[Senate Hearing 113-319]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-319
NOMINATIONS OF THE 113TH CONGRESS--FIRST SESSION
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
MAY 7 THROUGH DECEMBER 17, 2013
----------
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/
S. Hrg. 113-319
NOMINATIONS OF THE 113TH CONGRESS--FIRST SESSION
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 7 THROUGH DECEMBER 17, 2013
__________
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
88-305 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
113th CONGRESS--FIRST SESSION
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey, Chairman
BARBARA BOXER, California BOB CORKER, Tennessee
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania \1\1 MARCO RUBIO, Florida
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
TOM UDALL, New Mexico JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut RAND PAUL, Kentucky
TIM KAINE, Virginia
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts \2\
Daniel E. O'Brien, Democratic Staff Director
Lester E. Munson III, Republican Staff Director
--------
\1\ Senator Casey served on the committee until July 16, 2013.
\2\ Senator Markey joined the committee on July 16, 2013.
(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
Thursday, January 24, 2013
The committee's hearing on the nomination of John F. Kerry to be
Secretary of State was printed as a separate document. (S. Hrg.
113-163)
------
Tuesday, May 7, 2013............................................. 1
Hon. Deborah K. Jones, of New Mexico, to be Ambassador to Libya.. 5
Hon. James Knight, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Chad...... 10
------
Wednesday, June 19, 2013......................................... 31
Geoffrey R. Pyatt, of California, to be Ambassador to Ukraine.... 33
Tulinabo Salama Mushingi, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to
Burkina Faso................................................... 37
------
Thursday, June 20, 2013.......................................... 51
Daniel R. Russel, of New York, to be Assistant Secretary of State
for East Asian and Pacific Affairs............................. 53
------
Thursday, July 11, 2013.......................................... 97
Hon. Victoria Nuland, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of
State for European Affairs..................................... 102
Douglas Edward Lute, of Indiana, to be U.S. Permanent
Representative on the Council of the North Atlantic Treaty..... 105
Daniel Brooks Baer, of Colorado, to be U.S. Representative to the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe............ 109
------
Wednesday, July 17, 2013......................................... 157
Samantha Power, of Massachusetts, to be the U.S. Representative
to the United Nations, the U.S. Representative in the Security
Council of the United Nations, and to be the U.S.
Representative to the sessions of the General Assembly of the
United Nations................................................. 162
------
Wednesday, July 17, 2013......................................... 237
Catherine M. Russell, of the District of Columbia, to be
Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's Issues.................. 239
(iii)
Tuesday, July 23, 2013........................................... 253
Hon. Morrell John Berry, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to
Australia...................................................... 258
Daniel Clune, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to Laos.............. 261
Joseph Yun, of Oregon, to be Ambassador to Malaysia.............. 264
------
Wednesday, July 24, 2013......................................... 283
Hon. Linda Thomas-Greenfield, of Louisiana, to be Assistant
Secretary of State for African Affairs......................... 288
Hon. James F. Entwistle, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the
Federal Republic of Nigeria.................................... 299
Hon. Patricia Marie Haslach, of Oregon, to be Ambassador to the
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia........................ 302
Reuben Earl Brigety, II, of Florida, to be the U.S.
Representative to the African Union, with the rank and status
of Ambassador.................................................. 304
Stephanie Sanders Sullivan, of New York, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of Congo.............................................. 306
Patrick Hubert Gaspard, of New York, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of South Africa....................................... 308
------
Thursday, July 25, 2013.......................................... 337
James Costos, of California, to be Ambassador to Spain........... 344
Denise Campbell Bauer, of California, to be Ambassador to Belgium 347
John Rufus Gifford, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador to Denmark 349
John B. Emerson, of California, to be Ambassador to the Federal
Republic of Germany............................................ 352
Hon. David D. Pearce, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to Greece.... 355
------
Tuesday, July 30, 2013........................................... 371
Hon. Steve A. Linick, of Virginia, to be Inspector General,
Department of State............................................ 373
Hon. Matthew Winthrop Barzun, of Kentucky, to be Ambassador to
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland....... 383
Hon. Liliana Ayalde, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to the
Federative Republic of Brazil.................................. 386
Hon. David Hale, of New Jersey, to be Ambassador to the Republic
of Lebanon..................................................... 389
Evan Ryan, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of State for
Educational and Cultural Affairs............................... 391
Kirk W.B. Wagar, of Florida, to be Ambassador to the Republic of
Singapore...................................................... 412
Daniel A. Sepulveda, of Florida, for the rank of Ambassador
during his tenure of service as Deputy Assistant Secretary of
State for International Communications and Information Policy
in the Bureau of Economic, Energy, and Business Affairs and
U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and
Information Policy............................................. 415
Hon. Terence Patrick McCulley, of Washington, to be Ambassador to
the Republic of Cote D'Ivoire.................................. 418
Hon. James C. Swan, of California, to be Ambassador to the
Democratic Republic of the Congo............................... 420
John R. Phillips, of the District of Columbia, to be Ambassador
to the Italian Republic, and to serve concurrently and without
additional compensation as Ambassador to the Republic of San
Marino......................................................... 432
Hon. Kenneth Francis Hackett, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to
the Holy See................................................... 435
Alexa Lange Wesner, of Texas, to be Ambassador to the Republic of
Austria........................................................ 438
------
Thursday, September 12, 2013..................................... 453
Hon. Nisha Desai Biswal, of the District of Columbia, to be
Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs........... 456
Thursday, September 19, 2013..................................... 483
Caroline Kennedy, of New York, to be Ambassador to Japan......... 490
Hon. Anne W. Patterson, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of
State for Near Eastern Affairs................................. 509
Gregory B. Starr, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of State
for Diplomatic Security........................................ 519
Tuesday, September 24, 2013 (a.m.)............................... 559
Dwight L. Bush, Sr., of the District of Columbia, to be
Ambassador to the Kingdom of Morocco........................... 562
Mark Bradley Childress, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the
United Republic of Tanzania.................................... 565
Thomas F. Daughton, of Arizona, to be Ambassador to Namibia...... 569
Matthew Harrington, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to Lesotho..... 571
Hon. Eunice S. Reddick, of the District of Columbia, to be
Ambassador to Niger............................................ 591
John Hoover, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador to Sierra Leone.. 594
Michael S. Hoza, of Washington, to be Ambassador to Cameroon..... 596
------
Tuesday, September 24, 2013 (p.m.)............................... 613
Tomasz P. Malinowski, of the District of Columbia, to be
Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and
Labor.......................................................... 616
Keith M. Harper, of Maryland, to be U.S. Representative to the
United Nations Human Rights Council............................ 621
Crystal Nix-Hines, of California, to be U.S. Permanent
Representative to the United Nations Educational, Scientific,
and Cultural Organization...................................... 623
Pamela K. Hamamoto, of Hawaii, to be U.S. Representative to the
Office of the United States and Other International
Organizations in Geneva........................................ 626
------
Wednesday, September 25, 2013.................................... 661
Hon. Philip S. Goldberg, of the District of Columbia, to be
Ambassador to the Republic of the Philippines.................. 667
Hon. Robert O. Blake, Jr., of Maryland, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of Indonesia.......................................... 669
Karen Clark Stanton, of Michigan, to be Ambassador to the
Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste............................. 672
Amy Jane Hyatt, of California, to be Ambassador to the Republic
of Palau....................................................... 675
------
Thursday, September 26, 2013 (a.m.).............................. 691
Hon. Rose Eilene Gottemoeller, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary
of State for Arms Control and International Security........... 697
Frank A. Rose, of Massachusetts, to be Assistant Secretary of
State for Verification and Compliance.......................... 702
Adam M. Scheinman, of Virginia, to be Special Representative of
the President for Nuclear Nonproliferation, with the rank of
Ambassador..................................................... 707
------
Thursday, September 26, 2013 (p.m.).............................. 747
Timothy Broas, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to the Kingdom of
the Netherlands................................................ 750
Donald Lu, of California, to be Ambassador to the Republic of
Albania........................................................ 754
Robert A. Sherman, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador to the
Portuguese Republic............................................ 757
------
Thursday, October 3, 2013........................................ 769
James Brewster Jr., of Illinois, to be Ambassador to the
Dominican Republic............................................. 775
Hon. Carlos Roberto Moreno, of California, to be Ambassador to
Belize......................................................... 778
Brian A. Nichols, of Rhode Island, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of Peru............................................... 781
Thursday, October 31, 2013....................................... 795
Anthony L. Gardner, of New York, to be U.S. Representative to the
European Union................................................. 798
Hon. Daniel W. Yohannes, of Colorado, to be U.S. Representative
to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development... 802
------
Wednesday, November 6, 2013...................................... 819
Hon. Carolyn Hessler Radelet, of Virginia, to be Director of the
Peace Corps.................................................... 823
Michael G. Carroll, of New York, to be Inspector General, United
States Agency for International Development.................... 825
------
Thursday, November 7, 2013....................................... 851
The Honorable Heather A. Higginbottom, of the District of
Columbia, to be Deputy Secretary of State for Management and
Resources...................................................... 852
Dr. Sarah Sewall, of Massachusetts, to be Under Secretary State
for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights............. 870
Richard Stengel, of New York, to be Under Secretary of State for
Public Diplomacy............................................... 874
------
Tuesday, November 19, 2013....................................... 905
Dana J. Hyde, of Maryland, to be Chief Executive Officer,
Millennium Challenge Corporation............................... 907
Mark E. Lopes, of Arizona, to be U.S. Executive Director of the
Inter-American Development Bank for a term of three years...... 909
------
Wednesday, December 11, 2013..................................... 919
Catherine Ann Novelli, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of
State for Economic Growth, Energy, and Environment; Alternate
Governor of the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development; Alternate Governor of the Inter-American
Development Bank; Alternate Governor of the European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development................................. 922
Hon. Charles Rivkin, of California, to be Assistant Secretary of
State for Economic and Business Affairs........................ 925
Hon. Tina S. Kaidanow, of the District of Columbia, to be
Coordinator for Counterterrorism, with the Rank and Status of
Ambassador at Large............................................ 935
Puneet Talwar, of the District of Columbia, to be Assistant
Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs.............. 939
Hon. Michael A. Hammer, of the District of Columbia, to be
Ambassador to the Republic of Chile............................ 957
Kevin Whitaker, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Republic Of
Colombia....................................................... 960
Bruce Heyman, of Illinois, to be Ambassador to Canada............ 962
------
Tuesday, December 17, 2013....................................... 1015
Hon. Helen Meagher La Lime, of the District of Columbia, to be
Ambassador to the Republic of Angola........................... 1017
Cynthia H. Akuetteh, of the District of Columbia, to be
Ambassador to the Gabonese Republic and to be Ambassador to the
Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe................... 1020
Larry Edward Andre, Jr., of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the
Islamic Republic of Mauritania................................. 1023
Eric T. Schultz, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Republic of
Zambia......................................................... 1026
NOMINATIONS OF JAMES KNIGHT
AND DEBORAH KAY JONES
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
Hon. James Knight, of Alabama, to be Ambassador to the Republic
of Chad
Hon. Deborah Kay Jones, of New Mexico, to be Ambassador to
Libya
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert
Menendez (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Menendez, Udall, Murphy, Corker, Johnson,
Flake, and McCain.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
The Chairman. Good morning. This hearing of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee will come to order. Today we are
pleased to welcome two nominees as Ambassador to Libya and
Chad, two difficult and important assignments. The Maghreb and
Sahel regions are of increasing strategic significance for the
United States, and I look forward to hearing your views on
these critical and interlinked regions.
We can never forget Ambassador Chris Stevens and the three
other American public servants--Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith, and
Glen Doherty--who tragically lost their lives in the attack on
the United States mission in Benghazi last September. We also
remember Anne Smedinghoff, whose death in Afghanistan just last
month reminded us once again the danger that every diplomat
serving abroad faces.
The attacks on Benghazi raise questions about how we can
best ensure that those serving in our embassies can do their
jobs and reach outside the wire and still keep our people safe
and secure, and I am committed to doing all we can to ensuring
that Congress does its part in providing the tools our
embassies need to operate as effectively and safely as possible
around the world. I look forward to hearing the views of both
of our nominees on balancing embassy security with the need to
reach outside of that wire.
That said, we cannot let the events in Benghazi overshadow
the slow but positive progress that Libya continues to make in
fulfilling the promise of the revolution. There is no doubt
that progress in Libya has been messy, but the political
process is continuing with the parliamentary elections last
summer to form the General National Congress. We have seen the
emergence of an active civil society that remains engaged over
how to best move the country forward, an important ingredient
for any democracy.
There is no doubt that the United States enjoys a certain
level of popularity in Libya that we saw in the aftermath of
Ambassador Stevens' death when thousands took to the street
against the extremists and in support of the United States. The
critical question is how to harness that goodwill to help the
Libyan people shape a safe, productive, and inclusive democracy
that has a healthy relationship with the United States.
Still, the most vital and difficult question when it comes
to Libya is one of security. The security situation remains
precarious. The recent car bomb outside the French Embassy in
Tripoli, as well as kidnappings and assassination attempts on
public officials by militia groups that still operate with
impunity, are a challenge. The central government is unable to
assert its control outside of Tripoli, and the broader
challenge of disarming and reintegrating former fighters
remains. Border security is also an issue of critical concern,
as drugs and arms trafficking threaten to destabilize the
region.
These issues affect not only Libya, but the entire region.
We have already seen how arms flows coming out of Libya have
added new weapons to existing conflicts. Borders in the Maghreb
and Sahel are often amorphous. Old smuggling routes and new
trafficking paths crisscross the region. Too often, we adhere
to our own bureaucratic boundaries between the Near East and
North Africa on the one hand and sub-Saharan Africa on the
other. This hearing will allow us to cross those artificial
barriers, take the 30,000-foot view, and hopefully engage in a
dialogue about both Libya and Chad in a regional context.
Chad is rife with challenges. It is among the world's
poorest countries, with the highest maternal mortality rate in
the world, life expectancy under 50, and literacy rates that
hover around 30 percent. It is ranked fourth in the most recent
failed states index, but it has also stood with the French to
restore stability and security in Mali.
In December the United Nations Consolidated Appeal said
Chad was ``on a steady path to sustainable recovery and
stabilization.'' I hope that is the case. The Sahel is emerging
as an increasingly significant strategic region, and Chad is an
important diplomatic posting for the United States.
So with that background, I welcome our nominees: the
Honorable Deborah K. Jones of New Mexico, nominated to be
Ambassador to Libya, and who will be introduced by our good
friend and colleague, Senator Udall of New Mexico; and
Ambassador James Knight, who comes to us from serving in
Benghazi and previously a chief of mission in Benin, and held a
number of other posts, mostly in Africa, in his over two
decades with the Foreign Service. We look forward to the
testimony of our nominees.
With that, let me turn to Senator Corker for his opening
statement and then we will turn to Senator Udall to make an
introduction and we will hear from our nominees.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Corker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, too, welcome our two nominees and their families, and of
course Senator Udall, who will introduce them. I thank the
chairman for leading this full committee hearing for
nominations. I know that typically we have our chair and
ranking member of the respective regional subcommittees take
some of the nomination hearings on, given the large number each
year, but the roles that our nominees are going to play are
very important and the opportunity to consider them is valuable
for the full committee.
I just traveled, not 3 months ago or so, through northern
Africa to see what is happening with the nodes, if you will, of
al-Qaeda that have now splintered off, and the effect that it
is going to have on North Africa as well as the role that it is
going to play as it relates to world stability. This certainly
speaks of the importance of your two roles.
In Chad we have a country that is actually helping and
working outside of its boundaries, to help us with some of
these issues, but it is very weak internally and has to deal
with problems within the country. In Libya we have a situation,
as we talked about yesterday in my office, in which a country
that has almost no government. You can feel it when you are
there on the ground. Much of the country appears under militia
control, and many recent changes could have a negative effect
on the transition of the country. So we have a special
responsibility to maintain strong and positive engagement there
because of the role that we played in that country.
So I support the mission of both of you. I thank you for
coming today. I look forward to your testimony and look forward
to hopefully very strong and outstanding service in the region.
So thank you both for being here.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Udall.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Senator Corker and members of the committee. I very much
appreciate the opportunity to introduce Ambassador Deborah
Jones.
Ambassador Jones has served with great distinction over a
long career in the U.S. State Department. She also is a fellow
New Mexican and we are proud of her accomplishments. Her family
has lived in both New Mexico and Arizona since her grandparents
moved from Mexico's Colonia Dublon. She has lived in Santa Fe,
NM, since 1991. New Mexico is proud to add her to the long list
of distinguished ambassadors who have called New Mexico home.
Ambassador Jones has dedicated her life to public service
and she has tried to instill those same values in her children.
