the President
on these matters, to think about what the long-term benefits
can be for the region and for the world.
So I think we've made good progress. I could give other
examples, but I think we've made good progress on these
grounds. It is important to have an Ambassador there to help
convey communications in both directions on this subject and I
am very pleased with where we are on the reset now.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much.
Senator Casey or Senator Coons, do either of you have any
other questions for this panel?
I have a few other questions that we will present in
writing for each of you and the record will stay open until
close of business on Friday for any further questions from
members of the committee.
So hearing no further questions, I will thank you both
again for your service and your willingness to continue to do
this, and hope we can get swift action from the Senate and
close this hearing, and turn the gavel over to Senator Casey.
Senator Casey [presiding]. We will start our second panel.
And, Mr. Ford, I know that you gave an opening statement
before I arrived here. I will present an opening statement, and
then we can then go right to questions. Am I correct in saying
that you did present?
Ambassador Ford. Yes, Senator, that is correct.
Senator Casey. I want to make sure. Thank you very much.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT P. CASEY, JR.,
U.S. SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA
Well, thank you, everyone, for being here. I know we're
moving to our second panel on a very busy day, but I want to
get right into these critically important issues.
Over the past few days, scores have been killed in Hama,
the same location of a devastating attack by government forces
in 1982 which killed an estimated 10,000 Syrian civilians.
Despite the sustained assault by government forces, Syrian
activists continue to demonstrate in very large numbers, a
testament to their courage, their cause, and their desire for
the most basic elements of human rights and human dignity.
The horror taking place in Syria today has led me, and I
know many others in this body, the United States Senate, to be
very clear about the conclusion that we've reached: This is a
regime that is not capable of real reform. It has lost all
legitimacy.
We must be direct and, I believe, unequivocal in our
message to the dictator of Damascus. Bashar al-Assad must step
down. The Syrian people should not have to bear the brutality
of this regime any longer.
Let's not forget how these demonstrations in fact started.
These demonstrations started with children.
On March 6 of this year, the Syrian authorities arrested 15
school children in the city of Dara for spray painting
antigovernment slogans. These children were reportedly tortured
while they were in custody.
Their parents and members of the community demonstrated and
called for their release. The police used force on the parents
and community leaders and, within a week, had killed 55 people.
Today, after months of courageous demonstrations--and, of
course, that's a dramatic understatement, there is no other way
to adequately convey the courage and the valor of these people.
After all of the demonstrations, some estimates indicate
that the death toll has reached as high as 2,000, and is at
least more than 1,600. Some say, of course, that even 2,000
would be too low an estimate. We don't know for sure. But it is
unacceptable for us to stand by any longer and just watch this.
The terrible reach of this regime has directly affected
constituents in my home State of Pennsylvania. Dr. Hazem Hallak
is a naturalized American citizen from Syria and a respected
oncology researcher who lives in Merion Park, PA, just outside
of Philadelphia.
In May, his brother Sakher, who was also a doctor, visited
the United States to attend a medical conference. Upon his
return to Syria, Sakher went missing. His wife contacted the
authorities, who confirmed that he was in their custody but
would be released shortly.
The next day, Sakher's wife and daughter were interviewed
by the authorities who again confirmed that he would be
released. Two days later, his body was discovered in a village
20 miles south of Aleppo.
The authorities then denied that he was ever in their
custody and claimed that they found his body in a ditch by the
side of the road. Sakher's body was subjected to brutal
torture. His bones were broken and his body was mutilated in
unspeakable ways.
Sakher was not a political activist. He was not involved in
the demonstrations. His sole offense appears to have been his
trip to the medical conference and his visit with his brother
in the United States of America.
We honor Sakher's memory, and the memories of hundreds of
others, by calling for democratic change in Syria.
We know that our allies across the Arab League and in
Turkey, as I raised during the first panel, have a unique and
critical role to play here in pressure the Assad regime.
These countries have economic and diplomatic ties with
Syria that the United States does not have. I support their
efforts to leverage these relationships for a comprehensive
regional approach to this crisis, and I applaud our allies who
have already rejected the Assad regime.
In addition to strong messages from Washington and a
concerted diplomatic push, more can be done to pressure Syria
at international bodies. We need to maintain pressure on Syria
at the United Nations Human Rights Council. We should also
continue to pursue a resolution at the U.N. Security Council,
condemning the Syrian Government's behavior.
On Monday of this week, Germany called for a Security
Council meeting on Syria, which I hope will result in a strong
resolution. Though some Security Council members remain
resistant, especially in the wake of recent violence, it is
unacceptable for the United Nations to continue ignoring the
courage of the Syrian people and the carnage brought about by
the Syrian regime.
We must also continue to pursue efforts to constrict the
ability of this regime to conduct business abroad.
I welcome the new European Union sanctions on Syria
announced this week, which imposed asset freezes and travel
bans on five more military and government officials. We must
also be willing to examine expanded sanctions on the banking
and energy sectors.
I also want to applaud the courageous work done by our
diplomats in Damascus, led by Robert Ford, who is with us
today.
Ambassador Ford's recent trip to Hama was a testament to
his commitment to representing the interests and the values of
the United States. Due to the draconian measures imposed on the
media by the Assad regime, Ambassador Ford has been one of the
few people who has traveled within Syria and borne witness to
the truth of the terrible crimes taking place across that
country.
President Obama was right to send Ambassador Ford to Syria
last year. I look forward to supporting his confirmation when
it comes before the full Senate.
Mr. Ford has shown that an American Ambassador is not a
gift to host countries, but a representative who will actively
pursue American interests and American values. The most basic
American value, the right to democratic representation, is at
stake in Syria.
And I know that Ambassador Ford has been a stalwart
advocate for this principle of democratic representation while
he has served in Damascus.
Ambassador Ford, welcome back to the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. I know this is your second welcome today,
but I thank you for your decades of service and the remarkable
efforts that you and your team have undertaken in Damascus. And
I look forward to the answers you'll provide to our questions.
I wanted to open up by asking for your assessment of the
violence, and anything you can tell us about the opposition. I
would also like to hear your opinion of how the United States
Congress can be most effective and most helpful.
Ambassador Ford. Thank you very much, Senator. It's nice to
see you again.
Senator Casey. Thank you.
Ambassador Ford. First if I may, I am very fortunate to
work with a small but very dedicated team at the U.S. Embassy
in Damascus, both Americans and Syrians, and one of my team is
here. She actually interrupted her vacation to help me during
these few days of meetings I have in Washington. So I'd like to
introduce Joanne Cummings, who is wearing red.
Joanne works on economic and political issues in Damascus.
She lives in Damascus without her husband, who was evacuated
because of the deteriorating security situation. All of our
American staff there live without their families, and it's a
really super team, and it is a team effort.
Senator Casey. Thank you as well on our behalf.
Ambassador Ford. Senator, with respect to the violence,
it's getting worse. The Syrian Government's constant brutality,
its refusal to allow peaceful marches, its insistence on
widespread arrest campaigns, and its atrocious torture--the
reports you read about the detention conditions are just
ghastly. They are, in turn, fostering more violence.
We saw that in the third-largest city of the country, Homs,
2 weeks ago. We're seeing at this weekend too, I think.
But I want to be clear, I visited Jisr al-Shughour on a
government-sponsored trip in June. I heard what they said, and
I wandered away from the crowd and talked to some other people.
And it's very clear what happened up there.
There was a peaceful protest on a Friday. Syrian security
forces shot some of the protesters. At the funeral on Saturday,
the next day, the people got quite emotional because they had
lost loved ones, and they then attacked and killed a lot of
Syrian security people.
That paradigm, that cycle, is repeated over and over again.
The cycle starts with Syrian Government violence against
peaceful protest.
We need to be very clear. The Syrian Government was saying
there are armed groups up in Hama. I went there. I didn't see a
single gun. The most dangerous weapon I saw was a slingshot.
We need to be clear about what the nature of the violence
is and where it comes from. The responsibility lies with
President Assad and his government.
And let me again reiterate the call by the President on
July 31, the Secretary yesterday, the Syrian Government needs
to stop that slaughter.
Would you like me to discuss briefly, Senator, the
opposition?
Senator Casey. Yes, thank you.
Ambassador Ford. I spent a fair amount of my time getting
to know them inside Syria. The Secretary today met a group of
Syrian opposition members that are living outside Syria, and I
was able to join that meeting as well.
A couple of things I would say about them. It's a diverse
group. They're not very well-organized. That is not surprising.
The Syrian Government for decades would not allow any
opposition party to exist, much less meet and much less
organize. They are trying to do that now. Very frankly, they
have a long way to go.
It is important for the Syrian opposition to develop their
ideas, Syrian ideas, about how the democratic transition in
Syria, which we think is underway. I mean, the street protests,
as I said in my opening statement, are growing.
The democratic transition is underway. The Syrian
opposition needs to identify how that transition should
proceed. That should not be an American responsibility. This is
a Syrian issue that Syrians should decide.
How about if I hold there, Senator?
Senator Casey. Thank you very much.
I know that Americans are outraged by this violence but
when you open up the newspaper day after day, you see
instability and change in a lot of places in the Middle East.
In this context, the level of outrage toward the Syrian regime
might be more muted.
The Middle East is always a volatile region. You know
better than I, but lately it's been that much more difficult.
So I think it's difficult sometimes for many Americans to
sustain their focus.
But it's my opinion that not only should Mr. Assad step
down, but he should stop trying to deliberately mislead the
world. His forces engage in acts of violence which are always
followed by fraudulent promises of reform, and then this cycle
is repeated.
I know that part of the impediment here is developing a
broad enough coalition of nations and governments to support
us, and I know that we're trying to get an even broader
coalition. And one of the challenges we have is engaging Russia
and China. And they are two of the most vocal opponents. I
don't know why. I can't understand it. I don't agree with it,
but we have to acknowledge it. They're two of the most vocal
opponents against any kind of resolution in the Security
Council.
What can you tell us about efforts to engage there, and
what the latest is?
Ambassador Ford. Senator, there have been intense
discussions today up in New York, again, about some kind of
U.N. Security Council action. My understanding from colleagues
up in New York a couple of hours ago was that the most recent
Syrian Government repressive measures in places like d'Azur out
in the east and in Hama in the West have had an impact, and
that the members of the Security Council who had opposed
Security Council action are potentially now more open to some
kind of action.
Discussions are underway. My understanding is, even as we
speak here, we think it is important, I want to underline this,
we think it is important that the United Nations Security
Council take action. We think it is important that the
international community recognize the courage and the efforts
of the Syrian people to effect change, to push for freedom and
dignity, and that the international community should support
them.
Senator Casey. I mentioned that sometimes it's hard for
Americans to sustain a focus on violence, even violence at this
level of brutality, because of the confluence of several events
that interfere or prevent our focus from being intensified. One
of the challenges we face with Syria is a lack of information
because of the Syrian Government's ability to censor or limit
information.
I spoke earlier of the estimates of the number killed,
which we're never sure is accurate. You obviously have concerns
about this but let me ask you, are there ways that we can
circumvent the censors that are in place now, or limit the
ability of the Syrian Government to prevent the free flow of
information?
Ambassador Ford. Senator, one of the big topics that I've
had in my discussions with officials of the Syrian Government
over the last several months is the importance of allowing in
international media. I do not know how many times I have raised
that with the Foreign Minister, with the Vice Foreign Minister,
with close advisers to President Assad himself.
The Syrians have a refrain, which I hear all the time,
which is media coverage is unfair, to which I have told them,
well, then you need to have the media come in and look at it
and let them draw their own judgment.
I will say that after my last conversations about that, CNN
was invited in. National Public Radio, Deb Amos, was invited
in. And we got a couple of British news agencies in.
They were still kind of tracked and monitored in the
country. They didn't have nearly the kind of freedom that I
would have liked to see, that we would have liked to have seen.
And I think NPR just got back in again.
But you're right that the censorship is a huge problem. And
one of the reasons that I have moved around the country is to
get a sense myself of what's going on.
It's terribly frustrating to not really understand. I mean,
you can watch YouTube videos, but there is a certain utility to
having your own eyes to see things.
I have been encouraging my colleague Ambassadors in
Damascus to get out of Damascus and to visit parts of the
country. Some are quite active, the French Ambassador, for
example.
And I think we then also need to help the Syrian people
themselves, the activists, learn how to make the best use of
technologies, so that they too can use the Internet to get the
word out. And I have to say they're quite ingenious doing this.
In fact, colleagues of mine at the Embassy tell me that the
Syrians understand a lot of the Internet G-chat and such things
better than some of us do. So there's a lot of ingenuity there,
Senator.
But the fundamental problem is that the Syrian Government
will not allow the free flow of information, and that should
stop.
Senator Casey. Well, that's one of the ways I would make a
determination about the regime's legitimacy. That's one of the
measurements. If you're not allowing the free flow of
information, I think that, at a minimum, questions arise about
the implications of that.
I wanted to return to our earlier discussion about the
opposition. I know this is difficult to do, especially
considering that you're in the vortex of this, much more so
than I am or people here in Washington.
But to the extent that you can step back a little bit and
provide a perspective based upon recent events, one of the most
significant factors in how the transition took place in Egypt,
in my opinion, was the fact that the military showed some
measure of forbearance.
And there were a number of people in the ruling elite who
also showed some forbearance, or at least were measured in the
way they responded. And that allowed a kind of transition
which, compared to some other places, we might now be hoping
would replicate itself.
In Syria, is there any element within the government at a
high level or within senior leadership of the military, where
you see some even unrealized potential for forbearance? Someone
at the top, in essence, saying, this has gone too far, we've
got to at least stop and pause, and recognize a certain
boundary? I'm not expecting anyone at the highest levels to
agree with me about Mr. Assad's stepping down.
But is there any potential for someone to, at the highest
level of civilian or military leadership, to show that kind of
forbearance in the near term?
Ambassador Ford. Senator, I'm going to be very frank. I
have heard from a number of officials in Damascus messages of
good intent.
I have to tell you that what matters is change on the
ground, an end to the shooting of peaceful protesters, an end
to these sweeps where hundreds of young people are rounded up
without any kind of judicial process and held for months, often
in barbaric conditions, the release of political prisoners.
There are still political prisoners not been released. Change
on the ground.
And I have listened to these messages of good intent, and
when I come back to them and say, what about changing this and
changing this today or tomorrow, I don't get much back.
A few things here and there, Senator, but not very much.
And our conclusion is that this regime is unwilling or unable
to lead the democratic transition that the Syrian people are
demanding now.
And in a sense, unwilling or unable doesn't really matter,
because what we are interested in, what the Syrian people are
interested in, what the international community is interest in,
is that change on the ground, the positive change on the
ground.
And the incidents just over the past few days, leading up
to Ramadan and then since the start of the month, show that
there is no positive change on the ground.
Senator Casey. I was afraid your answer would be very much
the way you just articulated. And I think if anything, that
testimony should be ``exhibit A'' as to why we've got to
maintain pressure and think of other ways to impose even
greater pressure on the Syrian regime by developing and
strengthening alliances through engagement and through efforts
in the way of sanctions or other pressure.
Because my sense, and I think you just confirmed it, is
that this not a regime that's going to get tired of doing this,
unless there is a countervailing force that is pushing for
change.
I want to explore some of those other pressure points.
There are some commentators, some with a significant degree of
experience, who think that we should be turning up more
pressure and imposing more economic pressure by way of the
energy sector.
I wanted to get your thoughts on that as another possible
approach here.
Ambassador Ford. Senator, it's an excellent question.
On the energy sector, we have for years had sanctions
against American companies doing business there. And so
unilaterally, additional American measures, unilaterally,
probably are not going to have that big of an impact.
The big companies that are working in the Syrian energy,
petroleum oil and gas sector in Syria right now, are mostly
European and Canadian. And so we would look to find ways to
work with our partners to enhance those sanctions. And frankly,
we have had discussions about that and that's underway.
European and Canadians, too, are watching what's going on
in Syria, and I think the Syrian Government's latest actions
will help trigger action, frankly speaking.
Senator Casey. Often a lot of what drives fervor for change
is rooted as much in economics as it is in anything else. How
would you assess the Syrian economy prior the beginning of this
year versus the way it looks now in terms of its significance
as an issue in this conflict?
Ambassador Ford. The violence and the unrest in Syria, the
lack of stability, is really hurting the Syrian economy. It
started off slow, but it is snowballing.
Let me give you just a couple of examples. Tourism
represented a growing part of the economy. The tourism sector
is completely dead. The hotels in places like Aleppo and
Damascus, which normally would have occupancy rates of 80 to 90
percent, are down to 0 to 10 percent right now. Hotels are
laying off staff.
The country is draining slowly but steadily its foreign
exchange reserves. Business throughout the economy has slowed
dramatically, whether it be production of pharmaceuticals or
textiles, whatever it is.
The demand among Syrian consumers has dropped off the
table. People, in a sense, are afraid to buy because the times
are so unsettled.
And so companies are really hurting. Banks are also
hurting. Joanne just did a very good assessment of the
financial sector in the way it is suffering because of the
current situation.
One of the things that we're trying to do, Senator, and
this is I think quite important--Joanne and I both worked in
Iraq. We do not want our sanctions to devastate the broader
Syrian economy, because in the period after Assad, it will be
important for Syria to be a strong country, and a strong
economy will be part of that. So we have really worked in the
United States Government and with our partners abroad to target
sanctions against specific companies and against specific
individuals that are involved in the repression, without
targeting the broader Syrian economy and making the people of
Syria suffer.
It is a different kind of sanction regime from what we have
in Iraq, say. It's much more specifically targeted with the
goal of sparing the Syrian people themselves great suffering.
Senator Casey. And I know that's always the challenge, to
make such sanctions targeted enough and impactful enough on the
regime.
As often happens in these situations, we've seen an out-
migration, in this case, most of it or the majority of folks
fleeing northwestern Syria into Turkey.
Can you give us any report on that? And a related question,
obviously, maybe the bigger question is, how do you assess the
role played by the Turkish Government? What role can the
Turkish Government play in creating more pressure and more
impact on the Syrian regime?
Ambassador Ford. First, Senator, may I just follow up on a
little part on that, the economic sanctions you mentioned----
Senator Casey. Sure.
Ambassador Ford [continuing]. And the challenge of getting
targeting that works and has an impact?
We really do spend a lot of time on this, and let me just
give you a couple of success stories that may not have made the
news here.
One of President Assad's cousins is named Rami Makhlouf. He
is very well known in Syria. He is probably the richest man in
Syria. He's a very, shall I say, unscrupulous businessman.
And we have targeted him very specifically as well as his
companies because we know he helps finance the regime.
He applied for citizenship to Cyprus. He didn't get it,
because working with the E.U., we made sure that he couldn't
get to Cyprus and he couldn't get Cyprian citizenship.
That's strike one against him. Strike two, one of his
biggest companies is called Cham Holding, so we targeted that
specifically. It had a board of directors. We went after a
couple of them specifically.
Their board members' term expired at the end of April, and
they were too afraid to have another board meeting. So they
finally, the government insisted that businessmen come together
and have a board meeting in July, and all they were able to do
was come up with half of a board and one vice chairman. No one
would agree to even be the chairman of Cham Holding.
So the sanctions do bite, maybe not in ways that are always
on the headlines. But what we do see is more and more business
people, and especially Sunni business people, which is an
important pillar of the regime's support, we do see them slowly
but surely shifting sides, and that's important.
So I do think our sanctions are having an impact.
With respect then, Senator, to your question about refugees
going into Turkey and the Turkish role more generally, a couple
of things I would say.
First, we appreciate that the Turks did offer refuge to
people fleeing the Government of Syria campaigns in
northwestern Syria. People fled in the thousands--we estimate
somewhere around 12,000--fled mainly because they were
terrified of army and Syrian intelligence service retaliation
against them. The army and especially--especially--the
intelligence service have a fearsome reputation, and we have
seen plenty of videos on Arabic satellite TV of how they beat
and torture people, and some of them quite gruesome.
So people fled in real fear. That's what happened in Jisr
al-Shughour, the town I visited up in the north in June.
So we appreciate the role that the Turks have played. My
understanding now is that some refugees who went to Turkey are
beginning to trickle back into Syria. They think that they will
be safe.
The Syrian Red Crescent has extended promises that they
will watch over people coming back, that there's not
mistreatment. I think most of the refugees are still in Turkey;
somewhere around 8,000 are still there. So plenty of people are
still afraid and don't trust their own government in Syria.
But the Turkish role in this has been, I think, very good,
and we appreciate it.
With respect, Senator, to your question more broadly about
what can Turkey do, I think Turkey has a very, very important
role. And I'm often in touch with my colleague Ambassador
Ricciardone up in Ankara.
The Turks have a very deep commercial relationship that
they have been building up for years. They had personal
relations between the Turkish leadership and the Syrian
leadership that they had consciously fostered. They wanted to
build influence.
I think it is fair to say that the Turks--even yesterday,
President Gul was very critical of the latest Syrian measures.
The Turks have perhaps a unique capability, both to talk to
the Syrians on several levels, because over the years they've
built those contacts, and also were they to adopt sanctions,
for example, I think those, too, would bite.
Senator Casey. Well, that's something I hope we can
continue to foster, because that kind of help in the region
could be very significant.
I was in the region last in July of 2010, and our second to
last stop was in Beirut in Lebanon. And I could sense, almost
feel, the heavy presence of Hezbollah in Lebanon. And I wanted
to get your sense about the implications of the unrest and the
violence in Syria for Lebanon. How has Hezbollah responded to
that?
Ambassador Ford. Senator, when I appeared before the
Foreign Relations Committee in March 2010, we spoke a long time
about Hezbollah in that hearing, I recall.
We have a real opportunity with change in Syria to see both
Iranian influence and Hezbollah influence in the region
diminish. That would be a real gain for us.
It would also be a real gain for the Syrian people, since
the Iranians are helping right now with the repression in
Syria.
With respect to Hezbollah specifically, the Syrian support
to Hezbollah has continued. It has not stopped. At the same
time, I think the leadership of Hezbollah at first was very
outspoken in its support of the Syrian Government. More
recently, they have been quiet. And my sense is that they have
seen enough Hezbollah flags burned in Syrian protests,
especially in places like d'Azur and Hama and Daraa, that they
realized that their support for the Syrian Government is not
garnering them any long-term friendship with the Syrian people.
Senator Casey. And can you explain that? Just walk through
that in terms of the----
Ambassador Ford. The protesters, and I think Syrians more
generally, understand that Iran and Hezbollah are supporting
Syrian Government repression against them.
Senator Casey. And I know that when you were getting out of
Damascus, and I think with a lot of valor and a lot of
commitment, to bear witness to the truth it had to be in some
ways harrowing.
But what did you draw from it mostly? I mean, I know you
saw a lot, and you had a better sense of what was happening, as
you said, on the ground. But what did you draw from it, other
than what has to be the remarkable inspiration provided by
these brave people? What else can you tell us about that
journey you took?
Ambassador Ford. It was a fascinating experience, Senator.
I've had a lot of interesting trips during my time in the Peace
Corps, and then in the Foreign Service. But that one would rank
up near the top.
I came away with a couple of conclusions, which I shared
with the Department of State and also with the media.
First of all, the protesters there are peaceful. As I think
I mentioned, the one weapon I saw was a slingshot. These are
not gunmen.
When we came up to the first checkpoint, very frankly, the
local's checkpoint, not a government checkpoint, we weren't
sure they were going to be armed or not, and we were a little
nervous.
But the second point I came with was, they are not against
foreigners. We told them we were American diplomats. They said,
oh, America, great, go ahead, please pass, you know, whatever.
We got kind of lost in Hama. We should have had a map, but
we didn't. So we had to stop and ask for directions, and they
actually got in the car and took us to where we wanted to go.
They were very nice, invited us to lunch, et cetera.
They're not anti-American at all. In fact, I think they
appreciated the attention that the United States showed to
their cause, and that they were peaceful.
When they asked who I was, and I said I'm the American
Ambassador, several of them said, oh, come on, who are you
really?
So they didn't believe me until I gave them some business
cards.
And the third thing I came away with, Senator, is their
incredible commitment. And I get that whenever I meet
opposition people in any city in Syria. The commitment they
have to change and to freedom and to dignity, they are not
going to stop. They underline that over and over, and we have
seen that.
We were talking about Egypt a little while ago. Roughly 900
Egyptians died in the first phase of that Egyptian revolution
out of a country of 80 million people. Syria has only 23
million people, and nearly 2,000 have died. So the scale of
killing in Syria is way beyond what it was in Egypt.
But the people in Hama and elsewhere are quite committed to
change. And I don't think they're going to stop.
And so I think we owe it to them to remain supportive and
to try to build that support wisely, carefully, but to build
that support.
Senator Casey. And I know we have to wrap up, and we've
covered a good bit, not nearly enough.
And I'm sure I'll have questions for the record. We'll try
not to overload you with too many written questions. You've got
work to do, and we don't want to burden you with that. But I'll
leave the record open until Friday for other members to submit
questions or for witnesses to amplify their testimony or their
responses.
I'll ask in conclusion one broad question, but I think an
important one. I think I know what your message to the American
people is about solidarity and about focus on this horror that
we're seeing. But what specifically would you or the
administration hope that the Congress would do by way of
action--legislative or otherwise--that would be constructive in
helping, not just show solidarity, but to continue the focus
that should be brought to bear on what these brave citizens of
Syria are trying to accomplish?
Ambassador Ford. Senator, I've been working in the Middle
East since 1980, when I went out as a Peace Corps Volunteer,
and I really liked the President's speech on the Arab spring,
the speech that he gave on May 19th, because I think he laid
out for the American people why change in the Arab world
matters for us and what it means for our own national security.
And the point that the President stressed that I really
appreciated was that the democratic transitions underway from
Morocco to the Persian Gulf do matter to us. We have big
interest in that part of the world. And it can be positive
change, and we should be supporting democratic transitions
throughout the region.
And there may be times when our assistance is needed
directly and our assistance is only needed indirectly, but we
should look to be supportive.
What I would hope from the Congress is that it works with
the administration to make sure that resources are available
when we need them to support those transitions.
I'm going to be very frank again, Senator, if you don't
mind. I was in Algeria during the civil war there in the mid
1990s. There was a very brave Algerian opposition at the time,
and we had nothing really that we could offer them. There was
no access to the Democratic Institute and the kinds of programs
they do, or the Republican Institute.
Those kinds of programs actually do matter a lot, and we
work with civil society and we work with political parties.
Those programs do help, and we have clawed and scratched for
gains in places like Iraq, and the resources that we commit
help.
It's still up to the local people, whether it be in Iraq,
or Syria, or Egypt, or whatever, but we can help. And I hope
we, the American people, will understand the value to our
national security of supporting those democratic transitions.
Senator Casey. We want to thank you for your testimony, and
express our gratitude and commendation on a much larger scale
for your commitment on the ground, which is a noteworthy and
very significant act of public service.
We appreciate that, and we'll work with you. And I know
that's a bipartisan sentiment in a town bipartisanship is all
too rare.
Ambassador, thank you very much for your testimony, and
we're adjourned.
Ambassador Ford. Thank you, Senator.
[Whereupon, at 4:41 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record
Responses of Robert Ford to Questions Submitted by
the Following Senators
questions submitted by senator john f. kerry
Question. What is the practical impact of the U.N. Security Council
decision to condemn ``widespread violations of human rights and the use
of force against civilians by the Syrian authorities?'' The Security
Council also called on the Syrian authorities to allow aid agencies,
which have been prevented from entering the country, ``unhindered
access'' for humanitarian relief. How should the United States respond
if the Syrian Government ignores this edict?
Answer. We assess that any U.N. Security Council action condemning
the Syrian authorities' widespread and gross violations of human rights
would have a practical impact with the regime as well as the opposition
in Syria. We cannot overstate the importance of international
solidarity to isolate the Assad regime and signal global support for
the Syrian people. Human rights activists and oppositionists often tell
us that many Syrians are looking for a unified international response.
While the UNSC Presidential Statement was helpful, we believe a U.N.
Security Council resolution will go further to increase domestic and
international pressure on the regime to cease its security crackdown
and take steps such as allowing humanitarian aid agencies into Syria. I
believe the United States should continue to pressure the regime in
various and creative ways to impact the regime's inner coterie and
undermine the regime's remaining pillars of support inside Syria. Of
course, we must be careful to do this in such a way so that our actions
have minimal effects on the Syrian public--we are targeting the Assad
regime, not the Syrian people.
Question. What steps can the international community take to put
further pressure on the Assad regime to refrain from using violence
against its own population? What role do you see for the United States
and specifically the U.S. mission in Syria in such an initiative?
Answer. We believe that action taken by the United Nations Security
Council may be an important factor that can impact the regime's
calculus on using violence. The United States continues to lead the
international community and work multilaterally to highlight the
regime's brutality and unremitting human rights violations in order to
force the Assad regime to step aside. We also will look for ways to
increase bilateral pressure through our bilateral sanctions.
In this regard, regional outreach is critical. I meet regularly
with the ambassadors from other key nations, either to influence their
assessments and strategies or, if we are in agreement, to coordinate
our approaches. It is also important for the U.S. Government to work in
concert with our allies in order for targeted sanctions to have greater
effect. I do much of this coordination in Damascus. Given that most
Syrian officials have far more assets in the EU, Turkey, and the Arab
Gulf than they do in the United States, working with our allies is
critical for sanctions' success. If confirmed, I will continue to work
with our EU allies and partners in the region to do everything possible
to bring an immediate end to the brutal violence the Assad regime is
perpetrating against peaceful protesters.
Furthermore, the staff members of the U.S. Embassy in Damascus
continue to meet with activists, observers, and oppositionists in
support of a peaceful transition to a pluralistic and inclusive
democracy. We will also speak out publicly, whether directly to the
Arabic media or through the Embassy Facebook site.
Question. How effective have the intensification of sanctions been
in the course of the last few months, particularly those that target
individuals within the al-Assad regime? What, if anything, can be done
to render them more effective?