Her daughter, Isabel, recently worked as an intern in my office
and I believe she is here today with us.
The Chairman. How did she do?
Senator Udall. And of course, Ambassador Jones will
introduce the rest of her family, but I thought I should give
special recognition there to Isabel.
In 1982 Ambassador Deborah Jones began her career as vice
consul of the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina. While
her career began in Latin America, she soon began to develop
her expertise in the Middle East. She is no stranger to tough
assignments. In the early 1990s she served as the consular
section chief in Damascus, Syria. She was the desk officer for
the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan from 1995 through 1997. She
also was Director of the Office of the Arabian Peninsula
Affairs and Iran, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, and she
served with distinction in her critical work as chief of
mission at the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait.
She speaks Arabic, Spanish, and French. She has an M.S. in
national security strategy from the National War College and a
B.A. in history from Brigham Young University.
Following her service as Ambassador in Kuwait, she has
worked as a senior adviser for international affairs at the
U.S. Naval War College and a scholar in residence at the Middle
East Institute.
Ambassador Jones will be ready from day one to tackle the
numerous challenges facing Libya. The Libyan people are still
struggling to remake their country after years of despotic
leadership. The Libyan Government has also been under strain to
rein in militias, as Senator Corker talked about. These groups
have attempted to use coercion and intimidation to exact
legislative changes, such as the recently passed political
isolation law. And a terrorist threat still exists today in
Libya, a threat which has resulted in attacks on civilians and
government officials and embassies, including in Benghazi.
Ambassador Jones will be our first Ambassador since the
tragic events at Benghazi. As we consider this nomination, it
is important to remember the work of Chris Stevens and all our
diplomatic personnel who died while in service to the United
States. Ambassador Steven and his staff believed strongly that
the value of freedom embraced by both Libyan and the American
people would prevail.
Ambassador Jones, if confirmed, will be taking on the
important foreign policy task of representing the United States
in Libya. She will be continuing the important diplomatic work
begun by Ambassador Stevens. I have every confidence that she
is up to the task to move us forward in Libya and in North
Africa, which has emerged as a region of great importance to
our country, and I am thankful for the time she has already
spent with me discussing these vital issues.
A peaceful and democratic Libya is important for regional
stability. It is important for the interests of the United
States. It is no secret that the Qadafi regime created lasting
damage in Libya or that militant groups have attempted to take
advantage of a government and country that is still in
transition. Ambassador Jones will need to work with the Libyan
Government to enhance security and the rule of law, and she
will have the important work of balancing access with security
at our embassies and consulates. I know she is going to do that
well, and through our discussions I know she is mindful of this
important job. She has a keen understanding of the
responsibility being given to her by the President if
confirmed.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to
introduce Ambassador Jones. The President has wisely chosen an
individual of great experience, expertise, and commitment, and
I look forward to supporting such a well-qualified candidate.
Thank you again.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Udall. Thank you for all
those insights.
Senator Udall. And I will excuse myself here, but I am sure
that she will do very well without me.
The Chairman. With that, we are happy to invite Ambassador
Jones first to give her testimony. Your full statement, both
for Ambassador Jones and Knight, will be included in the
record, without objection. And we ask you to summarize it for
the purposes of being able to have a discussion, and we invite
you, if you wish, to introduce any of your family members that
may be here with you. We recognize that service abroad on
behalf of the country also is a sacrifice of family, and we
appreciate their willingness to engage in that as well.
Ambassador Jones.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEBORAH KAY JONES, OF NEW MEXICO, TO BE THE
AMBASSADOR TO LIBYA
Ambassador Jones. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Corker, who has just walked out, and members of the
committee, I am grateful and I thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today, and a special thank you to the
honorable Senator from my home State of New Mexico, Senator Tom
Udall, for introducing me to this venerable committee.
I am grateful to the President and the Secretary for their
confidence and their trust in nominating me to serve as
Ambassador to Libya.
Finally, I would like to thank my family for their support
and their understanding, and especially my lovely daughters,
Ana and Isabella Olson, who are with me today. Ana and Izzy
have always been good troopers and great sports as they have
accompanied their parents overseas or otherwise accepted the
sacrifices that our commitment to serve has meant for them.
They have also kept us very honest along the way, I can assure
you, and I am so proud of them. They are great patriots.
Two years on, the euphoria that accompanied the uprising of
the Libyan people and the fall of Colonel Qadafi and his brutal
dictatorship has been replaced by a sober recognition of the
enormity and the depth of the challenges facing Libya's leaders
and its people. As we have witnessed throughout the region,
democratic transitions are notoriously difficult. Political
progress is organic, not linear. Uprisings can be ignited and
fueled by electrons, but we know from our own, often turbulent,
past that nations are built on the brick and mortar of
sometimes painful compromise and reconciliation through the
difficult spadework of political dialogue.
Libya does enjoy several advantages compared to other Arab
States or nations like Chad who have recently been affected by
any kind of dramatic political transition, including a
relatively small population and significant oil wealth.
However, we should never estimate the effects that more than
four decades of Colonel Qadafi's rule had on the country and
society.
Qadafi deliberately dismantled the country's institutions,
blocked the emergence of civil society organizations, and
quashed any independent thought or initiative. He relied on a
network of corruption that effectively created a vacuum from
which Libya's brave new leaders must build democratic
institutions, consolidate control over militias, some clearly
hijacked by those whose purposes have nothing to do whatsoever
with the well-being of the Libyan people, and ensure that all
Libyans are represented and respected in the new government,
while dispensing with the country's wealth fairly and
transparently.
The good news is, despite these difficult challenges, there
are courageous and determined Libyans, including many who have
given up comfortable lives abroad to return to rebuild their
nation, and they have achieved some notable successes: a
reconstituted government that pays salaries and provides
essential goods and services; the July elections, as you
mentioned, Senator, for the General National Council, which
were remarkably successful and elevated technocrats over
idealogues, forming Libya's first democratic institution in
over four decades; and Libya's oil production, which is
important to the stability of world oil prices, which has
reached preconflict levels, relying largely on the efforts of
Libyan nationals.
The inherent optimism of Libyan patriots has fueled these
developments, which we saw on display when thousands of Libyans
peacefully celebrated the second anniversary of their
revolution on February 17 this year.
Having said that, very serious challenges remain, first and
foremost the need for Libya's central governing authority to
strengthen its capacity to assert sovereign monopoly over
security throughout the country and along its vast and porous
borders. Flows of loose weapons, including MANPADs, from Libyan
territory into conflict zones throughout the broader region
must be stanched. The disarming, demobilizing, and integration
of the revolutionary brigades and militias whose efforts were
so critical to the defeat of Qadafi's dictatorship is now
essential for establishing a national, cohesive security
apparatus with clear lines of command and control, which will
in turn enable the defeat of volatile and deadly rogue militias
and prevent a repeat of the tragedy in Benghazi, where
Ambassador Stevens and three other of our finest public
servants were senselessly and brutally killed. As the President
has committed, the perpetrators must be brought to justice, and
I will work closely with the Libyan Government to see that
justice is realized.
Libya must also consolidate its fledgling democratic
foundations. Ultimately, lasting security and domestic
stability will emerge from an inclusive constitutional process
that delineates clear lines of authority, offers protection to
all Libyans, and a reformed judicial system capable of
garnering public confidence and administering a comprehensive
national transitional justice strategy to deal with past
Qadafi-era abuses and current criminality.
The strategic patience that accompanies institution-
building, however, must also accommodate the urgent
requirements to fill a security vacuum that otherwise will be
exploited by invasive, foreign elements, including al-Qaeda's
affiliates, whose efforts to establish a safe haven must be
denied. In short, Libya's national garden requires careful
tending during this fragile period.
We have proposed a modest but important package of
technical and other assistance for Libya during this tenuous
transitional time and it is fair for the American people to ask
why, at a time of our own fiscal restraint and given Libya's
relative wealth. But it remains in our strong national interest
to fund a limited number of activities of immediate concern to
Libyan security and larger regional security and to lay the
proper foundations for Libya's transition to a democratic
state.
Libya's leaders have asserted their willingness to pay
their own way and indeed they are tapping their petroleum
revenues and assets of the previous regime. As the Libyan
Government evolves and increases its capacity and gains
experience, for example, with steps needed to procure and
contract, the need for United States and other external funding
will drop away.
Implementing these programs now, however, gives us the best
opportunity to support and strengthen a Libyan Government that
is fragile, but that can be a long-term partner of the United
States and a stable actor in the region. Among these U.S.-
funded activities are programs aimed at preventing weapons
proliferation, providing advice on transitional governance
issues of immediate concern, such as border security, rule of
law, human rights, and promoting a vibrant civil society. This
seed money will pay substantial dividends if it is wisely
husbanded.
It is in our national interest, both strategic and
ideological, as well as Libya's, to see it fulfill its
potential as a stable and prosperous democracy with a fully
developed and active civil society and the full integration and
participation of all elements of Libyan society and geographic
areas, with respect for human rights and international norms.
Historic rivalries between traditional centers of culture
and governance can produce a healthy competitive, yet
conjoined, national dynamism and create synergies of national
opportunity for Libya. The development of its full national
capacity and sovereignty will enhance our own security and
economic well-being through regional security cooperation, the
steady production of hydrocarbons essential to continued global
economic growth and trade, and increased opportunities for
United States businesses to partner in Libya's renewal and
development. A successful democratic transition in Libya,
challenges notwithstanding, and they are significant, can be an
engine for growth supporting the transitions taking place in
neighboring Tunisia and Egypt.
There does remain an extraordinary reservoir of good will
for the United States in Libya, given our support of the
toppling of Qadafi and our engagement following the restoration
of diplomatic relations going back to Ambassador Gene Cretz'
arrival in 2008. I have been very moved and touched by the
emails I received from private Libyan citizens following the
White House announcement of my nomination expressing their deep
sorrow over the heinous, despicable attack on Ambassador
Stevens and our fallen colleagues and assuring me of their
hospitality and desire to welcome and cooperate with the new
United States Ambassador.
I am well aware of the unique challenges I will face in the
current environment and if confirmed I am committed to working
closely with this Congress in carrying on the excellent work of
both Gene Cretz and Chris Stevens and their teams in forging
strong ties between our governments and people, students, and
business communities, and women and minorities, leveraging our
instruments of national power and all the connections and the
tools at my disposal in coordination with our allies and like-
minded powers who do share our interest in seeing a stable and
prosperous Libya.
Our engagement with Libya originates long before the 2011
revolution and includes historic cooperation during World War
II and the cold war, as well as our cooperative efforts in
developing Libya's oil and gas sector since 1959.
Last, but not least, I am deeply conscious of the
responsibility I would have as chief of mission for the safety
and security of the approximately 4,000 Americans residing in
Libya and for that of those individuals attached to our mission
there, as we strive to balance safety considerations with a
deep desire to engage and do the work of the American people,
as expressed by Members of this Congress and this
administration. In this regard, I would like to express my deep
gratitude to my colleagues in Diplomatic Security and to our
United States Marine Corps, other Armed Forces members, and
other U.S. agency colleagues whose heroic efforts make it
possible for us to continue our daily work there.
Honorable members of this committee, it has been my
privilege and great honor to have spent 31 years in the service
of my country, working with nine administrations, to champion
America's interests and values and expand the reach of freedom
through the conduct of diplomacy with nations at war and at
peace, most in some sort of political transition, some in
poverty, and others enjoying great wealth. Should you choose to
confirm me, it will be my honor and my sworn duty to lead our
mission in Libya as we meet the challenges of establishing and
consolidating the foundations of a strong, prosperous, and
democratic Libya, allied with the United States in a mutually
beneficial relationship.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Jones follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Deborah K. Jones
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, and members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and a special
thank you to the honorable Senator from my home State of New Mexico,
Senator Tom Udall, for introducing me to this venerable committee. I am
grateful to the President and the Secretary for their confidence and
trust in nominating me to serve as Ambassador to Libya. Finally, I
would like to thank my family for their support and understanding, and
especially my lovely daughters, Ana and Isabella Olson, who are with me
today; Ana and Izzy have always been good troopers and great sports as
they've accompanied their parents overseas or otherwise accepted the
sacrifices our commitment to serve has meant for them. They've also
kept us honest along the way. I am so proud of them.
Two years on, the euphoria that accompanied the uprising of the
Libyan people and the fall of Qadhafi and his brutal dictatorship has
been replaced by a sober recognition of the enormity and depth of the
challenges facing Libya's leaders and its people.
As we have witnessed throughout the region, democratic transitions
are notoriously difficult, and political progress is organic, not
linear. Uprisings can be ignited and fueled by electrons, but we know
from our own, often turbulent, history that nations are built on the
brick and mortar of sometimes painful compromise and reconciliation.
Libya does enjoy several advantages compared to other Arab States
recently affected by dramatic political transition, including a
relatively small population and significant oil wealth. However, we
should not underestimate the effects that more than four decades of
Colonel Qadhafi's rule had on the country and society. Colonel Qadhafi
deliberately dismantled the country's institutions, blocked the
emergence of civil society organizations, and quashed any independent
thought or initiative. He relied on a network of corruption that
effectively created a vacuum from which Libya's brave new leaders must
build democratic institutions, consolidate control over militias (some
clearly hijacked by those whose purposes have nothing to do with the
well-being of the Libyan people), ensure that all Libyans are
represented and respected in the new government, and dispense with the
country's wealth fairly and transparently.
The good news is that, despite these difficult challenges,
courageous and determined Libyans, including many who've given up
comfortable lives abroad to return to rebuild their nation, have
achieved notable successes: a reconstituted government is paying
salaries and providing essential goods and services to the Libyan
people; last July's elections for the General National Council were
remarkably successful and have elevated technocrats over ideologues,
forming Libya's first democratic institution in over four decades; and
Libya's oil production--important to the stability of world oil
prices--has reached preconflict levels, relying largely on the efforts
of Libyan nationals. The inherent optimism of Libyan patriots has
fueled these developments, which we saw on display when thousands of
Libyans peacefully celebrated the second anniversary of their
revolution on February 17 this year.
That said, very serious challenges remain, first and foremost the
need for Libya's central governing authority to strengthen its capacity
to assert sovereign monopoly over security throughout the country and
along its vast and porous borders and to consolidate its democratic
foundations. Flows of loose weapons, including MANPADS, from Libyan
territory into conflict zones throughout the broader region must be
staunched. The disarming, demobilizing and integration of the
revolutionary brigades and militias whose efforts were so critical to
the defeat of Qadhafi's dictatorship is essential for establishing a
national, cohesive security apparatus with clear lines of ``command and
control.'' This will in turn enable the defeat of volatile and deadly
rogue militias, and prevent a repeat of the tragedy in Benghazi, where
Ambassador Stevens and three other of our finest public servants were
senselessly killed; as the President has committed, the perpetrators
must be brought to justice, and if confirmed, I will work closely with
the Libyan Government to see that justice realized.
Ultimately, lasting security and domestic stability will emerge
from an inclusive constitutional process that delineates clear lines of
authority and offers protection to all Libyans, and a reformed judicial
system capable of garnering public confidence and administering a
comprehensive national transitional justice strategy to deal with past
Qadhafi-era abuses and current criminality. The strategic patience that
accompanies institution-building, however, must also accommodate the
urgent requirements to fill a security vacuum that otherwise will be
exploited by invasive, foreign elements, including al-Qaeda's
affiliates, whose efforts to establish a safe haven must be denied. In
short, Libya's national garden requires careful tending during this
fragile period.
We have proposed a modest but important package of technical and
other assistance for Libya during this tenuous transitional period. It
is fair for the American people to ask why, at a time of our own fiscal
restraint and given Libya's relative wealth. It remains in our strong
interest to fund a limited number of activities of immediate concern to
Libyan security and larger regional security and to lay the proper
foundations for Libya's transition to a democratic state. Libya's
leaders have asserted their willingness to pay their own way, and
indeed they are tapping their petroleum revenues and assets of the
previous regime. As the Libyan Government evolves and increases its
capacity and gains experience, for example, with the steps needed to
procure and contract, the need for U.S. and other external funding will
drop away. Implementing these programs now gives us the best
opportunity to help support and strengthen a Libyan Government that can
be a long-term partner of the United States and a stable actor in the
region. Among these U.S.-funded activities are programs aimed at
preventing weapons proliferation; providing advice on transitional
governance issues of immediate concern such as border security, rule of
law, and human rights, and promoting a vibrant civil society. This seed
money will pay substantial dividends if wisely husbanded.
It is in our national interest, both strategic and ideological, as
well as Libya's, to see it fulfill its potential as a stable and
prosperous democracy, with a fully developed and active civil society
and the full integration and participation of all elements of Libyan
society and geographic areas, with respect for human rights and
international norms. Historic rivalries between traditional centers of
culture and governance can produce a healthy competitive yet conjoined
national dynamism and create synergies of national opportunity. Libya's
development of its full national capacity and sovereignty will enhance
our own security and economic well-being through regional security
cooperation, the steady production of hydrocarbons essential to
continued global economic growth and trade, and increased opportunities
for U.S. businesses to partner in Libya's renewal and development. A
successful democratic transition in Libya, challenges notwithstanding,
can be an engine for growth supporting transitions taking place in
neighboring Tunisia and Egypt.
There remains an extraordinary reservoir of good will for the U.S.
in Libya given our support for the toppling of Qadhafi and our
engagement following the restoration of diplomatic relations, going
back to Ambassador Cretz's arrival in 2008. I have been touched by the
e-mails I received from private Libyan citizens following the White
House announcement of my nomination, expressing their deep sorrow over
the heinous attack on Ambassador Stevens and our fallen colleagues and
assuring me of their hospitality and desire to welcome and cooperate
with a new U.S. ambassador. I am well aware of the unique challenges I
will face in the current environment. If confirmed, I am committed to
working closely with this Congress in carrying on the excellent work of
both Gene and Chris and their teams in forging strong ties between our
governments and people, students and business communities, women and
minorities, leveraging our instruments of national power, and all the
connections and tools at my disposal, in coordination with our allies
and like-minded powers, who share our interest in seeing a stable and
prosperous Libya. American's engagement with Libya originates long
before the 2011 revolution, and includes, for example, our historic
cooperation during World War II and the cold war, as well as our
cooperative efforts in developing their oil and gas sector since 1959.
Last but not least, I am deeply conscious of the responsibility I
have as Chief of Mission for the safety and security of the
approximately 4,000 Americans residing in Libya, and for that of those
individuals attached to our mission there, as we strive to balance
safety considerations with a deep desire to engage and do the work of
the American people, as expressed by Members of this Congress and this
administration. In this regard, I would like to express my deep
gratitude to my colleagues in Diplomatic Security, and to our U.S.
Marine Corps, other armed forces members and other U.S. Government
agency colleagues whose heroic efforts make it possible for us to
continue our work there.
Honorable members of this committee, it has been my privilege and
great honor to have spent 31 years in the service of my country,
working with nine administrations, to champion America's interests and
values and expand the reach of freedom through the conduct of diplomacy
with nations at war and at peace, most in some sort of political
transition, some in poverty and others enjoying great wealth. Should
you choose to confirm me, it will be my honor and my sworn duty to lead
our mission in Libya as we meet the challenges of establishing and
consolidating the foundations of a strong, prosperous, and democratic
Libya allied with the United States in a mutually beneficial
relationship.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ambassador Knight.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES KNIGHT, OF ALABAMA, TO BE THE
AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF CHAD
Ambassador Knight. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member Corker, and members of the committee, I am
deeply honored to appear today as the President's nominee to be
the next Ambassador of the United States of America to the
Republic of Chad. I thank President Obama and Secretary Kerry
for the confidence and trust they have shown by nominating me
for this position. If confirmed, I will work with you all to
best represent the interests and values of the American people
to the Government and people of Chad at a moment when Chad is
becoming a stronger partner for the United States and its
allies in a critical region.
I am pleased that my wife, Dr. Amelia Bell Knight, has
joined me today. Amelia has been my closest partner and
strongest supporter throughout my Foreign Service career.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Chad is a vast
country, positioned at one of the most important crossroads of
Africa. For many centuries the peoples and cultures of sub-
Saharan Africa and the Middle East have shared Chad's richly
diverse environment. These differing traditions have bequeathed
to Chad a unique culture, but one which has faced great tension
and turbulence since its independence in 1960.
Chad has been regularly plagued by civil war and has
suffered periodic struggles with Libya, Sudan, and other
neighboring countries. Today Chad is emerging from this legacy
of internal turmoil and regional conflict. Its rapprochement
with Sudan in 2010 has supported Chad's internal stability and
the stability of the region as a whole. Chad now plays a
positive role in the region, contributing to regional mediation
and peacekeeping efforts.
Notably, Chad has been a key partner in the international
community's efforts to halt extremism in Mali, participating in
and sustaining heavy casualties in the international military
intervention in Mali. Chad intends to maintain troops there as
a key member of an eventual United States peacekeeping
operation. In addition, Chad's leadership in the Economic
Community of Central African States, the Community of Saharan
and Sahelian States, and the Central African Forest Commission
advances the hope that we all share for the future of a more
prosperous and stable Sahel and Central Africa.
However, ongoing instability and conflict in bordering
countries, such as we are now seeing in Chad's southern
neighbor, the Central African Republic, threatens the progress
Chad has recently enjoyed. Chadian President Deby has led
regional negotiations to achieve a broad-based and transparent
transition government in the Central African Republic and Chad
has contributed troops to the Central African Multinational
Force Peacekeeping Mission there.
Chad currently hosts some 375,000 refugees from Sudan and
the Central African Republic and new arrivals continue to cross
the border due to ongoing conflict. The Government of Chad
maintains a cooperative relationship with the humanitarian
community, thereby ensuring life-saving assistance is provided
to affected populations.
Chad is also subject to the growing regional threat of
wildlife trafficking, whereby increasingly armed poachers cross
Central African borders to attack a threatened elephant
population. This tragedy also impacts the economic livelihoods
of local communities, as well as security and the rule of law.
In addition to regional threats, Chad faces great domestic
challenges. International investment in Chad is severely
constrained by its geographical isolation, limited
infrastructure, lack of appropriately skilled workers, high
import duties, and widespread corruption. In particular, the
Government of Chad must improve its management of its petroleum
resources. Chad's oil reserves are in decline, adding urgency
to its need to overcome its persistent underdevelopment. While
the Government of Chad has expressed its commitment to
strengthening human rights protections, its capacity to
implement that commitment must grow.
The people of Chad suffer from great poverty, illiteracy,
disease, and high infant mortality. Its history of
authoritarian government, punctuated by coups and civil war,
complicate the consolidation of democracy, the building of
Chad's capacity for good governance, and the fulfillment of
Chad's economic potential.
Mr. Chairman, honorable members of the committee, as you
know, I have worked in the Sahel and elsewhere to address these
kinds of issues for many years. In Iraq, in my current
assignment, I have had responsibility for refugees, development
assistance, and police reform. In Benin, as a master I
successfully oversaw the completion of the country's Millennium
Challenge Corporation compact, which addressed challenges
similar to those confronting Chad today. In Angola, I helped
Africa's second-largest oil producer and its partners improve
management of its petroleum resources and revenue. Before
entering the Foreign Service, I worked as a development
specialist in Niger in an area similar to northern Chad in many
ways.
If confirmed, I look forward to energetically addressing
the strategic goals of the United States in a wider and fuller
partnership with the government and people of Chad. In
particular, if confirmed I will support the Government of
Chad's efforts to counter the growing threats to regional
security and to maintain and widen its regional engagements. If
confirmed, I will encourage and support the Government of
Chad's pursuit of democratic reform, its capacity and will to
implement better governance, and its respect for human rights.
I will support and assist the Government of Chad and the
international community to assure sound use of humanitarian
assistance and improved capacity in the area of disaster
management.
If confirmed, my highest priorities as the Ambassador of
the United States will be to ensure the safety and welfare of
all Americans in Chad and the advancement of United States
interests.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, please accept my
thanks for this opportunity to appear before you today. I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Knight follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. James Knight
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, and members of the committee,
I am deeply honored to appear today as the President's nominee to be
the next Ambassador of the United States of America to the Republic of
Chad. I thank President Obama and Secretary Kerry for the confidence
and trust they have shown by nominating me for this position. If
confirmed, I will work with you all to best represent the interests and
values of the American people to the government and people of Chad, at
a moment when Chad is becoming a stronger partner for the United States
and its allies in a critical region.
I am pleased that my wife, Dr. Amelia Bell Knight, has joined me
today. Amelia has been my closest partner and strongest supporter
throughout my Foreign Service career.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Chad is a vast country
positioned at one of the most important crossroads of Africa. For many
centuries the peoples and cultures of sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle
East have shared Chad's richly diverse environment. These differing
traditions have bequeathed to Chad a unique culture, but one which has
faced great tension and turbulence since its independence in 1960. Chad
has been regularly plagued by civil war, and has suffered periodic
struggles with Libya, Sudan, and other neighboring countries.
Today Chad is emerging from this legacy of internal turmoil and
regional conflict. Its rapprochement with Sudan in 2010 has supported
Chad's internal stability and the stability of the region as a whole.
Chad now plays a positive role in the region, contributing to regional
mediation and peacekeeping efforts. Notably, Chad has been a key
partner in the international community's efforts to halt extremism in
Mali, participating in--and sustaining casualties in--the international
military intervention in Mali. Chad intends to maintain troops there as
a key member of an eventual United Nations peacekeeping operation. In
addition, Chad's leadership in the Economic Community of Central
African States (ECCAS), the Central African Forest Commission
(COMIFAC), and the Community of Sahelian States (CEN-SAD) advances the
hope we all share for the future of a more prosperous and stable Sahel
and central Africa.
However, ongoing instability and conflict in bordering countries,
such as we are now seeing in Chad's southern neighbor, the Central
African Republic (CAR), threatens the progress Chad has recently
enjoyed. Chadian President Deby has led regional negotiations to
achieve a broad-based and transparent transition government in the CAR,
and Chad has contributed troops to the regional FOMAC peacekeeping
mission there. Chad currently hosts some 373,000 refugees from Sudan
and the Central African Republic, and new arrivals continue to cross
the border due to ongoing conflict. The Government of Chad maintains a
cooperative relationship with the humanitarian community ensuring
lifesaving assistance is provided to affected populations. Chad is also
subject to the growing regional threat of wildlife trafficking, whereby
increasingly armed poachers cross central African borders to kill a
threatened elephant population, which in and of itself is a tragedy
that also impacts the economic livelihoods of local communities as well
as security and rule of law.
In addition to regional threats, Chad faces great domestic
challenges. International investment in Chad is severely constrained by
its geographic isolation, limited infrastructure, lack of appropriately
skilled workers, high import duties, and widespread corruption. In
particular, the Government of Chad must improve its management of its
petroleum resources. Chad's oil reserves are in decline, adding urgency
to its need to overcome its persistent underdevelopment. While the
Government of Chad has expressed its commitment to strengthening human
rights protections, its capacity to implement that commitment must
grow. The people of Chad suffer from great poverty, illiteracy,
disease, and high infant mortality. Its history of authoritarian
government, punctuated by coups and civil war, complicate the
consolidation of democracy, the building of Chad's capacity for good
governance, and the fulfillment of Chad's economic potential.
Mr. Chairman, honorable members of the committee, as you know I
have worked in the Sahel and elsewhere to address these kinds of issues
over many years. In Iraq, in my current assignment, I have had
responsibility for refugees, development assistance, and police reform.
In Benin, as Ambassador, I successfully oversaw the completion of the
country's Millennium Challenge Corporation Compact, which addressed
challenges similar to those confronting Chad today. In Angola, I helped
Africa's second-largest oil exporter and its partners improve
management of its petroleum resources and revenue. Before entering the
Foreign Service, I worked as a development specialist in Niger, in an
area similar to northern Chad in many ways. If confirmed, I look
forward to energetically addressing the strategic goals of the United
States in a wider and fuller partnership with the government and people
of Chad. In particular, I will support the Government of Chad's efforts
to counter the growing threats to regional security and to maintain and
widen its regional engagement. I will encourage and support the
Government of Chad's pursuit of democratic reform, its capacity and
will to implement better governance, and its respect for human rights.
I will support and assist the Government of Chad and the international
community to assure sound use of humanitarian assistance and improved
capacity in the area of disaster management. If confirmed, my highest
priorities as the Ambassador of the United States will be to ensure the
safety and welfare of all Americans in Chad and the advancement of U.S.
interests.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, please accept my thanks
for this opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to your
questions.
The Chairman. Well, thank you both for your testimonies.
Let me begin with Ambassador Jones. It seems that the
Defense Minister of Libya announced his resignation this
morning, and the situation in Libya appears to have hit a
challenging point. Over the weekend, gunmen intimidated the
Parliament into passing a political isolation law to ban anyone
who served in Qadafi's government, including many of the
professional technocrats in Libya that will be needed to
succeed in the future. It sets a dangerous precedent as these
militias continue to lay siege to Libyan ministries.
What do the events of the last few days portend for Libya's
future, and how do we help secure a democracy if it is being
held hostage by armed militias outside of Parliaments? And what
impact do we think the political isolation law will have on
Libya's democratic development?
Ambassador Jones. I think, Senator, you are reading my mind
this morning as I listened to the news over the last several
days. It is definitely a challenge. But I believe again, if
confirmed, one of the reasons I believe we need to get an
ambassador out there is to provide the support to the
government that will help it to enhance its control over these
militias.
The Libyan people deserve far better than this. They
struggled bravely to throw off 40 years of intimidation, not--I
do not believe in exchange for another government of
intimidation or intimidation by armed groups or militias. So
again, working on the three--you have addressed in your comment
there the three stools--the three legs of the stool that are
going to be critical to Libya's development, which is again:
security, strengthening Libya's security through supporting its
government, and training of a professional military and
security regime, which we have already started to do in many
ways, disarming the militias, of course, but also engaging with
them on governance and getting them--to work with them, to look
at the impact of these kinds of laws, this isolation law, and
the impact that would have on their unity in the future as a
government; and civil society, which is the critical part of
Libya. The role that civil society has played, the role of
women already has been significant. The Libyan people
themselves are going to have to make their voices heard and we
will help them with that in ensuring that we do not go back to
a situation of intimidation.
But again, it is one of the reasons I feel an urgency to
get on the ground, to have an Ambassador there who can actually
guide our efforts on this side of the ocean, as well as guiding
and helping the Libyans to achieve some of the objectives that
they want to strengthen that security and to disarm the
militias.
The Chairman. You mentioned civil society as part of the
equation. How do you intend, in the security environment that
you will be in, to reach out to civil society inside of Libya
as part of fostering a greater, more pluralistic participation
by its society?
Ambassador Jones. Well, that is a good question. That is
where I am going to have to look at the balance every single
day of this. You know, an ambassador does not wake up without
considering security. That just goes part and parcel with the
job. You know, when I was the Ambassador in Kuwait, even though
it was a completely different or a very different situation, I
did not wake up one morning without thinking what possibly
could happen to us that day. In fact, in Kuwait of all places,
that was the place where I cancelled the Marine Ball the day of
the ball. Now, you have to know what that means in Kuwait,
because of course the invasion of Iraq--the liberation of
Kuwait was the largest Marine deployment since World War II. So
it is a big event for us there.
But a combination of factors, with intelligence and some
other anomalies, led me the day of the ball, on a Friday, to
cancel the ball and to wake up, to rouse the Emir's brother in
fact, who was the head of their security who protected the
Embassy, and ask him to swap out all of his guards.
I take this very seriously, our security. That said, that
said, I think there are a number of ways that we can connect.
We have a package--the situation is changing all the time. It
is very unstable. We all know that. It is something we look at
every day. We are working close--we have a package, though, for
travel that allows us to get out, not as much as we might like.
But there are also, fortunately, other ways of connecting with
people, whether it is through media, through Skype, through
WhatsUp, through all kinds of connections within Libya, to have
us be able to talk even while we might not be as physically
present the way we might like in other environments.
But again, sir, until I get out on the ground and see what
that is, first thing I do with every mission and I have done in
the past is to do a terrain walk with my security officer. I
did it in Kuwait, I did it in Istanbul when I was principal
officer. I expect to do that in Tripoli as well. I will get out
and we will walk the walk. We will see what we can do. We will
talk about how we can extend--talk about meeting people in
other locations. People can travel out, too. We can take
advantage of trips outside of Libya. We can take advantage of
other locations inside.
I am just going to have to be creative, and we will look at
that as we go, sir.
The Chairman. To both of you: Chad and Libya share a porous
border and a rough neighborhood by any definition. What do you
see as some of the key regional challenges, and how could
chiefs of mission such as yourselves work together to improve
U.S. ability to respond and help shape development in the
region?
Ambassador Knight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is clear
that us being here together today, myself and Ambassador Jones,
speaks to the importance of a shared approach to regional
threats in the area that we will both be--in which we will both
be working if confirmed.
The importance of this, of coordination, is I think
absolutely key because, as you know, there has been a historic
division in the State Department between the Maghreb in the
northern part of Africa and the rest. That is now being
addressed specifically by the creation of a Sahel-Maghreb
working group at the Secretary's level in the State Department.
I think that is a good first step in this direction.