Answer. The effects of our sanctions will become more apparent as
time goes on. We have begun to see prominent business figures and
regime supporters express concern over sanctions. We believe the
targeted nature of the sanctions will allow many regime supporters to
rethink their support of the ongoing brutality. We will continue to
reach out to all possible partners and work with our allies on targeted
sanctions and diplomatic measures at the U.N. to increase pressure on
the Assad regime and press for the space for a Syrian-led democratic
transition. I meet regularly with the ambassadors from other key states
either to influence their assessments and strategies or, if we are in
agreement, to coordinate our approaches. The more countries
implementing such targeted sanctions, the more effective the sanctions
will be. If confirmed I will make the sanctions as effective as
possible.
Question. Which international actors do you see as having the most
leverage over the Assad regime? How can the United States work with
them to try to broker an end to the violence? How is the ongoing
violence affecting Syria's relationships with other governments in the
region?
Answer. The Assad regime has shown its willingness to turn on its
allies in the face of criticism; the most obvious example is that of
Turkey. However, we still assess that the Turkish Government does have
leverage over the Assad regime and is greatly respected by the Syrian
street as well. Unfortunately, the regime has not listened thus far to
calls by the Turkish leadership for the Assad regime to stop its brutal
crackdown. The Arab League and Saudi Arabia in particular should also
be able to leverage their regional and cultural ties to help pressure
the Assad regime, especially by influence regime supporters over whom
they yield influence. We are in consistent contact with the Arab
League, EU nations, and the rest of the international community, and at
the ambassadorial level we often meet to discuss how to better
coordinate our efforts. I believe that the ongoing violence is
alienating Syria's relationship with other governments. With the
exception of Iran, we are seeing many more in the international
community voice increasing frustration with the regime's brutality .
Question. In October, 2010, Issa Al-Aweel was arrested in Syria. A
Christian born in Latakia, Al Aweel is a U.S. Green Card holder with
Syrian citizenship and a Massachusetts resident. It is my understanding
that, since his arrest, Mr. Al Aweel has been held in prolonged
detention without a hearing.
Please update the committee on Mr. Al Aweel's status and
whereabouts. What steps are being taken to secure his release
and safe passage home to Boston?
Answer. Because Mr. Al Aweel is not a U.S. citizen, the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations does not require the Government of
Syria to provide notification to the United States of his arrest nor
provide access to him while he is detained. The Embassy's
understanding, based upon discussions with the family, is that Mr. Al
Aweel may have been detained shortly after his arrival in Syria in
relation to the Syrian requirement that male Syrian citizens over the
age of 18 complete compulsory military service. The U.S. Embassy
provided Mr. Al Aweel's family with a list of private attorneys who
might be able to provide legal assistance to Mr. Al Aweel. The Embassy
also advised the family that they may wish to contact the Syrian
Embassy in Washington, DC, directly, since Mr. Al Aweel is a Syrian
citizen. The U.S. Embassy offered to maintain contact with whichever
attorney they selected. The U.S. Embassy has not heard yet from the
family concerning any additional steps they may have taken concerning
Mr. Al Aweel, and stands ready to provide whatever limited assistance
is possible.
Question. How has the United States reached out to countries
hosting refugees fleeing the conflict in Syria? How has the United
States ensured that refugees and asylees are well-treated and what
humanitarian aid has been provided?
Answer. The brutal actions of the Syrian Government produced an
international crisis which has resulted in significant refugee flows
and threatened regional stability. This crisis requires a unified
response from the international community condemning the atrocities
taking place and calling for an end to the violence. We stand ready to
provide assistance to nations hosting Syrian refugees, as required.
Embassy Damascus is in constant contact with UNHCR and UNRWA, and our
Embassies in Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey are in touch with the
respective governments hosting refugees. We have offered our assistance
to the Turkish Government to provide humanitarian aid to the thousands
of Syrian refugees in Turkey. To date, the Turkish Government has
informed us that they are able to handle the situation themselves, but
they are aware that we stand ready to help. Furthermore, we have
encouraged the Government of Lebanon to protect Syrian refugees that
have fled into Lebanon and avoid taking positions that would align
themselves with the Assad's regime and its ongoing crackdown.
Question. I am a strong supporter of your candidacy to be
Ambassador to Syria. I believe that your visit on July 7 to Hama was an
important demonstration of United States support for the Syrian people
and likely saved Syrian lives. I invite you to explain why it is
important for the United States to have an ambassador in a country in
which a government is cracking down on its people so brutally. How do
you respond to those who say we should recall our Ambassador?
Answer. It is a privilege for me and my team to serve in Syria. I
see it as an integral part of my mission to give the Syrian people an
ear and a voice. My presence is one of the most effective tools of
pressure we have on the Syrian Government. I convey our tough messages
to the Assad regime and am also in constant contact with the Syrian
opposition. If confirmed, I would continue to fulfill these roles for
as long as necessary .
By maintaining a high-level presence we are able to support the
demands of the Syrian people and promote respect for their basic human
dignity. As I mentioned in my prepared statement, my presence helps
draw attention to the legitimate grievances of the peaceful protestors
so that the international community and, more importantly, the Syrian
regime pays attention. The Syrian people want to be heard. My visit to
Hama showed that a high-ranking U.S. official can help them be heard.
Regional outreach is critical. I meet regularly with the
ambassadors from other key nations, either to influence their
assessments and strategies or, if we are in agreement, to coordinate
our approaches. It is also important for the U.S. Government to work in
concert with our allies in order for targeted sanctions to have greater
effect. I do much of this coordination in Damascus. Given that most
Syrian officials have far more assets in the EU, Turkey, and the Arab
Gulf than they do in the United States, working with our allies is
critical for the sanctions' success. I personally recommended a series
of diplomatic initiatives with partner countries, as well as specific
steps we and partners could take inside of Syria to weaken the Assad
government and compel it to change its repressive policies. Some of
this has involved my convincing other countries' ambassadors to make
particular recommendations to their own capitals. For example, the
Turks can play an extremely important role, and I regularly exchange
ideas with the Turkish Ambassador in Damascus who has direct access to
the senior Turkish leadership. It is important that the Turks and we
first agree in our assessments of what is happening on the ground, and
then decide how best to press the Syrian Government.
I have also been able to encourage and work with the Syrian
opposition. Syrians have been denied the opportunity to participate in
politics for 40 years, and the Syrian Government still refuses to allow
them the space and security to openly organize. In such a short period
of time, however, they have made much progress. We support calls by the
Syrian opposition to unite around the principle of a representative,
inclusive, and pluralistic government that respects the rights of all
of Syria's citizens. Furthermore, by supporting a pluralistic and
inclusive opposition we aim to prevent sectarian violence. More Syrians
are joining the opposition despite the risk of government retaliation.
Indeed, the opposition's ranks now include Alawi, Druze, and Christian
Syrians, as well as businessmen, merchants, and even military
servicemen.
______
questions submitted by senator richard g. lugar
Question. What are you seeing in Damascus about how this regime is
functioning and perhaps more importantly, how are different elements of
Syrian society reacting? How close is President Assad to actions of his
regime?
Answer. In Damascus itself, the regime is functioning more or less
normally, although there are more security elements deployed in restive
neighborhoods, such as Medan and Rukn ad-Din. If a demonstration erupts
in Damascus--and there are now usually one or two in the evenings--
these security elements intervene immediately, beating and arresting
protesters. In central Damascus, life is normal although shops and
restaurants do less business than they did at the start of the year.
The merchant class is very unhappy about the economic situation and
scared about the future. Many Damascenes tell us that the mood of
Ramadan this year is much less festive than in years past.
Many in the Damascus Christian community fear that an Islamic
fundamentalist government would follow if the current regime falls.
They, along with many in the Damascus Allawi community, remain
generally supportive of the regime, afraid that the next government
will persecute minorities and thus they hold fast to the Assad regime.
The regime's shocking brutality over the past 5 months and opposition
figures' outreach to these communities is eroding that support,
especially as the regime has not followed up on promises, like ending
the emergency law, and thus there has been no real improvement on the
ground. What the Secretary has said still holds true--Syrian Government
actions, not words, are what matter.
Ultimately, President Assad is the head of state and he is
responsible for the actions of those beneath him. We do not know if
there were times when elements of the security forces stepped outside
the boundaries of their orders. However, we do know that, at the end of
the day, Assad is responsible. President Assad is the one who has
created an environment in which violence, repression, and human rights
violations can occur without anyone being held to account.
Question. How do you see this playing out? Particularly if it draws
out for another 6 months?
Answer. The breadth and endurance of the street protests shows that
a transition is underway in Syria, and I strongly doubt that the Syrian
people will go back to where they were before all of this started.
Assad's reputation and legitimacy are permanently destroyed for most
Syrians, even among many who fear Islamic fundamentalists. Who or what
will replace Bashar Assad is unclear, although the Syrian internal
opposition is working to develop a transition plan. With regard to a
timetable for Syria's transition to democracy, I cannot say for sure.
Day after day for months now, the Syrian people have taken to the
streets peacefully demanding an end to the violence and a change of
government. They have organized themselves, they have acted as
journalists to ensure the entire world is able to witness what is
taking place there, and they have refused to be intimidated. They have
shown intense resolve and so I am confident that with the continued
support and pressure of the international community, they will see this
transition through. The regime's use of Allawi-dominated security units
in residential areas has boosted sectarian tensions and at times
sparked incidents of sectarian violence. If the struggle on the streets
continues for a long time, the risk of broad sectarian violence will
rise. For this reason, the United States is boosting unilateral
pressure on the Assad regime to stop its repression, and we are working
closely with foreign partners to boost international pressure on the
regime as well.
Question. How do you balance support for the opposition (would you
call it a unified movement yet?) with our longstanding concerns about
terrorism, proliferation, and regional security?
Answer. The Assad regime, not the Syrian people demonstrating for
democracy, is responsible for fomenting regional instability,
supporting terrorist organizations, and attempting to develop nuclear
bombs. The Assad regime has denied the people of Syria the opportunity
to participate in politics for 40 years, and it continues to deny them
the space and security to openly organize or work politically. Frequent
government harassment slows development of a coordinated and strong
opposition. My Embassy team and I have encouraged the Syrian opposition
to unite around the principle of a representative, inclusive, and
pluralistic government that respects the rights of all of Syria's
citizens equally. We have underlined consistently to the opposition
that we oppose political violence and they have in response stressed to
us their goal of keeping the opposition to the Assad regime peaceful.
Meanwhile, we also are pressing the Syrian Government to allow the
opposition to meet and organize. We have had some success, such as the
June 27 opposition conference held in Damascus. Our support has to be
done carefully, however, as the Syrian Government propaganda machine
frequently blames American intervention for the country's problems, and
this point plays well with those still support the Assad regime. That
being said, there is absolutely nothing being done in support of the
Syrian opposition that goes against the administration's concerns and
policies with regard to terrorism, proliferation, and regional
security.
Question. Describe the dynamics in neighboring countries as this
violent repression goes on; with the recently unveiled Hariri
indictments, the Turkish Military Staff resignations as we discussed
with Ambassador Ricciardone, et cetera? How has Hezbollah responded?
Hamas? Our Israeli friends?
Answer. We are closely monitoring developments in Lebanon, which,
thus far, remains stable despite the unrest in Syria. We have
encouraged the Government of Lebanon to protect Syrian refugees that
have fled into Lebanon and avoid taking positions that would align
themselves with Assad's regime and its ongoing crackdown. Lebanon
retains a complex and unbalanced relationship with Syria, which now
tests Lebanon's ability to maintain its independence and good standing
in the international community. We have received reports of Syrian
protestors burning Hezbollah (and Iranian) flags. Frankly, we are not
surprised that demonstrators are angered by Hezbollah's apparent
support for the Assad regime's brutal use of force and violence against
its own citizens. And we have also seen demonstrations by the Lebanese
people in support of the Syrian protestors.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that Israel will not intervene in
the unrest in Syria and that the Syrian people ``deserve a better
future.'' Clearly Turkey is concerned about what is taking place in
Syria--they are neighbors and have spoken out forcefully against the
violence. With regard to the recent military resignations in Turkey,
our military ties to Turkey are longstanding and robust. Turkey remains
a strong U.S. ally. A change in personnel will not affect our
longstanding ties and deep tradition of military cooperation. Turkey
has a long border and many ties to Syria; they have significant
interests in Syria. While the Turkish Government wants to pursue its
own foreign policy as a sovereign state, it also understands the
utility of coordinating with the United States and the EU.
Question. Some have suggested that EU oil sanctions on Syria, and
Sytrol in particular, would have a significant impact. An op-ed in the
Huffington Post yesterday stated: ``An EU ban on commercial activity by
a handful of Syrian oil companies could deprive the Assad regime of the
foreign exchange they critically need to fund the repression of
protests. If the regime ran out of money to pay its security forces and
there was a run on the Syrian pound, loss of business confidence in the
Assads would accelerate. Brussels, unusually, is in a position to make
a major unilateral contribution and be on the right side of history in
the Arab Spring.''
(a) What is your assessment of the effects of such an
action?
(b) Are there further unilateral efforts that might have
teeth?
(c) What more can be done to broaden the list of
participants in multilateral sanctioning efforts?
Answer (a). EU sanctions on the Syrian oil sector, or on the
exclusive marketer of Syrian crude oil, Sytrol, would have an impact on
the Assad regime. According to the Energy Information Administration,
Syria currently exports 117,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil. The
majority of these exports are purchased by refineries in EU countries
pursuant to long-term contracts. EU sanctions would make it difficult
for Sytrol to market this oil to other refineries and would likely
result in revenue losses as the company sought out new purchasers in
countries not participating in an EU sanctions regime. Sanctions would
constrict demand for Syrian crude oil and would likely further reduce
what Sytrol is able to charge. The impact on government revenues would
be substantial, and this at a time already of significant economic
stress. We can expect that the Syrian Government would claim that
Western pressure is ruining Syria's economy and hurting the Syrian
population, and we will need to craft and target our own public
messaging carefully. We also will need to encourage prominent Syrians
to explain the utility of energy sector sanctions to a largely
uncomprehending Syrian public.
Answer (b). The oil sector is Syria's largest export sector and a
significant source of Syrian Government revenues. There are few other
export categories that would have as significant of an impact.
Answer (c). We will continue to reach out to all possible partners
and work with our allies on targeted sanctions and diplomatic measures
at the U.N. to increase pressure on the Assad regime and press for the
space for a Syrian-led democratic transition. I meet regularly with the
ambassadors from other key states either to influence their assessments
and strategies or, if we are in agreement, to coordinate our
approaches.
What is taking place in Syria is an international crisis which has
resulted in significant refugee flows and threatened regional
stability. This crisis requires a unified response from the
international community condemning the atrocities taking place and
calling for an end to the violence.
Question. You indicated that these protestors are aware that Iran
and Hezbollah are backing the government in their repressive tactics,
and that Hezbollah flags are being burned. What is the impact within
Lebanon of the activity?
Answer. We are aware of these reports. It is not surprising that
demonstrators are angered by Hezbollah's apparent support for the Assad
regime's brutal use of force against its own citizens. We are closely
monitoring developments in Lebanon, which, thus far, remains stable
despite the unrest in Syria. We have encouraged the Government of
Lebanon to protect Syrian refugees that have fled into Lebanon and
avoid taking positions that would align themselves with Assad's regime
and its ongoing crackdown. Lebanon's unbalanced relationship with Syria
is testing Lebanon's ability to maintain its independence and good
standing in the international community. For example, Lebanon agreed to
the U.N. Security Council Presidential Statement condemning the Syrian
regime's use of violence against demonstrators but later disassociated
itself from the statement. We will continue to encourage Lebanon to
meet its international obligations and work toward a politically
independent Lebanon.
______
Responses of Robert Ford to Questions Submitted
by the Following Senators
questions submitted by senator robert menendez
Question. There is growing consensus among experts that Assad's
downfall depends on losing support from the military. What actions can
the United States take to siphon support from the military? At the same
time, what actions are you taking to persuade Assad and other senior
government officials to embrace reform? What steps have you recommended
to the State Department and White House? Is the United States working
with the EU to formulate additional sanctions, such as a ban on the
purchase of Syrian oil? What role are other countries and leaders
playing in this dialogue, such as Prime Minister Erdogan in Turkey?
Answer. It is very important for the Syrian people to be the
leaders and the drivers of the transition currently underway in Syria.
The United States has taken numerous steps to help move this process
forward, including coordinating international support for action at the
United Nations and coordinating with partners to target regime finances
through sanctioning individuals who help the Assad circle as well as
government entities and private companies involved in the repression or
the financing of this repression. These designations have included
commanders--but not the rank and file soldiers--of elements of the
Syrian military and intelligence services.We are in conversations with
our allies to explore additional targeted economic sanctions, including
in the energy and financial sectors, to deny the regime resources to
continue its brutality against the Syrian people.
The United States also led an international effort that resulted in
a unanimous United Nations Security Council Presidential Statement
condemning the abuses of the Syrian Government. The United Nations
Human Rights Council also issued a statement condemning the regime
atrocities. We are working multilaterally to put pressure on the Assad
regime by isolating it and depriving it of resources to continue its
brutal repression.
I personally recommended a series of diplomatic initiatives with
partner countries, as well as specific steps we and partners could take
inside Syria to weaken the Assad government and compel it to change its
repressive policies. Some of this has involved my convincing other
states' ambassadors to make particular recommendations to their own
capitals. The Turks could play an extremely important role, and I
regularly exchange ideas with the Turkish Ambassador in Damascus who
has direct access to the senior Turkish leadership. It was important
that the Turks and we first agree in our assessments of what is
happening on the ground, and then decide how best to press the Syrian
Government.
Question. Assad continues to retain some support from minority
groups that are concerned about sectarian violence post-Assad. These
groups are concerned that their situation will degenerate in the
turmoil of a transition. How are you working (unilaterally or
multilaterally) to reassure minorities fearful of a transition?
Answer. The U.S. Government is reaching out to the Syrian
opposition and encouraging it to ensure that the freedoms and dignities
of all ethnic and religious groups in Syria are respected and to
underscore the opposition's commitment to this end. My team and I have
encouraged the opposition to reach out to Syrian minority leaders to
reassure them that a democratic Syria would not retaliate against
minorities, and we have had positive reactions from elements of those
minorities.
We also are working to support the free flow of information, both
inside of Syria so that Syrian citizens can obtain a true picture of
what is taking place, and outside of Syria so that the world can bear
witness to the Assad regime's atrocities, especially the fact that it
is the Assad regime itself that is stoking many sectarian fears. Last,
Syria has a long history of peaceful coexistence among its various
ethnic and religious groups, and the United States is confident this
tradition will outlive the Assad regime.
Question. What can you tell us about your meetings with civil
society and opposition figures? Have you been able to identify credible
leadership structures, and what are the defined goals and strategies
for consolidating a democratic state should Assad fall? What is the
capacity and readiness of the opposition to guide a democratic
transition in post-Assad Syria, and how are you working to build this
capacity in the interim? Is there a need or a role for enhanced U.S.
democracy assistance?
Answer. Syrians have been denied the opportunity to participate in
politics for 40 years, and the Syrian Government continues to deny them
the space and security to openly organize. The Syrian opposition has
made some progress, but it has far to go. Frequent government
harassment slows development of a coordinated and strong opposition. We
continue to encourage all members of the Syrian opposition to unite
around the principle of a representative, inclusive, and pluralistic
government that respects the rights of all of Syria's citizens. We also
are pressing the Syrian Government to allow the opposition to meet, and
we have had some success, such as the June 27 opposition conference
held in Damascus. Our support has to be done carefully, however, as the
Syrian Government propaganda machine frequently blames American
intervention for the country's problems, and this point plays well with
those who still support the Assad regime.
The United States is encouraging the development of a robust civil
society in Syria. We are listening to a range of Syrian voices both
inside and outside the country. It is important that the Syrian people
decide for themselves what will happen inside Syria. The opposition is
slowly developing into a substantive and credible force. Additional
information can be provided through briefings.
Question. Over the weekend, as many as 121 people were killed in
Syria as a result of the military crackdown on protesters, the majority
in Hama. These events are eerily reminiscent of the 1982 crackdown on
Hama, during which tens of thousands of Syrians were killed by
President Assad's father to retain control and repress dissent. What is
the United States doing to prevent a repeat of the 1982 massacre and
subsequent stamping out of democratic aspirations in Syria? How can the
United States reassure protesters of its support, and prevent Assad
from committing mass atrocities to retain control?
Answer. I traveled to Hama in order to relay to the people of Hama
and to the Syrian people that the United States supports the Syrian
people and demands that the regime immediately stop its violent
repression of peaceful protesters. My travel to Hama helped draw
international attention to the efforts of the Syrian people to effect
peaceful change in their own country. They have a right to hold
peaceful demonstrations and to demand that their fundamental rights be
respected. There is no going back to the status quo. Assad's regime
cannot continue to use torture and killing to break the will of the
Syrian people. Try as he might, Assad can't stop change from coming to
Syria. I have spoken out vigorously to the Arabic and Western media
about the recent brutal government actions in Hama and elsewhere. I
have helped design a set of new sanctions that the administration is
readying. Even as the regime's security forces killed dozens of people
in Hama, the protests continued throughout Syria. The people of Syria
have shown that they are no longer afraid and will not be cowed by the
regime's brutality.
______
questions submitted by senator jeanne shaheen
Question. In your opening statement, you mention that the Syrian
opposition ``is slowly becoming an effective, broad-based opposition.''
What is the U.S. Embassy doing to support and engage the opposition to
help them become a more effective political entity?
Answer. Syrians have been denied the opportunity to participate in
politics for 40 years, and the Syrian Government is still not allowing
them the space and security to openly organize. In such a short period
of time, however, they have made some progress. We are encouraging all
of the various players in the Syrian opposition to unite around the
principle of a representative, inclusive, and pluralistic government
that respects the rights of all of Syria's citizens. We also are
pressing the Syrian Government to allow the opposition to meet, and we
have had some success, such as the June 27 opposition conference held
in Damascus. The regime's reflex, however, is to repress and arrest.
Our support has to be done carefully, as the Syrian Government
propaganda machine frequently blames American intervention for the
country's problems, and this government line plays well with those
still supporting the Assad regime.
The United States is encouraging the development of a robust civil
society in Syria, as we do in all countries. The United States is also
listening to a range of Syrian voices both inside and outside the
country. It is important that the Syrian people decide what will happen
inside of Syria.
Question. In your opening statement, you say, ``It is time for us
to start thinking about the day after Assad.'' In your opinion, what
more should the United States be doing to prepare for the ``day after
Assad?'' What plans are in place to prepare for this outcome?
Answer. The best way we can help now and in the future is by
supporting the Syrian people's right to freedom and dignity and to work
with the international community to press the Syrian Government to
allow space inside of Syria for the opposition to work. The United
States remains committed to seeing violence end. The Syrian people will
decide what a democratic transition will look like.
Question. How much influence might countries like Turkey, Russia,
and Saudi Arabia have on the situation in Syria? What steps is the U.S.
Government taking to engage these countries on Syria?
Answer. Syria's neighbors and major trading partners can have a
significant impact on changing the behavior of the Assad regime. We
will continue to reach out to all possible partners and work with our
allies on targeted sanctions and diplomatic measures at the U.N. in
order to increase pressure on the Assad regime and press for the space
for a Syrian-led democratic transition. I meet regularly with the
ambassadors from other key states either to influence their assessments
and strategies or, if we are in agreement, to coordinate our
approaches.
What is taking place in Syria is an international crisis which has
resulted in significant refugee flows and threatened regional
stability. This crisis requires a unified response from the
international community condemning the atrocities taking place and
calling for an end to the violence.
It cannot be stressed enough, however, that the greatest influence
on Syria is the influence that the Syrian people have on their own
country.
Question. What is the regional impact of the ongoing crackdowns in
Syria? In particular, what is the impact on stability with regard to
Lebanon, as well as Turkey, Jordan, and Israel?
Answer. The regime's violence against its own people has resulted
in over 12,000 refugees fleeing Syria to other neighboring countries
and over 30,000 Syrians internally displaced by the violence. The
continuing abuses by the Syrian Government will inevitably lead to
greater instability in the region. We do believe that Assad's regime
could try to foment instability in the region in an effort to retain
power and distract the international community. This has already taken
place. For example, on June 5, 2011, pro-Palestinian protestors
supported by Assad's regime attempted to enter parts of the Golan
Heights, which led to at least 23 deaths. It is important for us to
work with Syria's neighbors and act together to stop the instability
outside of Syria and to help the Syrian people gain the dignity and
freedom they deserve.
Question. Have you found that your presence in Damascus has had a
greater impact than the U.S. Government could have with a lower-ranking
official leading Embassy operations?
Answer. I have been able to help secure the release of U.S.
citizens and Syrian political prisoners. We have been able press the
Syrian Government to allow some limited access to international media,
such as CNN and NPR. I have also been able to encourage and work with
the Syrian opposition.
I have been trying to draw the attention of the Syrian regime and
the attention of the international community to the legitimate
grievances the Syrian people have with their government. The Syrian
people want to be heard, and a high ranking U.S. official can help them
be heard. I believe that it is in our best interest as well as the
Syrian's people's best interest to keep a high-ranking U.S. official
inside of Syria so that we can have the strongest possible impact on
change in Syria. If confirmed, I hope to be able to continue this work.
Question. What is your assessment of international sanctions on
Syria? Are they having an effect on Syria's Government and its key
leaders?
Answer. The sanctions against Assad's regime are causing economic
impacts and damaging parts of regime, especially the regime's source of
funding. Let me share some success stories. One of President Assad's
cousins, Rami Makhlouf, is very well known in Syria and is probably the
richest man in the country. He is a very unscrupulous businessman and a
financial supporter of the regime. We have targeted him very
specifically, as well as his companies, because we know he helps
finance the regime. By working with the EU, we made sure that he could
not get to Cyprus and he could not get Cypriot citizenship.
Furthermore, Cham Holding is one of Makhlouf's biggest companies,
so we targeted it specifically. We targeted certain individuals on its
board of directors. When the board members' terms expired at the end of
April, they were too afraid of being individually designated by our
sanctions and they refused to hold another board meeting. The
government finally insisted that businessmen come together and have a
board meeting in July. At the conclusion of the meeting, they were only
able to come up with half of a board and one vice-chairman, but no one
agreed to be the chairman of Cham Holding.
U.S. sanctions do bite, but it is important that it is not just our
bite. We are coordinating sanctions and encouraging other countries to
use targeted sanctions against Assad's regime. If the violence
continues, we will expand our use of targeted sanctions on banks,
companies, and individuals who support Assad's regime. The United
States will continue to seek ways to increase pressure on Assad and his
regime while simultaneously attempting to shield the Syrian people from
economic harm.
Question. In your opinion, should the situation in Syria be
referred to the International Criminal Court? Should President Assad be
indicted on charges of committing crimes against humanity?
Answer. The killing and torture of peaceful demonstrators is
unacceptable and must be stopped. The U.S. Government has expressed our
disgust with the ongoing violence and has called for a democratic
transition in Syria that will bring freedom and dignity to the Syrian
people. We are exploring options with respect to the International
Criminal Court.
______
questions submitted by senator james e. risch
Question. While Secretary Clinton has recently declared that Assad
has no legitimacy to rule, the administration still has not called for
his departure. While the administration called for President Mubarak's
departure in Egypt, it has not called for Assad's departure. When can
we anticipate the administration call for Assad's departure?
Answer. The administration believes that it is up to the Syrian
people to decide what happens inside of Syria. We have for many years
vigorously condemned Syrian human rights abuses and, since the
intensification of the government's repression in late March, we have
spoken out forcefully and condemned the Assad regime's shootings of
peaceful demonstrators and the mass arrest campaigns. As the Syrian
protest movement grew stronger, we declared publicly that Assad had
lost his legitimacy. Each country is different, and therefore our
policy toward Syria cannot be a replica of our policy toward Egypt,
Libya, or anywhere else. We have had a longstanding partnership with
Egypt, while we have long been adversaries of Syria. As we have less
unilateral leverage in Syria, we have worked closely with other
partners to boost not just American pressure but also international
pressure on the Assad regime.
We have made clear our view that Assad cannot lead a democratic
transition, that we have no American interest in the continuation of
his government, and that his government will be left in the past as the
democratic transition moves forward. We have also stressed that the
Syrian people, not foreign states, will decide what will happen in
Syria and we will be there to support them.
President Assad must stop the killings now, remove his security
forces from residential streets, release political prisoners and
detainees, and permit access to the U.N. Human Rights Council's fact-
finding mission. The international community has the responsibility to
speak out against violence toward peaceful protestors and threats to
international peace and security. We have done so and will continue to
do so.
Question. What message do you believe is sent to the Syrian people
by not calling for his departure? Do you believe there should be a role
for any member of the Assad family in Syria's future?
Answer. The message we are sending to the Syrian people is that
this movement is a Syrian movement, and that the United States and the
international community stand behind them in their aspiration for
freedom, democracy, and peace. We are working hard to get this message
out through our Embassy outreach and programming, public statements,
and work at the various multilateral organizations. The Syrian public's
reactions to my visit to Hama in July demonstrated that it understands
that we support immediate political change and an end to repression in
Syria. As to whether or not there is any role for a member of the Assad
family in Syria's future that is up to the Syrian people. We have
stated publicly that we do not believe Assad will implement reforms,
that his regime will soon be part of the past and that we have no
interest in the regime's continuation. What we are advocating for is a
peaceful transition to democracy where all Syrians are free to choose
leaders who are responsive to their demands. Most Syrians are, however,
suspicious of American intent in Syria because of our close ties to
Israel, and therefore we also stress that Syrians alone must decide
Syria's political future.
Question. Can you think of a symbolic action the United States
might realistically take that would more clearly demonstrate our break
with Assad and his clan, and would more clearly show that we want him
out, besides recalling our Ambassador?