It is clear that we are also going to have to maintain
personal communication and personal coordination of our efforts
to address the threats as they emerge along our shared border.
Again, it is also important to recognize that it is not simply
along the Libyan-Chadian border where the threats arise, but
there is a regional dimension to this which extends from
Senegal all the way to the other side of Sudan.
If confirmed, I look forward to working with all my
colleagues in this effort to address the continuing and
continuingly worrisome threats of terrorism in this area.
Ambassador Jones. Senator, I would also--I would second
everything that Jim has said. I would also say that the problem
has gone even beyond the Sahel. We know that the flow of
weapons from Libya is going, reaching as far as Syria and other
places of interest to us, in Gaza, that matter in a very
challenging security environment.
I think more than ever we recognize that working with these
countries is not a bilateral issue; it is a global issue. I
intend to not only draw on my colleagues around all of our
resources at State, Defense Department, but also with other
countries who have assets and interests in the region who are
like-minded, who can support our efforts to disarm, which we
have already been working on with the Libyans, to dismantle
MANPADs, to locate and destroy chemical weapons stores and a
lot of the material and the things that have been left over
from, first of all, Qadafi's collection of weapons over the
years, of ordnance and other things, but also of the results of
their own civil war, of their own uprisings there.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Corker.
Senator Corker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you both for your testimony and again, for the
families, for being here.
I guess, Ambassador Jones, that the first question I would
ask is: What have you done to cause people to send you to
Libya? [Laughter.] I know that we talked a little bit about
that yesterday in my office.
My serious question is about security. And while we talked
a little bit about the safety issue and I know by my own travel
through there in October, right after the unfortunate events in
Benghazi--you stated the importance of security. Just for the
record, if you would just one more time emphasize that, I would
appreciate it.
Ambassador Jones. That is security in Libya and how we
will----
Senator Corker. For your personnel at the Embassy.
Ambassador Jones. For my personnel? Absolutely, sir. Let me
say that I think our daughters are asking what they did to us
to have--their dad is in Islamabad and I am going out to
Tripoli. I think they are wondering what they did to cause
that. But it is really just to pay for their college, sir.
[Laughter.]
What I would say, though, on security--and again this is
something that is--well, as we know, it is deadly serious for
us, how do we manage security in the building and without. I
would like to say that over the course of my career--and even
though I know my first assignment no one mentions because it
sounds cushy. It was Buenos Aires. It happened also to be
during the Falklands-Malvinas war and right after our--recently
after our Embassy in Tripoli--``Tripoli''; our Embassy in
Teheran had been overrun, which changed the nature of
diplomatic practice and made people worry. If we were not safe
any more under the Vienna Convention in our embassies, how were
we going to make this work?
I have throughout my career and certainly in later years
and certainly as Ambassador and principal officer always had a
direct connection and picked up the phone with Washington,
worked very closely with security at post, worked very closely
with DS and with other agencies at post who have access to
intelligence and other assets. It is the role of the
Ambassador. The Ambassador is the principal security officer at
post and it is the Ambassador who has to decide whether to
allow people to travel here or there, whether to ask for
additional assets, whether to insist on additional assets. And
if you do not get the answers you need, you pick up the phone
and you speak to the people who are responsible for that, sir.
That is what I intend to do. That is what I have always
done. There are many ways to approach that and to continue to
press that.
We do know that in the past, yes, we had----
Senator Corker. I got it, I got it. Thank you.
We were involved in Libya and certainly have a
responsibility there because of that involvement. But it would
appear to me--and I think I would love to hear your comments--
that we have underestimated the challenges there. I have met
with government officials there and it is really not a
government. I mean, when you look at the responsibilities that
they have and you look at the militias throughout the country,
it is almost remarkable that the country's functioning.
Do you think we have underestimated the challenges there?
Ambassador Jones. Senator, until I get out on the ground--
if there is one thing I have learned----
Senator Corker. Based on the briefings that you have had?
Ambassador Jones. Based on briefings, I do not know that we
underestimated. I think there has been frustration. I certainly
know that we have had a setback in these last 8, 9 months
without having an ambassador on the ground. It has really set
us back in our efforts to support the government there.
You know, beyond that, could I say, did we underestimate? I
think that again progress after these kinds of transitions, it
is unpredictable, it is organic, it is not linear, it is not
formulaic. I think we just have to double our efforts because
what I do know is that if we are not there making the effort we
most certainly will lose out. We have never won a battle we
have not shown up for.
Senator Corker. So I know again that you want to get on the
ground. You want to see how things are, and they are changing
daily. So your briefings a few weeks ago regarding Libya today
would be very different, I think. But based on what you know
today, what is it--typically, when an ambassador comes in in
the beginning, where you really lay the groundwork for what you
are going to do. Over the first 6 months you are there, what
are your goals?
Ambassador Jones. Obviously, I think principal goal is to
address the security vacuum, to address the capacity vacuum of
the government in terms of its security. Again, how you
approach that comes from a different--a number of different
areas, arenas. It is not purely training and military training
or security training or intelligence, although all of those
things are hugely important.
But I think what we have also seen in the aftermath of
Benghazi was the importance of civil society as well and the
importance of the Libyan people themselves making their voices
heard and getting involved in supporting and holding to what
they have fought so hard to gain, which is this democratic
transition. I think they have more skin in this game than
anyone else and they know that.
Senator Corker. What happens in that transition if we end
up, especially with the law that passed on Sunday and some of
the resignations that are taking place and others that are
being pursued--what happens to our relationship if we end up
with militiamen basically in these Cabinet posts?
Ambassador Jones. Sir----
Senator Corker. Or I might say when we end up with
militiamen in the Cabinet posts.
Ambassador Jones. Well, I am not going to accept that
premise quite yet, Senator. But I will say that we have to be
prepared to engage with anyone who is committed to a democratic
transition in Libya through peaceful means.
Senator Corker. What if it becomes an Islamic state?
Ambassador Jones. Again, I think we have to be--you know,
people talked about the Muslim Brotherhood there. We have to be
looking at many layers there, whether cutting off support for
extremist groups, for extremist ideologies, however that
support, whatever form that support may take. We also at the
same time need to be engaging with those groups who have again
eschewed violence, who are committed to a democratic Libya that
is representative.
Until I get on the ground, until I can do more there, I
just am not prepared to rule it out--to rule anything in or
rule anything out at this stage. I am not saying it is simple.
It is not.
Senator Corker. As you are in the briefings that you are
having--and I know you have played an important role at the
State Department recently--how do you think the issues that we
are dealing with in Libya right now--where we were involved,
but not overly involved. We have ended up being where we are in
Libya today because of that. And we have Syria, which is
developing and has some similar characteristics, not all.
How do you think that our experiences in Libya are shaping
our responses as it relates to Syria?
Ambassador Jones. I would not be in a position to--I have
not been involved with the policymaking in Syria. I think
clearly there are many challenges out there. I think all of
these challenges are indicative of the transitions. People want
change. I think if there is one lesson we have learned, it is
that authoritarian and autocratic governments do not develop
civil society that can sustain itself in the immediate
aftermath of change, and that is where we need to be prepared
to aid and strengthen and step in and support.
If anything, it gets back--I was reading the other day--I
tell people there are three books I am recommending to people
before I go to Libya. One is--I am giving them a pitch; I am
not getting royalties--is Gordon Woods, but he is a Brown
author, ``The American Revolution.'' The second is Machiavelli,
``The Prince''; and the third is ``The Federalist Papers,'' to
look at how the idea of sovereignty emerges from the people and
how people in these places also need to understand that they
are not yielding authority; they are creating their authority
as a nation when they allow--when they vote, when they
participate, and when that is part of their--that is a
manifestation, that national strength is a manifestation of
national will, of the people's will, and that is the lesson the
Libyans and the Syrians and others have to learn and have to
work with. It has taken us a progressive long while as well.
Senator Corker. Thank you.
Ambassador Jones. Thank you.
Senator Corker. Mr. Chairman, I can stop or keep going,
since no one else is here. Why don't you go ahead and then I
will go again.
The Chairman. Go ahead.
Senator Corker. OK. I might move on to Chad for a second.
Thank you very much for your testimony.
What do you see most recently in Mali--I know that Chad has
certainly played a role there. What do you see the threat to
Chad being relative to Mali?
Ambassador Knight. Thank you, Senator. My sense is that--
and I think this is a widely shared view--is that the
Government of Chad sees the regional threats very clearly. The
opportunities that it now enjoys are because since 2010 there
has been a possibility of greater domestic stability in Chad
because the regional threats have subsided.
Because of that, the threat that was posed by the
terrorists and insurgents in Mali were perceived as existential
threats to the Government of Chad as well and they eagerly
pursued the opportunity to address those threats before they
became more immediately looming over the government and people
of Chad.
Again, they have done a superb job there. They have been
the strongest contingent both in terms of numbers and in terms
of proactive engagement with the insurgents and terrorists of
any of the African forces. They have worked very closely and
effectively with the French.
Again, this engagement began with their own strongly driven
desire to participate in this at the earliest possible
opportunity. For that reason, as I am sure you know, they self-
deployed rather than await for the international community to
provide that kind of support.
Senator Corker. How fragile do you see the Government of
Chad being? How fragile?
Ambassador Knight. I do not consider it to be fragile so
much as it lacks the capacity it needs to be effective. As you
now, the President has been in power since the 1990s. He just
recently won a fourth term. The government and people of Chad
appear to be comfortable with the way the government is
emerging toward a more democratic and inclusive approach.
Again, what one sees essentially since the rapprochement with
Sudan in 2010, a progressively greater interest in acquiring
the capacity to govern, acquiring the capacity to support the
urgently required economic development of Chad, and the wider
pursuit of human rights and the respect for democracy across
the board, both in terms of what it does directly as a
government, how civil society is taking a broader role, and
again its openness toward international efforts to help it
achieve that state.
Senator Corker. I get the sense there is some question
about the interagency coordination that is been taking place in
Chad. Do you have any comments regarding that, and the lack
thereof?
Ambassador Knight. No, sir. I have not heard about
significant problems that have in fact impeded any U.S.
Government policies or objectives there within Chad itself. The
larger issue as I understand it and considered to be the most
urgent is the regional effort to make sure that all our efforts
across agencies are coordinated, harmonized, and mutually
beneficial in terms of their pursuit.
My best guess is that the kinds of issues that you may be
referring to are momentary and addressed relatively effectively
by Ambassador Boulware and his team in N'Djamena.
Senator Corker. It is noteworthy that both of you are
actually going to be involved in the countries that you are in,
but obviously regionally both of you are going to be very
important in your positions.
One last question and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
courtesy. There is not a USAID--there is no USAID mission in
Chad at this time. Do you see that changing? Is it important
that it change? any comments there?
Ambassador Knight. Thank you, Senator. There is in fact a
USAID representative, a democracy and governance officer paid
by USAID who is there full-time and is a member of the embassy
staff. He has done a universally well-regarded job in terms of
pursuing the ongoing USAID efforts there.
There has not been a USAID mission in Chad since the
nineties. There has been only this low-level representation.
That decision ultimately resides with USAID and it is a choice
made, not only in terms of their goals and objectives, but also
with the funding that is available. My personal view--and again
I stress, this is my personal view--is that Chad right now
offers the optimal opportunity for what a USAID mission could
provide. It would help shape and empower the Government of Chad
to pursue its goals of better governance. It can help support
the capacity engagement which is necessary to assure that its
economic development proceeds as appropriately as possible and
as quickly as possible, diversify its capacity to participate
in the world economy, and fundamentally improve the management
of its oil resources, which remain the pillar of its economy.
Senator Corker. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you both for your desire to serve in this way.
The Chairman. Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I welcome the witnesses. Ambassador Knight, congratulations
on your many years of service. Ambassador Jones, I thank you
for yours as well. We had a good meeting in my office.
Ambassador Jones, a quick glance of the headlines on Libya
from the past several days, obviously a stark reminder that
Libya's transition to democracy remains rough and incomplete. I
note two headlines from this morning: Reuters, ``Libya Defense
Minister Quits Over Siege of Ministries by Gunmen''; and the
Wall Street Journal, ``Libyans Anticipate Purge After Ban of
Ex-Qadafi Officials.''
Despite the challenges and despite what is happening, I
continue to believe we cannot give in to the temptation that
our support for the democratic aspirations of people in Libya
and elsewhere in the broader Middle East is naive or mistaken.
I do not think we can resign ourselves to the false belief that
the Arab Spring is doomed to be defined by the dark fanaticism
of terrorists. I continue to believe there was and remains a
desire for democracy and freedom that has inspired millions of
people to peaceful action, and Libya's example should remind us
once again that even the worst dictators can be overthrown and
swept into the ash heap of history where they belong.
I am deeply concerned by the Libyan Parliament's vote on
Sunday to adopt a political isolation law and the ongoing siege
of government ministries. The passage of the law exposes on the
one hand the government's inability to deal with the armed
groups, as well as the overall weaknesses of Libya's central
government.
In your assessment, what impact will the political
isolation law have on Libya's transition and the integrity of
Prime Minister Zaidan's Cabinet?
Ambassador Jones. Thank you, Senator. I share your views
that the Libyan people are owed the best we can give them to
help them succeed in their democratic transition.
I also would like to mention, subsequent, Senator Corker,
to your question, I am hearing from our operations center that
it looks like the Libyan Prime Minister may have convinced the
Defense Minister not to resign. Let us hope that that holds
true.
So again, it is an uncertain situation. I believe that the
isolation law is something that I certainly would hope to
address if confirmed, to get out with members and get them to
rethink the application of that law, how it is defined, how
they define many of the conditions. I think that we all know
from our own experience with legislation and dealing with that
as Americans that sometimes much lies in how we apply it and
execute the law, and I am hoping to get out there and be
confirmed and have some influence in that, to let them look at
the future of their country instead of the immediate desire for
revenge. They need to look further than that, and I think the
Libyan people know that.
And I do believe with you, sir, that the majority of the
Libyan people have fought too hard and want too badly to
succeed in a government that is not one of intimidation. They
have had that for 40 years. They need a government of
representation, sir.
Senator McCain. And you would agree that the Libyan people
are largely very appreciative of the United States assistance
in the overthrow of Qadafi? It is not an environment where
there is anti-Americanism. In fact, there is strong pro-
Americanism.
Ambassador Jones. Absolutely, sir. Prior to your arrival I
mentioned in my statement that I had in fact received a number
of e-mails from private Libyans once the White House announced
my candidacy, welcoming me to Libya and offering their hope for
the relationship to continue strongly.
We have lost a lot of time, sir. We need to get going on
this.
Senator McCain. Well, that is what I was going to mention
next. After Qadafi was overthrown, the light footprint was
enacted. We, many of us, argued strenuously for the kinds of
assistance, whether it be in border security, whether it be
treatment of the wounded, whether it be helping organize the
military.
I think it is pretty clear in the objective view of most
observers that we have done very little. For example, they had
30,000 wounded. I think we treated three in a Boston hospital.
There still is the issue of sovereign immunity, which seems to
have hung up our ability to send people there to train their
military. Part of it is the Libyans' fault. One heck of a lot
of it is our fault.
I would expect that--and I have talked to Secretary Kerry
about this problem. You are going to have to start unsticking
things, but you are going to have to get the support of the
administration, which so far has not been there. So if you are
going to succeed in Libya, Ambassador, then you are going to
have to speak truth to power, and truth to power is that we are
not giving Libya assistance for a whole variety of reasons, not
all ours, that will assist them in becoming a functioning
democracy.
You are not going to be able to go to eastern Libya any
time soon because it is no longer--not just because of what
happened in Benghazi, but it is no longer in control of the
government. The situation in many ways, as evidenced by
yesterday's vote, continues to deteriorate, and it cries out
for American assistance, which, which is not the case in some
other countries in the Maghreb, would be more than welcome.
So I wish you luck. There are a lot of us who want to see
you succeed, but most important, we want the people of Libya to
be able to realize an opportunity that they sacrificed a great
deal of blood in trying to achieve.
You know the list of concerns that we have. You know the
areas where we should be cooperating, and I would hope that you
would strenuously advise the State Department and the President
of the United States as to how we can salvage what is,
unfortunately, a deteriorating situation in Libya.
Ambassador Jones. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate your
support.
Senator McCain. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
One last thing, Ambassador. You and I spoke and I just want
to make sure for the record--I am continuingly interested on
behalf of the families of Pan Am 103 to pursue whomever,
whatever were involved in that bombing, which resulted in loss
of many lives of Americans, including many from my home State
of New Jersey. I assume that I have your commitment upon your
confirmation to pursue that line with the Libyan Government.