Answer. We have taken, and continue to take, concrete steps to
demonstrate to the Assad regime the cost his government will pay for
the atrocities being committed. For the first time ever, the Obama
administration in May 2011 specifically sanctioned Bashar Assad and his
brother Maher. The administration extended sanctions to other members
of his family, members of the Syrian Government, private businessmen
who have bankrolled the regime, and corrupt government institutions,
among others. We have condemned Assad at the United Nations as well as
at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. We will
continue taking steps to pressure Assad into ending the bloodshed and
this is where I believe our focus should be--on concrete actions, not
on symbolic measures. Visibly standing up to the Assad regime, as I did
when I went to Hama, and mobilizing international support in an
unprecedented fashion against the Assad regime, have shown the Syrian
public that for us Assad's regime soon will be in the past. We have
also kept the focus throughout on the Syrian people being in the lead
in this transition so that the regime cannot justify its repression by
saying it is standing up to an ``American-Zionist conspiracy.''
Question. In the wake of your visit to Hama, which was one of the
most effective actions you have taken while in Syria, how much freedom
of movement do you now have in Syria?
Answer. The Syrian Government has attempted to put in place travel
restrictions on me and other diplomats. These travel restrictions were
in place prior to my travel to Hama and are still in place today.
Movement is not easy, frankly, and there are new security ``issues'' in
the wake of my Hama visit. Regardless of these restrictions, I will
continue to move around the country as necessary and meet with Syrians
from all walks of life and to show our support for respect of the
Syrian people's right to express themselves freely, march peacefully,
and organize themselves politically.
Question. I assume your every movement is covered by the Syrian
secret police and every visitor to the Embassy is noted by them, with
this type of surveillance how effectively can you engage with the
opposition? Has it become too dangerous for them to meet with you?
Answer. In spite of the various methods used by the Syrian
Government to intimidate democracy advocates in Syria and members of
our mission in Damascus, we regularly talk to and meet members of the
opposition. We and they are careful obviously. That said, the
reductions in our mission staff because of security considerations more
than Syrian Government intelligence service actions have hindered our
contacts. Nonetheless, the mission is in touch with dozens of different
Syrians weekly. The United States is listening to a range of Syrian
voices both inside and outside the country. The Syrian people decide
what will happen inside of Syria, but we seek to understand what
government constraints are most noxious and then weigh in with the
Syrian authorities, often in coordination with other countries'
ambassadors, to extract space for the opposition and activists to work.
If I am confirmed, I will be able to continue this important work.
______
questions submitted by senator marco rubio
I commend your initiative in visiting Hama to demonstrate American
support for the Syrian people's demands for an end of the Assad regime
and a more democratic future, and the President's decision to extend
U.S. sanctions against President Assad and other senior Syrian
officials for their role in suppressing peaceful demonstrations in
Syria.
Question. What else could we do to lead our friends in Europe,
Turkey, and the Arab Gulf in adopting strict economic sanctions and
visa restrictions against Syrian officials?
How soon could the Syrian regime replace these relations
with Chinese and Russian connections?
Answer. The United States has led the international community and
forcefully spoken out against the abuses of the Assad regime from the
start of this crisis. We believe that by working with our allies
targeted sanctions will have the greatest impact. It is important for
the U.S. Government keep up the coordination with our allies in order
for targeted sanctions to have greater effect. I do some of this
coordination in Damascus. Given that most Syrian officials have more
assets in the EU, Turkey, and the Arab Gulf than in the United States,
working with our allies is critical for sanctions regime success. To
date the EU has sanctioned 35 Syrian entities and individuals, in
addition to imposing travel bans on those individuals and embargos on
sales of arms and equipment that can be used to suppress
demonstrations. We continue to encourage Turkey and the Arab States to
take all steps possible to bring an immediate end to the Assad regime's
repression. For example, we are discussing with our partners sanctions
in the oil and gas sector and additional sanctions on Syrian businesses
and individuals involved in helping the government repress its people.
In addition, what is taking place in Syria is an international
crisis which has resulted in massive refugee flows and threatened
regional stability. Such a crisis requires a unified response from the
international community condemning the atrocities taking place and
calling for an end to the violence.
We will continue working with all nations, including Russia and
China, in an effort to isolate the Assad regime and clearly articulate
the international community's condemnation of its actions and
decisions. Russia and China's decision to allow the U.N. Security
Council to adopt a Presidential statement was a positive sign.
Question. How much freedom of movement is the Syrian Government
granting you after your visit to Hama?
Answer. The Syrian Government has put in place travel restrictions
on all diplomats serving in Damascus. These travel restrictions were in
place prior to my travel to Hama and are still in place today.
Regardless of these restrictions, I will continue to move around the
country as necessary and meet with Syrians from all walks of life. Such
movements could cause additional friction with the Syrian authorities.
Statement: The Assad regime's use of the army to murder hundreds of
unarmed demonstrators proves that Bashar is no reformist but rather a
continuation of his father's reign of terror.
Question. To what extent has the regime sought to play out ethnic
and religious differences to suppress the demonstrations? Are there any
indications that the regime has reinforced or accelerated efforts to
fuel sectarian strife as protests have grown in organization and size?
Answer. Syria has a unique history of peaceful coexistence between
religious communities that long predates the Assad regime and the Baath
Party system. Syrians have a proud and strong national identity and the
opposition has made clear its intention to preserve it. The Syrian
regime, unfortunately, is cynically manipulating sectarian tensions in
an effort to divide the Syrian people. Its use of predominantly Alawi
gangsters (called ``shabeeha'') to repress some demonstrations and make
arrests has aggravated sectarian tensions in cities like Homs and
Lattakia.
Despite the regime's actions, minority participation in the
opposition is growing. As the regime's violence and oppression
continues to create divisions and exacerbate economic conditions, more
Syrians will eventually view the regime as the source of the problem,
rather than a guarantor of stability.
Statement: The President justified the NATO military effort in
Libya on Qadhafi's threats to slaughter thousands of innocent Libyans.
In Syria, we are actually seeing such massacres, now at about 2,000
people and climbing very fast.
Question. How do you explain the administration's hesitation to
clearly call for Assad's departure? When would the President clearly
and unmistakably call for Assad to step down from power? What are you
hearing from Syrians regarding our hesitation to definitely call for
Assad to step down and for the Assad family to have zero role in
Syria's future?
Answer. The administration believes that it is the right of the
Syrian people to decide what happens inside of Syria. We have for many
years vigorously condemned Syrian human rights abuses and since the
intensification of the government's repression in late March we have
spoken out forcefully against the shootings of peaceful demonstrators
and the mass arrest campaigns. As the Syrian protest movement grew
stronger, we then declared publicly that Assad has lost his legitimacy.
The President will decide if and when to call for Assad to step
down. We already have publicly declared that he cannot lead a
democratic transition, that we have no American interest in the
continuation of his government, and that his government will be left in
the past as the democratic transition moves forward. We also stress
that the Syrian people, not foreign states, will decide what will
happen in Syria and we will be there to support them.
Syrian opposition members have asked the U.S. Government to call on
Assad to depart Syria, but at the same time they have clearly stated
that they do not want foreign military intervention. President Assad
must stop the slaughter now, remove his security forces from the
streets, release political prisoners and detainees, and permit access
to the U.N. Human Rights Council's fact finding mission. He must stop
the massive campaign of arrest, torture, and intimidation. The
international community has the responsibility to speak out against
violence toward peaceful protestors and threats to international peace
and security. We have done so and will continue to do so.
Question. Can you think of a symbolic action the United States
might realistically take that would more clearly demonstrate our break
with Assad and his clan, and would more clearly show that we want him
out?
Answer. We have taken real actions, which are far more important
than symbolic ones, in order to demonstrate our break with the Assad
regime. This administration for the first time designated Bashar al-
Assad and his brother Maher under our sanctions regime, and we
carefully coordinated this with international partners for maximum
effect. American officials have been forceful in recent weeks stating
that Assad has lost his legitimacy. In addition, the administration
issues a new Executive order designating those complicit in violating
the human rights of the Syrian people and sought and obtained a U.N.
Security Council Presidential Statement condemning the actions of the
regime, as well as the U.N. Human Rights Council's authorization of a
fact-finding mission to Syria--all concrete steps to pressure the Assad
regime. The Assad regime's time is limited--a democratic transition is
underway and it cannot be stopped. It is time for the Syrian people to
be free and live their lives with dignity.
Question. According to news reports in late April, an American
diplomat was detained, hooded, and ``roughed up'' despite his
diplomatic immunity. How did the United States respond to this?
Answer. It is true that one accredited Embassy personnel was
detained and later released by Syrian authorities. He was briefly
blindfolded but not physically abused. We protested this action with
senior officials in Damascus and Washington. The Syrian Foreign
Minister told me it would not happen again, and it has not. It is
important that the Syrian Government allows the free flow of
information so that the international community and the Syrian people
can receive independent verification of events on the ground. Lifting
the bar on visits by more foreign journalists would be welcome, and I
am working hard to do just that.
Question. What can the United States do to prevent Assad from
provoking sectarian violence?
Answer. We must remember that Syria has a long history of people
from various ethnic and religious groups living and working side by
side in peace. We are confident that this tradition will continue long
after Assad is gone. Where we have seen attempts by the regime to
incite religious and ethnic tensions, the Syrian people have quickly
spoken out against such incitement and in favor of a united Syria. We
have sought to highlight instances where the Syrian authorities have
stirred sectarian fears, as we did publicly in Embassy press comments
after the start of the latest Hama fighting and in my public testimony
in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Furthermore, by
supporting a pluralistic and inclusive opposition we can help prevent
sectarian violence.
Question. What can we do to reassure Christians, Druze, Kurds, and
Alawites that they will not be targeted if a Sunni-led government wins
power, or persuade Sunni groups to offer many more and more persuasive
reassurances?
Answer. Syria has a long history of being a secular society and it
will continue to be one once Assad is no longer in power. By supporting
a broad and inclusive opposition we can help assure that Syria will
always be a country that respects religious rights and beliefs. My team
and I have encouraged the opposition to reach out to Syrian minority
leaders to reassure them that a democratic Syria would not retaliate
against minorities, and we have had positive reactions from elements of
those minorities.
______
questions submitted by senator mike lee
Question. Ambassador Ford, thank you for your willingness to serve
in Syria, a nation that is in turmoil. In light of the recent violence
and attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, do you feel it is safe and
prudent to have a U.S. Ambassador stationed in Syria? Please share a
few of the specific benefits you have observed of having a U.S.
Ambassador present in Syria.
Answer. It is a privilege for me and my team to serve in Syria.
While there are risks associated with my service in Syria, we assess
the risk to be manageable. I travel with a security detail and strongly
believe that the benefits to having an ambassador in Damascus far
outweigh the mitigated risks. I see it as an integral part of my
mission to give the Syrian people an ear and a voice. My presence is
one of the most effective tools of pressure we have on the Syrian
Government. The Syrian Government's unhappiness with much of my work,
which we see reflected in angry government-controlled media coverage,
shows that my work is getting their attention and resonating with
segments of Syrian society. I convey our tough messages to the
government, and am also in constant contact with the Syrian opposition.
If confirmed, I would continue to fulfill these roles into the future.
By maintaining a high-level presence, we are able to support the
demands of the Syrian people and promote respect for their basic human
dignity. As I mentioned in my prepared statement, my presence helps
draw attention to the legitimate grievances of the peaceful protestors
so that the international community and, more importantly, the Syrian
regime pays attention. The Syrian people want to be heard. My visit to
Hama showed that a high-ranking U.S. official can help them be heard.
Regional outreach is critical. I meet regularly with the
ambassadors from other key nations, either to influence their
assessments and strategies or, if we are in agreement, to coordinate
our approaches. It is important, for example, that the U.S. Government
to work in concert with our allies in order for targeted sanctions to
have greater effect. I do much of this coordination in Damascus. Given
that most Syrian officials have far more assets in the EU, Turkey, and
the Arab Gulf than they do in the United States, working with our
allies is critical for the sanctions' success. I personally recommended
a series of diplomatic initiatives with partner countries, as well as
specific steps we and partners could take inside of Syria to weaken the
Assad government and compel it to change its repressive policies. Some
of this has involved my coordinating with other countries' ambassadors
on particular recommendations to their own capitals. For example,
Turkey plays an extremely important role, and I regularly exchange
ideas with the Turkish Ambassador in Damascus who has direct access to
the senior Turkish leadership. It remains important for us to consult
with the Turks on what is happening on the ground, and then decide how
best to press the Syrian Government.
I have also been able to encourage and work with the Syrian
opposition. Syrians have been denied the opportunity to participate in
politics for 40 years, and the Syrian Government still refuses to allow
them the space and security to openly organize. In such a short period
of time, however, they have made some progress. We encourage all of the
various players in the Syrian opposition to unite around the principle
of a representative, inclusive, and pluralistic government that
respects the rights of all of Syria's citizens equally. Furthermore, by
supporting a pluralistic and inclusive opposition we aim to prevent
sectarian violence. More Syrians are joining the opposition despite the
risk of government retaliation. Indeed, the opposition's ranks now
include Alawi, Druze, and Christian Syrians, as well as businessmen,
merchants, and even military servicemen.
Additionally, I have been able to help secure the release of U.S.
citizens and Syrian political prisoners. We have been able press the
Syrian Government to allow some limited access to international media,
including CNN and NPR.
Question. In light of recent events in Syria, would you classify
the Obama administration's strategy of engaging the Assad regime a
success or failure? Please explain.
Answer. Having an ambassador in Damascus has been a success even if
we have not achieved all that we had hoped for. It is important that
high-level members of the regime fully understand the position of the
United States before they act. On some occasions, including the
government's release of several detained Americans, and the
government's allowing an opposition conference in late June, they have
responded to our discussions. Obviously, we are entirely dissatisfied
with the government's brutal handling of the protests which is why the
President and the Secretary have urged that Assad step aside. In this
time of upheaval, it is doubly important that we have the ability to
coordinate our efforts throughout the region, and to provide Washington
policymakers with a clear and detailed picture of what is happening in
the country. This is particularly helpful given that the Assad regime
has restricted international media and human rights monitors.
Question. Moving forward, how do we responsibly communicate with a
Syrian Government that, as Secretary Clinton has stated, ``has lost all
legitimacy?''
Answer. What the United States supports is a Syria that is
democratic, just, and inclusive. We will support this outcome by
pressuring President Assad to get out of the way of this transition and
by standing up for the universal rights of the Syrian people. We have
two goals in communicating with the Syrian Government going forward.
First, we will deliver one clear and consistent message: Assad's calls
for dialogue and reform ring hollow, he refuses to lead a genuine
democratic transition and he should step aside. We have another goal
which is to bring more and more of the international community to join
us in sending that message. We have had success with EU states, Canada,
Japan and a few others. One of my efforts in Damascus is to explain our
perception of events on the ground in Syria to other ambassadors and
visiting journalists and help bring them to share our understanding of
the way forward and how other countries can help communicate that to
Syrians as well.
It is up to the Syrian people to choose their own leaders, not
foreigners. Our role is to support them. After a growing chorus of
condemnations from all corners of the region and globe, Assad can have
no doubt that he faces great isolation both at home and abroad.
Question. Compare the regime of Bashar al-Assad to that of Syria's
neighbors in the region. Do you feel that Assad's regime is a greater
threat to security in the region than Qadaffi's regime in Libya? Why or
why not?
Answer. No two countries in the region are the same, and the
violence in Syria and Libya has manifested itself in different ways.
Without a doubt both Assad and Qadaffi are brutal dictators that
continue to threaten international peace and security. So, while the
objectives of protecting civilians and supporting universal rights are
similar in these two countries, we do not believe the same means
employed in Libya would work at the current time in Syria. Therefore,
we are actively pursuing a range of nonmilitary options to increase
pressure on the Syrian regime.
The Assad regime's violence against its own people has resulted in
over 2,000 deaths, 12,000 refugees fleeing Syria to neighboring
countries, and over 30,000 Syrians internally displaced by the
violence. The continuing abuses by the Syrian Government will
inevitably lead to greater instability in the region. We do believe
that Assad's regime could try to foment instability in the region in an
effort to retain power and distract the international community. In
fact, this has already taken place. For example, on June 5, 2011, pro-
Syrian protestors supported by the Assad regime attempted to enter
parts of the Golan Heights, which led to at least 23 deaths. It is
important for us to work with Syria's neighbors and act together to
stop the instability outside its borders and to help the Syrian people
gain the dignity and freedom they deserve. Moreover, Syria's
longstanding support to terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah and Hamas,
harms stability in Lebanon and harms efforts to reach an agreement
between Israel and the Palestinians. In addition, Syrian support for
extremist networks in Iraq over the past 7 years has lead to the deaths
of thousands of U.S. and Iraqi servicemen and Iraqi civilians. The
Syrian Government is, therefore, a major source of instability in the
region, and American interests, and those of the Syrian people, will be
better served when Assad steps aside.
______
Responses of Francis Ricciardone to Questions Submitted by
the Following Senators
questions submitted by senator barbara boxer
Question. Can you assure members of the Foreign Relations Committee
that you will oppose any ``historical commission'' or similar group
that studies, examines, researches, debates, or otherwise calls into
question the fact of the Armenian Genocide?
Answer. The President has said that a full, frank, and just
acknowledgement of the facts is in all our interests. In his April 23,
2011, statement, he noted that history teaches us that our nations are
stronger and our cause is more just when we appropriately recognize
painful pasts and work to rebuild bridges of understanding toward a
better tomorrow. With this in mind, the administration strongly
supports efforts by the Turkish and Armenian peoples to work through
their painful history in a way that is honest, open, and constructive.
The U.S. Government supports the efforts of individuals in Armenia and
Turkey to foster a dialogue that acknowledges their history, sponsoring
programs that foster contacts between the Armenian and Turkish peoples.
If confirmed, I will continue to abide by the policies of the
administration.
Question. President Barack Obama has said repeatedly that he has
``consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915.'' President
Obama's personal views are clearly laid out in a number of public
comments and statements including:
(1) ``Nearly 2 million Armenians were deported during the Armenian
Genocide, which was carried out by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to
1923, and approximately 1.5 million of those deported were killed.''
(Senator Obama, Question for the Record to Ambassador-designate Marie
Yovanovitch, June 19, 2008.)
(2) ``The occurrence of the Armenian genocide is a widely
documented fact supported by an overwhelming collection of historical
evidence.'' (Senator Obama, statement commemorating the Armenian
Genocide, April 28, 2008.)
(3) ``[T]he Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal
opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact
supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence.'' (Barack
Obama on the importance of U.S.-Armenia relations, January 19, 2008.)
Do you dispute or disagree with any of the above statements?
If so, which statements and why?
Answer. In his April 23 Armenian Remembrance Day statement, the
President solemnly remembered as historical fact that 1.5 million
Armenians were massacred or marched to their deaths from 1915-1923. The
President has also said that the achievement of a full, frank, and just
acknowledgement of the facts of what occurred in 1915 is in all our
interests. The President noted that the best way to advance that goal
is for the Armenian and Turkish people to address the facts of the past
as a part of their efforts to move forward. He strongly supports the
efforts of Turkey and Armenia to normalize their bilateral relations.
My responsibility as an American diplomat is to represent the views
of the U.S. Government, on this and all subjects. We strongly support
efforts by the Turkish and Armenian peoples to work through their
painful history in a way that is honest, open, and constructive. We
continue to encourage Turkey to engage productively with Armenia on the
normalization protocols and clear the way to open its shared border,
reinstitute transportation, communication, and utility links between
the two countries, and establish diplomatic relations.
Question. At a press breakfast on April 13, 2011, you quoted
Secretary of State Clinton stating that, ``the United States will stand
with those who seek to advance the cause of democracy and human rights
wherever they may live.'' If confirmed, will you take part in April 24
observances organized in Turkey by civil society groups that openly
call for a truthful and just resolution of the Armenian Genocide?
Answer. The United States strongly support efforts by the Turkish
and Armenian peoples to work through their painful history in a way
that is honest, open, and constructive. We continue to encourage Turkey
to engage productively with Armenia on the normalization protocols and
clear the way to open its shared border, reinstitute transportation,
communication, and utility links between the two countries, and
establish diplomatic relations. I would participate in any event whose
spirit and intent was consistent with the views of the U.S. Government
and supported the reconciliation of the Turkish and Armenian peoples.
Question. On June 20, 2011, the House Foreign Affairs Committee
voted 43-1 to approve an amendment to the FY 2012 State Department
Authorization bill expressing the Sense of Congress that the Secretary
of State should urge Turkey to return Christian churches and other
religious properties. How will you work to secure the Turkish
Government's return of Christian churches and other religious
properties to their rightful owners?
Answer. We continue to raise our concerns regarding the restoration
of confiscated religious property to minority communities with Turkish
authorities at the highest levels. The Government of Turkey's decision
to return the Buyukada orphanage to the Ecumanical Patriarchate and,
more recently, a church and cemetery to Kimisis Greek Orthodox
Foundation on Bozcaada, are positive moves. I believe the Government of
Turkey understands the importance of this issue and has determined that
it must do more to protect the religious freedoms of all its citizens.
There are some legal obstacles that must be overcome, but I am hopeful
that as Turkey writes a new constitution, these issues will be
addressed.
Question. As Ambassador to Turkey, what steps have you taken--in
addition to meeting with religious leaders--to address the alarming
finding in the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
Annual Report 2011 that: ``The Turkish Government continues to impose
serious limitations on freedom of religion or belief, thereby
threatening the continued vitality and survival of minority religious
communities in Turkey''?
Answer. We continue to stress the importance of religious freedom
in Turkey at the highest levels of the Turkish Government. We also
continue to raise our concerns regarding the restoration of previously
confiscated property to religious minority communities with Turkish
authorities at the highest levels.
The Government of Turkey's recent decision to extend citizenship to
12 Orthodox metropolitans [one step below Patriarch in the Orthodox
hierarchy with regional ecclesiastic responsibilities], which widens
the pool of candidates eligible to serve as the next Ecumenical
Patriarch was a positive development, as was the decision to return the
Buyukada orphanage to the Patriarchate and more recently a church and
cemetery to Kimisis Greek Orthodox Foundation on Bozcaada. It has also
given permission for Christians to perform religious ceremonies in
sites where previously this was prohibited, such as the Armenian church
on Akdamar Island, and the Greek Orthodox monastery at Sumela in
Trabzon. An Armenian church in Iskenderun will reopen soon. Given these
and other positive steps, I believe the Government of Turkey
appreciates our concerns on these issues and has itself determined that
it must do more to protect the religious freedom of all its citizens.
In some circumstances, legal obstacles must be overcome. Turkey's
efforts to reform its constitution creates an opportunity to address
the issue of legal protections of citizens' freedoms, including
religious freedom.
Question. Will you commit to meeting with the Armenian American,
Greek American, Assyrian American, and Kurdish American communities on
a regular basis?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to warmly welcome to our
Embassy and consulates in Turkey Americans of all origins who have an
interest in the policies of the administration on Turkey. Likewise, I
will be very pleased to meet with such fellow citizens on my visits
back to the United States. In January 2011, following my recess
appointment and before leaving the United States to assume my office, I
met with a number of diaspora groups, including the American Hellenic
Institute (AHI) and the American Hellenic Educational Progressive
Association (AHEPA). In April, I was privileged to host the Archons of
the Ecumenical Patriarchate at my official residence in Ankara. I have
met with leaders and members of the Armenian, Greek, Assyrian, and
Kurdish communities in Turkey, and our officers from the Embassy in
Ankara and our consulates in Istanbul and Adana have done likewise,
responding to the concerns of their diasporas about their welfare.
______
questions submitted by senator robert menendez
Question. Human Rights/Freedom of Expression.--There has been much
concern over Prime Minister Erdogan's authoritarian tendencies,
particularly in terms of freedom of expression and media freedom. On
her recent trip to Istanbul, Secretary of State Clinton stated that
backsliding in this area was ``inconsistent with all the other advances
that Turkey has made.'' This was also one of the first issues you
raised when you first arrived in Turkey, prompting sharp rebukes from
the Prime Minister and other Turkish officials. Moreover, in recent
years the AKP has seemed to abandon its commitment to EU-inspired
reforms. After the AKP's resounding victory in the recent parliamentary
elections, do you think that the Turkish leadership will return to its
reformist agenda and help consolidate democracy in Turkey?
Answer. The June 12 parliamentary elections were an opportunity for
the Turkish people to reaffirm their commitment to democratic processes
and choose their leadership. The next major test for democracy in
Turkey is whether and how to proceed with reform of their constitution.
We will follow closely that process and urge that Turkish political
leaders, courts, and civil society continue to work through issues tied
to constitutional reform in a manner that reflects a commitment to
universal values of democracy and the rule of law. The United States
supports a transparent and inclusive constitutional reform process to
strengthen Turkey's democracy and its respect for universal rights,
including freedom of expression and other fundamental freedoms, human
rights, and the protection of minorities.
Question. Religious Property.--The U.S. House Foreign Affairs
Committee voted 43 to 1 on July 20, 2011 to call on Secretary Clinton
to urge Turkey to return Christian churches and other religious
properties. How will you work to secure the Turkish Government's return
of Christian churches and other religious properties to their rightful
Armenian, Greek, Assyrian, Pontian, Syriac and other Christian church
and lay owners?
Answer. We continue to raise our concerns regarding the restoration
of confiscated religious property to minority communities with Turkish
authorities at the highest levels. The Government of Turkey's recent
decision to extend citizenship to a dozen Orthodox metropolitans [one
step below Patriarch in the Orthodox hierarchy with regional
ecclesiastic responsibilities], which widens the pool of candidates
eligible to serve as the next Ecumenical Patriarch, was a positive
move, as were the decisions to return the Buyukada orphanage to the
Patriarchate and more recently a church and cemetery to Kimisis Greek
Orthodox Foundation on Bozcaada. I believe the Government of Turkey
understands the importance of this issue and wants to see continued
progress. There are some legal obstacles that must be overcome, and I
am hopeful that as Turkey writes a new constitution, these issues will
be addressed.
Question. To the best of your knowledge, approximately how many of
the more than 2,000 Christian churches functioning prior to 1915 on the
territory of present-day Turkey are still operating today as churches?
Answer. Most of the Christian churches functioning prior to 1915
are no longer operating as churches. Christian community contacts in
Turkey report that a total of 200-250 churches that date to 1915 and
before offer Christian worship services at least once a year. Many
churches do not offer services every week due to insufficient clergy or
local Christian populations. Some churches of significance operate as
museums, others have been converted into mosques or put to other uses.
Still others have fallen into disrepair or may have been totally
destroyed.
Question. Cyprus.--With respect to Cyprus--the parties are
currently engaged in intense talks, facilitated by U.N. Secretary
General Ban Ki-moon--in a concerted effort to resolve the Cyprus
question before Cyprus assumes the presidency of the EU. The Cyprus
situation, however, remains intractable so long as Turkey refuses to
remove its troops from Cypriot soil and to permit the parties to
achieve a workable agreement. What is Prime Minister Erdogan's position
on Cyprus? What impact will the rift between the Erdogan government and
the Turkish military have on current negotiations given the military's
well-known objection to withdrawal from the island?
Answer. The Government of Turkey and Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan
support the reunification of Cyprus in a bizonal, bicommunal
federation. The United States has long encouraged the Government of
Turkey to support the Cypriot-led negotiations under the auspices of
the U.N. Good Offices Mission to reach a comprehensive settlement.
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon convened Turkish-Cypriot and
Greek-Cypriot leaders on July 7 where the parties agreed to intensify
their efforts to reach convergence on all core issues. The resolution
of outstanding issues, including the removal of Turkish troops, is most
likely to occur in the context of comprehensive settlement
negotiations.
The recent resignation of senior military officials is an internal
Turkish matter. We do not see this development as significantly
impacting the negotiation process.
Question. Iran.--I am very concerned about Iran's continuing
efforts to acquire nuclear capacity and with respect to Turkey I remain
concerned with Iran's use of foreign bank branches to circumvent
sanctions. Open source reporting has raised concerns about Turkish
banks, specifically about Turkish branches of Iran's Bank Mellat. News
sources also recently reported that Indian refiners will pay Iran for
crude oil bought from the Persian Gulf nation through a Turkish bank.
Are you concerned that Turkish banks and foreign bank branches in
Turkey are being used as conduits for Iran to conduct international
transactions? As Ambassador, what steps have you taken to educate,
inform Turkish officials and banks about the U.S. sanctions laws on
Iran and to secure their compliance?
Answer. The Turkish leadership has made very clear its opposition
to a nuclear-armed Iran and has affirmed both publicly and privately
its commitment to implement all UNSCR sanctions against Iran. We are
engaging vigorously with both the Turkish Government and the Turkish
private sector to ensure that CISADA sanctions are both understood and
implemented. Turkey has been a strong partner on nonproliferation, and
if confirmed, I will continue to work to maintain close cooperation on
these issues and work with the Government of Turkey to share
international best practices in implementation of the U.N. sanctions.
Question. Turkish Blockage of Armenia.--In March 2009, Assistant
Secretary of State Phil Gordon, in response to a question I asked at
his confirmation hearing before the Foreign Relations Committee,
expressed his hope that the Turkey-Armenia border would be opened by
October 2009. Today, nearly 2 years later, Turkey has refused to end
its blockade of landlocked Armenia. In the past year, what adjustments
has the executive branch made to its approach and policies to
accomplish our repeatedly stated interest in seeing Turkey open this
border? What progress can you report on this issue?
Do you consider the Turkish blockade of Armenia a violation
of international law?
Do you believe that Turkey's nearly 20 year strategy of
blockading Armenia has been effective?
Answer. We strongly believe an open border between Turkey and
Armenia is in the best interests of both countries. We continue to
encourage Turkey to engage productively with Armenia on the
normalization protocols and clear the way to open its shared border,
reinstitute transportation, communication, and utility links between
the two countries, and establish diplomatic relations.