Ambassador Jones. Absolutely, Senator. That I have to say--
in my time, in one of my previous assignments, I had the honor
and the painful opportunity to speak to some of the parents who
had lost family members, children. I am a parent. I cannot
begin to imagine that kind of tragedy. And I can assure you
that I will work to continue to press the government to support
us. In fact, there has been some effort. I think that there has
been some progress on it. I would not say--``progress'' may be
too far to go, and of course the FBI would have more of the
details of that. But we do continue to press them, and I shall.
I give you my word that I will continue to press to bring that
to resolution, to bring justice to that.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator McCain. Mr. Chairman, could I make one additional
item that I forgot to mention when it was my turn?
The Chairman. Go ahead, Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. There is a small graveyard in Tripoli, as
you know. It supposedly, allegedly, contained the bodies of the
American sailors who were unsuccessful in an attempted raid
during our attempts to bring the Barbary pirates under control.
There are remaining family members and others who are
interested in the identification and an effort to repatriate
those bodies. It is not a big item in the grand scheme of
things, but I think we probably should do what we can to give
those brave Americans who perished so long ago a place to rest
that is fitting with their sacrifice. You are aware of it?
Ambassador Jones. Actually, that is the first I was aware
of that. I think small things can be very important, leading to
bigger things, and I appreciate that.
I was telling Senator Corker that in the reading of history
of the first time we had a siege in Benghazi in 1967 it was
actually a crew of the Army from Tennessee, the Reserves who
came and saved the day. So a lot of connections here. We will
follow up on that.
Senator McCain. And I am sure you remember part of the
Marine Corps Hymn has to do with ``the shores of Tripoli.''
Ambassador Jones. Yes. Sir, we love the Marines.
Absolutely, we love the Marines in the State Department, and I
remind people of that all the time.
The Chairman. Well, thank you both for your testimony. I am
convinced of one thing: You cannot direct American assistance
without an ambassador at the location. That would be an
exercise, I believe, in futility. So we need an American
Ambassador at both of these locations, and I believe that it is
imperative to have these nominations move forward. It is not in
the interests of the United States not to have an ambassador at
these locations. National interest and the ultimate outcome of
Libya's future can be helped or we can allow it to be shaped by
a course of events in which the United States is absent. Our
best way in which we pursue the national interest and the
national security of the United States is to have an ambassador
at both of these posts.
Therefore, the record will stay open until the close of
business tomorrow. I urge the nominees, as well as the State
Department, to answer any questions posed by committee members
ASAP so that we can put these nominations on the next business
meeting.
With that and the thanks of the committee, this hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:08 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record
Responses of James Knight to Questions Submitted by
Senator Robert Menendez
Question. Chad is a country of increasing strategic significance
for the United States but the most recent State Department Report on
Human Rights described significant human rights problems, especially
``security force abuse, including torture and rape; harsh and life-
threatening prison conditions; and discrimination and violence against
women and children.''
If confirmed as Ambassador, how would you seek to balance
these sometimes strained goals between promoting human rights
and working with partners in counterterrorism and other
regional stabilization efforts?
Answer. While Chad is a key partner and leader on regional security
issues and the United States continues to engage with Chad to address
regional instability, we also continue to maintain pressure on the
Chadian Government to address its human rights record. Improving human
rights conditions in Chad is one of the mission's primary goals--a goal
I embrace and, if confirmed, I will work toward. Furthermore, I will
continue our high-level engagement with President Deby and other high-
ranking Chadian Government officials on improving and creating the
legal and administrative mechanisms necessary to address existing human
rights abuse cases and prevent future abuses. This includes
professionalizing the military and making it more responsive to civil
society concerns. I understand that the Chadian Government (GoC) has
improved its efforts to address prison conditions following on a GoC
ministeria-level mission to assess prison conditions. The GoC has also
allowed international NGOs access to its prisons to assess conditions.
If confirmed, I will encourage continued actions by the government to
improve prison conditions.
If confirmed, I will also work with both the Government of Chad, as
well as a range of civil society partners, to give profile to gender-
based violence and to improve the position of women in Chadian society.
I understand this is an area that the GoC leadership recognizes needs
improvement. Current U.S. Government efforts in this area include a
small democracy and human rights fund (DHRF) grant to a Muslim women's
group for a grassroots sensitization campaign on gender-based violence
to public diplomacy efforts of video conferences on the subject with
Chadian opinion leaders. If confirmed, I will continue to maintain the
proactive role of the United States on the range of human rights
challenges present in Chad.
Question. Management of the post is absolutely central to the
duties of a chief of mission. Embassies are about the people who staff
them. N'Djamena is not an easy place to serve, and the U.S. Embassy has
in the past struggled with high turnover and other pressures there.
Drawing on your experience in Baghdad, Benin, and your
earlier posts, what do you see as the primary management
challenges in a post like Chad?
Answer. You correctly note that staffing our Embassy in Chad has
been a major management challenge. Currently, Embassy N'Djamena is
fairly well staffed with qualified generalists and specialists. If
confirmed, I will make it a priority to mentor and assist the
professional development and cultivation of those officers so we can
retain them. This will prepare our officers to share their positive
experiences in Chad with other Foreign Service officers who may be
contemplating a future assignment to Embassy N'Djamena, thus putting us
in a position to maintain an appropriate staffing profile and increase
our ability to achieve U.S. Government goals and objectives now and in
the future.
My experience in the Foreign Service has also shown me that the
building of a new embassy compound can also present management
challenges. Currently, there are plans for a new Embassy compound in
N'Djamena, with a project completion and move-in date scheduled for
2016. If confirmed, this will be my third opportunity to negotiate
favorable terms for the United States in the building of an embassy. I
oversaw the move into the a new Embassy compound in Luanda, Angola, and
was able to negotiate an earlier start date, on the basis of urgent
security concerns, on the building of our compound in Cotonou, Benin.
______
Responses of Deborah Kay Jones to Questions Submitted by
Senator Robert Menendez
Question. The tragedy surrounding the death of Ambassador Stevens
and three other U.S. mission personnel has renewed our attention on
diplomatic security. At the same time, we recognize that being confined
to the Embassy compound severely hampers efforts by our diplomats to
reach out to broader Libyan society and gauge the pulse of the nation.
How can the United States balance its role in ensuring
diplomatic security with robust engagement, with both the
Libyan Government and its burgeoning civil society?
Answer. Diplomacy, by its nature, must be practiced in dangerous
places because our interests suffer and our security is threatened when
we are absent. Transitions to democracy are notoriously difficult
endeavors. It is in our interest to engage with the Libyan Government
and Libyan civil society as they seek to usher in a peaceful transition
to full democracy. That being said, the safety and security of our
personnel overseas are our highest priority. This is a sentiment that I
share, that I have taken with me as Ambassador to Kuwait and Consul
General in Istanbul, and that I would take to Libya. I will work
closely with U.S. security officials to ensure our security posture in
Libya meets the threat.
Question. What is the state of our diplomatic presence currently in
Libya? What kind of capacity does our Embassy have and what personnel
or security challenges will you face in trying to fulfill the
responsibilities of your post?
Answer. (SBU) The current security situation in Libya is poor. On
May 9, the Department ordered the departure of nonemergency personnel
from Libya. However, the existing U.S. security platform is capable of
providing substantial deterrence. Our remaining personnel are able to
carry out their duties, meet local interlocutors, and advance our
policy goals, protected by a robust security presence. The security
team includes Diplomatic Security (DS) special agents, a DS Mobile
Security Deployments team, U.S. Embassy-hired local national guard
force and close protection unit, and a Marine Security Force unit.
Additionally, the perimeter security has been bolstered by Libyan
police and military forces. The physical and technical security posture
has also been steadily improved with additional properties obtained for
greater setback, wall heights increased, razor wire added, a technical
security upgrade project to supplant existing CCTV cameras, the
emergency warning notification system, and security screening
equipment.
Question. What will you do to ensure the protection of your
personnel, and how have your previous deployments prepared you for this
high risk post? Have you received any new training to prepare you for
this assignment should you be confirmed?
Answer. As I noted during my hearing, the Ambassador is the senior
security officer at post, drawing on the best advice and intelligence
from the people on the country team, to include intelligence officers,
political analysts, military advisers and security professionals. By
its nature diplomacy is a risky business: we must be deployed to
accomplish our mission. It is a matter of weighing that risk against
mission priorities and objectives, particularly in the fluid security
environments in which we find ourselves.
I have spent much of my 31-year career at high-threat posts in a
volatile region of the world. Focusing on security is second nature to
me. In preparation for Libya, should I be confirmed, I have taken the
Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS)-administered Foreign
Affairs Counter Threat (FACT) Course. The DS FACT course provides
participants with the knowledge and skills to better prepare them for
living and working in critical and high-threat environments overseas.
The course instructs participants in the practical skills necessary to
recognize, avoid, and respond to potential terrorist threat situations.
Question. The security situation in Libya remains precarious, with
militia groups continuing to operate with autonomy and impunity. This
also raises serious concerns about Libya's porous borders and arms
trafficking. The central government in Tripoli has thus far been unable
to exert control and restore peace and security throughout the country.
How is the United States currently engaging the Libyan
Government on efforts to disarm and reintegrate former rebel
fighters and to secure the country's borders?
Answer. To support Government of Libya's demobilization,
demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) programming, the United
States--in coordination with the United Nations Special Mission to
Libya (UNSMIL)--has assisted the Libyan Government in provision of
urgent medical treatment to severely wounded rebels in 2011-2012 and is
currently working with the Ministry of Health to improve capacity in
three Libyan health clinics in order that Libya can provide better in-
country treatment to former rebels with long-term injuries and the
general population. We are also supporting civil society organizations'
efforts to advance transitional justice, reconciliation and conflict
resolution through community dialogue and activities, particularly in
areas most affected by the 2011 civil conflict and with large
populations of former rebels. Our weapons abatement program with the
Government of Libya supports incorporates former rebels into the work
of inventorying and security national weapons depots. We are providing
technical assistance to the government-established Warrior Affairs
Committee (WAC) which leads the national DDR effort. We are working
with the WAC to convene train-the-trainer workshops that teach former
brigade commanders conflict resolution skills and nonviolent
communication skills for their use as they continue to operate as
civilian community leaders. We plan to expand our community-based
programming with civil society and the WAC this summer to build on our
partnerships' successes.
Improving the Government of Libya's capacity to address its serious
border security challenges is a priority for the Libya, the United
States, and the international community. In coordination with UNSMIL,
we are providing technical and tactical training to GOL border security
personnel from the Ministries of Defense and Interior and the Customs
Authority who are responsible for border management and security. We
plan to expand our support in the sector given Libya was designated in
September as eligible to receive funds through the Global Security
Contingency Fund (GSCF). Our plan is to use GSCF to bolster Libya's
border security capacities to secure its vast desert land borders in
the south through an interministerial approach. Programming is to
incorporate Libya's southern neighbors of Chad, Niger, and Algeria.
Question. What more should the United States be doing to address
this issue, which has significant implications for Libyan, regional,
and U.S. security?
Answer. In recent months, as the weakness in Libya's border
security management became increasingly apparent, the Libyan Government
has increasingly made border security a priority and during a February
meeting with senior officials from Libya's key international partners
called on the international community to assist with this transnational
challenge. The United States and Libya's other international partners
endorsed this request and since has been working with UNSMIL and others
to encourage increased support. For our part, we are expanding our
support through use of up to $20 million in Global Security Contingency
Funds (GSCF). This program will complement the EU mission to improve
border security in Libya. The EU is establishing a 60-person mission in
Tripoli with funds for an initial 3-year operation. The mission should
be fully staffed by end of 2012. We remain responsive to any requests
from the Libyan Government for increased U.S. security sector support,
and are willing to explore all options available to provide targeted,
technical assistance to Libya and its neighbors in a region of
strategic significance for U.S. national security interests.
Question. Libya has the advantage of significant oil reserves and
thus financial resources. But given the government's limited capacity,
challenges remain about ensuring transparency in how the money is spent
and making sure the revenue reaches the Libyan people through
investments in infrastructure and social services.
What role do you envision for the United States in this
regard?
What are some targeted assistance programs you would like to
accomplish as Ambassador vis-a-vis building Libya's
infrastructure?
Answer. Managing Libya's oil sector and the significant revenues it
generates transparently and responsibly will help the Libyan Government
demonstrate a clear break from the past, and build confidence in the
government among Libyan citizens. Transparency in both the collection
and use of revenues are critical components of sound oil sector
governance. Other tools are also needed, including a robust technical
understanding of the sector itself, methods of monetization, sound laws
and regulations in line with international best practices,
environmental and social protections, and engagement with affected
communities. The Department regularly raises these issues in ongoing
dialogues with the Government of Libya. We have also encouraged the
Government of Libya to join both the Open Government Partnership and
the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, two efforts which
could help shed light on the revenues accrued by the Libyan Government
and how they are being spent.
Question. As you know 270 people, including 189 Americans, died
when Pan Am Flight 103 crashed as a result of a bombing perpetrated by
the Qadhafi government. Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was convicted of carrying
out this crime, but his coconspirators have yet to be brought to
justice.
What is being done to press Libyan authorities for help
gathering more information about the Pan Am 103 bombing,
particularly information about who--other than al-Megrahi--was
involved in the planning and carrying out of the event?
Answer. The investigation into the Pan Am 103 bombing remains open.
We are committed to assisting law enforcement efforts in obtaining and
evaluating any new information relating to it. As this is an ongoing
investigative matter, I refer you to the Department of Justice for any
further details.
Question. In your new role what can you personally do to pursue
this objective?
Answer. The State Department remains committed to pursuing justice
on behalf of the victims of the Pan Am 103 attack that took the lives
of 189 Americans and many others. As Ambassador to Libya, if confirmed,
I will work closely with the Department of Justice and the Libyan
Government to bring to justice the perpetrators of this horrific attack
and give the families of the victims closure.
______
Response of Deborah Kay Jones to Question Submitted by
Senator Bob Corker
Question. As it relates to the chemical weapons located in Libya,
what are the steps that have been taken to date by the USG with regard
to that threat? What is the interagency coordination that is taking
place to address any remaining issues in eliminating any threat?
Answer. The State Department has worked closely with the Libyan
Government to provide approximately $1 million of assistance to help
secure its chemical weapons (CW) stockpile through the Nonproliferation
and Disarmament Fund (NDF). This critical security assistance
facilitated the return of Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW) officials and allowed Libya to complete the destruction
of its bulk mustard agent earlier in May 2013. The United States
continues to work closely with Libyan authorities on this important
issue, and the Department of Defense's Cooperative Threat Reduction
(CTR) program has offered the Libyan Government additional equipment
and technical safety and security assistance to destroy the CW
munitions previously hidden by the Qadhafi regime.
______
Response of James Knight to Question Submitted by
Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.
Question. The Leahy amendment requires the U.S. Department of State
to vet military and law enforcement individuals and units for evidence
of human rights violations before the United States can provide
security assistance. This law is vitally important for ensuring that we
are upholding American values in the provision of security assistance
and that we are not overlooking human rights violations.
Beyond simply implementing the law, what will you do as
Ambassador to ensure that your Embassy staff is affirmatively
seeking to identify security force units responsible for human
rights violations and not simply waiting to receive
information?
Further, what steps will you take to offer assistance your
host governments to help identify and prosecute members of
security forces who commit human rights violations?
Answer. The embassy staff is currently working with local and
international NGOs and the Government of Chad to identify human rights
violators and to ensure that only units and individuals with clean
human rights records receive training and assistance. When a unit or an
individual proposed to receive assistance is determined to be
ineligible because of credible information of a gross human rights
violation, the embassy will inform the host government and offer
assistance in bringing violators to justice. We may have to develop
alternative assistance plans if credible information of gross human
rights violations is found.
______
Responses of Deborah Kay Jones to Questions Submitted by
Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.
Question. I am deeply troubled, as are many of my constituents,
that the perpetrators of the devastating attack on our facility in
Benghazi have not been brought to justice. More than 8 months after the
attacks, what progress has the U.S. Government made in identifying and
bringing to justice those parties responsible for murdering U.S.
personnel in Benghazi? How would you assess cooperation with Libyan
officials?
Answer. Bringing the perpetrators of the Benghazi attacks to
justice is a top priority for the United States, and it would be a
major focus for me in Tripoli. If confirmed as Ambassador, I would
engage with Libyan authorities at the highest levels and encourage
swift progress on this investigation.
I refer you to the FBI for any details about the current status of
their investigation into the attacks on our facilities in Benghazi.
President Obama discussed the importance of Libya's cooperation with
the ongoing investigation during the Libyan Prime Minister's visit to
Washington in March 2013, and I am committed to ensuring that the
Libyan Government continues its support and cooperation with the FBI.