Over the last decade, the United States has provided approximately
$3.5 million to support activities aimed at strengthening relations
between the people of Armenia and Turkey. These include initiatives to
increase people-to-people connections such as research projects,
conferences, documentary production, and exchange and partnership
programs, with the goal of increasing cross-border dialogue and
cooperation. These programs are focused on bringing together Armenian
and Turkish NGOs, think tank researchers, academics, and business
leaders at the grassroots level by creating opportunities for them to
work together on common projects that will benefit both countries. If I
am confirmed, I will continue to promote not only government-to-
government discussions, but also people-to-people cultural and economic
contacts and partnerships, as well as other cross-border and regional
initiatives.
Question. United State Record on the Armenian Geneocide.--Former
Senators Barack Obama, Joseph Biden, and Hillary Clinton each
acknowledged the fact of the Armenian Genocide during their tenure as
Senator. The history of the Armenian Genocide is also well documented
by our own diplomats. Yet, this administration and prior
administrations continue this inarticulate word dance. Do you agree
with the administration's wordsmithing policy?
What do you think would happen if you articulated the historical
truth and referred to the genocide of the Armenian people as genocide?
What, in your estimation, would be the Turkish Government's most likely
reaction to an open and honest recognition by the United States of the
Armenian Genocide?
Answer. In his April 23 Armenian Remembrance Day statement, the
President solemnly remembered as historical fact that 1.5 million
Armenians were massacred or marched to their deaths from 1915-1923, and
has also said that the achievement of a full, frank, and just
acknowledgement of the facts of what occurred in 1915 is in all our
interests. The President also noted that the best way to advance that
goal is for the Armenian and Turkish people to address the facts of the
past as a part of their efforts to move forward. He strongly supports
the efforts of Turkey and Armenia to normalize their bilateral
relations.
My responsibility as an American diplomat is to represent the views
of the U.S. Government, on this and all subjects. The horrific events
of 1915 were atrocities that we and the world must never forget, so
that they are never repeated. We strongly support efforts by the
Turkish and Armenian peoples to work through their painful history in a
way that is honest, open, and constructive. We continue to encourage
Turkey to engage productively with Armenia on the normalization
protocols and clear the way to open its shared border, reinstitute
transportation, communication, and utility links between the two
countries, and establish diplomatic relations.
______
questions submitted by senator ben cardin
Question. Turkey maintains effective control over occupied northern
Cyprus, maintaining tens of thousands of Turkish troops on Cypriot soil
in violation of that country's sovereignty and numerous principles
enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act. What is the United States doing to
press Ankara to withdraw its troops from Cyprus consistent with
numerous U.N. resolutions adopted since the 1974 invasion?
Answer. Talks between the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot
communities to reunify the island as a bizonal, bicommunal federation
have been ongoing for nearly 3 years. The United States has long
encouraged the Government of Turkey to support the reunification of
Cyprus in a bizonal, bicommunal federation. The administration believes
such an outcome is in the interest not only of Cyprus, but of Turkey,
Greece, and the region.
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon convened Turkish-Cypriot and
Greek-Cypriot leaders on July 7 where the parties agreed to intensify
their efforts to reach convergence on all core issues. The resolution
of outstanding issues, including the removal of Turkish troops, is most
likely to occur in the context of comprehensive settlement
negotiations.
If confirmed, I will continue to engage Turkey on this vital issue.
Question. Today, indigenous Turkish Cypriots are outnumbered by
settlers from Turkey. Please address this matter and relevant policies
of the Government of Turkey that permit and promote this movement.
Answer. Issues of citizenship and residency are being addressed
through the U.N.-facilitated reunification talks--the best format to
address these and all other issues related to a comprehensive solution
to the Cyprus problem.
Turkey at present has no official policy on resettlement. Following
the events of 1974, some Turkish nationals migrated to Cyprus. Many
have since been granted citizenship by the ``Turkish Republic of
Northern Cyprus.''
There is a shortage of commonly agreed statistics on how many
people are living in the Turkish Cypriot community. The 2006 census
undertaken by the Turkish Cypriot authorities put the number of ``TRNC
citizens'' at more than half of the total population in the north, but
some observers, on both sides of the ``Green Line'', question these
statistics. The Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities are each
currently undertaking a census expected to be completed by the end of
the year within the framework of the reunification talks. It is hoped
that this work will help clarify these issues as part of a
comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem.
______
questions submitted by senator robert p. casey, jr.
Question. I have serious concerns about Turkey's commitment to
religious freedom, including limitations on the rights of Christians to
practice their faith freely and the destruction of Christian religious
heritage sites and churches. The U.S. Commission on International
Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has placed Turkey on its ``watch list'' for
the last 3 years. Moreover, Bartholomew I, the Ecumenical Christian
Orthodox Patriarch, has reported that Turkey's Christians are treated
as second-class citizens.
What steps is the United States taking to address these
serious concerns over the rights of religious minorities in
Turkey, including Orthodox Christians?
Answer. We continue to stress the importance of religious freedom
in Turkey at the highest levels of the Turkish Government. We also
continue to raise our concerns regarding the restoration of previously
confiscated property to religious minority communities with Turkish
authorities at the highest levels. I understand that the current
Government of Turkey has not engaged in the destruction or confiscation
of religious sites. The Government of Turkey's recent decision to
extend citizenship to 12 Orthodox metropolitans [one step below
Patriarch in the Orthodox hierarchy with regional ecclesiastic
responsibilities], which widens the pool of candidates eligible to
serve as the next Ecumenical Patriarch was a positive development, as
was the decision to return the Buyukada orphanage to the Patriarchate
and more recently a church and cemetery to Kimisis Greek Orthodox
Foundation on Bozcaada. It has also given permission for Christians to
perform religious ceremonies in sites where previously this was
prohibited, such as the Armenian church on Akdamar Island, and the
Greek Orthodox monastery at Sumela in Trabzon. An Armenian church in
Iskenderun will reopen soon. Given these and other positive steps, I
believe the Government of Turkey understands our concerns on these
issues and has itself determined that it must do more to protect the
religious freedoms of all its citizens. In some circumstances, legal
obstacles must be overcome. Turkey's efforts to reform its constitution
creates an opportunity to address the issue of legal protections of
citizens' freedoms, including religious freedom.
Question. Cyprus's strategic location and shared tradition of
democratic values makes it an important U.S. ally in the region. While
it is important for the United States to take a balanced approach
toward the Greek-Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriots in the ongoing
settlement negotiations, more can be done to help Turkey understand
that its ongoing troop presence in northern Cyprus is a hindrance to
any final unification agreement.
How is the United States engaging with Turkey to urge an end
to the Turkish troop presence in northern Cyprus in order to
help promote a fair and lasting peace settlement in Cyprus?
Answer. Talks between the Turkish-Cypriot and Greek-Cypriot
communities to reunify the island as a bizonal, bicommunal federation
have been ongoing for nearly 3 years. The United States has long
encouraged the Government of Turkey to support the reunification of
Cyprus on this basis. The administration believes such an outcome is in
the interest not only of Cyprus, but of Turkey, Greece, and the region.
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon convened Turkish-Cypriot and
Greek-Cypriot leaders on July 7 where the parties agreed to intensify
their efforts to reach convergence on all core issues. The resolution
of outstanding issues, including the removal of Turkish troops, is most
likely to occur in the context of comprehensive settlement
negotiations.
If confirmed, I will continue to engage Turkey on this vital issue.
______
questions submitted by senator jeanne shaheen
Question. Cyprus.--Prior to and during his recent visit to Cyprus,
Prime Minister Erdogan stated that returning territories would not be
part of reunification talks, nor would removal of 40,000 Turkish
troops. Additionally, he stated his support for freezing relations with
the European Union if Cyprus assumes the EU presidency.
Do you believe the Turkish Government is willing to
productively engage in talks based on a bizonal, bicommunal
Cyprus?
What steps have you taken to promote U.S. policy toward
Cyprus, and to push the Turkish Government toward satisfactory
talks?
Answer. The administration strongly supports the Cypriot-led
negotiations under the auspices of the U.N. Good Offices Mission to
reach a comprehensive settlement reunifying the island as a bizonal,
bicommunal federation. We believe that direct talks between the two
sides is the best way to reach a just and lasting settlement. We are
prepared to be helpful in any way that both parties desire, but the
negotiations must be Cypriot-led to achieve an outcome satisfactory to
both sides.
We would like to see a settlement reached sooner rather than later,
but we recognize just how difficult the process is. We are encouraged
that the personal intervention of U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in
June compelled both sides to intensify talks and we remain hopeful that
a solution may be reached.
We continue to urge both parties on Cyprus to make the tough
compromises necessary for a solution. We also regularly underscore with
our Greek and Turkish interlocutors the importance of the reunification
negotiations and emphasize that everybody benefits from a settlement:
Greece, Turkey, and Cyprus.
Question. Iran.--What role do you see for Turkey with regard to
Iran's nuclear program? Noting prior differences with Turkey on
sanctions and enrichment plans, how should we move forward with Turkey
to ensure that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon?
Answer. Turkey shares our goal of preventing a nuclear-armed Iran.
While Turkey has a long history of cultural, political, and economic
ties to Iran, as well as a long common border and shared populations,
Turkey strongly supports the efforts of the international community to
encourage Iran to engage with the P5+1 toward a diplomatic resolution
of concerns about Iran's nuclear program. The Turkish Government and
private sector have been cooperative in addressing specific concerns on
various export control and sanctions issues. We will continue to
encourage Turkey, as we encourage all states, to impress upon Iran the
importance of complying with its international nuclear obligations as
part of the necessary path to resolving all concerns with Iran's
nuclear program.
Question. Has Turkey, in your view, adequately enforced Iranian
sanctions? If not, what steps do you intend to take to push for
increased enforcement?
Answer. The Turkish leadership has made very clear its opposition
to a nuclear-armed Iran and has stated both publicly and privately that
it will fully implement all UNSCR sanctions against Iran. We are also
engaging vigorously with both the Turkish Government and the Turkish
private sector to ensure that CISADA sanctions are both understood and
implemented. Turkey has been a strong partner on nonproliferation and
if confirmed, I will continue to work to maintain close cooperation on
these issues and work with the Government of Turkey to share
international best practices in implementation of the U.N. sanctions.
Question. European Union.--Do you believe Turkey can still find a
path forward for eventual EU membership? What do you believe are the
most important unresolved issues in Turkey and in Europe for Turkey in
the European Union?
Answer. The United States believes that Turkey's full accession
into the European Union would benefit both the EU and Turkey, and we
have made this clear to the EU, its members, and Turkey. As the
President has said, ``the most important thing we can do with Turkey is
to continue to engage, continue to hold out the advantages for them of
integration with the West, while still respecting their own unique
qualities.''
Ultimately, the decision rests with both the EU and with Turkey to
move forward with the accession process, which entails progress on the
remaining 20 chapters in the Acquis Comunitaire process.
To advance this process forward, the administration continues to
encourage and support the Turkish Government and civil society as they
strive to implement reforms, particularly involving democracy, human
rights, and rule of law. Turks themselves want to see a more democratic
Turkey and the Turkish Government continues to pledge its commitment to
the EU accession process.
______
questions submitted by senator marco rubio
Question. According to the 2011 State Department Trafficking in
Persons Report, Turkey is a Tier 2 source, destination, and transit
country for men, women, and children subjected to sex trafficking and
forced labor. The report notes that human trafficking in Turkey affects
women and children from Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union States,
but also Turkish women who are subject to trafficking within their own
country. At the same time, Turkey has taken positive measures, such as
providing grants for the operation of its national IOM antitrafficking
hotline.
If confirmed, what would be your strategy to encourage the
Turkish Government to aggressively combat trafficking within
Turkey, including trafficking affecting its own citizens?
How will you encourage the justice system in Turkey to use
their antitrafficking laws properly and provide proper
punishment of traffickers?
Answer. We recognize that trafficking cases are inherently
difficult to prosecute and we all must improve efforts to uncover
victims of forced labor and sex trafficking. No country has established
a truly comprehensive response to the crime of human trafficking, and
the United States and Turkey share common challenges in addressing and
making progress in combating TIP.
We were pleased to note in the Department's 2011 Trafficking in
Persons (TIP) Report that the government improved its recognition of
forced labor and domestic trafficking and provided grants for the
operation of its national IOM antitrafficking hotline. The Turkish
Penal Code prohibits both sex trafficking and forced labor under which
28 offenders were convicted and received sentences ranging from 2 to 24
years' imprisonment. While Turkey demonstrated some progress in
protecting trafficking victims, it did not address critically needed
improvements to achieve a more victim-centered approach to TIP.
If confirmed, I am committed to continued partnership with the
Government of Turkey to address this important issue. When it comes to
the prosecution of TIP, I will continue to urge the government, if
confirmed, to finalize draft legislation that prohibits internal
trafficking in Turkey and improve witness protection measures that give
witnesses greater incentive to cooperate with law enforcement
officials. If confirmed, I will also stress with the government the
importance the U.S. attaches to providing NGOs with sustainable funding
for NGO shelters that in turn extend critical comprehensive care to
victims as well as stepping up its efforts to proactively identify
victims of this inherently hidden crime.
Question. Good relations between Armenia and Turkey are
particularly important to stability in the Caucasus and our Nation's
interests. In June, the Turkish people democratically elected Prime
Minister Erdogan's Justice and Development Party to a third consecutive
term as the majority in the Turkish Parliament.
In your view, what are the prospects of Turkish ratification
of the 2009 Zurich Protocols to normalize relations with
Armenia, given the results of the June parliamentary elections?
Answer. We commend the Governments of Armenia and Turkey on their
signing of the historic protocols on normalization of relations on
October 10, 2009, in Zurich. Officials from the Government of Turkey
continue to state their commitment to the protocols. Normalization
between Turkey and Armenia remains a feature of our dialogue with both
countries. Secretary Clinton and other senior officials continue to
raise ratification of the protocols with Turkish leaders. Facilitating
regional integration is a particular priority for the United States. We
believe that rapprochement between Armenia and Turkey will foster
increased stability and prosperity in the entire Caucasus region. We
are encouraged that both sides remain committed to the process, and we
will continue to actively urge all parties to take steps to move the
process forward.
Question. Turkey has been an invaluable NATO ally, and the hope is
that their economic success and democratic consolidation will
strengthen that role.
Is Turkey still considering hosting the radar in
southeastern Europe as part of the European Phased Adaptive
Approach to missile defense, and, if so, when is a decision
expected?
Answer. On September 19, 2009, President Obama announced the
European Phased Adaptive Approach to missile defense, which will
provide for the defense of U.S. deployed forces and our allies in
Europe sooner and more comprehensively than the previous plan. This
approach is based on a new assessment of the missile threat, and a
commitment to deploy technology that is proven, cost-effective, and
adaptable to an evolving security environment. At the Lisbon NATO
Summit in November 2010, allies agreed to develop a territorial missile
defense capability for the full coverage and protection of all NATO
European territory, populations, and forces against the increasing
threats posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles. Allies also
welcomed the EPAA as the U.S. national contribution to this essential
NATO task. We welcomed Turkey's support as well as the support of all
allies for the success of this important mission.
The administration has made substantial progress in implementation
of the EPAA. We are in discussions for the deployment of an AN/TPY-2
radar to southern Europe. A forward-based radar will provide additional
sensor coverage to enhance the existing U.S. homeland missile defense
architecture. While no decision has been made, we expect to meet our
goals for deployment beginning in 2011.
The administration has held regular discussions with all NATO
allies about the EPAA and NATO Missile Defense, including Turkey. We
look forward to continuing such discussions with Turkey and other
allies.
______
Response of Norman Eisen to Question Submitted by Senator Marco Rubio
Question. According to the 2011 State Department Traffic in Persons
Report, the Czech Republic is a Tier 2 source, destination, and transit
country for human trafficking. Despite meaningful antisex trafficking
measures, the Czech Republic is struggling to address labor trafficking
cases, especially trafficking through their private labor recruitment
agencies.
If confirmed, what would be your strategy to work with the
Czech Government to reinforce their antitrafficking laws to
more effectively combat this scourge?
Answer. As you point out, the Czech Republic has a strong program
for preventing and combating sex trafficking and protecting its
victims. Government engagement is backed by an energetic
nongovernmental sector that ensures that victims' rights remain on the
public agenda. However, the Embassy identified significant shortcomings
in preventing labor trafficking last year, which I took up with senior
government officials. The concerns we identified resulted in the Czech
Republic being downgraded to Tier 2 in the 2011 Trafficking in Persons
Report.
I and my staff are actively engaged with our Czech counterparts in
government and NGOs on improving the labor trafficking situation and we
have a strong relationship with the antitrafficking interlocutors in
the country. The Czech Government has dedicated an interministerial
committee to coordinate the government's response to trafficking in
persons, and the Embassy has participated in this body's discussions.
We have submitted an action plan to the Czech Government on addressing
the concerns you raise, and the government is already actively working
with us to achieve results. For example, the Czech Government has
introduced legislation to fund the hiring of more labor inspectors and
a law enacted in January makes disreputable labor agencies more
difficult to establish and maintain. The action plan, developed with
experts at the Department of State, is specifically aimed at improving
regulation of labor agencies; prosecution of labor traffickers; and
education of law enforcement officials to better identify victims.
NOMINATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
Hon. Wendy R. Sherman, of Maryland, to be Under Secretary of
State for Political Affairs
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin L.
Cardin presiding.
Present: Senators Cardin, Menendez, Casey, Shaheen, Coons,
Udall, Lugar, Risch, DeMint, Barrasso, and Lee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will
come to order. Good morning, everyone. We are gathered today in
regards to the nomination of the Honorable Wendy R. Sherman of
Maryland to serve as Under Secretary of State for Political
Affairs.
First, I want to thank Senator Kerry for allowing me to
chair this hearing. Senator Kerry has a statement for the
record and without objection that will be made part of the
record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Kerry follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John F. Kerry
I am pleased that this morning the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee is welcoming Ambassador Wendy Sherman, an exceptional public
servant whom the President has nominated to be Under Secretary of State
for Political Affairs.
Ambassador Sherman brings a tremendous depth of foreign policy and
political experience to this position. She served as Assistant
Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs, as well as Counselor to the
Secretary of State, during the Clinton administration. She is also
familiar with Capitol Hill, having served as chief of staff to Senator
Barbara Mikulski. There is no doubt in my mind that, if confirmed, she
will do a tremendous job in this critical diplomatic post.
We need diplomats of her caliber to guide us through the challenges
we face today. In the past months alone, we have all been captivated by
the incredible wave of change sweeping the Middle East. We have been
inspired by the people in Tunisia and Egypt who demanded freedom and
dignity and an end to repression and corruption. And we have been moved
by the courageous uprising in Libya that has led to the downfall of
Moammar Qaddafi.
But we have also watched with increasing horror as the Syrian
Government uses violence and brutality against its own people. And we
need to beware of the downward spiral taking place in Yemen, and the
dangerous implications for the region if the government in Sanaa were
to leave a power vacuum in its wake. Clearly, it is a time of great
possibility, but also of great danger, in a region that is vital to
U.S. interests.
Amid these challenges in the Middle East, we still have to manage
our involvement in many other regions. This spring, for example, the
committee held a series of hearings on how to approach our engagement
in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We will spend $120 billion in Afghanistan
this fiscal year alone. We must be sure that scarce resources are being
used effectively and constructively, and we must also be aware that
large expenditures can constrain our ability to act elsewhere.
As the world has seen in the past several weeks, our budgetary
constraints are forcing increasingly painful tradeoffs. We cannot
afford to be the world's first responder whenever a crisis arises--we
need strong multilateral partners who can help us shoulder this burden.
At the same time, I take very seriously the notion that no other
country in the world has our resources, capabilities, or expertise to
save lives, mitigate disasters, and prevent catastrophes. We have
managed to accumulate tremendous wealth, power, and influence--and with
that comes equivalent responsibility. When we fail to act, the world
all too often is silent as well. Even as we work to address the budget
crisis facing our country we must not shortchange our ability to
conduct foreign policy--the money we spend abroad is not a gift to
foreign nations. It is an investment in our national security.
And, make no mistake: going forward, we will face an incredibly
wide range of foreign policy challenges, including the growing economic
and political potency of China, India, and Brazil, as well as that of a
host of emerging powers, like South Africa, Indonesia, and Turkey. More
than ever, our national security interests are closely interconnected
with our economic interests.
What this time demands from our leading diplomats is not only
remarkable commitment and skill, but remarkable versatility. And I am
very gratified that the President has nominated someone with all of
those talents to such an important position.
Ambassador Sherman, we thank you for your continued dedication to
public service and to helping lead the Department of State through such
a decisive period in our foreign policy. I look forward to your
testimony.
Senator Cardin. I would also announce that the record will
remain open until close of business today in regards to this
hearing.
This is a unique pleasure for me, to be able to chair a
hearing for Ambassador Sherman. Senator Mikulski and I are very
proud of Ambassador Sherman and her incredible history of
public service to our country. We're very proud of her and
we're proud that she hails from Maryland, and we thank her for
being willing to step forward for this very important
assignment that President Obama has asked her to fulfill.
I also want to acknowledge her husband, Bruce Stokes, who's
in attendance, as well as her daughter, Sarah Sherman Stokes,
and her husband, Chris Richards. This is a family sacrifice,
public service. I think we all understand that. And although we
appreciate very much Ambassador Sherman's willingness to serve,
we know that it involves a very understanding family. So we
thank you all for being willing to share your wife, your
mother, with us in public service and with your Nation.
Ambassador Sherman brings a wealth of foreign policy and
political experience to what is a critical position at State,
particularly at this pivotal time in world events. We continue
to find ourselves in the midst of a singular time period in
history. It's hard to recall another era characterized by so
much turmoil, but also by such great possibilities.
Many have been captivated first and foremost by the wave of
change sweeping the Middle East. We have been inspired by the
people of Tunisia and Egypt, who have demanded freedom and
dignity, an end to repression and corruption. We have been
moved by the courageous uprising in Libya. But we've also
watched with increasing disgust the Syrian Government's
indiscriminate use of violence and brutality against its own
people.
Of course, there are foreign policy challenges in all parts
of the world. We are still actively engaged in Afghanistan,
Iraq, and Pakistan. All these present challenges for the United
States and for the position that Ambassador Sherman has been
nominated to. We also have significant economic and political
challenges stemming from China, India, and Brazil, as well as
from a host of emerging powers.
As we experienced firsthand this summer, our budget
constraints are forcing increasingly painful tradeoffs. We
cannot afford to be the world's first responders whenever a
crisis arises. We need strong multilateral partners who can
help us shoulder this burden.
At the same time, my colleagues and I take very seriously
the notion that no other country in the world has the
resources, the capabilities, and the expertise to stabilize,
mitigate disasters, and prevent catastrophes as the United
States. We have managed to accumulate tremendous wealth, power,
and influence, and with this comes a high moral responsibility.
Today I have the pleasure of welcoming Ambassador Sherman.
She'll be formally introduced by my colleague Senator Mikulski,
but I just really want to point out to the committee the
incredible record that Ambassador Sherman brings to this
nomination. She attended Smith College, graduating with honors
from Boston University. Sherman earned a master's degree in
social work from the University of Maryland, launching her on a
career path of public service at the community, State,
national, and international levels, including a stint right
here on Capitol Hill, having served as chief of staff for the
senior Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski.
I remember very well her as chief of staff and the way that
she not only managed Senator Mikulski's Senate office, but the
way that she worked with all of us to make sure that we were
all well informed.
Her responsibilities in senior positions at the State
Department beginning in the early 1990s, combined with her
considerable experience in the private sector, have prepared
her well to assume the tasks associated with the Under
Secretary of State for Political Affairs, the position to which
she has been nominated. I would note that Ms. Sherman will be
the first woman to serve in this position once she is
confirmed.
Ms. Sherman's past policy experience will be especially
helpful as she assists the Secretary and Deputy Secretary to
formulate a foreign policy at this critical time in
relationship to our allies and adversaries alike.
With that, let me turn to Senator Lugar.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Lugar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I join
you in welcoming Ms. Sherman. I appreciate her experience and
her willingness to rejoin public service at a very challenging
moment for United States foreign policy.
Soon after taking office, Secretary of State Clinton
initiated the first-ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development
Review, the QDDR, modeled after a long-standing Pentagon
strategic assessment process. What emerged last December, after
18 months, was largely a blueprint for improving coordination
of America's existing foreign policy and foreign aid
operations, and an agenda for future reforms.
But that exercise did not prioritize policy goals, nor did
it take account of the rapidly changing domestic budget
environment. For many months Congress and the President have
been involved in deliberations on the budget that are focused
on reducing massive Federal deficits in the short run and
constructing a long-term strategy for dealing with a national
debt that is approaching $15 trillion.
This governmentwide budget focus will continue this fall,
with the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction holding
its first meetings this week. If the Super Committee process
does not produce a viable budget reduction plan, agencies and
programs will face automatic sequestrations.
In this context, the State Department must be planning how
to perform its important national security, economic, consular,
and diplomatic missions in a declining resource environment.
This planning should proceed far more rapidly than the QDDR, in
part because at its heart, it is not just a management
exercise, it is a policy imperative.
Even apart from budget dynamics, I remain concerned that
our national security policy is being driven without sufficient
planning or strategic design. The expansion of the Afghanistan
mission and the intervention in Libya, in particular, have
occurred with limited reference to strategic goals or vital
interests. As I noted in our hearing series on Afghanistan
several months ago, it is difficult to see how the current
level of United States expenditures in that country can be
squared with a rational allocation of national security
resources.
Undoubtedly, global emergencies will occur that require an
American response. The State Department has often been adept at
moving existing funds around to address urgent contingencies.
We also have seen recent efforts to trim civilian projects in
Afghanistan or elongate their timeframe to reduce the rate of
spending. But if resources for national security contingencies
decline, as most observers expect, U.S. policy will require a
much more defined set of priorities and the strategic
discipline to stick to them.
The State Department and the White House should be working
with Congress to articulate a set of priorities to be funded
that are based on vital national security interests. Within the
State Department, the impetus for such planning must come from
the highest levels. I will be interested to hear the nominee's
views of United States national security priorities, the State
Department's response to intensifying budget limitations, and
the prospects for improving strategic planning at the State
Department and throughout our government.
We welcome Ms. Sherman and I thank the chair and look
forward to our discussion.
Senator Cardin. I thank you very much, Senator Lugar.
It's now my privilege to introduce my colleague in the U.S.
Senate, Senator Barbara Mikulski.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA MIKULSKI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND
Senator Mikulski. Good morning, Senator Cardin, Senator
Lugar, Senator DeMint. It is with a great deal of pride and
enthusiasm I come before you today to unabashedly lend my
support for Wendy Sherman to be the Under Secretary of State
for Political Affairs. I believe that Secretary Clinton has
chosen wisely because Ambassador Sherman brings to this post an
exceptional background and a great deal of skill. She has
unique abilities that she wants to put to work in the public
service for our country.
As you stated, Senator Cardin, I've known Wendy Sherman for
25 years. I've known her as a friend, a chief of staff, and she
continues to be a close adviser. I do know Wendy Sherman and
therefore that's why I'm so clear that this would be an
outstanding nomination and hope the committee confirms her.
She brings competence, intelligence, and integrity. Wendy
will be an invaluable member of our foreign policy team,
advancing the global interests of our country, a safer country,
a stronger economy. She is a strategic thinker, a seasoned
diplomat, and an experienced manager and negotiator, and
knowledgeable of the world and the issues that the United
States faces.
She understands and respects the important role of Congress
in foreign policy. As Assistant Secretary of State for
Legislation under President Clinton and then-Secretary Warren
Christopher, she knew how to listen to us, made sure our voices
were heard at the State Department, and was truly bipartisan in
her approach and in her work.
She played a role, working with Secretary Albright, on
every major foreign policy issue. She managed very special
assignments at the request of the Secretary, including
negotiations on nonproliferation. She also has extensive
experience in the private sector. That doesn't usually happen
at the State Department. They usually come from academia, a
good place to come from, from Congress--some might say an even
better place to come from--and then the private sector, which
we cannot have a safer country and a stronger economy unless we
know how it all works together.
Ambassador Sherman in her role, having left government, has
worked with iconic American companies to expand and compete in
the global economy, to make sure we had a presence over there
while we kept jobs here. It is her unique ability to understand
the world, but understand the people of the United States of
America that she serves, and also the constitutional
requirement that the executive branch must consult with
Congress on important affairs of state.
She has an incredible background and one that might be
unique, as I've outlined. Senator Cardin talked about how she
went to Smith, was an honors graduate from Boston, and then we
both went to the University of Maryland School of Social Work.
I was a couple of yearbooks away from Ambassador Sherman, but
we did go to that outstanding school, where we learned
community development and social strategy.
What we learned there was to accomplish a goal you have to
organize based on a felt need, around a goal, a noble idea, and
build the support to do it. She will work at her job to build
support, both within our own country and within the world, to
advance our vital interests.
One of the important things I think also about Ambassador
Sherman is her incredible commitment to public service. It is
in her DNA. She comes from a wonderful family. Senator Cardin,
you and I know her parents very well, Mel and Mimi Sherman, who
were prominent in the Baltimore business community, in the real
estate community, and they were known for their high principles
of integrity, their commitment to social justice, and they knew
that you could do well while doing good.
It is there that they had--and I know that Ambassador
Sherman learned first about foreign affairs trick or treating
for UNICEF to help the little kids of the world, and now she's
going to be a big kid on the block helping the little children
of the world.
Her husband Bruce is a distinguished journalist and
international economist. Her daughter Sarah is a recent law
school graduate, again committed to public service and her
husband, Dr. Chris Richards.
So I think the committee would do well to take the
executive branch's nomination and to move her forward. I look
forward to working with you should the committee decide to vote
to advance this on the agenda.
Thank you for your kind attention and I know you want to
hear from Ambassador Sherman.
Senator Cardin. Well, Senator Mikulski, let me thank you
for your comments. I join you in presenting to the committee,
Ambassador Sherman, strongly support her confirmation, and just
want to underscore the personal aspects that you did. I've
known the Sherman family all my life and I've known Wendy all
my life, and they're an incredible public family in that they
have given back so much to our community, and we're very proud
of your record and very proud of your willingness to step
forward for this important assignment.