Question. The situation in Libya continues to be quite volatile,
with armed groups using heavy weaponry to intimidate public officials
and paralyze various ministries. As I'm sure you know, a critical part
of Libya's reform requires comprehensive security and justice sector
reform that includes demobilizing militias, building an effective
internal security force, and addressing the continued mistreatment and
detention without due process of individuals who remain in detention
facilities outside of state controlled facilities.
What role do you envision for the United States in this
process?
Answer. Comprehensive security and justice reform is required for
Libya to successfully transition to a democracy. Libyans recognize this
and with scant experience in democracy, they also understand that they
cannot meet this challenge without outside expertise and support. At
the recent Paris Ministerial on Libya in February, Libyan Foreign
Minister Abdulaziz--with full endorsement of the United States, its
other key partners--pledged that his government would make security and
justice reform its highest priorities and called upon the international
community to support them. If confirmed, my role will be to continue to
uphold our commitment made in Paris while urging Libya and other
partners to do the same. More specifically, if confirmed I will ensure
the United States continues to carry out the technical training it is
providing to the Ministry of Interior to strengthen its administrative
capacity and tactical skills and to improve its understanding and
respect for internationally accepted human rights practices. I will
also maintain our programming that supports the Ministry of Justice's
efforts to carry out detention reform through improved policy and
management training as well as through tactical and human rights
training of judicial police. I also look forward to continuing our
efforts to expand our bilateral military relationship through regular
dialogue and exchanges and via targeted tactical and professional
training courses.
Beyond our current assistance, if confirmed as Ambassador I will
consider new opportunities where the United States is best positioned
to support Libya in strengthening rule of law and security. I will
continue the current practice of limiting our assistance to that which
advances U.S. national interests, is requested by the Libyan Government
and is coordinated with the United Nations Special Mission to Libya
(UNSMIL). I will not only pursue U.S. assistance options but also
encourage U.S. private and public institutions to assist Libya through
entering in public--private partnerships. I will also explore with my
country team and the interagency possible ways to develop cost-sharing
arrangements with the Libyan Government for provision of additional
support.
Question. The Leahy amendment requires the U.S. Department of State
to vet military and law enforcement individuals and units for evidence
of human rights violations before the United States can provide
security assistance. This law is vitally important for ensuring that we
are upholding American values in the provision of security assistance
and that we are not overlooking human rights violations.
Beyond simply implementing the law, what will you do as
Ambassador to ensure that your Embassy staff is affirmatively
seeking to identify security force units responsible for human
rights violations and not simply waiting to receive
information?
Further, what steps will you take to offer assistance your
host governments to help identify and prosecute members of
security forces who commit human rights violations?
Answer. The Embassy staff, although currently limited in size, is
already working with local and international NGOs, and the Libyan
Government to identify human rights violators and to ensure that only
units and individuals with clean human rights records receive training
and assistance. When candidates for training or assistance are
determined to be ineligible because of credible information reporting
gross human rights violations, the Embassy will inform the host
government and offer assistance in bringing violators to justice. We
also consistently advocate the need for Libya to develop rights-
respecting security forces, and are exploring ways to help the Libyan
Government integrate human rights into their doctrine, training, and
accountability mechanisms.
______
Responses of James Knight to Questions Submitted by
Senator Christopher A. Coons
Question. I am pleased that you indicate in your testimony that
Chad will maintain troops in Mali as part of the planned U.N. mission.
How many do they plan to contribute and how can the United States best
support the capacity and professionalization of Chadian troops?
Answer. The Government of Chad has indicated that it is willing to
contribute troops to the newly established United Nations
Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) if
asked. However, it has begun a gradual reduction in its forces in Mali
in rough parallel with France's reduction in forces. The United States
trained and equipped the Chadian Special Anti-Terrorism Group (SATG)
unit that deployed to, and participated in, the African-led
International Support Mission to Mali (AFISMA) combat operations with
the French against Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and
associated terrorist elements in northern Mali. Additionally, we
provide training through the International Military Education and
Training (IMET) and Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) funded programs on
counterterrorism through the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership
(TSCTP).
Question. Chad is an unfortunate example of a country that has not
used its oil reserves to improve the lives of the Chadian people, and
has a history of authoritarian rule and human rights abuses. As we
rightly recognize Chad's strategic importance, if confirmed, how will
you help advance democratic rule and ensure that U.S. support for
Chad's security is not perceived as tacit acceptance of poor
governance?
Answer. While Chad has been a key partner and leader on regional
security issues, we continue to press the Chadian Government to open
political space for political parties and civil society and to improve
governance and transparency, which will contribute to Chad's
development. The United States, working with international partners,
has helped the Chadian Government, ruling party, and political
opposition reach agreement on procedures and institutions that will
eventually increase democratic choices for the Chadian people,
including an electoral roadmap. Our foreign assistance, while limited,
supports democratic institution-building, political party and civil
society development, conflict-resolution, interethnic dialogue, and
training in rule of law. We are also working with the GoC as it
participates in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
(EITI), as it works toward compliance with all of the initiative's
requirements. In addition to providing timely information on the
payments GoC receives from its oil sector, thus adding transparency to
this issue, the EITI process creates a policy space for GoC, civil
society, and industry representatives to further discuss resource
transparency. If confirmed, I will continue these efforts to ensure
that our focus remains on helping Chad to build democratic, transparent
institutions that can represent and serve its citizens.
Question. Chad's oil revenues are declining. If confirmed, how will
you support economic diversification in Chad and opportunities for the
U.S. private sector?
Answer. Economic development is a priority of our engagement with
Chad. We are working to expand Chad's economic development in several
key sectors, such as health, education, and agriculture through broader
use of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and by hosting
private sector development roundtable discussions to highlight the role
that the private sector could play in Chad's economic development. If
confirmed, I would like to expand these types of activities, which
build on Chad's own economic reform agenda. If confirmed, my team and I
will work with the Chadian Government to improve its investment climate
in order to attract U.S. private sector investors.
______
Responses of Deborah Kay Jones to Questions Submitted by
Senator Rand Paul
Question. You mentioned in your testimony that weapons from Libya
are finding their way into Syria. How has the State Department been
able to track these arms flows and assess the numbers and types of
weapons entering Syria?
Answer. The State Department remains concerned about weapons
proliferation from Libya to neighboring countries. We refer you to the
intelligence community for details on how the U.S. Government tracks
the flow of weapons throughout the region.
Since the revolution, the United States, in coordination with the
U.N. Special Mission in Libya, has provided the Government of Libya
with approximately $40 million in targeted technical assistance to
develop the capacities needed to secure Qadhafi-era weapons stockpiles
and improve border security management along Libya's long, porous
borders.
Question. To date, not one person that participated in the attack
on the consulate in Benghazi has been captured. If confirmed, what will
you do to help bring the perpetrators to justice?
Answer. I refer you to the FBI for any details about the current
status of their investigation into the attacks on our facilities in
Benghazi.
President Obama spoke with Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zeidan during
his visit to Washington in March about the importance of Libya's
cooperation with the ongoing investigation. During his time in
Washington, the Prime Minister publicly affirmed that Libya is
committed to bringing those responsible for the attack before a court,
and that Libya is ``keen on reaching the truth and to see that justice
is achieved.''
I am committed to ensuring that the Libyan Government continues its
support and cooperation with the FBI investigation, understanding that
Libya's limited investigative capacity presents serious challenges. I
have spoken personally with FBI Director Mueller about this
investigation, and we will work closely to bring the perpetrators to
justice, if I am confirmed.
Apprehending the perpetrators of the attacks on our facilities in
Benghazi, which took the lives of Ambassador Stevens and three other
colleagues, is a top priority for the United States. It will be a major
focus for me should I be confirmed as Ambassador. We need an American
Ambassador in Tripoli to engage with the Libyan authorities and make
swift progress on this investigation.
Question. Do you think it is appropriate to provide Libya, which
has substantial national funds, with foreign aid while the murderers
responsible for the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three other
Americans remain at large?
Answer. It is in our national interest to support Libya as it works
to develop a democratic state after 42 years of dictatorship. Libya's
success in this endeavor will advance our own interests in terms of
security, energy, rule of law, and human rights--issues which are
important to the Libyans and to regional stability as well.
As Libya has substantial natural resources but lacks the capacity
and the expertise to meet the immense challenges of its transition, we
are limiting our support to issues of immediate concern to the United
States. Our targeted assistance to the Government of Libya is therefore
primarily focused on collection and destruction of munitions including
antiaircraft missiles, destruction of chemical weapons, and technical
training for security and rule of law personnel. We are also
contributing to our shared goal with Libya of creating an effective
civil society. Our programming in this sector is providing support for
electoral processes, transitional justice, constitution drafting,
empowerment of marginalized groups including women and minorities,
strengthening national unity, and good governance.
We believe investing modestly in Libya's future will positively
influence Libya's democratic transition, promote stability, and pay
dividends for a lasting relationship with a country where the majority
of people are committed to building a democracy and favorably inclined
to the United States.
NOMINATIONS OF GEOFFREY R. PYATT AND TULINABO SALAMA MUSHINGI
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
Geoffrey R. Pyatt, of California, to be Ambassador to Ukraine
Tulinabo Salama Mushingi, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to
Burkina Faso
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Christopher
Murphy, presiding.
Present: Senators Murphy and Johnson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER MURPHY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Murphy. I call this nomination meeting to order.
Today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will consider
two nominations: Geoffrey Pyatt, to be Ambassador to the
Ukraine, and Dr. Tulinabo Salama Mushingi, to be the Ambassador
to Burkina Faso.
Before we begin, let me remind members that the deadline
for submission of questions for the record is noon on Friday.
First, let me begin by welcoming our two nominees, as well
as your families. We are glad that you are both joined by your
families, and we know that you will introduce them in your
opening remarks.
I will give some brief remarks and then turn it over to
Senator Johnson for his. I will introduce our two witnesses--I
will likely do that together--and then allow you to give
opening statements, followed by questions.
Let me congratulate you both on your nominations. If
confirmed, you are going to be called upon to implement the
policies of the United States and to serve to advance the
interests of our great country. The challenges that you both
face are unique.
In Ukraine, we have a country that is teetering on a
tightrope, dependent, in many ways, still on Russia, its much
larger neighbor, but desirous of a closer relationship with
Europe and the West. The United States is committed to helping
Ukraine become a modern, prosperous democracy.
Ukraine is important, for many reasons. It is the second-
largest country in Europe, rich in natural resources, with a
strategic location on the border of Russia and the European
Union, and coastline, of course, on the Black Sea.
In 1996, Ukraine completed the removal of the Soviet-era
nuclear arsenal from its territory, a brave decision that made
the Ukraine an example for many other nations to follow. More
recently, Ukraine has made strides in developing its own energy
resources and attracting foreign investment, an endeavor that
will make it, hopefully, easier to achieve an association
agreement with the European Union and accompanying reforms to
come.
Our new Ambassador will be arriving in-country at a time of
great importance, second perhaps only to 1991 as a potential
inflection point in modern Ukrainian history. This November,
the European Union will convene the Eastern Partnership summit,
where we hope that Ukraine will sign an association agreement
to set Ukraine firmly on the path of joining the European
Union.
But, in order to proceed with Ukraine's political
association and economic integration with the European Union,
they must continue making progress on the overall reform
agenda, including clear signals that the era of selective
political prosecutions is over. The challenges are significant,
but not insurmountable. Our mutual interests demand that we
must continue to strengthen our ties with Ukraine, and work
with them as they chart a new path to a modern, democratic
future, in partnership with Europe.
Another nation that is very important to the United States,
and where we also must help move forward modern democratic
reforms is Burkina Faso. Like the Ukraine, the United States
has worked closely with Burkina Faso in the areas of security
cooperation and economic development. The President there has
played an important and constructive role recently as a
regional peacemaker, an example that we hope other leaders in
the region will follow. He was instrumental in negotiating a
cease-fire agreement between the Malian Government and the
Tuareg rebels, signed just yesterday, following talks at the
Presidential palace in the country's capital. At the same time,
though, we follow continuing reports of human rights abuses in
country that we know our next Ambassador will have to address,
as well.
Going forward, we hope the President and the ruling party
will expand the space for political opposition and undertake
the reforms necessary to ensure the long-term stability of
Burkina Faso.
We are both very interested in your perspectives today. We
are glad that you are here.
And I will turn it over now to Senator Johnson for his
opening remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON JOHNSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN
Senator Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Pyatt and Dr. Mushingi, welcome. We also want to
welcome your families.
And I just want to say, I truly appreciate your willingness
to serve this Nation. As Senator Murphy was stating, it is just
an incredibly important responsibility. You do represent us in
these two very important countries. I have been to Ukraine. We
had a very interesting hearing last week about the pressure of
Russia, both in terms of their own civil rights, their own
civil society, but also the pressure they are putting on that
belt of democracy around it. And, of course, Burkina Faso is
becoming an important country, from the standpoint of our
effort against global terrorism as al-Qaeda is spreading around
northern Africa.
So, these are two very important countries, and I truly do
appreciate your willingness to serve this Nation, and I am
looking forward to your testimony. So, welcome.
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Senator Johnson.
Let me now introduce our two guests. I will introduce you
both at this time. I will start with Mr. Pyatt and then Dr.
Mushingi can give testimony.
First, let me recognize Geoffrey Pyatt, of California, the
nominee for Ambassador to Ukraine. Mr. Pyatt is a career member
of the Senior Foreign Service. He is currently the Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of South and
Central Asian Affairs, where he has served admirably. He was
previously the Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Mission to
the International Atomic Energy Agency, and international
organizations in Vienna, the Deputy Chief of Mission at the
U.S. Embassy in New Delhi, and Economic Officer at the U.S.
consulate in Hong Kong. He received his B.A. from the
University of California at Irvine. His crowning achievement,
however, was undoubtedly receiving his master's degree in New
Haven, CT, from Yale University. [Laughter.]
Shameless. [Laughter.]
Dr. Mushingi is our nominee to be Ambassador to Burkina
Faso. Dr. Mushingi is a career member of the Senior Foreign
Service, as well, currently serving as Deputy Executive
Secretary and Executive Director of the Executive Office of the
Secretary of State. There is no title in the Federal Government
that has the word ``executive'' in it more than yours.
[Laughter.]
From 2009 to 2011, he was Deputy Chief of Mission at the
U.S. Embassy in Ethiopia. He previously served in Tanzania,
Morocco, Mozambique, and Washington, DC. He began his career as
a cultural and language trainer for the Peace Corps. He
received his B.A. and M.A. from the Institut Superieur--oh,
boy, you have got a long title, here--well, let us just say he
received it in the Republic of Congo, and he received an M.A.
from Howard University, and a Ph.D. from Georgetown University.
We welcome both of you today, appreciate your patience in
getting to today's hearing, and look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Pyatt, we will begin with you.
STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY R. PYATT, OF CALIFORNIA,
TO BE AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE
Mr. Pyatt. Thank you, Senator Murphy. And certainly, I look
back on my time in New Haven as a highlight of my education, so
thank you for the reference, there.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is a great honor
to appear before you as President Obama's nominee to be the
next United States Ambassador to Ukraine. I am grateful to the
President, Secretary Kerry, and former Secretary Clinton for
the confidence they have placed in me through this nomination.
And, if confirmed, I will look forward to working closely with
the members of the Foreign Relations Committee and its staff.
With the Chairman's permission, I would like to begin by
introducing my wife, Mary, with whom I have shared a 23-year
Foreign Service career that has taken us and our children much
further than either of us could have imagined, with Mary
serving as a teacher at each of our overseas assignments.
If confirmed, I will continue to build our strategic
partnership with Ukraine and realize the potential we see in
this relationship. The U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic
Partnership, signed by Secretary Rice, and the commission that
Vice President Biden established to implement this charter, set
high expectations for our bilateral ties. If confirmed, my
highest goal will be to sustain the effort to advance Ukraine
on the path toward a modern European democracy.
One area of notable achievement in our bilateral
relationship is cooperation on nonproliferation, and, in
particular, the removal of all highly enriched uranium from
Ukraine, as jointly pledged by President Yanukovych and
President Obama at the 2010 Nuclear Security summit. Ukraine's
leadership on this issue stands as an example for countries
around the world. Indeed, Ukraine's decision to remove all of
its nuclear weapons and join the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon
state, was one of the major accomplishments for European peace
in the past 20 years.
In recent years, Ukraine has become a valuable contributor
to U.N. peacekeeping. Ukraine also participates in NATO
operations, including troops in Afghanistan and Kosovo. The
United States strategic goals for Ukraine have remained broadly
consistent throughout more than 21 years of independence. We
support Ukraine's sovereignty, independence, and territorial
integrity.
In keeping with the aspirations of the Ukrainian people,
the United States promotes democracy, a market economy, and
rule of law in order to encourage the development of a strong,
prosperous, and European state. If confirmed, I will encourage
the Ukrainian Government to act now to take advantage of the
historic opportunity to pursue European integration and to meet
the EU's conditions for signature of the European Union/Ukraine
association agreement.
In the past 3 years, the United States has expressed
increasing concern about the political situation in Ukraine,
especially regarding the selective prosecutions of opposition
leaders. If confirmed, I will encourage Ukrainians to set high
standards for themselves on human rights and rule of law,
recognizing that democratic principles are in Ukraine's own
interests and fundamental to United States policy.
I will also support Ukrainian aspirations for free and fair
elections that meet the bar they set for themselves in 2010,
especially looking forward to the 2015 Presidential elections.
This year, as Chairman in Office of the OSCE, Ukraine has
the opportunity to demonstrate its international leadership and
set an example for other countries. We have been encouraged by
the role that Ukraine has played so far in its OSCE
chairmanship, and, if confirmed, I will look forward to working
closely with Ukraine to sustain this success.
Ukraine's economic prosperity depends on financial
stability, promoting reforms, and attracting foreign direct
investment, especially in the energy sector, which is an area
of growing United States/Ukraine cooperation. United States
companies are ready to invest in unlocking Ukraine's gas
resources and helping the country to achieve its goal of
increased energy independence. But, our trade and investment
relationships should be bigger, and the business climate in
Ukraine has been weakened by corruption and questions about the
fairness of the courts. If confirmed, I will make it a priority
to advocate on behalf of United States companies and to work
with Ukrainians to advance the rule of law, the protection of
intellectual property rights and investor rights.
Ukraine is a young democracy, with its first generation of
citizens born into an independent country just now reaching
adulthood. If confirmed, I will use our public diplomacy tools
to continue engagement with this emerging generation as they
play an increasing role in society, government, and business. I
would also look forward to working closely with the vibrant
Ukrainian diaspora in the United States.
Ukraine and its people face critical choices in the months
and years ahead. If confirmed, I will do all I can to support
the men and women of the U.S. mission as they work with
Ukrainians to further United States interests and advance
Ukraine's future as an independent and prosperous European
democracy.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the honor of
appearing today, and I would be happy to address your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pyatt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Geoffrey R. Pyatt
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the committee, it is a
great honor to appear before you as President Obama's nominee to be the
next United States Ambassador to Ukraine. I am grateful to the
President, Secretary Kerry, and former Secretary Clinton for the
confidence they have placed in me through this nomination, and if
confirmed I will look forward to working closely with the Congress and
members of the Foreign Relations Committee and its staff.
With the chairman's permission I would like to begin by introducing
my wife Mary, with whom I have shared a 23-year Foreign Service career
that has taken us and our children much further than either of us could
have imagined. As a teacher at each of our overseas posts, Mary has
done much to build good will and to demonstrate why the idea of America
remains so powerfully attractive around the world.
If confirmed, I will continue to build our strategic partnership
with Ukraine and will work to realize the potential we see in this
relationship with bipartisan support. The U.S.--Ukraine Charter on
Strategic Partnership signed by Secretary Rice, and the commission that
Vice President Biden established to implement this charter, set high
expectations for our bilateral ties. And if confirmed, my highest goal
will be to sustain the effort to advance Ukraine on the path toward a
modern European democracy.
One area of notable achievement in our bilateral relationship is
cooperation on nonproliferation, in particular, the removal of all
highly enriched uranium from Ukraine, as jointly pledged by President
Obama and President Yanukovych at the 2010 Nuclear Security Summit.
Ukraine's leadership on this issue stands as an example for countries
around the world. Indeed, Ukraine's decision to remove all of its
nuclear weapons and join the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as a
nonnuclear weapon state was one of the major accomplishments for
European peace in the last 20 years.
I have a particular commitment to these issues of nuclear
nonproliferation from my time as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S.
Mission to International Organizations and the International Atomic
Energy Agency in Vienna, and if confirmed I will continue to encourage
Ukraine's contributions as a global partner on nuclear security,
nonproliferation, and disarmament.
The United States strategic goals for Ukraine have remained broadly
consistent throughout more than 21 years of independence. We support
Ukraine's sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity, along
with its desire to pursue its own political and economic interests. In
keeping with the aspirations of the Ukrainian people, the United States
promotes democracy, a market economy, and rule of law in order to
encourage the development of a strong, prosperous, and European state.
If confirmed, I will encourage the Ukrainian Government to act now to
take advantage of this historic opportunity to pursue Ukraine's hopes
for European integration and to meet the EU's conditions for signature
of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement.
In the past 3 years, the United States has expressed increasing
concern about the political situation in Ukraine, especially regarding
the selective prosecutions of opposition leaders. If confirmed, I will
encourage Ukrainians to set high standards for themselves on human
rights and rule of law, recognizing that democratic principles are in
Ukraine's own interest, and central to U.S. policy. I will also support
Ukrainian aspirations for free and fair elections that meet the bar
they set for themselves in 2010, especially looking ahead to the 2015
Presidential election.
The U.S. commitment to supporting Ukraine is demonstrated by the
size of our assistance program--approximately $104 million last year,
despite reduced budgets globally. Ukraine also hosts the largest Peace
Corps program in the world. Our assistance promotes long-term progress
in democracy and human rights, in economic development, health and
energy independence, and in military and nonproliferation cooperation.
In recent years, Ukraine has become a valuable contributor to
international peacekeeping. It currently has over 500 peacekeepers
deployed across seven different U.N. peacekeeping operations. Ukraine
is the largest contributor of military helicopters to U.N. missions.
Ukraine also participates in NATO operations, including troops in
Afghanistan and troops deployed to the NATO mission in Kosovo, and will
soon contribute a ship to NATO's antipiracy mission off of the coast of
Somalia.
This year, as chairman in office of the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Ukraine has the opportunity to
demonstrate its international leadership and to set an example for
other countries. My current assignment as Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary has given me the opportunity to work closely with the OSCE to
advance U.S. interests in Central Asia. In this regard, we have been
encouraged by the role that Ukraine has played so far in its OSCE
chairmanship, and if confirmed I will look forward to working closely
with Ukraine to sustain this success.
Ukraine's economic prosperity depends on financial stability,
promoting reforms and attracting foreign direct investment, especially
in the energy sector, which is an area of growing U.S.-Ukraine
cooperation. On energy security, U.S. companies are ready to invest in
unlocking Ukraine's gas resources, and helping the country to achieve
its goal of increased energy independence. But our trade and investment
relationship should be bigger than it is, and the business climate in
Ukraine has been weakened by corruption, a lack of transparency, and
questions about the fairness of the courts. If confirmed, I will make
it a priority to advocate on behalf of U.S. companies and to work with
Ukrainians both in and out of government to advance rule of law, the
protection of intellectual property rights, and investor rights.
Ukraine has a highly educated population, an active civil society,
and tremendous natural resources. And Ukraine is a young democracy,
with its first generation of citizens born into an independent country
just now reaching adulthood. If confirmed, I will use all our public
diplomacy tools to continue our engagement with this emerging
generation as they play an increasingly important role in society,
government, and business. I also would look forward to working closely
with the vibrant Ukrainian diaspora community in the United States.
Through a diverse and challenging diplomatic career I've learned
that there is no greater honor--nor greater responsibility--than
representing the United States abroad. I have also learned the
importance of clarity on American principles, and that modesty in the
pursuit of U.S. goals can be appropriate, especially when it comes to
countries that are still defining their place in the world.
Ukraine and its people face critical choices in the months and
years ahead. If confirmed, I will do all I can to support the men and
women of the U.S. mission as they work with Ukrainians to further U.S.
interests and advance Ukraine's future as an independent and prosperous
European democracy.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the honor of appearing
today and would be happy to address your questions.
Senator Murphy. OK.
Dr. Mushingi.
STATEMENT OF TULINABO SALAMA MUSHINGI, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE
AMBASSADOR TO BURKINA FASO
Dr. Mushingi. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and
distinguished members of the committee, I am honored to appear
before you as the nominee for United States Ambassador to
Burkina Faso.
With your permission, let me introduce my wife, Rebecca.
I very much appreciate the confidence and trust the
President and Secretary of State have shown in nominating me
for this position. I am equally grateful to receive this
distinguished committee's consideration.
I believe that my work and travels across Africa have
provided me with the experience needed to foster strong ties
between our two countries. If confirmed, it would be a
privilege to return to Africa to lead the efforts of our strong
interagency team, which is committed to our country's
increasing engagement in the Sahel region of West Africa.
Our strong bilateral relationship with Burkina Faso aims to
build a shared and mutually beneficial commitment to, one,
strengthening democratic institutions; two, fostering inclusive
economic development; and three, promoting regional stability.
Burkina Faso faces serious economic challenges and a
regional humanitarian emergency. The United States has provided
humanitarian assistance for at-risk populations in Burkina
Faso, including more than 50,000 Malian refugees.
A 5-year Millennium Challenge Corporation compact will help
to reduce poverty through investments in roads, improved
agricultural productivity, and primary education. Current USAID
assistance is boosting food security, improving governance, and
widening access to basic health care services. Our strong Peace
Corps program is working in education, a community economic
development, and community health programs.
Burkina Faso has been a valued partner in promoting
regional security and combating terrorism. It has deployed
troops to peacekeeping efforts in Darfur and Mali. Burkina Faso
is also an active member of the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism
Partnership.
To date, the Burkinabe have played a positive role in
mediating conflicts in Cote d'Ivoire, Togo, Guinea, and, most
recently, in Mali. If confirmed, I will work to maximize the
effectiveness of our security cooperation with Burkina Faso. I
will, above all, strive to protect American citizens and
interests, advance U.S. national security in the Sahel region,
increase mutual understanding, reflect American values, and
deliver results for the American people and Burkinabe.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to appear before
you today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Mushingi follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tulinabo Mushingi
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished members of the
committee, I am honored to appear before you as the nominee for United
States Ambassador to Burkina Faso. I very much appreciate the
confidence and trust the President and Secretary of State have shown in
nominating me for this position. I am equally grateful to receive this
distinguished committee's consideration.
I believe that my work and travels across Africa have provided me
with the experience needed to foster strong ties between the United
States and Burkina Faso. If confirmed, it will be a privilege to return
to Africa to lead the efforts of our robust interagency team, which is
committed to the growing partnership between the United States and
Burkina Faso, and our country's increasing engagement in the Sahel
region of West Africa.
Our strong bilateral relationship with Burkina Faso aims to build a
shared and mutually beneficial commitment to strengthening democratic
institutions, fostering inclusive economic development and promoting
regional stability. Working in partnership, the leadership of our
Embassy and the Burkinabe government have successfully advanced some
political and economic reforms in Burkina Faso that will serve our
peoples well. If confirmed, I will continue this work to deepen our
bilateral partnership through programs and policies that support
multiparty democracy, sustainable development to address chronic food
insecurity, good governance, and regional security.
In December 2012, Burkina Faso successfully held parliamentary and
local elections, which were judged free and fair by the international
community. We will build upon this momentum to further strengthen
democratic institutions, including promoting transparent and
accountable governance, respect for human rights, and adherence to
constitutional rule.
Burkina Faso faces serious economic challenges. A serious drought
in 2011 resulted in a regional humanitarian emergency, which further
exacerbated high levels of poverty, malnutrition, and food insecurity.
Since then, the United States has provided humanitarian assistance for
vulnerable populations in Burkina Faso, including 50,000 Malian
refugees the Burkinabe government is hosting in the north of the
country. We will continue to support Burkina Faso's efforts to address
long-term development challenges. A 5-year, $481million Millennium
Challenge Corporation Compact, which is on track to successfully
conclude in 2014, will help to reduce poverty through investments in
roads, improved agricultural productivity, land use rights, and primary
education. Current USAID assistance is boosting food security,
supporting economic growth, improving governance, and widening access
to basic health care services. Our strong Peace Corps program has on
average 150 volunteers working in education, community economic
development, and community health programs.
Economic diversification and improvements to infrastructure and
education will be critical to generating the sustainable growth Burkina
Faso needs to tackle high poverty rates. The Burkinabe government has
taken steps to combat corruption and improve the investment climate,
including land tenure policy reforms supported under the MCC compact.
If confirmed, I will continue to support progress on economic reforms
and promote bilateral trade. I will also continue to work to leverage
our assistance programs with those of other donors and the private
sector to support Burkina Faso's continued transition to a market
economy.
Burkina Faso has been a valued partner in promoting regional
security and combating terrorism. It has deployed over 660 troops to
the African-led International Support Mission in Mali (AFISMA) and has
recently pledged to increase its commitment to 850 troops when the
mission transitions under a U.N. mandate. Burkina Faso will also soon
deploy its fifth battalion of peacekeepers to the U.N. mission in
Darfur, all trained by the U.S. Government through the Africa
Contingency Operations Training & Assistance (ACOTA) program. Burkina
Faso is also an active member of the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism
Partnership (TSCTP) and a dedicated ally in efforts to combat violent
extremism. To date, the Burkinabe have played a positive role in
mediating conflicts in Cote d'Ivoire, Togo, Guinea, and most recently
in Mali.
If confirmed, I will work to maximize the effectiveness of our
security cooperation with Burkina Faso. I will above all endeavour to
protect American citizens and interests, advance U.S. national security
in the Sahel region, increase mutual understanding, reflect American
values in interactions with the government and people of Burkina Faso
and deliver results for the American people.
Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Murphy. Thank you, to both of our witnesses.
I will begin with questions and then turn it over to
Senator Johnson.
To Mr. Pyatt, let us explore the fulcrum point that we are
going to be at, this November, when the Eastern Partnership
summit is convened in Vilnius. And, as I said in my opening
remarks, at least I hope that there will be an association
agreement extended to the Ukraine.
It has been made fairly clear to the Ukrainians that there
are a number of steps that have to happen in between now and
then. One of them may be a very specific step, that if
Tymoshenko is not released, there may not be an association
agreement extended. There was a series of releases of political
prisoners earlier this year, which I think was an encouraging
sign in the right direction, but, as I and many other people
made clear to the Ukrainians, certainly not enough.
Can you just delve a little bit deeper into this question.
You are going to--you know, assuming that we can move your
confirmation forward as quickly as possible, you are going to
have a short amount of time, clearly building on a fairly
impressive legacy of the outcoming Ambassador, to try to
convince the Ukrainians to make these choices. Some say that
there is no way that Yanukovych will release Tymoshenko, that
the threat to his political base is too great, and that even
the association agreement is not enough.
I am interested in both your take, as you have gotten ready
for this assignment, on the levers that are at play here,
especially for the new Ambassador, to try to get the Ukrainians
to make more progress, specifically with respect to Tymoshenko.
Mr. Pyatt. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
Senator Murphy. And just turn----
Mr. Pyatt. Thank you, Senator, for the question, which is a
critical one and goes to the focal point of United States
policy in Ukraine today. I would offer a couple of quick
thoughts in response.
First and foremost, I think it is useful to remember that
the desirability of Ukraine's European future is one of the few
issues on which there is broad political consensus in Ukraine
today. Against the background of a very divided political
environment, there is consensus between the government, the
opposition, and, importantly, Ukraine's leading business
organizations and business houses, that Ukraine has enormous
benefits that will accrue to it from the signature of the
association agreement, and, in particular, the deep and
comprehensive free trade agreement.
I have been impressed that that Ukraine aspiration has been
reiterated so forcefully by President Yanukovych, by Foreign
Minister Kozhara, when he was here in Washington last month,
and by a variety of other senior officials in the course of our
bilateral consultations.
As you note, there are some conditions that are attached to
that signature in November; most importantly, the end to
selective prosecutions of political opponents, and, in
particular, Mrs. Tymoshenko.
If confirmed, my intention would be to partner as closely
as possible with our European partners, who are forcefully
engaged on these issues. We have pursued a policy of direct
engagement, as Under Secretary Sherman labeled it when she
visited Kiev, in March. And I think that that approach of
direct engagement has shown some progress, including,
significantly, the pardon and release, in March, of former
Interior Minister Lutsenko. I thought Senator Cardin got it
exactly right in his statement on that decision. It was an
important and hopeful step forward, but it was only one step.
Looking to the next couple of months and weeks, Ukraine
needs to make a decision about how to approach that key
condition along with the other conditions that the European
Union has established. The United States will stand with Europe
and stand with Ukraine as they proceed down that road. And
certainly, if I am so fortunate as to be confirmed, it will be
my highest priority, in my first weeks at the mission, to work
with colleagues and to mobilize the diplomatic effort that
Ambassador Tefft has been actively pursuing with his European
counterpart to encourage President Yanukovych to walk through
the door that the European Union is holding open and to seize
the important opportunities that the association agreement
represents, and the prospect that that holds for substantially
lifting Ukraine's economic situation over time, riding on the
back of the economic opportunities that the association
agreement would bring along with it.