Ambassador Sherman.
STATEMENT OF HON. WENDY R. SHERMAN, OF MARYLAND, NOMINATED TO
BE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS
Ambassador Sherman. Good morning, Senator Cardin, chairman
for today, and Senator Lugar, whom I've had the distinguished
honor to work with for many, many years, and to all of the
members of the committee, Senator DeMint, Senator Udall, and
others who may join.
I'm very honored to be here. I want to begin by thanking
President Obama and Secretary Clinton for their confidence and,
with your support, for the opportunity once again to serve our
country.
Senator Mikulski and Senator Cardin, I am so very grateful
for your friendship, your support, your wonderful words, and
for your leadership and service to all of us who are
Marylanders and to all Americans. I'm very humbled by your
introductions this morning.
If I may, thanks as well to my husband, Bruce, and all of
my family--I'm so delighted that my daughter, Sarah, and her
husband, Chris, can be here today--to all of my family, as
Senator Cardin said, who are willing once again to have the
phone ring in the middle of the night and to welcome me home
after yet another trip abroad.
None of us can contemplate these responsibilities without a
mighty support system of family, friends, and colleagues,
several of whom are with me here today.
This is the third time I have come before this panel
seeking confirmation. In 1993 the chairman was Senator
Claiborne Pell, who always carried a copy of the United Nations
Charter in his pocket, proudly pulling it out and reminding us
all how we must all work for peace and prosperity. My own
parents, in fact, were at the founding meeting of the U.N. in
1945 in San Francisco. My father, an Active-Duty Marine,
stateside after being wounded at Guadalcanal, helped to
organize veterans to advocate in support of the world body. He
was determined to do all that he could to save future
generations from the trauma that his own generation had
experienced.
In 1997 when I appeared before the committee for the second
time, the chair was Senator Jesse Helms. It will not surprise
you to learn that he and I did not always agree. But I never
doubted his love for our country, and he never doubted mine,
either privately or publicly. Those who knew him know that he
was a true gentleman. When I had surgery, he called me at home.
And when we failed to see eye to eye on an issue, there was
never any questioning of sincerity or motives.
Today, under the leadership of Chairman Kerry and Ranking
Member Lugar, the committee is at the forefront of debate about
America's position in a world of constant change. But what has
not changed is the professional and dedicated manner in which
the committee conducts the Nation's business.
I am grateful for your courtesy and look forward, if
confirmed, to working with you in the future, just as I have
worked with many of you in prior years.
I'm also humbled by the knowledge that the job of Under
Secretary for Political Affairs has been filled in the past by
people for whom I have enormous respect, including most
recently Ambassador Bill Burns, an outstanding member of the
Foreign Service who continues his service as Deputy Secretary.
If I had to write a job description for the position, it
would begin and end with a willingness to take on whatever
assignments are deemed necessary by the Secretary of State. If
confirmed, I will bring to this new assignment years of
experience as a staff member on Capitol Hill, as Assistant
Secretary and counselor at the Department of State, and as the
President's Special Adviser on North Korea. In recent years I
have gained valuable additional experience in the private
sector. This background has enabled me to develop skills as a
negotiator, strategist, troubleshooter, and problem solver.
I think you will find also that I'm a good listener. As
chief of staff of then-Congresswoman Mikulski and later as
Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs, I had a
good deal of practice. Listening is important, not only in
meeting with foreign officials, but in consulting with you, the
representatives of the American people, and our citizens.
My old boss and current business partner, Secretary
Albright, used to say there is nothing foreign about foreign
policy. What the State Department does and what this committee
does is intimately related to the health of our economy, the
demands made on our military, the safety of our people, and the
future of our children. It is vital that we communicate these
connections to the public.
Mr. Chairman, I expect during the course of this hearing
that we will cover many of the specific countries and
controversies that presently concern us across the globe.
Rather than try to address those in this brief opening
statement, I thought I would summarize very quickly the
attributes of American foreign policy that I intend to stress
if confirmed to the position of Under Secretary of State.
The first is persistence. I think we make a mistake when we
look for quick answers to hard problems. It's always tempting
to seek instant gratification, but that is generally,
unfortunately, not how the world works. We owe it to ourselves,
to the public we serve, and to our allies to persevere in our
strategies, maintain our commitments, and finish the jobs we
begin.
Second, we need to take advantage of the full range of
foreign policy tools. These extend from the simple art of
persuasion to the persuasive impact of military force, and
include in between a variety of carrots and sticks. When
possible, we should act with others. When necessary, we should
not hesitate to act alone. Our military must be strong,
versatile, and ready, but the same is true of our civilian
resources.
Third, American foreign policy must reflect a blend of
idealism and realism. A decisionmaker has no choice but to
begin with the world as it is, but our decisions would have no
purpose if not to shape the world as we would like it to be. We
cannot claim to represent the American people if we do not
explore every opportunity to support freedom, prosperity, and
justice.
In pursuing our interests and our values, we must also
reach out in the broadest possible way to governments, opinion
leaders, young people, women and girls, the private sector, and
civil society in all its dimensions. We must also take
advantage of the opportunities presented by the information
technologies and networking capabilities of the 21st century.
Finally, in all that we do we must keep in mind on whose
behalf we serve and in whose interests we labor. The Department
of State, like this committee, exists not to represent the
world to the United States, but to enhance American influence
across the globe. We may disagree on occasion about how best to
do that, but there should be no confusion about the nature of
our purpose.
Certainly no one understands better than Secretary Clinton
and this committee's members the importance of investing our
dollars very wisely, of tieing our diplomatic initiatives to
the best interests of our country, of making sure that our
policies reflect and uphold American values. At the same time,
as an optimist I see a convergence, a growing convergence,
between our interests and those of other peaceloving and law-
abiding countries. The art of diplomacy is to mobilize others
to coordinate with us in pursuit of shared goals, whether we
have in mind the further degradation of al-Qaeda, a halt to
nuclear proliferation, or the strengthening of stability and
democracy in every corner of the world.
In closing, I want to once again thank the President and
Secretary of State for their support, to say how very much I
look forward, if confirmed, to working closely with the members
of the committee and your colleagues in Congress, and to
express my gratitude for the opportunity, with your blessing,
to devote my full energies to serving the country we all love.
I thank you again for your hospitality and would be pleased
to respond to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Sherman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ambassador Wendy R. Sherman
Good morning, Senator Cardin, Senator Lugar and members of the
committee, I am honored to be here and want to begin by thanking
President Obama and Secretary Clinton for their confidence, and with
your support, for the opportunity once again, to serve our country.
Senator Mikulski and Senator Cardin, I am very grateful for your
friendship, your support, and for your leadership and service to all of
us who are Marylanders--and Americans. I am humbled by your
introductions this morning.
And, if I may, thanks as well to my husband, Bruce, and all of my
family who are willing once again to have the phone ring in the middle
of the night and to welcome me home after yet another trip abroad. None
of us can contemplate these responsibilities without a mighty support
system of family, friends, and colleagues.
This is the third time I have come before this panel seeking
confirmation.
In 1993, the chairman was Senator Claiborne Pell, who always
carried a copy of the United Nations Charter in his pocket, proudly
pulling it out and reminding us how we all must work together for peace
and prosperity.
My own parents, in fact, were at the founding meeting of the U.N.
in 1945 in San Francisco. My father, an Active-Duty Marine, stateside
after being wounded at Guadalcanal, helped to organize veterans to
advocate in support of the world body; he was determined to do all he
could to save future generations from the trauma that his own
generation had experienced.
In 1997, when I appeared before the committee for the second time,
the chair was Senator Jesse Helms.
It will not surprise you to learn that he and I did not always
agree, but I never doubted his love for our country and he never
doubted mine either privately or publicly.
Those who knew him know that he was a true gentleman; when I had
surgery, he called me at home; and when we failed to see eye to eye on
an issue, there was never any questioning of sincerity or motives.
Today, under the leadership of Chairman Kerry and Ranking Member
Lugar, the committee is at the forefront of debate about America's
position in a world of constant change--but what has not changed is the
professional and dedicated manner in which the committee conducts the
Nation's business.
I am grateful for your courtesy and look forward, if confirmed, to
working with you in the future just as I have worked with many of you
in prior years.
I am humbled by the knowledge that the job of Under Secretary of
State for Political Affairs has been filled in the past by people for
whom I have enormous respect, including most recently Ambassador Bill
Burns, an outstanding member of the Foreign Service, who continues his
service as Deputy Secretary.
If I had to write a job description for the position it would begin
and end with a willingness to take on whatever assignments are deemed
necessary by the Secretary of State.
If confirmed, I will bring to this new assignment years of
experience as a staff member on Capitol Hill, as Assistant Secretary
and Counselor at the Department of State, and as the President's
special advisor on North Korea. In recent years, I have gained valuable
additional experience in the private sector.
This background has enabled me to develop skills as a negotiator,
strategist, trouble-shooter and problem-solver. I think you will also
find that I am a good listener. As Chief of Staff to then-Congresswoman
Mikulski, and later as Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative
Affairs, I had a good deal of practice. Listening is important not only
in meetings with foreign officials; but in consulting with you--the
representatives of the American people and with our citizens.
My old boss, Secretary Albright, used to say that there is nothing
foreign about foreign policy. What the State Department does, and what
this committee does, is intimately related to the health of our
economy, the demands made on our military, the safety of our people,
and the future of our children. It is vital that we communicate these
connections to the public.
Mr. Chair, I expect, during the course of this hearing, that we
will cover many of the specific countries and controversies that
presently concern us across the globe. Rather than try to address those
in this opening statement, I thought I would summarize very quickly the
attributes of American foreign policy that I intend to stress if
confirmed to the position of Under Secretary of State.
The first is persistence. I think we make a mistake when we look
for quick answers to hard problems. It is always tempting to seek
instant gratification, but that is generally not how the world works.
We owe it to ourselves, to the public we serve, and to our allies, to
persevere in our strategies, maintain our commitments, and finish the
jobs we begin.
Second, we need to take advantage of the full range of foreign
policy tools. These extend from the simple art of persuasion to the
persuasive impact of military force and include in between a variety of
carrots and sticks. When possible, we should act with others; when
necessary, we should not hesitate to act alone. Our military must
remain strong, versatile, and ready, but the same is true of our
civilian resources.
Third, American foreign policy must reflect a blend of idealism and
realism. A decisionmaker has no choice but to begin with the world as
it is; but our decisions would have no purpose if not to shape the
world as we would like it to be. We cannot claim to represent the
American people if we do not explore every opportunity to support
freedom, prosperity, and justice.
In pursuing our interests and our values, we must also reach out in
the broadest way possible--to governments, opinion leaders, young
people, women and girls, the private sector and civil society in all
its dimensions. We must also take full advantage of the opportunities
presented by the information technologies and networking capabilities
of the 21st century.
Finally, in all that we do, we must keep in mind on whose behalf we
serve and in whose interests we labor. The Department of State, like
this committee, exists not to represent the world to the United States,
but to enhance American influence across the globe. We may disagree on
occasion about how best to do that, but there should be no confusion
about the nature of our purpose. Certainly, no one understands better
than Secretary Clinton and this committee's members the importance of
investing our dollars wisely, of tying our diplomatic initiatives to
the best interests of our country, and of making sure that our policies
reflect and uphold American values.
At the same time, I see a growing convergence between our interests
and those of other peace-loving and law-abiding countries. The art of
diplomacy is to mobilize others to coordinate with us in pursuit of
shared goals--whether we have in mind the further degradation of al-
Qaeda, a halt to nuclear proliferation, or the strengthening of
stability and democracy in every corner of the world.
In closing, I want once again to thank the President and Secretary
of State for their support, to say how much I look forward, if
confirmed, to working closely with the members of the committee and
your colleagues in Congress, and to express my gratitude for the
opportunity--with your blessing--to devote my full energies to serving
the country we all love.
I thank you again for your hospitality and would be pleased to
respond to your questions.
Senator Cardin. Once again, thank you for your appearance
here and your testimony.
I want to start off with a point that I raised in my
opening statement, and Senator Lugar also did, and that is the
fiscal realities that we're finding ourselves in. The United
States has a security budget that includes not only the
Department of Defense, but our civilian efforts of diplomacy
within the State Department. We spend more than any other
nation in the world by far in regards to our defense issues. On
the diplomacy civilian side, we spend a lot of money, but as a
relative part of our budget it's relatively small.
The Obama administration has made the point over and over
again that we have a national security budget, that we need to
be able to use all resources, whether they're military or
civilian or diplomacy, in regards to our national security
interests.
I would ask you to share with us how you would go about
making priority recommendations to the administration. There
are a lot of demands out there. We're still involved,
obviously, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Pakistan is a huge
challenge for the United States and could become an expensive
operation for us, already is an expensive operation for us. In
addition, there are opportunities, new opportunities in Egypt.
We have Libya that is emerging.
So how will you go about--will you share to us the
standards you will use in trying to make priority judgments.
You know we are faced with the possibility of across-the-board
cuts if the Congress is unable to reduce the deficit further,
which could obviously bring in tough decisionmaking challenges
to the Department of State.
Ambassador Sherman. Thank you very much, Senator Cardin.
This is a very tough question that we're beginning the hearing
with, and I know that for every member you've just come back
from recess and talking with your constituents and being back
in communities. And American families are worried about
everything from the floods in their neighborhoods to, quite
importantly, whether they or loved ones are going to have a job
to be able to support their families and have the kind of
future that we all hope for our children.
So when we think about foreign policy priorities, I'm sure
you hear from many constituents, why are we spending a single
dollar abroad? We need every dollar we have in our budget,
particularly as we need to deal with our deficit, and we need
to create opportunities for jobs for people at home. We need
every dollar at home.
At the same time, I know that the American people are well
aware that on Sunday we will memorialize 10 years since 9/11
and the tremendous threat of terror that came across an ocean
we thought would never reach our homeland, and the terrible
cost in lives, in the way we go about our civil society, in the
ways we face our future.
So I think Americans understand that in order to have the
economic future we want we are inexorably connected to the
world. We are connected to the world's economy. We are
connected to events that take place in the world that are going
to have an impact on what happens to us here at home.
So we have to find the right balance. Most Americans
believe that we spend 40 percent of our budget on foreign
policy. When we ask them how much we should spend, they say 20
percent. As I think all the members of this committee know, we
spend less than 1 percent of the Federal budget on foreign
policy priorities.
Even with that 1 percent, as you say quite rightly, we are
going to have to be very thoughtful about what we do. President
Obama, Secretary Clinton, have really I think led the way, as
Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates did, in putting forward a
national security budget, at looking holistically at all of the
tools--our military tools, our civilian tools, our diplomatic
tools, and the tools of our private sector--in trying to
advance American vital national security interests around the
world.
So I think we're going to have to be very smart about how
we move forward. I think President Obama is looking quite
carefully. As we know, we're winding down the war in Iraq. That
will be quite crucial. He has a glide path for moving troops
out of Afghanistan, which will have an enormous budget savings
between now and 2014, when that will be accomplished.
We are looking at the new challenges that we have, both in
terms not of what we alone can do, but what we can do with
others. The efforts in Libya were not led so much by the United
States, though we played an invaluable role in what the Libyan
people themselves have done, but it has been led by NATO, so
that the burden is shared.
So I think we are going to have to look at all of the
stakeholders, all of the resources we have. I think the
building of public-private partnerships will be quite crucial.
But I think Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates and now
Secretary Clinton and Secretary Panetta will lead the way in
marshalling the resources we have in the best way we have, with
I think the fundamental premise, what is in America's vital
national security interest, and that has to set the priorities
for where we will head.
Senator Cardin. You were a major player in the Clinton
administration as it developed policies toward North Korea.
Could you share with us what lessons you believe were learned
by that experience that could be helpful as we continue to
develop a strategy as it relates to a country that presents
serious challenges to the United States?
Ambassador Sherman. Thank you, Senator. I think that during
the time that I worked on that very, very tough problem for
President Clinton and Secretary Albright, it began really in
1998 when North Korea launched a Taepodong missile that
overflew Japan, and it failed, but it raised great concerns,
not only in the Clinton administration, but up here on Capitol
Hill. There was a suspect underground site and we didn't quite
know what was going on there.
So, with bipartisan support from the United States
Congress, the former Secretary of Defense William Perry was
designated to be a North Korea policy coordinator and to do a
review, which went on for 11 months, and at the same time
undertake some new diplomacy. I was the person inside
government who worked with Secretary Perry and then replaced
him as North Korea policy coordinator.
I think we learned what every administration since has
learned. Working with North Korea is very frustrating,
exceedingly difficult. They are elusive. They do not keep their
commitments. They are often hostile. They are oppressive to
their people; and that solving this problem is very, very
tough, takes enormous persistence; and that there are no good
choices.
We were able to get a significant dialogue started, make
some small progress, but those gains turned out to be elusive.
President Bush tried some new efforts, including the
development of the six-party talks, continuing what was called
the TCOG, which was a trilateral coordinating mechanism with
South Korea and Japan, which was very important. He started a
policy of interdiction of possible and suspect efforts on the
high seas, which I think was an important tool.
Secretary Obama--Secretary Clinton and President Obama have
continued with the six-party talks and continued really with
the two-prong approach that Secretary Perry first put on the
table. That was that North Korea had a choice. It could
eliminate in an irreversible fashion its nuclear weapons
program and its long-range missile program, improve its human
rights record, and give its people a future and join the
international community and see some normalization of
relations, or they could continue their isolation as a weak and
failed state and get the wrath of the international community
visited upon them.
So far, North Korea has pretty much chosen the second path.
The Obama administration, Secretary Clinton, have worked with
the U.N. and with allies around the world to place additional
very serious sanctions on North Korea. They're probably among,
if not the most, sanctioned country in the world.
It has created some pressure on North Korea. They have
recently had talks with South Korea. They have had some talks
with the United States, but Secretary Clinton has been quite
clear and I think quite wisely has said that it makes no sense
to have talks just for the sake of talks, that North Korea must
keep its commitments that it made in 2005 to really move
forward to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula; and if
they show that in fact they want to proceed in that way then
talks may have some serious purpose.
But I'm quite clear this is one tough, difficult, thorny
problem. We learned some things, but we are in a new
environment, in many ways a much tougher environment, and the
choices the President and the Secretary have to make are
probably even tougher than the ones that we made in the late
1990s.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Senator Lugar.
Senator Lugar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Sherman, following up on the chairman's earlier
question, I would simply note that the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the House of
Representatives recently passed a budget for the State
Department for fiscal year 2012 in the amount of $39 billion.
This figure is $8.6 billion, or some 18 percent, below the
fiscal year 2011 enacted level and 22 percent below what the
administration requested for the funding level for 2012.
I raise this because I just want to get some insight as to
how you perceive your role as Under Secretary for Political
Affairs. You would obviously serve as a close adviser to the
Secretary of State--but would it be your responsibility to
rearrange the deck? The $39 billion may not be the final
figure. It may go up or down. In the event that the Committee
of 12 does not reach a decision regarding deficit reduction,
the State Department has been included along with the Defense
Department to shoulder 50 percent of the $1.2 trillion in
mandated automatic spending cuts. Already there's discussion
about what the State Department and the Defense Department
would lose relative to one another should these cuts occur.
So I'm trying to define in my own mind's eye, as well as
for those who are witnessing our hearing, what is your job? Is
it your role to prioritize who is going to do what in an
environment where resources are limited? Or do you simply
advise somebody else who makes these decisions?
Ambassador Sherman. Well, thank you for that question,
Senator. Many years ago, then-Chairman Howell Rodgers, a
Republican in the House, put in the State authorization bill
language to create a second Deputy Secretary of State for
Resources and Management, and this committee and the Senate
were quite wise to recently confirm Deputy Secretary Tom Nides
to that position.
Secretary Clinton is the first Secretary of State to fill
that role, because she understood, I think, the point, at least
one of the points you're trying to make, Senator. And that is
dealing with the budget priorities of the State Department is
complex, it's difficult, it's a competitive environment, it's a
challenging environment. So Secretary Nides has the principal
responsibility of working with the Secretary of State to work
with OMB and the White House in establishing those budget
priorities and working in the whole of government approach to a
national security budget.
The role of the Under Secretary of State for Political
Affairs is a more political and diplomatic role, of course
offering as part of the Secretary's team advice and thoughts
and recommendations and helping to illuminate the many
priorities that are in front of the United States as it tries
to extend its interests around the world. So I will certainly
do all that the Secretary asks me to do to support that effort.
I think the Secretary has already made clear that if the
House bill were to move forward to the President's desk, she
would personally recommend a veto of that bill, not only on the
basis of the deep cuts to the bill, but many of the provisions
that are within that bill.
I certainly understand the House's actions in these
difficult times, but I remain hopeful, as I know the Secretary
and the President does, that we can all work together to find
something that will help truly meet the vital interests of the
United States.
Senator Lugar. Well, thank you very much for clarifying the
work of Secretary Nides and the role of the Under Secretary of
State for Political Affairs. Given that role, it is relevant to
mention that the General Assembly of the United Nations will be
meeting very soon. It's anticipated that we're going to have a
real problem with the Palestinian Authority suggesting that a
Palestinian state be recognized at the U.N.
What are we going to do about that? What is the program of
the administration as it approaches the U.N. and this ongoing
problem, which has been perceived a long way down the trail,
but now is pretty close at hand?
Ambassador Sherman. Senator, the administration has been
very clear that all of us hope for a two-state solution in
Middle East peace, a viable Palestine and a secure Israel with
clear borders. We do not believe that a U.N. resolution will
get us to that place, and the Secretary of State and the
President are doing everything they can to make it clear to the
world that we think that this is not a positive step forward
should a resolution come to pass.
My understanding from the briefings I've had at the State
Department is there has been a very broad and very vigorous
demarche of virtually every capital in the world, that this is
high on the agenda for every meeting the Secretary has with
every world leader. Today I understand that both Special Envoy
David Hale and Ambassador Dennis Ross are in the region having
conversations with all parties to see if there is not a better
way forward to resolve this issue.
But there is no question that the President, the Secretary
of State, and, if confirmed, I will do everything possible to
see that this does not move forward.
Senator Lugar. Now, the United States will oppose
Palestinian Authority President Abbas in his motion, but
specifically what can we do? If the General Assembly has a
majority vote, what is our next step?
Ambassador Sherman. I think the next step, Senator, to the
best of my understanding is the discussions that are going on
in the region as we speak to see if there is not a more viable
path forward. I think my understanding is that the Palestinian
Authority has not yet decided exactly what it will put forward.
So I think there are ongoing discussions and I think it's
incumbent upon everyone in the administration to do everything
we possibly can to see if there is any possibility that this
not proceed.
Senator Lugar. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cardin. Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Sherman, thank you very much for your long service to
our country. I appreciate it and look forward to your role at
the State Department.
There are many questions I would like to ask you, but two
that I'll pursue in my 6 minutes. One is Libya. I welcome the
political change in Libya, to bring about the aspirations of
the Libyan people, and am certainly proud to have been the
sponsor of the Senate no-fly resolution in the early stages of
this challenge. So I'm very much in support of an opportunity
for the Libyan people to start anew and for the successor
government to embrace democratic reforms and rehabilitate
Libya's reputation in the world community.
At the same time, I have, as you may know, for some time
followed the case of the Pan Am 103 bombing, which claimed 189
American lives, including 34 from my home State of New Jersey,
and I have never believed that Mr. Megrahi alone was the
beginning and the end of the mastermind of Pan Am 103's
bombing. I think people generally believe that that is not
true. We still do not know who ordered the bombing, who
collected the intelligence to carry out the plan, who made the
bomb, and who in addition to Megrahi bears responsibility for
this heinous attack.
So it is my hope that the follow-on Libyan Government will
be responsive. Certainly when Mr. Jabril met with me, he made
certain direct commitments about the TNC's engagement.
But I am somewhat dismayed by the news reports that I have
seen coming from the TNC since, whether they relate to Mr.
Megrahi or other pursuits of information that would give us the
wherewithal to understand who was involved in this bombing. So
to that end, I'll introduce later today the Pan Am 103
Accountability Act, which would require the President to
consider the cooperation of the TNC and any successor
government in Libya when making decisions about U.S.
assistance, and would limit the distribution of Libyan frozen
assets until the President could certify that the new Libyan
authorities are fully cooperating with the U.S. investigation
and requests for information.
What inquiries to your knowledge, since I'm sure you've
been briefed in preparation of this hearing, has the State
Department, our government, made with the TNC in respect to
gaining first access to Megrahi to determine what his state is,
and also what inquiries has our government made with the TNC in
reference to cooperation in getting access to both individuals
and documents in pursuit of finding out all of those who were
responsible for this bombing?
Ambassador Sherman. Senator, when I was counselor of the
Department of State I had the privilege, the sad privilege, of
meeting with the families of Pan Am 103 as the Scottish court
was getting under way. I heard firsthand what I know you have
heard many times, which is the horrible grief of the families
of the victims of Pan Am 103 and their sense that justice had
not been served, and I know those feelings continue today. It
was a very tough and very painful meeting. So I do understand
quite directly what those families have gone through, or have
heard at least.
Secretary Clinton understands as well and she has said from
the start that the administration does not believe that al-
Megrahi should have been returned to Libya in the first place.
In the last few days, when she has been in Paris in meetings
with the TNC and the leaders of the TNC, she has had direct
conversations on this subject, both on her concerns that al-
Megrahi be brought to justice and that, further, that all that
needs to be done to seek justice for these families is a
priority for the TNC.
She and the administration certainly understand that the
TNC has much on its plate at the moment, including the security
and governance of their country. But she wanted to be clear
that this was a very important issue for the United States of
America.
Senator Menendez. And what response did she get?
Ambassador Sherman. The response was that this was very
much understood by the TNC, knew how important this was for the
United States, and that they would continue their conversation
and dialogue.
I am not aware, in part because I have not been briefed,
Senator, more recently, whether any specific commitments were
made other than to continue the dialogue and pursue that
justice, which is an important commitment that justice indeed
be pursued.
Senator Menendez. This is what my concern is. I appreciate
continuing the dialogue, but this is a transitional government
for which the United States has played a major role, from
establishing and being the advocate for a no-fly zone, getting
NATO to be engaged, and providing considerable assets, to
unlocking frozen assets for humanitarian purposes.
I am concerned that dialogue, while desirable, will not
lead to the conclusions that we want. So I would hate to give
all the leverage away before we have more than a dialogue,
before we have a commitment. So I am looking for the Department
to pursue a commitment. I'm looking to find whether the
Department has had the opportunity to get access to its former
foreign and external security minister, Moussa Koussa.
I would hate to see us release all of the assets while in
the midst of a dialogue. So I just want to press that point,
and I will continue to press that point. I've made this point
with the Secretary as well.
Ambassador Sherman. I certainly understand. I do believe,
Senator, that there is an absolute commitment to justice. I
take your point about the specificity of that commitment to
justice and I'm sure that the Secretary will continue to pursue
this, because it is a very high priority for her.
Senator Menendez. Finally in the time that I have left, the
issue of a U.N. vote on the Palestinian Authority's request has
been raised. Is it the Department's position that a resolution
recognizing a Palestinian state could stall the peace talks for
the foreseeable future? And what message has the Department--I
heard about the demarches, which I applaud, and certainly
Secretary Rice has done an extraordinary job in her advocacy.
But what has our government said to Abbas about the impact that
this vote will have on United States-Palestinian relations?
Ambassador Sherman. The administration has been very clear
that this resolution is not positive for the peace process,
that leaders should hear what the United States Congress and
other leaders are saying about what impact might result, that
that is a serious, serious reality for the future of the region
and for the Palestinian people.
Indeed, today, as I mentioned, both David Hale and Dennis
Ross are in the region having those very direct discussions.
Senator Menendez. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Senator Menendez.
Senator DeMint.
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
Thank you, Ambassador Sherman. I appreciate you being here
and I very much appreciate your many years of service and
sacrifice, as well as the sacrifice I know your family's been a
part of. So my questions are not at all directed at character,
integrity, or your commitment to our country. We very much
appreciate it.
But I do want to ask you about what I see as two different
philosophies in our foreign policy, not just this
administration, but maybe across the board. There's one
philosophy that the United States needs to deal very firmly,
with strength and a lot of verification with other countries in
the world. And I think there's another philosophy that perhaps
through friendliness, even appeasement and trust, that we can
accomplish much more. Certainly that approach with friends and
allies is the preferred approach.
But behind closed doors over the years, as I've talked to
some of our allies, I think there's a perception the United
States maybe uses more carrots than sticks and there's maybe a
degree of naivete in our State Department, that our
friendliness and willingness to trust is seen in many parts of
the world as weakness rather than a genuine desire to work with
others.
As I look at your work with North Korea, it does suggest to
me perhaps a willingness to work with countries that we know
cannot be trusted, almost maybe as a peer, and dealing with
them in a way that suggests that friendliness and appeasement
and trust might be more your philosophy. I liked a lot of what
you said in your opening statement, but I am concerned as we
approach other countries--China, Russia, Iran, Syria, the
Palestinians--that these countries respect power and that
clarity of purpose is very important for us.
I'd just like to hear you discuss maybe how you see the
world in that respect and, moving forward, how do you see the
role of the United States in dealing with other countries?
Ambassador Sherman. Thank you, Senator. I think it's a very
important question, and I think that my own philosophy
probably, in the way you've set up the question--I might not
set it up quite that way--is on the side of strength and
verification. Where I think we may see it slightly differently,
Senator, is that I don't believe engagement is the antithesis
of strength and verification. I believe that engaging with
leaders is a way to test them, to see if in fact the
commitments they've made they're going to keep.
In the case of North Korea, we engaged with North Korea to
see if they would not only make commitments, but if they would
keep them in a verifiable and irreversible way. They did not.
We did not conclude the agreement with North Korea. Sanctions
not only remained on North Korea, but have increased over the
years.
We know during the Bush administration that there was
difference of opinion about how they would proceed on North
Korea. In the Obama administration there has been great
clarity: A two-pronged approach, but, as Secretary Clinton has
been very clear, we will not talk for the sake of talks. North
Korea has to demonstrate that it is going to keep the
commitments it made in 2005, and the talks make no sense until
they show in a verifiable way that they have kept those
commitments.
So I believe absolutely in clarity, in strength, the
importance of sticks as well as carrots, of putting all the
pieces on the table. The reason--it was interesting, when
Secretary of Defense was asked to be the North Korea policy
coordinator, the suggestion came actually initially from a
Republican staff member working for then-chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, Mr. McConnell. The reason was because
in 1993 when North Korea threatened to leave the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty and we thought that we might be a
moment at military power and military force, Secretary Perry
did not hesitate to begin to flow troops out of Japan if in
fact we had to take military action. So we knew that the person
who was leading that effort the North Koreas knew was a tower
of strength and purpose and clarity and toughness.
Senator DeMint. Thank you for that answer.
Another question related to philosophy, because I think a
lot of us are grappling with this now as we look at situations
around the world, and some of the other questions have
suggested this. It appears, particularly with our financial
situation in our own country, the sense that perhaps we're
spread too thin--does America as we look at our foreign policy
need to be the city on the hill, be the model for the world, be
the example, or the other philosophy, which I think various
administrations and Congresses have pursued for years, is
promoting our ideas, sometimes forcing our ideas, in other
parts of the world, transplanting democracy and our way, which
seems theoretically a good idea, but as we look at our track
record of success there is some question if perhaps we should
begin to look at things a different way.
Are you--as you think of our role in the world, which side
of that equation would you be on?
Ambassador Sherman. Senator, I think that what we must be
is who we are. I think the advance of our vital national
security interests, which include the values that we hold dear,
is very important, but I absolutely believe that we cannot
impose those values on other countries. We show by who we are
what people might aspire to be.
The people who fomented change in Egypt, in Libya and
Yemen, throughout many parts of the world back during the fall
of the Soviet Union, did not do so to live under another
dictatorship. They did so to have prosperity and freedom, to be
able to build a future for their families, just like all of us
want to do.
So I think the United States is at its best when we live
our values and live our interests, try to influence others to
meet our national security priorities, but not do so in a way
that tries to impose upon other people what we believe,
because, quite frankly, as I think you're implying in your
question, that is often a costly enterprise and often an
enterprise that does not have the results that we desire.
So I think we have to be very thoughtful and very careful
about how we do it.
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Madam Ambassador.
And thanks for the little extra time, Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Certainly.
Senator Casey.
Senator Casey. Thanks very much.
Ambassador Sherman, great to see you again and thank you
for your willingness to serve again. I want to thank you and
your family as well for this commitment. Senator DeMint
mentioned that and it bears repeating, because I know you don't
serve alone. Your family serves with you in more ways than one.
I also want to thank you for a long commitment to public
service in a whole variety of positions, starting with those in
the State of Maryland and other places where you were an
advocate for children, and now in your work that has worldwide
impact at a time of real tension and danger for our country.
I wanted to ask you about two issues. One is in relation to
a trip that I just took during the month of August, and then
second about something very specific as it relates to a
constituent of mine. First of all with regard to both
Afghanistan and Pakistan, I was just in both countries, 3 days
in Pakistan, 2 days in Afghanistan, in August with Senator
Whitehouse, Senator Bennett, and Senator Blumenthal. The main
purpose of our trip--and we were, I think appropriately, a
nagging broken record--was to push first and foremost the
Pakistanis to help us on the question of calcium ammonium
nitrate, the so-called fertilizer that comes in from Pakistan
in amounts that allows the bad guys to be able to construct
IEDs that are killing so many of our troops and, if not killing
them, grievously and irreparably wounding them.
Here's what we got from them. We got a presentation, as the
State Department knows and others know, of a strategic approach
to this, to be able to track it better, to be able to regulate
it and interdict it. Then in addition to the strategy, an
implementation plan of the strategy. So they're two for two.
But what we haven't seen yet is the implementation itself and
the real hard work at various levels of their government to be
able to just help us protect our troops and also to protect
their own people. One of the reasons I think the Pakistani
leadership is willing to engage in this is because their own
people are being adversely impacted, thousands of people being
impacted, by IEDs.
I'd ask you two questions: No. 1, your assessment of that
commitment that they've made to me personally and to the other
Senators and to our government--and I know Secretary Clinton
has worked very hard on this, insisting that they make this
commitment. Second, not just your assessment of the commitment,
but what will happen if they don't fulfill that commitment in
terms of our relationship with them, which I know is a very
tense relationship to begin with?
Ambassador Sherman. Thank you, Senator. First, your travel
with the other Senators to Afghanistan and Pakistan is
tremendously important. I know that Members of Congress often
get a lot of grief for traveling abroad, even to places as not
wonderful as Afghanistan and Pakistan. But I cannot begin to
tell you, as someone who travels the world quite a bit in my
business life and before when I was in public service, when
Members of Congress, when U.S. Senators, travel to these areas
and work on these very crucial issues, it makes a phenomenal
difference, because it not only echoes what an administration
might be able to say, but it is a point of leverage to really
try to get action.
So I thank you tremendously for having made that very
difficult trip. I also want to thank you for your leadership on
this very crucial issue. Calcium ammonium nitrate, which is the
precursor for production of IEDs, is a very crucial problem,
and you have led on encouraging and pushing Pakistan to move in
the direction it needs to to stop the production and the
transit and to work with Afghanistan to do so.
I'm very glad to hear that you heard what I heard in
briefings, which was that the Pakistanis are taking this quite
seriously, have a strategic approach, an approach with
Afghanistan as well, to control the borders and to stop this
from coming across, and have an implementation plan as well.
This in part arose out of one of the working groups that we
have with Pakistan that's a very successful working group,
working on these kind of very tough issues.
This is a priority for the administration because, as you
point out, IEDs are a horrible, horrible reality for the
members of our military who risk their lives for us every day.
So it is a high priority for us. I understand the Department
intends to stay on this, to make sure that that implementation
plan is successful, to continue to let the Pakistanis know what
a high priority this is.
This is doable, and a lot of things we are trying to do are
even tougher than this, and we should be able to get this done.
Senator Casey. I appreciate that. And I know in the limited
time I have I wanted to ask you about one other issue, and some
of this we can do by way of followup. The hikers. Of course,
two now just receiving an 8-year sentence, which is an
abomination. It's a mockery of justice. But they're faced now
with a long prison term.
One of them, of course, is a Pennsylvanian, Josh Fattal,
whose family has been remarkable. His mom and his brother have
been just remarkable, remarkably effective at making his case
and reminding all of us of this.
Can you give me a sense of where you see this case and what
the State Department can do to keep pushing to make sure that
we get them out of the prison?
Ambassador Sherman. Senator, I know that the Secretary
believes that we must take every opportunity we can to push
this, to work with the Swiss Protecting Authority, which
represents us in Iran, to try to get consular access to them,
to push for their release. The administration quite agrees with
you that this is an abomination, that these hikers do not
belong in prison, do not belong having this sentence, ought to
be released immediately. And I know that the Secretary is
absolutely committed to using every opportunity she can in the
Department to do everything that it possibly can, and if
confirmed I will do everything I possibly can, using every
relationship we have with Iran through third countries, if not
directly, to get their release.
Senator Casey. Thank you very much.
Senator Cardin. Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
Ambassador, thank you so much for coming today. I have one
issue I wanted to focus on just a little bit, and that is one
of the real successes in the Middle East, and of course there
aren't many, but one that is there and has existed for 30 years
is the peace between Egypt and Israel, and particularly the
line on the Sinai that separated the two countries and has been
successfully maintained, even in light of the fact that there
is almost daily disputes there over the last 30 years.
So those of us who--I've been there. I've seen what's
happened. Those of us who've watched that over the years are
concerned after the change in Egypt with the potential for what
could happen there. It appears that some of our fears have been
founded.
We all know that the Sinai is not nearly what it was during
the last administration in Egypt. Can you give me your thoughts
on that and what you think the Multilateral Force can do to
restabilize that line and restabilize the Sinai?
Ambassador Sherman. Thank you very much, Senator. This is a
very important issue. It is our understanding, my understanding
from the briefings I've had, that the transitional government
in Egypt has reaffirmed its commitment to the Camp David
Accords, that they are in dialogue with Israel to not only
ensure that there is a transition that maintains a strong and
positive relationship between Egypt and Israel, but that the
issues on the Sinai are addressed, that the Multilateral Force
does get back to the posture that it had, where there are not
an increased number of incidents. As you said, there have been
incidents over a number of years from time to time, but that
there has certainly been an increase of late, that is of great
concern. Assistant Secretary Jeff Feltman very much has his eye
on this issue, and I know that our new Ambassador, Ambassador
Anne Patterson, whom this committee and the Senate very wisely
confirmed and is now in place, very much has this on her
agenda.
Senator Risch. I appreciate that. Are you personally
convinced that the new administration in Egypt will do what's
necessary on their side in the Sinai to try to get control
again of what I think any observer would say is the growing
lawlessness on the Sinai itself?
Ambassador Sherman. Senator, I have not met directly with
the leaders in the new transitional government, but my
understanding from briefings is that the State Department
believes that there is a commitment to maintaining and
strengthening the historical relationships here. But it is
clearly something that has to be front and center as we go
forward in our diplomacy and our discussions with the Egyptians
and as they develop their governance structure in the weeks and
months ahead.
So, although today I believe the State Department has
confidence, it's not something that anyone should take their
eye off of. Indeed, we need to continue our vigilance to
support that in fact things head in that direction.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Ambassador. I think we all share
that view.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cardin. Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador Sherman, I want to echo my colleagues in
expressing my appreciation for your past work within the State
Department and for your willingness to consider taking on such
a difficult post at such a dangerous and critical time in our
foreign relations. So thank you very much. I hope we can move
quickly to consider your nomination on the floor and I look
forward to voting for you.
Like Senator Casey, I had the opportunity over August with
Senator Levin and Senator Merkley to travel to Afghanistan and
Pakistan. One of the things that we heard in our meetings with
the civilian leadership in Pakistan was a commitment to try and
improve relations with India. The news this morning, we heard
not just about bombing in Quetta of the Pakistanis, but also
about a bomb in a courthouse in New Delhi, and reports suggest
that it was an al Qaeda-linked group in Pakistan and Bangladesh
that's claiming credit for the attack in India.
I wonder if you can--obviously, part of the effort is to
try and discourage those efforts, to improve relations between
the two countries. I wonder if you can talk about what more we
might be able to do to try and encourage that effort to keep
the two countries talking and to continue to work on improving
relations.
Ambassador Sherman. Thank you, as I said to Senator Casey,
for your travel to Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's always hard
for members to do this travel, but very crucial in world
affairs.
I think that the administration is heartened by the fact
that there have now been three very significant meetings
between India and Pakistan, commerce secretaries, foreign
ministers, cricket diplomacy, and that in fact there are
followup meetings with home and interior secretaries coming up;
and that that kind of dialogue between the two countries is
absolutely essential.
The United States has always supported that dialogue. The
pace and scope and character of it is up to, of course, India
and Pakistan and we can't prescribe for them exactly how to
proceed. But it is crucial to both of their security, to the
future of their countries, that that take place.
In addition, it's my understanding that Prime Minister
Singh is in Bangladesh today, taking on even more of what
Secretary Clinton spoke about in her recent trip to India, and
that is seeing India as really a central player in South and
Central Asia, taking on more and more of a leadership role in
the region. I think that's important, not only for India, but
for all of us in terms of the security of the region.
So I think your conversations to encourage better relations
is very important. It is something that the administration has
done. In my sort of life over the past few years both in the
private sector--I've been to India and Pakistan both as a
businesswoman and as part of track 2 dialogues, and I know that
there is a desire in both countries to move forward, as
difficult as their domestic politics sometimes make that.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Another report today suggests that we are moving toward a
drawdown of our troops in Iraq, possibly down to as few as
3,000 to 4,000, who would be there to continue training
security forces in Iraq. I know that plans have always been to
significantly draw down our American troops there, but there
have been some reports that the Iraqis might consider asking us
to leave a larger contingent than the 3,000 there.
Again, I appreciate that this has been a contentious issue
in Iraq. But to what extent is the Iraqi political situation
making planning difficult for the drawdown, and do we have any
indication that the Iraqis are going to ask us to stay beyond
the end of this year?
Ambassador Sherman. Senator, my understanding is that the
Iraqis have said they might have some interest in some ongoing
presence, particularly, as you note, in the area of training,
continued training of their military. It is also my
understanding that the administration has taken no decision in
this regard, even though I read the same report you did in this
morning's paper, that the Defense Department is considering
3,000 or 4,000 military to remain as trainers past the point of
departure. I am sure that the administration will have,
continue to have, extensive consultations and conversation with
Congress before a final decision is made. It's my understanding
as of this morning no final decision has been made.
Senator Shaheen. Another corollary of that is concern about
the State Department operation that will continue in Iraq once
our troops are drawn down and how we continue to maintain
security with that increased role throughout the country. Can
you talk a little about how you see that transition happening
and what we might need to do to ensure that we can maintain
that diplomatic presence even while we may not have the
military security to protect those State offices around the
country?
Ambassador Sherman. Senator, in the briefing that I had
with Under Secretary of State Pat Kennedy, who's responsible
for management, and with Deputy Secretary Nides, they are both
very much focused on what in fact the pattern should look like
to provide the kinds of consular services we need to have a
presence in Iraq, but do so in a way that is secure for our
diplomats and for our civilians. They are working on those
plans and I'm sure will continue their conversations with the
Congress as they are finalized, but it is very much something
that preoccupies them, for all of the reasons that you stated.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cardin. Senator Lee.
Senator Lee. Thank you, chairman.
Ambassador, thank you for joining us. It's good to see you
again. I want to return to an issue that you addressed briefly
with Senator Lugar a few minutes ago in relation to the push
announced recently by the Palestinian National Authority
through President Mahmoud Abbas about possible efforts to seek
recognition outside of direct negotiations with Israel, by
taking the issue to the United Nations.
Now, President Obama recently described those efforts as
purely symbolic, and I think he also used the word ``failure''
to describe the likely outcome. I can see why he might use
those words to describe that. I want to believe that he's
right. I hope that he's right.
I can also foresee some scenarios in which that might not
turn out to be right, in which that characterization could
perhaps have proven to be a little bit too optimistic. Do you
share that view, that it's not absolutely certain? I'm not
asking you to disagree publicly with your boss. I would never
do that. I'm just saying, do you foresee scenarios in which
that could have--we could later look back on that and say
perhaps that was a little bit too optimistic? And if so, are
there things that you think the administration can be doing
right now to sort of protect against that?
Ambassador Sherman. The President, Senator, has been very
clear that a U.N. resolution to recognize Palestine will not
get us to the two-state solution that both parties seek and
that most of the world seeks. And he has been unrelenting in
saying that such a resolution is not in our interests or in the
interest of the world or the two parties.
Secretary Clinton has used every opportunity she's had with
leaders to make it clear, as has the President, that this is
not a positive outcome should such a resolution go forward. As
I mentioned to Senator Lugar, indeed Special Envoy David Hale
and Ambassador Dennis Ross are in the region today having
conversations to see if in fact there isn't another path
forward that can meet the needs of the parties, but, more
important, to get them back to direct negotiations, which is
really the solution here.
A resolution at the United Nations is not really going to
get us to the solution everybody is seeking. Direct
negotiations will and are the only path to that resolution. So
I think that the administration is doing everything it possibly
can, from demarching virtually every capital in the world to
sending very high-level envoys to the region for discussions.
And I know that our Ambassador at the U.N., Susan Rice, is
working with all of her colleagues as well.
The administration has been very clear as well, and I don't
expect this to occur, but that if it did occur, if any such
resolution were put in front of the Security Council, that we
would veto it. So our expectation is that will not occur. But
the General Assembly is still a concern and so there is very
urgent work going on to try to see if there is not another way
forward.
Senator Lee. So it sounds like you're very confident that
the United States would remain committed with great resolve to
the veto threat?
Ambassador Sherman. The United States is very resolved to a
veto threat in the Security Council. What we are very resolved
about as well is urging the parties to enter into direct
negotiations. Again, the Quartet, which is very crucial to the
Middle East peace process, is also pressing in that direction,
and I know that their envoy, former Prime Minister Blair, is
also very engaged in representing the Quartet in trying to move
to a more positive direction.
Senator Lee. So do you see there being a coalition of
countries that will build from there, or do you think we
largely know who is with us and who is against us on that?
Ambassador Sherman. Well, we are working on that. It's my
understanding, Senator, that there is obviously a core of the
Quartet, including the United States, and that we are working
outward and increasing the number of countries who understand
that to really have a viable Palestine, a secure Israel, will
require direct negotiations between the parties, not a
resolution at the United Nations.
Senator Lee. Thank you.
Now, Deputy Secretary Burns during his time as Under
Secretary, if I'm not mistaken, was a key negotiator with Iran
and amongst the P5+1 countries. Do you expect to take on that
role if confirmed?
Ambassador Sherman. I expect to do whatever the Secretary
of State asks me to do, and we haven't had that discussion
because I'm not in the job yet. Hopefully, I will be confirmed,
voted out by this committee and confirmed by the Senate, and if
she were to ask me to do that I would be honored to, as
difficult as it is, to do my very best.
Senator Lee. If you were confirmed, and assuming that this
fits within your area of assignments, would you be inclined to
recommend additional sanctions against Iran to discourage Iran
from developing its nuclear weapons program?
Ambassador Sherman. I think, Senator, if she asked me to
take on this assignment, which has traditionally been at the
Under Secretary level, I would want to understand all of the
facts of the situation, be briefed on both the classified as
well as the unclassified information, which I have not yet
done, and then talk with the Secretary, with the rest of the
administration, see what the best way forward is.
There is no question that the sanctions are tremendous on
Iran. They have begun to bite Iran in spite of the high price
of oil, which gave them some relief. There have been other
actions that have occurred that we've all read about in the
newspaper, which has degraded their capability. But there is no
question that it is a serious, serious national security
problem for the United States and for the world, and we have to
approach it with that seriousness of purpose.
Senator Lee. Great. Thank you very much, Ambassador
Sherman.
Ambassador Sherman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cardin. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
you for convening this.
To Ambassador Sherman, thank you for your tremendous
experience and your service to our Nation that you bring to
bear today, to your husband, Bruce, and your family for their
willingness to continue supporting you in the sacrifice.
I was struck, in your opening statement, your reference to
your relationship with Senator Helms when he was the chair.
Even though you may have disagreed on some substantive foreign
policy matters, your ability to sustain a constructive and
respectful relationship I think is a good reminder of the long
tradition of bipartisanship that has long sustained American
foreign policy.
In that spirit, I'll pick up exactly where Senator Lee just
left off. I think you will hear from both sides, from Senator
Lugar and Senator Menendez, from Senator Risch, myself, Senator
Lee, strong concern about the efforts by the Palestinians to
achieve some sort of recognition in the United Nations. I was
pleased with your response about the intention and focus and
sincerity of the administration in resisting that and finding
all possible ways to move the parties back to responsible
negotiations.
On the question of Iran, I just would be interested, after
the announcement by the IAEA just last week that they've
increased their enrichment activities, what further actions do
you think might be necessary or might be taken by the
administration to strengthen CISADA, to strengthen other
sanctions, and what else do you think we in the Senate might be
doing to continue to enforce a multilateral approach toward
preventing the Iranians from achieving what I think are their
aims, which, as you put it, are a grave threat to our security,
to Israel's security, and to the world?
Ambassador Sherman. Thank you, Senator. I share your
concern about Iran. I think as I've been getting briefings at
the State Department to prepare for this hearing and hopefully
to prepare for the job, I've been struck by the progress we
actually have made. If you had asked me just a couple of years
ago whether the European Union would have put on unilateral
sanctions to the extent that it did, I probably would have said
it might not be an easy thing to get done because they had so
many of their companies, particularly their energy companies,
that were in Iran. Now most of those energy companies are gone.
The number of companies that have left Iran is quite
significant.
I think the kind of diplomacy that the administration's
engaging in, including having Special Adviser Robert Einhorn
travel the world trying to get other countries to not only put
on unilateral sanctions, but to enforce the U.N. Security
Council resolutions, has been crucial, because sanctions are
only as good as the enforcement of them.
So it's not always a need for more and more and more
sanctions. It's really about using all the tools we have at our
disposal, including the Treasury Department's actions that have
been quite crucial where Iran is concerned in terms of
financial assets and financial transactions.
So I think, again as I just said to Senator Lee, if I--and
hopefully I will be confirmed by the Senate--and the Secretary
asks me to spend some time on this very, very tough problem, I
would want to have a greater understanding than I do today of
how far we are, what else we need to do to encourage
enforcement of the existing sanctions, and to assess whether in
fact any further sanctions would really move us forward.
Obviously, the sanctions are having some bite because we're
beginning to see folks in Iran, as we saw in David Sanger's
article yesterday, trying to throw proposals on the table. I'm
skeptical today, as I'm sure the administration is, of those
proposals. But usually when countries begin to put those ideas
on the table sanctions are beginning to bite.
So I'd want to make sure that we encourage as much biting
as we possibly can, because this is a very tough issue.
I also want to thank you, Senator, for your mention about
the importance of bipartisanship. I quite agree. I know that
for me and this committee, I always think about Nunn-Lugar,
Kerry-Lugar-Biden, Kerry-Lugar-Berman. There are many pieces of
legislation that have emanated from this committee that have
set a standard for bipartisanship, that have moved our national
security priorities forward.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Ambassador. And I do hope that
you'll have a central role in ensuring that we do enforce the
sanctions that we've got in place. I want to commend the
administration for continuing to stay on this issue, but I know
many of us share a grave concern about the speed with which the
Iranians have moved and are eager to see more thorough and
effective engagement and enforcement on this issue.
Let me turn, if I could, to a related and challenging
situation, the full-blown humanitarian crisis in the Horn of
Africa. Senator Isakson and I held a hearing just after the
debt ceiling vote and as many Members of the Congress were
going home for work period, and I was grateful that he stayed
with me. We had a hearing about the difficulty. The Office of
Foreign Asset Control required to enforce sanctions and al-
Shabab is critically preventing aid from getting to those most
severely affected areas of southern Somalia.
We've just had another report that an additional 300,000
people are in critical need of emergency assistance, raising
the number to, I think, 12.7 million. USAID predicts this may
be one of the worst famines in modern history.
What further progress, if you can speak to it, has been
made in resolving some of the Treasury sanctions barriers to
delivering effective assistance, and what else do you think we
can do to reduce al-Shabab's influence and to deliver
humanitarian assistance in an effective way in the Horn of
Africa?
Ambassador Sherman. Thank you very much, Senator, for
raising this just horrific, horrific situation, where, as you
say, over 12 million, almost 13 million, people have been
affected, not only in Somalia, but a refugee camp in Kenya that
was meant for maybe 90,000 people has now maybe 400,000 people
who are seeking help and assistance.
I know that OFAC [Office of Foreign Assets Control], the
office in Treasury that issues licenses when waivers are needed
in a situation, as Somalia does, with al-Shabab's interference,
has in fact created a license waiver for AID to provide some
assistance and is looking at the potential for other waivers
for NGOs that might be appropriate to try to bring in that
humanitarian relief, understanding that of course we want to do
so in as secure a situation as possible.
I know that the administration is working with AMISOM
[African Union Mission in Somalia] and with the transitional
government in Somalia to see what our other options there are,
to see if in fact what we can do in areas outside of Mogadishu
to bring relief. But it is a truly horrific situation, working
closely with the U.N., which obviously is key to the relief
efforts.
I must say, one of the things I've been doing as a private
citizen is I've been chair of the board of Oxfam America, and
the outpouring by Americans to provide funds, to provide relief
in Somalia, is incredibly heartening. Americans are a very
generous people when it comes to these humanitarian disasters.
But I know Assistant Secretary Johnny Carson, with whom I met
yesterday, is doing everything he possibly can do to work
internationally to bring relief both with the private and the
public sector to those families and to the people of Somalia.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Ambassador. I see my time has
expired. I'm grateful that you bring both that experience and
that perspective to these very difficult issues in Iran, in the
Horn, and around the world. I look forward to supporting your
nomination on the floor of the Senate. Thank you.
Ambassador Sherman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cardin. Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Cardin.
Let me also echo, Ambassador Sherman, the appreciation for
your long public service and also your family's sacrifice. One
of the things that hasn't been noted is you have served the
public in a number of positions dedicated to children and
children's issues, and that's something that's very close to my
heart and I very much appreciate that.
If Iraq were to make the request to retain United States
troops in Iraq--and I note today there's a big front-page
article on the New York Times about various parts of this--to
retain--if Iraq makes a request to retain United States troops
past the December 2011 deadline, how would it change the plan
to transition the lead of U.S. engagement from Defense to
State, if at all, and how would it affect the State
Department's ability to operate in Iraq and the preparations
being made for the transition?
Ambassador Sherman. Senator, I read this in the paper this
morning along with you, and so I don't know all of the answers
to the question, but certainly will ask the State Department to
make sure that you get a full answer. My understanding is that
this may be a request for military trainers and, if so, it
would be other than the plans that need to go forward to ensure
the protection of civilian workers in Iraq after the drawdown
of our military, and that the Iraqi Government has long had
discussions with us of some kind of continued presence and this
may be what they are seeking.
But I am quite certain that no decision has been made on
this yet, but would be glad to ask the State Department to get
more information to you.
[The written information provided by the State Department
follows:]
The Government of Iraq has authorized negotiations with the U.S. on
a possible post-2011 U.S. security training mission. We are currently
discussing this request with Iraqi leaders. Those discussions are
ongoing and no final decision has been reached.
Regardless of the outcome of these discussions, State will be in
the lead for the U.S. mission in Iraq after 2011. The Department of
State, the Department of Defense, and other agencies and departments
have undertaken unprecedented levels of coordination and planning to
accomplish this transition to civilian leadership, and we are moving
forward.
Senator Udall. Thank you. I very much appreciate that.
The article noted that if there is the withdrawal that
there is still going to be a significant State Department
presence in Iraq. One of the things that was highlighted is the
$3.2 billion request from the overseas contingency operating
fund moved from military to the civilian mission there in Iraq.
This mission is expected to be the largest State Department
mission in the world, there in Iraq. This will also include not
only employment of State Department personnel, but the hiring
of numerous contractors to do the work the military's leaving
behind.
Now, with reports that contracting money in Afghanistan has
funded the Taliban and led to corruption, I'm worried about a
similar outcome in Iraq. From your standpoint, what does State
need to do to ensure that the transition is smooth and that the
United States taxpayer funds are well spent in Iraq?
Ambassador Sherman. Thank you very much for that question,
Senator. I know that Secretary Clinton has asked Deputy
Secretary Nides and Under Secretary for Management Pat Kennedy
to pay special attention and to take special responsibility for
exactly that, and that is to make sure that the civilian
presence in Iraq is well protected, that the contracting is
done in a transparent and accountable and auditable manner, and
to ensure that taxpayer money is well spent.
I know that over the years there have been times, not only
in the State Department but throughout the U.S. Government,
concern by Congress about contracts, whether they are let
appropriately, whether dollars are well spent, whether we put
all the monitoring systems in place to ensure as little
corruption as possible, hopefully none. And I know that
Secretary Nides and Under Secretary Kennedy are very focused on
exactly that.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Shifting a little bit to your role that you played on the
Commission for the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction,
as a member of that commission you played an important role in
making findings and recommendations for action to prevent the
spread of weapons of mass destruction. One of the
recommendations had to do with the global ideological
engagement. Recommendation No. 12 stated, and I quote: ``U.S.
counterterrorism strategy must be more effectively''--``must
more effectively counter the ideology behind WMD terrorism. The
United States should develop a more coherent and sustained
strategy and capabilities for global ideological engagement to
prevent further recruits, supporters, and facilitators.''
Then the commission went on: ``The U.S. foreign policy
community needs to alter its culture and organization so that
it can work across agency lines to make soft power an option
just as viable and effective as hard power. This change is
essential. It should be a top priority of the next President's
foreign policy team.''
Since your commission has made these recommendations, we've
had a new President, two new Congresses. How would you assess
the progress of the administration in employing soft power and
do you believe that some of the proposed House budgets could
threaten these initiatives and endanger the State Department's
soft power capabilities and our overall ability to prevent the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction?
Ambassador Sherman. Thank you, Senator. Your question
actually harkens back to Senator Lugar's opening comments, in
that when Secretary Clinton came in she set up the first
Quadrennial Review of Diplomacy and Development (QDDR). Part of
the impetus for doing so was to look at this very question: How
could we have a whole of State Department and a whole of
government approach to our national security and foreign
policy, to make sure that all stakeholders are engaged, that
our foreign service officers not only talk to members of
governments around the world, but talk to people in civil
society, talk to the press, talk to business people, talk to
young people, talk to women and girls, talk to students, really
understand all of the stakeholders that make up what people do
in their day to day lives, and to really understand what's
going on in societies, and to create a better understanding of
what America is about and what America seeks for its own
security.
I think the QDDR was a crucial step in that process. In the
meetings that I've had in the State Department since I was
there 10 years ago, I've already seen an enormous change.
People have an understanding of the breadth and depth of
communication. There's certainly a consciousness of technology
and information technology that wasn't there the last time I
was there. The last time I was there, we only had classified
computers. We couldn't even go on the Internet. That's changed
substantially and people understand the value, both positive
and negative, of social media.
So I think there's been a tremendous change, but it still
has to be harnessed. It still has to be made use of, and there
is no question that having sufficient resources to do so is
part of the solution.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much, Ambassador, for those
answers. You're obviously very well qualified for this
position. I intend to vote for you and I hope that the Foreign
Relations Committee acts quickly on this nomination.
With that, Chairman Cardin, thank you very much for
allowing me to run over a little bit in my questions.
Senator Cardin. Senator Udall, thank you for your
questions. You questioned about the accountability of our
foreign assistance, which I think is an extremely important
point. Tomorrow the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will be
holding a hearing on Afghanistan and the effectiveness of the
U.S. participation in that foreign assistance program. So it's
a continuing issue for our committee.
Senator Lugar whispered to me when Senator Coons was
mentioning the bipartisan initiatives, and the one that the two
of us worked together, with the strong support of Secretary
Clinton, bringing transparency to extractive industries.
Ambassador Sherman, we will be working with you to implement
that policy, not just here in the United States as far as the
legislation that was enacted as part of the Dodd-Frank bill,
but also as it relates to actions taken by our allies that can
help bring transparency to gas and oil contracts and mineral
contracts that have such an impact on the stability of
developing nations. So that's an important initiative that we
will be working closely with you as we move forward.
It was interesting that many of our members talked about
the pending vote or possible vote in the United Nations as it
relates to the Palestinians. I just really want to applaud your
efforts and Secretary Clinton's efforts to let leaders of other
countries know how important this vote is, because it seems to
me if it just becomes a popularity vote within the United
Nations the numbers are not going to go well for a General
Assembly vote.
The United States has invested a lot into the peace process
and the United States understands the negative consequences of
a U.N. vote. I think that needs to be transmitted to the
leaders of other countries and I'm glad to see that the
administration's taking a very active role to let the capitals
of the world understand that this is an important vote and that
you support an independent Palestinian state side by side with
the state of Israel; the best way to pursue that is through
direct negotiations; The only way to pursue that is through
direct negotiations; and that a vote in the United Nations,
even though its legality may have some question, a vote within
the United Nations would be counterproductive to that end. And
I applaud you for your strong statements in that regard.
I just also wanted to bring up the case of Alan Gross, in
Cuba, imprisoned. I know we have a difficult time in
communications with our neighbor, Cuba. But I think it's
important that we continue to advocate for justice in regards
to Alan Gross and to bring him back to the United States, and
we'll be asking your help as we develop the best strategies to
bring that about.
Senator Lugar.
Senator Lugar. No, thank you.
Senator Cardin. With that, again I thank you for your
patience here today in answering all of our questions. As I
said in the beginning of the hearing, the record of the
committee will remain open until the close of business today.
With that, the committee stands adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record
Responses of Hon. Wendy Sherman to Questions Submitted
by Senator Richard G. Lugar
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you advocate to address
the issue of unexploded ordnance in Southeast Asia in general and Laos
in particular? What steps do you believe should be taken to help clear
Laos of deadly antipersonnel devices, nearly all of which is the result
of American bombing during the Vietnam war era?
Answer. The State Department has been assisting Southeast Asia with
humanitarian demining from the Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism,
Demining, and Related Programs (NADR) account for over a decade,
providing millions of dollars annually for humanitarian demining,
unexploded ordnance (UXO) clearance, and survivor's assistance to
states in the region.
Reducing the impact of UXO is one of the State Department's most
important priorities in Laos, a country where bilateral cooperation and
engagement continues to expand. If confirmed, I will work to ensure the
United States remains a leading supporter of UXO clearance (including
unexploded submunitions), risk education, and survivors' assistance
projects in Laos.
In FY 2010, the State Department provided a total of $5.1 million
from the NADR account to Laos for mine and UXO clearance and in FY
2011, the Department allocated $5.0 million toward this effort. If
resources are available, annual funding for these programs would
continue at least at the $5 million level. Since 1995, the United
States has contributed more than $30 million toward this humanitarian
effort to clear UXO in Laos, per capita the most heavily bombed nation
in the world.
Laos has made very good use of the U.S. assistance it has received
for UXO clearance. If confirmed, I look forward to working with
Congress to ensure that UXO clearance remains a top priority in Laos
and throughout Southeast Asia.
Question. North Korea.--I have repeatedly encouraged the Obama
administration to raise the issue of American POWs and MIAs from the
Korean war in communications with North Korea as well as the resumption
of the joint recovery operation related to the remains of American
personnel. What is your perspective on these points?
Answer. I agree that recovery of Korean war POW/MIA remains one of
the more important goals in our interactions with North Korea. We owe
our military personnel and the POW/MIA families nothing less than to
make every effort to recover the remains of their loved ones. The
administration considers remains recovery operations to be an important
humanitarian mission and priority. The Department of Defense and the
Department of State closely coordinate actions related to Korean war
remains recovery operations. This important humanitarian mission is not
linked to any political or security issues, and the administration has
consistently urged North Korean officials to be responsible stewards of
U.S. remains.
Question. With respect to the recent HEU seizure in Moldova, what
conversations has the administration had with Russian officials
concerning apprehension of the perpetrators, some of whom are
reportedly residing in Russia?
Answer. The United States continues to support Moldovan efforts to
prosecute the traffickers who were caught with highly enriched uranium
(HEU) in June and to work with other appropriate and willing partners
to investigate the original theft of the uranium. The Department can
provide additional information in a classified setting.
One of the critical tools Moldova and other governments have used
to successfully investigate nuclear smuggling networks is Counter
Nuclear Smuggling Teams. Through the Nuclear Security summit and other
mechanisms like the Department's Nuclear Smuggling Outreach Initiative,
the United States is promoting use of this powerful investigative tool.
Counter Nuclear Smuggling teams focus on investigative actions like
detecting nuclear smuggling activity, securing and analyzing seized
nuclear or radioactive material, and obtaining evidence to prosecute
smugglers.
Question. What has prevented the Nunn-Lugar WMD-PPP program from
conducting a border security walk in Moldova?
Answer. The WMD-PPP border security walk is scheduled for November
1-11, 2011. The Department and U.S. Embassy Chisinau have consistently
supported WMD-PPP and in June 2011 facilitated successful introductory
meetings between the Moldovan interagency and the U.S. Department of
Defense (DOD) to get WMD-PPP off the ground in-country. I am told the
administration looks forward to the results of the border security walk
as the results of the walk will also inform a number of
nonproliferation assistance programs.
Question. As the administration considers advocating repeal of
Jackson-Vanik trade restrictions with respect to Russia, do you believe
that alternative initiatives should be developed in place of Jackson-
Vanik? Please explain.
Answer. The administration supports lifting Jackson-Vanik prior to
Russia's joining the WTO to ensure that U.S. workers, ranchers, and
farmers enjoy the full benefits of Russia's accession. If Congress does
not act on Jackson-Vanik before Russia joins the WTO, as it has done
for so many other countries, Americans would be seriously prejudiced--
not quickly enjoying those benefits associated with WTO membership, but
our trading competitors will do so at our expense. The Jackson-Vanik
amendment long ago fulfilled its key purpose: to support free
emigration, particularly Jewish emigration, from the Soviet Union.
Lifting Jackson-Vanik would be in keeping with the USG's approach to
other qualifying countries by granting Russia's goods most-favored-
nation tariff treatment on a permanent basis. That decision would also
give the United States additional tools to deal with Russia to help
ensure that it lives up to its trade commitments.
On the nontrade broader issues, the administration has a strategy
in place for advancing democracy and human rights in Russia. The
administration will absolutely continue to consult with Congress going
forward on how best to promote democratic rights and institutions in
Russia. President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and other officials in the
U.S. Government have been outspoken in their frank advocacy for
democratic progress and will continue to raise publicly and privately
concerns with human rights issues and shortcomings in democratic
standards (See http://www.state.gov/p/eur/ci/rs/c41670.htm.) As an
example, the Department of State, consistent with the President's
proclamation on human rights violators, took decisive action to bar
entry to the United States of those Russian Government officials
credibly linked to the wrongful death in pretrial detention of Sergei
Magnitsky. In addition, this year, the U.S. government is providing
over $38 million in assistance, primarily to non-governmental
organizations, to advance democracy in Russia. These programs support
independent media and the rule of law, create and strengthen links
between U.S. and Russian civil society groups and leverage the latest
in technology and social media to create optimal conditions for
democratic advances.
Question. Since June 2004, Brazil has been in charge of the United
Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), thus commanding over
7,000 men on the ground--including an average of 1,300 Brazilians--in
an effort to provide some stability in Haiti. Brazil is now officially
planning an exit strategy for its extensive military contingent. Please
provide your views regarding the reduction of Brazilian troops in
Haiti. Please explain how the effectiveness of MINUSTAH, and of U.S.
assistance to Haiti will be affected by this action and what steps you
believe the United States should take in light of Brazil's announced
plans.
Answer. The United States supports renewal of MINUSTAH's mandate
for another year when it expires in October 2011, under broadly the
same terms as the current mandate but with a heavier emphasis on the
need for the United Nations (U.N.) and the Government of Haiti (GOH) to
work to reform the Haitian National Police (HNP) through improved
capacity-building efforts, improved vetting procedures, and
strengthened Haitian domestic financing.
The U.N. Secretary General's August 25 report on MINUSTAH
recommended renewing the mandate for another 12 months with a reduction
during that period of some of the forces authorized after the January
2010 earthquake: specifically two infantry battalions (1,600 personnel)
and 1,150 authorized (but not deployed) formed police unit personnel.
The administration understands that, in light of the Secretary
General's positive security assessment, and call for troop reductions,
the Brazilian Government has voiced its support for reductions in the
overall MINUSTAH force strength. As the largest supplier of personnel
to the post-earthquake troop ``surge,'' Brazil would like to see some
of its troops brought home. We do not, however, have indications that
they will significantly reduce their military contribution, except
gradually over time, as conditions allow, and in coordination with the
United Nations.
The United States also supports the Secretary General's recommended
reduction in MINUSTAH force strength, but notes that strong rules of
engagement for the remaining MINUSTAH forces will be important to deal
with a stable but fragile security situation in Haiti.
Question. Recent events in Ecuador demonstrate the continuing
deterioration and political subjugation of the justice system there:
--After a leading Ecuadorian newspaper, El Universo, ran an opinion
column critical of President Rafael Correa, an Ecuadorian judge--at
Correa's insistence--sentenced three newspaper executives and the
columnist to jail for 3 years and fined the newspaper $40 million.
--According to The Economist, ``It took Juan Paredes, replacing the
intended judge who was on holiday, less than two days to read
through the case's 5,000-page file'' and issue the ruling.
President Correa personally attended the hearing, ``accompanied by
a small crowd of supporters that pelted the defendants and their
lawyers with eggs and bottles outside the courthouse. The media
were barred from attending.'' International observers, including
Human Rights Watch, called the ruling ``a major setback for free
speech in Ecuador.''
--President Correa's Legal Secretary, Alexis Mera, issued an official
proclamation, ``by order of the Constitutional President of the
Republic,'' requiring Ecuadorian Government ministries to
immediately file suits for damages holding any judge who enjoins
Government projects personally liable if their injunctions are
subsequently overturned by a higher court.
Please explain your views regarding the rule of law in Ecuador.
Answer. Immediately following the El Universo ruling, the
Department issued a public statement expressing serious concern over
the court's decision. The Department underlined the role of an
independent press as essential to a vibrant and well-functioning
democracy--a concept noted, among other places, in the Inter-American
Democratic Charter. President Obama and Secretary Clinton have made
this point in their conversations with Ecuadorian President Correa. The
Department understands that the defendants are appealing the decision,
and that judicial processing of the case is being investigated. The
outcome of this case will be carefully noted by the international
community because of its implications for freedom of expression in
Ecuador.
Separately, Ecuador's judicial oversight council was dissolved
following a May 2011 referendum, pending a restructuring of the entire
judicial system. The political opposition and Ecuadorian and
international civil society observers have expressed concern that,
because the transition judicial council includes representatives from
branches of government controlled by the ruling party, independence of
the judiciary could be compromised. As a matter of principle and long-
standing policy, the United States believes that representative
democracies require vibrant, independent, and coequal branches of
government in order to function effectively. It is for these reasons
that implementation of the referendum deserves careful scrutiny and
analysis within Ecuador, by other nations in the hemisphere, and by
civil society in general.
A key objective of U.S. policy in the hemisphere is to support the
development of democratic government institutions, an independent
judiciary, and a vibrant civil society. The United States implements
this policy through diplomatic engagement, public diplomacy, and
specific programs carried out by the Department, USAID, and
nongovernmental organizations.
Question. As the Libyan revolution continues and military gains by
rebel forces of the Transitional National Council increase, thought
must be paid to Libya's future post-Qadhafi. As we have seen in other
countries in the region, the risk of factionalism comes with the
transition from authoritarian regimes to democracy.
a. What is your assessment of the prospects of the TNC
maintaining consolidated leadership role to oversee the
transition to Libya's democratic future?
Answer. There appear to be a number of positive signs for a
transition to a new, democratic Libya though clearly, given its
newness, the TNC faces a lot more to be done. The TNC has made strong
progress in building support across Libyan society, but the core of its
leadership, known as the Executive Committee, is still largely
comprised of Libyans from the East. TNC PM Jibril and Chairman Jalil
have publicly stressed the importance of inclusiveness and
reconciliation. They have sought to avoid reprisals and to remain open
to rank and file Qadhafi loyalists who renounce their support for the
former regime.
There will, of course, be challenges. There are several anti-
Qadhafi militias that remain outside of the TNC's command structure.
The TNC leadership has prioritized integrating civilian militias into
new national institutions, but will need to demonstrate that it can pay
salaries quickly in order to solidify these efforts. The TNC has taken
steps to address these challenges. They established a Tripoli Military
Committee shortly after taking over Tripoli in late August to bring all
of the factional commanders in the capital under the control of the TNC
ministries of Interior and Defense.
If confirmed, I will do everything in my power to support the
democratic aspirations of the Libyan people and the efforts of the TNC,
as appropriate.
b. In light of our current budget constraints and the
availability of Libyan national assets and the support of other
donors, what role, if any, do you believe the United States
should play in funding the costs of Libya's transition?
Answer. I understand Libyan stabilization experts told
international partners in Paris September 2 that since Libya is
regaining access to its financial reserves around the world, it will
not need emergency aid for long. The TNC is looking instead for
technical expertise and experience to rebuild its infrastructure and
institutions. Following the lead of the Libyans and the U.N. Mission,
the administration believes the United States can play an important
role in helping prepare Libya for a future reconciliation and
transitional justice process, bolstering emerging government
institutions and political parties, and in helping Libya identify and
secure the previous regime's stockpiles of chemical weapons and
conventional weapons, to include man-portable air defense systems
(MANPADS).
c. How many USG personnel are currently working in Libya?
Where are they working? What diplomatic facilities are
available to the United States in Tripoli? What are the
approximate costs required to make such facilities a secure and
viable workspace?
Answer. I am told the Department of State is currently exploring
options for facilities to house a reconstituted Embassy in Tripoli. Our
previous compound was completely overrun, looted, and burned in May.
The team that is already in Tripoli hopes to be able to identify and
acquire suitable facilities, at least for a temporary arrangement, in
the near future. It is a positive sign that Deputy Chief of Mission
Joan Polaschik returned to Tripoli on September 10. The administration
looks forward to an early return by Ambassador Cretz and other key
personnel as soon as a suitable security platform can be established
and more accommodations can be brought on line. Special Envoy Chris
Stevens' team is also in Benghazi and I am told the Department plans to
keep the team in place for at least several months.
This seems to make a good deal of sense, given the importance of
the city during the revolution and the need to interact with remaining
TNC leadership in the city.
Question. In your testimony, you noted current efforts by Dennis
Ross and David Hale in the region and of our embassies worldwide to
forestall unilateral attempts by the Palestinian Authority to seek
statehood recognition at the U.N. in the coming weeks. President Obama
and others in the administration have made clear that unhelpful
attempts by the PA, however symbolic, are no replacement for
negotiations with Israel. Negotiations have stalled.
a. What steps do you believe the administration should take
to mitigate the consequences in the immediate term of
unilateral PA action at the U.N. to raise its status from
``entity'' to ``nonmember state''--with the rights and
privileges pertaining to that status?
Answer. The administration has been absolutely clear both with the
parties, and with our international partners, that direct negotiations
remain the only effective way for Palestinians and Israelis to deal
with the difficult issues they face and achieve a lasting peace. The
administration therefore continues to work intensively and
strategically to avoid a showdown at the United Nations that will not
be good for anyone--not the United States, not Israel, and certainly
not the Palestinians.
The administration has and continues to underscore with the parties
and with international partners that we strongly oppose efforts to
address final status issues at the U.N. rather than in direct
negotiations. One-sided actions in international fora like the U.N.
will do nothing to achieve statehood for the Palestinian people. In
fact, such initiatives at the U.N. will make it harder to achieve
progress. One-sided actions will serve to drive the parties further
apart, heighten the risk of violence on the ground that could claim
innocent lives on both sides, and risk hard-won progress in building
Palestinian institutions. There is simply no substitute for the
difficult give-and-take of direct negotiations. The international
community cannot impose a solution. A viable and sustainable peace
agreement can come only from mutual agreement by the parties
themselves.
As part of the effort, the administration has made the position on
such initiatives unequivocally clear in capitals around the globe, and
regularly in U.N. Security Council consultations, and is urging other
member states not to support one-sided Palestinian action at the United
Nations. U.S. ambassadors have engaged, at the Secretary's instruction,
at the highest political levels in capitals worldwide where our
outreach would be the most productive. Secretary Clinton, National
Security Advisor Donilon, Ambassador Rice, Deputy Secretary Burns,
Assistant Secretary Feltman and Special Envoy Hale and other senior
U.S. officials have also been working intensively with their
counterparts at the most senior levels for months. Going forward, the
administration will continue to work vigorously and strategically to
reach out to countries to express and explain our firm opposition to
any one-sided actions at the U.N., including a Palestinian state
declared outside of the framework of negotiations.
b. How do you believe the administration's immediate plan to
counter any PA action at the U.N. will serve the broader policy
of a negotiated settlement resulting in a two-state solution?
Answer. At the same time, the administration continues to work
vigorously and determinedly to reach a negotiated two-state solution to
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As President Obama made clear in his
May remarks, the priority is for the parties to return to direct
negotiations--the only effective way for Palestinians and Israelis to
deal with the concerns they are facing and forge a viable peace
agreement. The administration therefore continues to work intensely
with the parties and Quartet partners on ways to overcome the current
impasse and resume talks on the basis of the President's May remarks.
The administration's long-term strategic vision for peace has not
changed. The administration remains committed to working along two
mutually reinforcing tracks: creating a viable negotiating alternative
on the basis of the President's May 2011 remarks for the parties to
resume direct negotiations and avert a confrontation at the U.N. and,
simultaneously, continuing our support for the Palestinians in their
efforts to prepare for statehood through creation of robust government
and security institutions and a viable economy. The administration
strongly believes that these parallel efforts serve the national
security interests of the United States and are essential for a
sustainable peace, the security of both Israel and the Palestinians,
and the stability of the region.
Question. Relations with Pakistan have experienced considerable
discord in recent months: What is your assessment of the status of the
relationship with the civilian government officials and the prospects
for progress in improving governance in Pakistan while the military
leadership in Pakistan maintains policy control?
Answer. This is not always an easy relationship, but it is an
important one for both countries. Ultimately, the administration
assesses that U.S. assistance in building Pakistan's stability and
prosperity and establishing a partnership over the long-term is the
best way to achieve a more effective civilian government and at the
same time support U.S. national security interests. The elected
government consults with the military on national security.
The United States supports the elected government through
assistance and a strategic relationship, coordinated through the U.S.-
Pakistan Strategic Dialogue, which consists of civilian government-led
working groups. Similarly, the administration is engaging actively with
Pakistan's civilian leadership in promoting Afghan reconciliation, a
key strategic interest for both Pakistan and the United States. Since
the passage of Kerry-Lugar-Berman legislation in October 2009, the U.S.
Government has spent just under $2 billion in civilian assistance to
Pakistan. That includes investing in high-visibility, high impact
projects such as dam construction that puts more energy on Pakistan's
grid; supporting reform and private sector led economic growth; and
contributing to the Citizens' Damage Compensation Fund to help flood-
affected families. All of this is intended to increase the capacity of
civilian institutions and improve their ability to serve and support
the people of Pakistan.
At its core, the United States-Pakistan relationship is about
building a long-term partnership with the Pakistani people. As
President Obama has said, it is in the U.S. national interest to
support their efforts to develop democratic institutions, foster
economic growth, and reject violent extremism.
Question. What impact has devolution of powers in Pakistan had on
military influence in Pakistan governance?
Answer. While the devolution process, embodied in the 18th
amendment, continues, the administration does not believe that it has
increased the influence of the Pakistan military in civilian affairs.
Indeed, it does not shift the balance of power in favor of the military
or civilian powers. The administration also believes the 18th
amendment, if correctly implemented, demonstrates the potential for
improving services to the people provided by the civilian government.
The 18th amendment should be viewed as an ongoing process--one that
will require careful attention and time to transfer significant
executive and legislative power to the provinces. Overall, the
devolution of powers can be an opportunity for the United States to
more effectively distribute aid to Pakistan by focusing on the needs of
the individual provinces rather than a one-size-fits-all program.
Question. How can the United States best participate in improving
South Asia relations given the many political, security, and economic
challenges evident in the current U.S.-Pakistan relationship?
Answer. The key to improving stability and prosperity in South Asia
lies in working with Afghanistan, Pakistan and other regional partners
to promote regional peace and economic integration. The administration
consults regularly with the two countries, their regional neighbors,
and with other international partners and donors who can contribute to
regional stability, prosperity, and peace. In her July 20 speech in
Chennai, Secretary Clinton laid out the ``New Silk Road'' vision of
regional economic integration: an international web and network of
economic and transit connections. The administration has a diplomatic
strategy in place to promote this vision of the countries of the region
working together to attract private-sector investment to create
enabling infrastructure and remove barriers and other impediments to
the free flow of goods and people. These ties will help bind the region
together to serve as a foundation for providing sustainable investment
and jobs for its people.
The region also has a critical role to play in facilitating Afghan
economic growth, such as in supporting investments in Afghanistan that
create the foundations for growth over the long-term. The vision of the
New Silk Road will help Afghanistan draw value out of its natural
assets and geography, with the goal of becoming a stable, prosperous,
peaceful country embedded in a stable, prosperous, peaceful region.
In June, Afghanistan and Pakistan concluded an historic Transit
Trade Agreement (APTTA). The new agreement will reduce smuggling and
increase the transparency of cross-border trade. For the first time, it
will allow goods to transit from the borders of Central Asia to the
Indian Ocean. The United States also welcomes the agreement by
President Karzai and Prime Minister Gilani to expand this transit trade
zone to Central Asia as part of a vision for regional prosperity. Doing
so would create further incentives for regional cooperation.
It is also important to note that countries in the region are
expanding economic ties on their own initiative. The administration was
very encouraged economic engagement has featured prominently in latest
round of India-Pakistan dialogue. The two sides have made some progress
toward reducing barriers to trade and commerce.
Question. Do you believe the United States should consider removing
the ``Major non-Nato ally'' status should current trends in Pakistan
continue? How would that affect our assistance efforts?
Answer. Given the importance of the U.S. relationship with Pakistan
and its joint efforts against extremists and especially against al-
Qaeda, the administration does not recommend removing the ``Major non-
NATO Ally'' designation.
Pakistan remains a key ally in the shared fight against terrorists
who threaten both our countries. Without significant cooperation, the
United States would not have accomplished as much as it has to date. As
President Obama has stated, ``We have been able to kill more terrorists
on Pakistani soil than just about any place else. We could not have
done that without Pakistani cooperation.'' The importance of this fact
cannot be overstated.
Since 9/11, Pakistan has been a strong counterterrorism partner of
the United States. Although Pakistan has not undertaken every action we
would like it to take, particularly against groups that do not target
the Pakistani state, it has demonstrated sustained commitment and taken
concrete steps against groups such as Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (the
Pakistan Taliban) and al-Qaeda, whose leadership is under enormous
pressure in western Pakistan. This is in large part a result of the
Government of Pakistan's policies and cooperation.
The administration was pleased that Pakistan and the United States
were able to work jointly on a mission in early September that led to
the arrest of senior al-Qaeda operative al-Mauritani and two
accomplices. Such joint action demonstrates our two countries can work
together to achieve common interests.
The Pakistani people and security forces have also suffered
tremendously from terrorism. It is in the national security interests
of both the United States and Pakistan to eliminate the threat posed by
violent extremism. Pakistan remains a key ally in the shared fight
against terrorists that threaten both our countries.
There has been no major policy change in the administration's
assistance to Pakistan, and it does not believe now is the time to
change course. Civilian assistance continues to move forward and meet
the needs of both countries. The U.S. ``pause'' in some military
assistance does not signify a shift in policy but underscores the fact
that United States-Pakistan partnership depends on cooperation.
______
Responses of Wendy Sherman to Questions Submitted
by Senator Robert Menendez
Question. The political change in Libya is an opportunity for the
Libyan people to start anew and for the successor government to embrace
democratic reforms and rehabilitate Libya's reputation in the world
community.
As you know, I have followed the Pan Am case for many years and
with the recent events in Libya has come a new hope that we can finally
learn how this horrific act, which claimed 189 American lives, came to
pass.
It is my hope that the new Libyan Government will be forthcoming
with their cooperation, but I also believe that we need to make clear
to them the importance and intensity of our interest in the Pan Am
bombing so that this issue is not overlooked as they begin the work of
rebuilding a new government. Reconciliation must be part of the Libyan
rebuilding process--internally and in Libya's external relations. To
that end:
What inquiries has the U.S. Government made with the TNC
with respect to gaining access to Megrahi? Have we asked for
his extradition to the United States?
Answer. I share your deep concern about delivering justice to the
families of the victims of the Pan Am 103 bombing. I understand from
the State Department that Chris Stevens, special envoy to the TNC in
Benghazi, and Ambassador Cretz have raised the al-Megrahi case with TNC
authorities many times. As the Secretary said in Paris September 1, we
have always disagreed with and condemned the decision to release al-
Meghrai and return him to Libya. He should be behind bars.
The TNC leadership has assured the administration that they will
review all aspects of the case after they assume full authority in the
country. I look forward, if confirmed, to pursuing the full range of
options for finally bringing the perpetrators of this attack to
justice.
Question. What inquiries have we made formally or informally with
respect to access to Libyan files or to persons that may have
information about Qaddafi's terrorist activities?
Answer. The administration has encouraged the TNC to protect all
documents of the former regime so that full investigations can be made
of Qaddafi's activities. The administration will continue to press
diplomatically for full cooperation with its investigation, but I would
refer you to the Department of Justice for details about specific
inquiries.
Question. Has the United States had the opportunity to discuss the
Pan Am case with Qaddafi's former director of external security and
former Foreign Minister Mousa Koussa?
Answer. There are serious questions for former regime officials,
including Mousa Koussa, and justice must be done. As the United States
has an ongoing investigation of the Pan Am bombing, I refer you to the
Department of Justice for any specific information.
Question. If the TNC or successor government is not willing to
cooperate with U.S. inquiries and investigations, is the Department
willing to condition U.S. assistance or the provision of remaining
frozen assets?
Answer. The United States takes very seriously every nation's
obligation to cooperate with terrorism investigations. The situation in
Libya remains fluid and unsettled. But as normalcy returns and as new
Libyan authorities assume full authority in the country, the United
States will expect them to live up to those obligations when they are
able to do so. From the administration's interactions, it has every
reason to believe the TNC or their successor will honor those
obligations. But the administration would certainly consider
appropriate measures if they did not.
Question. (a) If confirmed, your area of responsibility will be
very broad. Where on the agenda is Iran? What more will the
administration do to stop Iran--what additional sanctions would you
recommend and what should we expect to see in the near future?
(b) What do you make of Iran's announcement this week that it is
willing to place its nuclear program under IAEA supervision? What does
this mean and what effect would you expect such a change to have on
U.S. sanctions?
Answer (a). If confirmed, I will work actively to increase the
pressure on Iran as part of the dual-track policy of pressure and
engagement to resolve the international community's concerns about
Iran's nuclear program. This is a top priority for the State
Department. The administration has expressed both publicly and
privately concerns about Iran, including about the installation of
advanced centrifuges and the increase in production of uranium enriched
to near 20 percent.
Since the adoption of Security Council resolution 1929, the
administration has worked actively to build a broad international
coalition of countries willing to implement 1929 by putting in place
their own national sanctions measures. These measures have had a
substantial impact on Iran's financial, energy, transportation, and
commercial sectors and have increased the difficulty for Iran of
procuring the equipment, materials, and technology it is seeking for
its nuclear, missile, and other WMD programs.
In the Security Council, the United States works closely with other
Council members, including Russia and China, to ensure that the 1737
Committee remains active, fully implements its work plan, assists
States with implementation, and effectively responds to reported
sanctions violations. The United States also maintains a frequent and
vigorous dialogue on Iran with Russia and China, both bilaterally and
in the context of the P5+1 group.
The administration is committed to pursuing sanctions against Iran
as long as it continues to defy the international community by failing
to meets its obligations under U.N. Security Council and International
Atomic Energy Agency resolutions. I understand that the administration
continues to review its options for stepping up pressure against Iran,
including possible new sanctions, possible new designations under the
existing sanctions regime, and improved implementation of existing
sanctions by U.N. member states.
Answer (b). According to media reports, Iran reportedly offered to
allow the IAEA to exercise ``full supervision'' of its nuclear program
for 5 years on the condition that sanctions against Iran will be
lifted. Iran's full cooperation with the IAEA should not be time-bound
or conditional. Moreover, Iran is already bound, by U.N. Security
Council resolutions and its own safeguards obligations, to provide such
cooperation on a permanent basis. U.N. Security Council resolutions
make clear that sanctions should only be lifted when Iran cooperates
and meets its obligations.
Question. I am very concerned about the lack of coordination and
accountability for U.S. funds expended on Afghan reconstruction and
development. In addition to reports about the inability of the United
States to oversee these projects, account for project expenditures, and
limit funding to sustainable projects, the most recent SIGAR (SI-GAR)
report indicates that U.S. assistance may be making its way into the
hands of Afghan insurgents.
If confirmed, how do you intend to integrate SIGAR's
recommendations into project oversight? Can you point to specific
recommendations that have already been implemented?
The SIGAR report stated that the lack of cooperation by Afghan
ministries and the Central Bank has limited the oversight of U.S. funds
flowing through the Afghan economy. Will Afghan cooperation,
particularly by President Karzai and senior Afghan leaders, by a factor
in determining the scale of U.S. assistance as we enter into the
civilian surge?
Answer. The administration takes very seriously the allegations of
corruption and waste in Afghanistan and likewise takes seriously the
important role it plays as steward of the U.S. taxpayers' funds.
Providing effective oversight of our work in Afghanistan has been and
is a priority for the U.S. Government. The administration has closely
reviewed the July 20, 2011, SIGAR report you cite in your question and
is currently assessing how to comply with the report's recommendations
although it has already begun implementation of some recommendations as
indicated below.
Agencies implementing assistance in Afghanistan have already taken
a number of steps to increase oversight of U.S assistance programs in
Afghanistan. The administration has increased its participation in
international task forces designed to strengthen oversight including TF
2010, ISAF COIN Contracting Executive Steering Committee, and the
Interagency Combined Joint Logistics Procurement Support Board.
USAID is fully implementing its Accountable Assistance for
Afghanistan (A3), developed in 2010 and designed to prevent U.S. funds
from falling into the hands of malign groups. The A3 initiative is
working to achieve its goals by increasing the use of cost reimbursable
agreements, strictly limiting subcontracting, more closely vetting all
recipients of U.S. assistance funds, and implementing more stringent
financial controls. Improved financial controls include the
preferential use of electronic funds transfers, as recommended by the
SIGAR report, and a commitment to ensure 100 percent of all locally
incurred costs under USAID projects undergo financial audits.
In addition, the U. S. Government has significantly increased the
number of trained oversight staff in the field and has developed
innovative monitoring techniques to empower field staff oversight
efforts. USAID has tripled the number of its oversight staff in
Afghanistan since 2007 and is working to further increase its numbers
this year. The Department of State's Bureau for International Narcotics
and Law Enforcement also recently increased its full-time oversight
staff in Afghanistan to a total of 18 including four contracting
officer representatives and 14 technical monitors.
USAID and DOD also established comprehensive contractor vetting
systems, and the Department of State plans to standing up its own
capability this year. As recommended by the General Accountability
Office (GAO), DOD and USAID now share their vetting results. In
February 2011, USAID created the new Compliance and Oversight of
Partner Performance Division (COPP) in D.C. to work closely with Kabul
to investigate fraud. The division has already completed more than 40
suspension and debarment actions agencywide, based largely on referrals
from the inspector general.
The administration is working also with our partners within the
Afghan Government to ensure accountability of assistance programs. In
2010, the United States committed with other donors at the Kabul
conference to move toward putting 50 percent of our assistance through
Afghan institutions by 2012. However, the United States insists on full
transparency for all projects run through the Afghan Government and has
rigorous processes in place to guarantee that every entity receiving
funds has the capacity to transparently and effectively handle U.S.
funds. As a result, the administration is very selective in which
institutions it will fund directly, having approved a few and rejected
many more.
Question. Pakistan--Pakistan Cooperation and Civilian Aid
Oversight.--Pakistan is currently the third largest recipient of U.S.
security assistance after Afghanistan and Israel, Pakistan received a
total of $2.7 billion in security assistance and reimbursements in FY
2010 alone--a staggering 140 percent increase since 2007. This includes
$1.5 billion in direct reimbursements to Pakistan's Treasury through
the Coalition Support Fund--an amount that is double the amount
provided the previous fiscal year.
Pakistan's cooperation with the United States in addressing the
terrorist threat in the Afghan border region is abysmal and the disdain
for the United States evident. Is the United States, as news reports
indicate, considering conditioning U.S. assistance to Pakistan on its
cooperation in four areas:
Cooperation in exploiting the bin Laden compound;
Cooperation with the war in Afghanistan;
Cooperation with the United States in conducting joint
counterterrorism operations;
Cooperation in improving the overall tone in bilateral
relations.
Is this new framework in fact in place and when do you expect the
first assessment to be made? Do you expect that all U.S. assistance
will be subject to these conditions? How much assistance are you
currently withholding? Under what conditions will you release that
assistance?
Answer. While not always easy, the relationship with Pakistan is
very important to the United States. The administration works with the
Government of Pakistan in many ways, including identifying shared
interests and the actions we can jointly take to achieve them. The
United States remains committed to doing that and to strengthening and
deepening our long-term relationship.
There has been no major policy change in the administration's
assistance to Pakistan, and it does not believe now is the time to
change course. Civilian assistance continues to move forward and meet
the needs of both countries by strengthening Pakistan's economy and
civilian institutions that better the lives of the Pakistani people.
The U.S. ``pause'' in some military assistance does not signify a shift
in policy but underscores the fact that the partnership depends on
cooperation and tangible responses from Pakistan.
The administration has communicated to Pakistani officials on
numerous occasions that the United States requires their cooperation in
order to provide certain assistance, including most recently in
connection with Foreign Military Funding for Pakistan for FY 2011. The
administration will continue to be clear about the need for Pakistan to
take certain steps with regard to U.S. military aid. The United States-
Pakistan partnership must be supported by the efforts of both sides,
and both countries have reaffirmed their commitment to shared interests
and acting on those interests jointly.
Over the long term, the United States seeks to support the
Pakistani people as they chart their own destiny toward greater
stability, economic prosperity, and justice.
Question. Taiwan.--On August 24, the Pentagon released its annual
report, Military and Security Developments Involving the People's
Republic of China 2011, cataloging China's cruise missiles, fighter
jets and growing, modernizing army. It described the pace and scope of
China's military buildup as ``potentially destabilizing.''
It reported that the Chinese military remains focused on Taiwan and
has deployed as many as 1,200 short-range missiles aimed in its
direction. Moreover, it is developing antiship ballistic missiles,
potentially capable of attacking American aircraft carriers.
As cochair of the Senate Taiwan Caucus, on May 26 I led a letter to
President Obama urging the sale of 66 F-16 C/D aircraft to address the
military imbalance in the Taiwan Strait, the deteriorating condition of
Taiwan's aging fleet, and the fact that the ideal aircraft for Taiwan,
the F-16, must be procured by 2013 before the production line closes.
Forty-four Senators joined me in this bipartisan effort.
The Obama administration has committed to making a decision on the
sale prior to October 1, but the fact that this date falls between Vice
President Biden's trip to China and President Hu's trip to Hawaii, not
to mention that it is 2 months before President Hu's expected successor
visits the United States, makes me worried that the administration will
not stand up to China on behalf of our strategic relationship with
Taiwan. This concerns me as Taiwan's defense and deterrent capacity are
in the U.S. national security interest, as well as promoted and
compelled by the Taiwan Relations Act.
Question. Could you share with me your view on the question of the
military balance in the Taiwan Strait? And do you believe that the
United States should proceed with the sale of 66 F-16s to Taiwan?
Answer. Consistent with long-standing U.S. policy, U.S. arms sales
to Taiwan are guided by the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) and based on an
assessment of Taiwan's defense needs. Meeting Taiwan's defense needs is
a deep commitment of the United States and the administration is
committed to following through on the terms of the TRA under which the
United States makes available to Taiwan items necessary for its self
defense.
In accordance with that policy, the United States is cognizant of
the security challenges Taiwan faces and its need to maintain a
sufficient self-defense capability, including for air defense. The
administration continues to evaluate Taiwan's defense needs, including
air defense, and its requests as part of usual Foreign Military Sales
(FMS) process. It is my understanding that as of this time, no decision
has yet been made on the sale of any particular items to Taiwan.
Question. Do you agree that the Congress, pursuant to the Taiwan
Relations Act, has the authority to compel this sale?
Answer. The United States and Taiwan have been well-served by the
Taiwan Relations Act (TRA). The TRA serves as the basis for the vibrant
economic, cultural, educational and other ties between the people of
the United States and the people on Taiwan.
The question of the interpretation of the TRA presents complex
legal issues that would require consideration by a number of offices
and agencies within the executive branch.
Question. Critics, myself included, have expressed concern about
this administration's lack of vision for and attention to the Western
Hemisphere. This pertains to both the opportunities presented by the
hemisphere--which has largely experienced positive economic growth in
the midst of our economic crisis--as a market for U.S. exports, as well
as the growing security crisis in the region resulting from
transnational criminal organization.
What is your vision for the hemisphere?
Where does the hemisphere rank in the context of the many
priorities faced by the Department?
Do you feel that the budget laid out by the administration
in the FY 12 budget--showing a real and percentage decrease in
development and narcotics assistance for the hemisphere--is
sufficient to meet the needs of the region?
Answer. The Obama Administration's vision for the hemisphere is one
of positive partnerships seeking more inclusive growth and democratic
development. The administration has focused on four overarching
priorities critical to this vision: building effective institutions of
democratic governance; promoting social and economic opportunity for
everyone; securing a clean energy future; and ensuring the safety and
security of all of our citizens. The administration's efforts are
structured as both bilateral partnerships, including strategic
dialogues, and working to strengthen multilateral and regional
institutions. Importantly, some of the most successful and democratic
nations in the hemisphere explicitly share this vision, enabling the
administration to create positive synergies and work together in areas
never before possible and which have global implications (such as
renewable energy).
The administration's vision remains manifestly inclusive and seeks
points of convergence even in addressing difficult issues. The
administration recognizes that the most successful approaches to
challenges will be both comprehensive--addressing all facets of the
problem--and regional, including governmental, private, and
nongovernmental partners. A practical example is our effort to enhance
citizen safety through the Merida Initiative in Mexico, Central America
Regional Security Initiative, Colombia Strategic Development
Initiative, and the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative, all designed
to break the power, violence, and impunity of the region's drug, gang,
and criminal organizations by strengthening law enforcement and justice
sector institutions and by helping to identify, empower, and build
resilient civil societies and entrepreneurial communities.
The administration agrees that the region's growing prosperity is
creating an important new market for American goods, which is why they
remain strongly committed to the approval of pending trade agreements
with Colombia and Panama, along with TAA and the extension of
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) and ATPDEA. In addition, the
United States continues to prioritize economic growth programs that
leverage the emerging leadership potential and resources of many Latin
American and Caribbean countries. Collaborative platforms like Pathways
to Prosperity and the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas,
which invite partner governments and the private sector to join in a
broader coalition to address key elements of the hemispheric agenda,
are central to the administration's strategic vision.
The administration remains steadfast in its commitment to core
principles and recognition of key values such as human and labor
rights, press freedom, and the importance of robust and independent
democratic institutions, upon which many of those values depend.
The Western Hemisphere remains a top priority for the United
States. The Obama administration has demonstrated in word and deed from
the beginning that the United States has important national interests
at stake in the Western Hemisphere, and the best way to advance these
interests is through proactive engagement. It has also amplified the
ways in which key allies in the Western Hemisphere will be our partners
confronting common global challenges.
President Obama's visit to Brazil, Chile, and El Salvador in March
highlighted every one of the themes outlined above, building on the
pledge that he made at the Summit of the Americas to create a
relationship of ``equal partners'' based on mutual interests and shared
values. The President's message, and the dozens of agreements completed
during the trip, underscored how significant the region is for the
United States on issues including our economic competiveness, our
global strategic interests, our core values of democracy and human
rights, and the richness and diversity of our society and culture.
The U.S. foreign assistance request for FY 2012 responds to
continued threats to citizen safety that jeopardize U.S. national
security interests; reinforces democratic gains; leverages the region's
emerging economic opportunities and strengths; and supports the
Americas' emerging potential for global leadership. The administration
believes this request will help it meet the challenges and
opportunities we face. At the same time, it is lean and responds to the
fiscal constraints that we all face. If confirmed, I will work with the
Department to advance these priorities, particularly as we approach the
Summit of the Americas in Colombia in 2012.
______
Responses of Wendy Sherman to Questions Submitted
by Senator Jim Webb
Question. Various press reports have intimated that, as a global
strategist and principal of the Albright Stonebridge Group, you have
represented or advised U.S. and other firms seeking to do business in
China. Given the unique responsibility of the Under Secretary for
Political Affairs for managing the full range of issues in our day-to-
day bilateral relationships, please provide a specific description of
the nature of your private sector activities in China. In particular,
please describe the level and nature of any contacts you may have had
with Chinese Government officials in this capacity.
Answer. Albright Stonebridge Group has an active China practice and
as a principal of ASG, I have participated in helping clients, largely
American multinationals, meet their business objectives in China. In
that role, I have met with a variety of officials in Beijing, Shanghai,
and in some of the provinces at a variety of levels. In addition, I
have participated as part of delegations sponsored by The Aspen
Institute and the Center for American Progress (CAP) that conducted
United States-China dialogues and in that capacity have also met with a
variety of officials.
Question. While you are not registered as a lobbyist or a
representative of a foreign government, many of the clients you advised
at Albright Stonebridge Group engage separate staff to lobby the State
Department and Congress on a variety of issues. Can you confirm that
neither you, nor the Albright Stonebridge Group, which continues to
hold the promissory note for the divestment of your interests in the
firm, retain any private interests in China that may compromise your
ability, if confirmed, to represent the full range of U.S. interests in
our bilateral relationship with China?
Answer. Under the Ethics Undertakings agreed to with the Office of
Government Ethics and White House Counsel, I will be recused for 2
years from participating personally or substantially in any particular
matter that involves any clients I served while a principal of Albright
Stonebridge Group or in any particular matter that involves Albright
Stonebridge Group. I will also be recused from participating personally
or substantially in any particular matter that has a direct and
predictable effect on the ability or willingness of Albright
Stonebridge Group to pay the note, until the note is paid in full.
Given the nature of the job of Under Secretary of State for Political
Affairs, these recusals should have little if any effect on my ability
to fulfill the duties of the position.
Question. More broadly, I remain concerned that the United States
lacks a coherent strategy to address the impact of China's rise on our
own economic and security interests. Within the U.S. Government,
agencies continue to advocate for competing priorities. While some
agencies push to broaden our business opportunities and engagement with
China, reports from the Department of Defense and the intelligence
community document persistent concerns with sensitive technology
transfers, the abuse of U.S. intellectual property rights, cyber
attacks originating in China, and China's continued aggressive naval
activities in the South China Sea.
If confirmed, how will you balance the competing priorities of
expanding our economic and political ties with China while also holding
China more accountable in these areas?
Answer. The administration is committed to pursuing a positive,
cooperative, and comprehensive relationship with China grounded in
reality, focused on results, and true to our principles and interests.
If confirmed, I will work to advance those objectives and to uphold
American political, economic, and national security interests in my
interactions with Chinese counterparts.
The administration engages the Chinese leadership to strengthen
cooperation on shared goals of regional stability and increased
prosperity. The administration also encourages China to play a greater
role internationally in ways supportive of international development
and stability--and in ways consistent with prevailing international
rules and institutions.
U.S. engagement with China includes three main pillars:
1. Work with allies and partners in Asia to foster a regional
environment in which China's rise is a source of prosperity and
stability for the entire region.
2. Build bilateral trust with China on a range of issues. The
Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) represents a ``whole of
government'' dialogue with the participation of hundreds of experts
from dozens of agencies across both of our governments to achieve that
goal. Additionally, the United States engages in broad outreach to
broad elements of Chinese Government and society, including building a
healthy, stable, continuous, and reliable military-to-military
relationship and increasing people-to-people exchanges between our
countries.
3. Expand cooperation with China to address common global and
regional challenges, ranging from Iran and North Korea to climate
change, and including economic issues and multilateral initiatives.
While seeking cooperation with China on a range of international
issues, the administration recognizes the obstacles and differences
that continue to exist.
The administration has raised difficult issues and areas of
disagreement in discussions with China. Those topics include human
rights, unfair procurement preferences, violations of intellectual
property rights, and currency manipulation.
The administration also recognizes that China has been engaged in
an ambitious military modernization effort since the mid-1990s, seeking
to create a modern force capable of fighting high-intensity conflicts
along its periphery. In discussions on China's military intentions,
administration officials have urged the Chinese to provide greater
transparency into the capabilities they are developing and the
intentions behind their modernization effort.
Those discussions emphasized our shared interest in ensuring peace
and prosperity in the region. Although continuing to build a
comprehensive relationship with China, the administration carefully
monitors China's military developments and, in concert with our allies
and partners with whom we consult regularly on China's military
modernization, will make adjustments to current policy as necessary.
______
Responses of Wendy Sherman to Questions Submitted
by Senator James E. Risch
Question. North Korea.--In your testimony before this committee,
you said: ``It makes no sense to have talks just for the sake of talks.
North Korea must keep its commitments that it made in 2005 to really
move forward to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.''
Do you believe North Korea has kept the commitments it made
in 2005?
Answer. No. North Korea has not kept its commitments.
In the September 2005 Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks, the
DPRK committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear
programs and to returning, at an early date, to the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) safeguards. Since then, the DPRK has continued its nuclear-
related activities, including its uranium enrichment program (UEP) and
light water reactor construction activities, and announced it conducted
nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009.
Question. Do you believe the talks Secretary Clinton invited North
Korea's Vice Foreign Minister to have in New York were productive? Why?
Answer. The State Department has provided the following read out on
those talks: U.S. officials met with the DPRK in New York July 28 and
29 to reiterate that, while the United States remains open to direct
engagement, we are not interested in talks for the sake of talking. The
United States underscored that before serious negotiations can resume,
the DPRK must take demonstrable steps to show that it is prepared to
meet its international commitments to achieve the goal of the 2005
joint statement: the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean
Peninsula in a peaceful manner. The United States also emphasized that
international sanctions on the DPRK will remain in place until
Pyongyang complies with its obligations under U.N. Security Council
Resolutions 1718 and 1874, under which the DPRK must abandon all
nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs in a complete, verifiable
and irreversible manner, and suspend its ballistic missile program.
Based on this read out, the talks were very important because the
administration was able to drive home directly to the DPRK that it must
take concrete steps to meet its international commitments.
Question. The Obama administration has stated that North Korea must
demonstrate a ``concrete indication'' of Pyongyang's commitment to
denuclearization prior to resuming multilateral negotiations. Do you
agree with this position? What do you consider to be an acceptable
``concrete indication''?
Answer. North Korea must demonstrate a change in behavior,
including improving North-South relations, ceasing provocative actions,
taking concrete steps toward irreversible denuclearization, and
complying with its commitments under the 2005 Joint Statement of the
Six-Party Talks and its obligations under the U.N. Security Council
Resolutions 1718 and 1874.
As the the administration has stated repeatedly, they are open to
talks with North Korea, but do not intend to reward the North just for
returning to the table. The administration will not give them anything
new for actions they have already agreed to take and the administration
has no appetite for pursuing protracted negotiations that will only
lead us right back to where we have already been.
Question. There has been a great deal of turmoil in the Middle East
over the last 6 months but, with all the potential for change, a
constant is the danger posed by Iran's nuclear program. Despite the
President's commitment to deprive Iran a nuclear weapons capability,
the IAEA confirmed just last week that the Iranian program continues
and that they are loading P-2 Centrifuges at Qom.
What new steps is the administration willing to take to stop Iran--
would you recommend pursuing additional sanctions in the near future?
President Obama has said that it is unacceptable for Iran to have a
nuclear weapons capability. What does that mean? Does it mean we'll do
everything and anything we can to ensure Iran does not acquire that
capability?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work actively to increase the pressure
on Iran as part of the dual track policy of pressure and engagement to
resolve our national security concern and the international community's
concerns about Iran's nuclear program. The administration is committed
to sanctions against Iran as long as it continues to defy the
international community and fails to meet its obligations under U.N.
Security Council and International Atomic Energy Agency resolutions. I
understand that the administration continues to review options for
stepping up pressure against Iran, including possible new sanctions,
possible new designations under the existing sanctions regime, and
improved implementation of existing sanctions by U.N. member states.
Question. A central tenet of the U.S.-Israel relationship from
administration to administration has been the close working
relationship between the two countries and that differences of opinion
are dealt with behind closed doors.
Do you agree that the United States should work more closely
with Israel and ensure our differences stay private?
Do you believe U.S. policy in the region is best advanced
through a close working relationship with Israel?
How would you characterize the U.S.-Israel strategic
dialogue? In spite of the current turmoil and instability in
the region, does the United States remain absolutely committed
to Israel's qualitative military edge?
Answer. As President Obama said in his speech on May 22, 2011,
``the bonds between the United States and Israel are unbreakable and
the commitment of the United States to the security of Israel is
ironclad.'' The U.S.-Israel bilateral relationship is stronger than
ever, and the administration is taking full advantage of the robust and
frequent senior-level consultative and political mechanisms currently
in place to share views and analysis of the unprecedented changes
underway in the region. The administration is also working together to
ensure that these changes do not negatively impact Israel's security.
During the past year, there have been an unprecedented number of
bilateral defense and strategic consultations, high-level discussions
and visits, and less high-profile consultations at senior levels
between U.S. and Israeli leaders and government officials.
As in any close friendship, there are times when the United States
and Israel do not share the same views. The administration works
productively and practically to resolve such differences quickly and
quietly.
The administration has been clear in its absolute commitment to
maintaining and supporting Israel's qualitative military edge (QME).
The United States will respond quickly and carefully, in close
consultation with the Government of Israel, to any development that
might affect it.
Question. Over the past 2 years, the Palestinian leadership has
repeatedly refused to enter direct negotiations with Israel. Instead,
Palestinian Authority President Abbas has embarked on an effort to push
for recognition at the U.N. These efforts hurt the chances for peace
and run counter to long-standing U.S. policy in favor of direct
negotiations. President Obama has called the Palestinian initiative
purely ``symbolic'' and said that efforts to delegitimize Israel will
end in ``failure.''
What are we doing to encourage other countries to oppose the
effort as well, both in the Security Council and the General
Assembly? How many countries has the State Department demarched
on this issue? Have we engaged diplomatically across the board
to make it clear that a vote on Palestinian statehood or
upgrading their status is strongly opposed by the United
States?
Answer. In May, President Obama delivered in two speeches his
vision of how to move forward toward Middle East peace, and laid out
principles and goals of the negotiations needed to resolve the
difficult ``final status'' issues between the parties. He also made
clear his opposition to efforts to determine final status issues
outside of negotiations, including through initiatives at the United
Nations. He said, ``For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize
Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the
United Nations in September won't create an independent state.''
I will--if confirmed--wholeheartedly support the efforts underway
to make this position absolutely clear at the U.N. and in capitals
around the globe. The United States is urging other member states not
to support any Palestinian action at the U.N. that would serve to
prejudge final status issues or isolate Israel, in whatever form such
action might take.
U.S. ambassadors have engaged, at Secretary Clinton's instruction,
at the highest political levels in close to 100 capitals worldwide
where outreach would be most productive. Secretary Clinton, National
Security Advisor Donilon, Ambassador Rice, Deputy Secretary Burns,
Assistant Secretary Feltman and Special Envoy Hale and other senior
U.S. officials have also been working intensively with their
counterparts in key capitals for months to underscore our concerns and
views.
Going forward, the Department of State will continue to work
vigorously and strategically to reach out to select countries and
organizations to express and explain our firm opposition to any one-
sided actions at the U.N., including a Palestinian state declared
outside of the framework of negotiations.
Question. President Abbas has ignored the President's request that
he not pursue a U.N. Security Council Resolution seeking recognition.
What impact will Palestinian efforts at the U.N. have on the United
States-Palestinian relationship? Is the administration willing to
suspend foreign aid to the Palestinian authorities or other Palestinian
entities if they do not forgo these efforts?
Answer. I know that at every turn, the administration has told the
Palestinian leadership clearly and consistently that only direct
negotiations can produce the outcome they seek: a real and lasting
peace with Israel, and the creation of a Palestinian state. These
outcomes will serve the interests of the United States and Israel as
well, and are vital to a comprehensive peace and regional stability.
The administration has been equally clear and unequivocal that it
would vigorously oppose any U.N. Security Council or General Assembly
resolution that seeks to predetermine any ``final status'' issue that
must be resolved through direct negotiation, including creation of a
Palestinian state.
The United States remains committed to a dual-track strategy in
pursuing Israeli-Palestinian peace, a vigorous political negotiating
effort focused on renewing direct negotiations and moving forward
toward a comprehensive peace, and an equally vigorous institution-
building track to prepare Palestinians for eventual statehood,
including maintaining security and continuing to support the growth of
accountable and professional security forces, and providing transparent
and efficient services for the Palestinian people.
It has been the position of successive administrations that support
for Palestinian Government institutions and a viable Palestinian
economy serves the interests of the United States, and is essential for
peace, the stability of the region, and the security of both Israel and
the Palestinians.
Cutting off assistance to the Palestinian Authority would put these
gains at risk, send a very negative signal to the broader region at a
time of intense change, and, most immediately, risk dramatically
undermining security--outcomes that hurt both the interest of the
United States and the interests of Israel and the Palestinians.
Building the institutions of a stable, prosperous Palestinian state
with an accountable and transparent government and professional
security forces also is a strong and vital bulwark against
radicalization. These efforts are and will remain critical to U.S.
national interests even in the face of difficulties on the political
track.
Question. Recently, the European Union and the United States
announced sanctions on the Syrian regime. What assistance is Turkey
providing, or has offered, to help enforce sanctions on Syria?
Answer. Turkey and the United States have coordinated closely on
Syria. Turkey has issued strong, unambiguous statements condemning the
Syrian Government's violent attacks against civilians. The Turkish
Foreign Minister and other Government of Turkey officials have traveled
to Damascus to identify the kinds of measures the Syrian Government
needed to take to address the international community's concerns.
The Turkish Government has provided humanitarian assistance to over
7,000 displaced Syrians residing in seven camps administered by the
Turkish Red Crescent in the Hatay province bordering Syria.
Turkey has not enacted unilateral sanctions against Syria but has
enforced U.N. sanctions. For example, Turkey has taken action to
prevent illicit materiel from arriving in Syria via Turkey.
Question. Is the United States committed to the territorial
integrity and defense of the Republic of Georgia?
Answer. The United States remains steadfast in its strong support
for Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The United States
continues to call on Russia to fulfill its obligations under the 2008
cease-fire agreement, including withdrawal of its forces to preconflict
positions and free access for humanitarian assistance. The continued
militarization of the Abkhazia and South Ossetia regions by the Russian
Federation is inconsistent with its cease-fire commitments and
threatens the stability in the region. The administration is an active
participant in the Geneva discussions, working with the cochairs and
others in pursuit of a resolution to the conflict. The United States
also continues to voice concern directly to Russia at every opportunity
and at high levels regarding its actions in Georgia, including during
Secretary Clinton's meetings with Russian FM Lavrov. In addition, the
administration will continue to speak out in support of Georgia's
territorial integrity, as it did recently in our statement regarding
the so-called August 29 ``elections'' in the separatist region of
Abkhazia.
Question. Is the United States willing to provide all necessary
support to help Georgia formulate its defense doctrines, including the
drafting of a capabilities and threats assessment and defense white
paper?
Answer. The United States continues to have a broad and deepening
relationship with Georgia in a number of sectors. The administration's
security assistance and military engagement with Georgia is currently
focused in two areas. The first is comprehensive assistance to support
Georgia's defense reform and modernization along Euro-Atlantic lines.
In particular, the United States is focused on building institutional
capacity, supporting personnel and doctrine reform, and contributing to
professional military education modernization. The administration has
also consulted with the Georgian Government as it drafts a National
Security Concept. Second, the United States continues to provide the
necessary training and equipment to Georgian troops in support of their
interoperability and effective participation in ISAF operations in
Afghanistan.
______
Responses of Wendy Sherman to Questions Submitted
by Senator James M. Inhofe
Question. Protocol on Cluster Munitions to the Convention on
Conventional Weapons (CCW): A proposed Sixth Protocol to the Convention
on Conventional Weapons (CCW) is currently being negotiated in Geneva.
This protocol would establish sensible controls on the production,
stockpiling, and use of cluster munitions. The negotiations which
produced the current draft protocol have been ongoing for several years
with the active involvement of the U.S. delegation to the CCW. The
current draft is widely supported within the CCW, and would
significantly advance global efforts to minimize the risks to civilian
populations of modern warfare while simultaneously preserving the
ability of the United States and its allies to utilize munitions that
will limit American casualties in future conflicts. The draft is
opposed by some NGOs, however, and several governments participating in
the CCW may block approval of the protocol at the CCW Review Conference
in November, thereby killing it.
Does the Obama administration support the proposed CCW
protocol on cluster munitions?
Does the Obama administration have in place a strategy for
preventing a small group of countries from killing the proposed
CCW protocol on cluster munitions? If so, please describe that
strategy.
If confirmed, will you work actively to support approval of
the cluster munitions protocol, and to raise this issue in your
discussions with foreign counterparts?
Answer. The administration supports concluding a comprehensive and
binding protocol to the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) that
addresses all aspects of cluster munitions, to include use, transfer,
stockpiling, and destruction and that will have a significant
humanitarian impact on the ground while preserving an important
military capability. The draft protocol presented by the CCW Group of
Governments Experts Chair provides the basis for such a protocol.
The Department is currently engaging CCW High Contracting Parties
to urge these states to seize the opportunity to conclude a new
protocol regulating cluster munitions at the CCW Review Conference in
November. This includes targeted ministerial-level engagement with key
detractors. If confirmed I will join Secretary Clinton and the rest of
the Department in these efforts, as appropriate.
Question. Foreign Boycotts of U.S. Defense Firms.--There is an
aggressive campaign underway, led by foreign NGOs, and apparently
abetted by some foreign governments, to boycott U.S. companies involved
in the manufacture pursuant to contracts with the U.S. Department of
Defense of weapons systems that they don't think the United States
should have. This campaign is currently focused on manufacturers of
landmines and cluster munitions, but can easily be expanded to
manufacturers of nuclear weapons-related items, depleted uranium
weapons, etc. The campaign has made surprising headway in dissuading
foreign banks from doing business with some key U.S. defense
contractors, and is clearly aimed at dissuading these companies from
continuing to supply the United States with these weapons.