Senator Murphy. One of the arrows in our quiver is the help
that we can give the Ukrainians with respect to energy
independence. And, in my second round of questions, I will have
some questions for you, Dr. Mushingi. But, let me use my
remaining time to explore that issue with you.
Clearly, there is another decision that they are going to
have to make about the sale of their pipeline infrastructure to
the Russians, in exchange for a new agreement on sales of
energy resources coming in. This is potentially an asset worth
somewhere in the neighborhood of $30 billion. And if they get
this deal wrong, it has pretty important fiscal implications
for the Ukrainians and very important security consequences,
from an energy perspective, for the entire region.
How do we help the Ukrainians get the best deal, moving
forward, with the Russians? And then, from the larger
perspective, what can we do to try to move them toward energy
independence? I know we are doing a lot right now with respect
to helping them develop some shale resources, but there is much
more, I am sure, that we can do.
Mr. Pyatt. Thank you, Senator. Critical question. I have
been involved with a lot of countries, where energy politics
are important, but I have never seen a place where they are as
central as they are in Ukraine, as your question, itself,
reflected.
I think, as we look ahead, Ukraine has a tremendous
opportunity. You alluded to the shale gas revolution and the
fact that you have two major U.S. international oil companies--
Exxon Mobil and Chevron--both of whom are very close to
production-sharing agreements with Ukraine. Ukraine has already
concluded such an agreement with Royal Dutch Shell. I have
talked to experts who have indicated that they believe that,
within 6 or 7 years, Ukraine could achieve 50-percent energy
independence, just based on the adoption of the correct
policies. There are policy choices that Ukraine has to make
which will be requirements for securing the sort of large
investment in transfer of technology that our companies would
be prepared to be engaged with. We are also working with
Ukraine through our Strategic Partnership Commission. We have a
working group on Energy, led by Ambassador Carlos Pascual, that
has been actively engaged on some of the other policy decisions
that Ukraine needs to make to unlock its potential role as an
energy hub for all of Europe.
The energy politics of the region are changing
dramatically; in part, as a result of the shale gas revolution
in the United States. Ukraine has begun reverse imports from
Western Europe, of gas. It has enormous potential to serve as a
leveler for pricing and gas allocation across Europe, if it
makes the right policy choices.
The question of the pipeline, that you alluded to, is
particularly sensitive, because it goes to one of the things
which makes Ukraine's future role so possible, which is its
participation in the European energy community. And I will look
forward to working with our companies and supporting them, if
confirmed, in order to make clear that everybody has a clear
understanding of the implications for American investment that
would be carried by a decision to sell off some or all of
Ukraine's pipeline resources.
Senator Murphy. I will continue on that on the second
round, but, at this point, turn it over to Senator Johnson for
questions.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I may be picking
it up right off the bat.
Senator Murphy. Yes. Go ahead.
Senator Johnson. What are those policy choices? You
mentioned ownership of the pipelines. But, are there other
policy choices that Ukraine has to move forward with?
Mr. Pyatt. Thank you, Senator. I think--well, the most
important one is the future of the association agreement. And I
think one of the reasons that the Vilnius summit, that the
chairman alluded to, is so important is because that will put
Ukraine on a stairway toward closer relations with Europe, and
it will bring with it a series of disciplines, in terms of
policies, in terms of regulatory frameworks, that will have the
effect of cementing what we all hope for, which is Ukraine's
future as a democratic, rule-of-law society.
I am inclined to look at the Vilnius summit as less an
endpoint than a way station, because even if what we all seek
is achieved, and Ukraine and the European Union signs the
association agreement, there will then have to be a process of
ratification in Europe, there will be a process of
implementation, including on issues important to Ukraine, such
as visa-free travel. All of those will provide leverage for
Europe and for the United States, working with our European
partners, to continue encouraging Ukraine in the direction we
seek.
I want to underline, as Vice President Biden said very
eloquently when he was in Kiev, 4 years ago, the United States
stands with the people of Ukraine. Our hope for Ukraine's
future as a democratic European state is mirrored in every poll
I have seen of Ukrainian public attitudes, but there are some
challenging political decisions that have to be made on
everything from pipelines, as the chairman alluded to,
questions of energy pricing and gas pricing, which are part of
the negotiations with the IMF, questions of how to structure
the 2015 elections, and then, most crucially of all, the
question of how to deal with the political opposition, which is
embedded in the challenge of the concern that many have
expressed, including the U.S. Government at the senior-most
levels, about the phenomenon of selective prosecutions.
Senator Johnson. In your opening comments--I am not sure I
am using it as the exact quote, but you made it seem like it
was universally accepted, that desire to move closer to Europe.
But, at the same time, the--I am seeing a drift more toward
Russia. What type of pressure is Russia being brought to bear--
for example, not to join the association?
Mr. Pyatt. Yes, a critical question. And I think I would
answer it two ways, Senator.
First, if I can quote Vice President Biden again, he made
very clear that we reject any notions of spheres of influence.
And, of course, it is appropriate for Ukraine to have a deep
and significant relationship with its large Russian neighbor.
It is Ukraine's largest trading partner. But, we see Ukraine,
over the long term, as being part of Europe. And that is a view
which comes, not just from the Ukrainian people and the public
opinion surveys that I have looked at, but we hear it from the
highest levels of the Ukrainian Government, including President
Yanukovych, Foreign Minister Kozhara, Prime Minister Azarov.
And that is what we want to leverage off of. We want to work
with Ukraine to achieve the future that the Ukrainians
themselves have said they seek.
Russia, as you alluded to, has had this active conversation
with Ukraine; in particular, regarding the question of the
Eurasian Economic Union. It is an issue that I have watched
carefully, because the Eurasian Economic Union is also active
in the region of Central Asia, that I am presently responsible
for.
It is interesting to me. One large Central Asian country
that I have worked with closely is Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan is a
member of the Eurasian Customs Union, but it has found that,
since its membership, if you look at the data from the World
Bank and others, the main benefits from that membership have
accrued to Russia. Russia's exports to Kazakhstan have gone up.
Kazakhstan's exports to Russia have been flat, largely owing to
nontariff barriers and other obstacles. Meanwhile, Kazakhstan
has found that it has to navigate around very high external
tariffs that are imposed by the Customs Union.
I take it as a hopeful sign that President Yanukovych has
chosen not to pursue membership in the Eurasian Economic Union,
but is pursuing something short of observership, which is
appropriate and which our European partners have said is
completely nonthreatening to what we all seek, which is
Ukraine's membership in the deep and comprehensive free trade
agreement with Europe.
So, I think there is a debate on these issues. It is
appropriate that there should be a debate on these issues in
Ukraine. That is what we would hope for in a democratic
society. But, what is interesting to me is, as I alluded to in
my earlier response to the chairman, what is interesting is,
across the board, every major political party and the major
business and social and community groups have all said the same
thing, which is, Ukraine's future lies in closer relations with
Europe. And that is something that the United States should
applaud.
Senator Johnson. OK. Well, we will come back to Ukraine
later. We will bring Dr. Mushingi into the conversation, here.
Doctor, you had mentioned, in your opening statement, that
one of your responsibilities is to protect Americans and
Americans' interests in Burkina Faso. Can you tell me how many
Americans are there and what those interests are that need to
be protected?
Dr. Mushingi. Thank you, Senator. For now, we have about
1,000 American citizens in the Burkina Faso. That includes the
official Americans working for the U.S. Government, but also
private citizens.
As far as interests, this is one of those new economies, as
we look around the world, and there's little known about it.
But, we believe that--we have our top priority of strengthening
economic growth, that we have an opening there, where the
prosperity of the country will be attractive to some Americans,
as well. And, for now, it is slow moving. But, we have at least
5 to 10 American businesses involved in Burkina Faso.
Senator Johnson. In what areas are there--I know there is
gold. It is primarily an agricultural society, but is it--I
mean, are there some real investment opportunities?
Dr. Mushingi. Yes, sir. The big one, as you said, is--the
big one is agriculture. And, for now, cotton is the big, big
leading export for Burkina Faso. But, gold comes second to
that. But, as I said, this is an emerging economy, and
therefore, everything that we can think about is open.
Transportation, that is one area.
But, back to agriculture, where our policies--but also the
policies of the country are in sync with what we want to do, it
is really a wide, wide-open market--the agricultural equipment,
if we can sell some agricultural equipment there. Our biggest
program, which is the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the
bulk of that money is going into improving agricultural
productivity. And everything from equipment to seeds to
transportation, just for the whole chain, is open.
Senator Johnson. OK. Thank you, Doctor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Senator.
We will now do a second round of questions, and I will
continue with you, Dr. Mushingi.
Talk to us about the Malian refugee issue inside Burkina
Faso today. About 50,000, as I understand, refugees are there
today. Talk to you about the security concerns within the
country, relevant to that large a population, what kind of
conditions they are living in, and what role the United States
has to play in trying to secure those camps and then trying to
either bring those folks back home or integrate them into
society, if they're going to stay.
Dr. Mushingi. Yes, thank you, Senator.
Yes, as I said, we have about--there are about--close to
50,000 Malian refugees in--within the borders of Burkina Faso,
most of them in the north. And we are providing humanitarian
assistance for those refugees, working with the Burkinabe
Government. But, again, what we are trying to do is to maximize
our aid, meaning--working with all the other partners, the
civil society, the Burkinabe Government, but also other donors,
such as France, in addressing the issue. This is one of those
issues that transcends one country, and everybody has to work
together.
We are working with the Burkinabe Government in training--
on the security side--in training their local police to patrol
the borders. That is to see who is coming in and who is not
coming in. Once they are in the camp, our Bureau for Population
and Migration and Refugees at State Department has already
provided enough--have--has provided funding to work--to
increase the basic health services within the camps--water,
sanitation, and food--but also working with the Malians and the
Burkinabe to register the Malian refugees who are in the
country. And this, of course, as you alluded to, the agreement
that was signed yesterday has--there is a provision for how--to
see how these Malians can also continue to participate in the
affairs of the country. And here we are talking about leading
up to the elections.
Senator Murphy. This is your first assignment in this
particular country, but, of course, you have been actively
engaged in watching and analyzing the region for your entire
life. Talk to me specifically about President Compaore.
Difficult to sort of figure out which direction he is heading
in. He has, at times, been blamed as a destabilizing factor in
the region, but, with respect to this new agreement, clearly he
has, now, a renewed interest in bringing people together.
I know that you have yet to take up this assignment, but
give a little window into President Compaore and whether he is
sincerely committed, in the long run, to trying to be a
peacemaker or whether we are still living with some of his
reputation, in the past, as someone that caused, sometimes,
more troubles than he solved.
Dr. Mushingi. Yes. Thank you, Senator, for your question.
President Compaore, for the last decade or so, has been a
valued partner of the United States, but also has been engaged
in helping us, especially with the regional issues. Regional
stability in that region involves all the actors in the region,
and President Compaore has taken a lead in that aspect, and we
are grateful for his lead.
Going from our President's speech when he visited Africa a
few years ago, the idea is for the Africans to take the lead in
their affairs. We are there as partners and providing the help
we can, and--but, they have to take the lead. And, on the West
Africa side, in the grouping, the ECOWAS grouping, the economic
grouping of West African nations, President Compaore has proven
to be a leader, especially in mediating many of these
conflicts.
To his success, we know that Cote d'Ivoire--he helped with
Cote d'Ivoire; and, so far, peace seems to be holding. He
helped in Guinea Bissau--in Guinea. He helped in Togo, leading
to the democratic elections. And now he is taking this strong
lead in Mali, and we are grateful for that, as well.
Senator Murphy. As are we.
Mr. Pyatt, one additional question. Can--it is a simple
one--can Ukraine achieve an association agreement with
Tymoshenko still in jail? Is that the--there are--is that a
bottom-line necessity in order to achieve an association
agreement?
Mr. Pyatt. Senator, I hope you will excuse me if I refrain
from trying to predict, at this point, 6 months out, where we
might be. I can say, Europe has been very clear about its
conditions. The 27, soon to be 28, will have to reach a
decision if we get to November and Mrs. Tymoshenko is still in
detention.
What I can say is that, if I am confirmed, I will work as
hard as I can, as closely as I can, with my European partners
to make sure that the Ukrainian Government reaches the correct
decision. And I say this, having listened very, very carefully
to Senator Durbin's floor statement yesterday. And I think the
one thing that came through to me in his very welcome
intervention was the idea that this is not about an individual,
it is about a principle. And the principle is how a democratic
government deals with a political opposition when leaders are
out of power. And I think--I--again, I am reluctant to
speculate on where things will turn out. I know that the
European Union Ambassador in Kiev has said some hopeful things
recently about his aspirations, that there may be a compromise
that can be reached. And again, the handling of former Interior
Minister Lutsenko shows that there is a road that the Ukrainian
Government can follow involving a pardon, involving the release
of political opponents.
So, I know that is not a complete answer to your question,
but I think it is probably about the best I can offer at this
point. And again, if I am confirmed, you have my assurance that
this will be at the very top of my list as I begin to find my
feet with the Embassy team in Kiev.
Senator Murphy. I did not expect you to give a complete
answer. But, Senator Durbin wanted to be here today. I am one
of the cosponsors of his resolution calling for the release of
Mrs. Tymoshenko. I appreciate the work that you will do on
this.
Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Mushingi, a quick followup on the Mali refugee problem.
How many refugees are there, currently?
Dr. Mushingi. The last number I was briefed on was about
50,000 Malian refugees.
Senator Johnson. You were talking about registering. Is the
thought that they will be repatriated to Mali at some point in
time, or are they going to be assimilated into the culture?
Dr. Mushingi. The thought is, first and foremost, for us--
as you know very well the region and what is going on in that
region--first and foremost, to know, at least to have an idea
of, who is within the camp, and how to deal with the people who
are in the camp. The next level is to work with the Malian
Government. This agreement is an agreement that is leading to
eventual elections in their country. To work with the Malians
to see how those refugees can participate in the elections in
their country. And, third, what any country that receives
refugees hopes for, that refugees will be able to go back----
Senator Johnson. Return.
Dr. Mushingi [continuing]. To their own country.
Senator Johnson. OK.
Dr. Mushingi. But, as you know, it is a long process.
Senator Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Pyatt, let us talk a little bit about the rule of law
in Ukraine. Is that really what we are talking about, with
political prosecutions? And is that shaking the confidence from
the standpoint of U.S. investors--I guess I am glad to hear
Royal Dutch Shell is concluding agreement; is that a hangup
for, potentially, American companies, when they see, on the one
side, the type of law they have, when it comes to the political
situation?
Mr. Pyatt. Thank you, Senator. I am reminded of something
Secretary of State Colin Powell used to say when he would talk
to us about investment, that money is a coward. And, I think,
from that perspective, it is very important that Ukraine
provides an environment for investment for business that is
transparent, that provides the assurance of fair adjudication
of disputes.
The large energy investments that are on the horizon, in
particular, I think can be real bellwethers in this regard,
because these are very large American companies, which bring
state-of-the-art technology, but also bring American business
practices, in the best sense of the word, in terms of the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, in terms of their preparedness
to commit to long-term partnerships, but to commit to a long-
term partnership based on honesty, based on the rule of law.
The United States, as a policy matter, our assistance
programs have done a lot of good work in this area. Ukraine
recently passed a new criminal procedure code that reflected a
lot of work by the USAID mission in Ukraine. I know that the
mission has been also engaged on the question of a new
prosecutorial code. There is work to be done.
When I have been engaged with some of the Central Asian
governments, I sometimes remind myself, these are countries
that have only experienced 21, going on 22, years of
independence. They are still figuring out a lot of the rules of
the road. And I ask myself, you know, Where was the United
States, 22 years after 1776?
But, there are opportunities that Ukraine has at this
moment, and certainly we are prepared to work comprehensively--
and I think our business community is, as well--if the
conditions are right. But, as I said in my prepared statement,
as I have looked at our economic and commercial relationship,
it is much smaller than it should be. This is a country of 46
million people, with four EU member states on its border. I
would like to see a much larger trade and investment
relationship. But, that will only come if the conditions are
right.
Senator Johnson. Obviously, Russia's using its oil and gas
exports as pressure. Are we going to be equally as prepared to
utilize investment and foreign aid, basically, to create
those--you know, the positive pressure for Ukraine to do the
right thing? Is that your intention?
Mr. Pyatt. Critically important question, and, I think,
especially in areas like energy. Again, if those experts I have
talked to are correct and Ukraine achieves 50-percent energy
independence on the basis of new investment in shale gas, on
the basis of assistance that USAID is providing on energy
efficiency, on the basis of other nonconventional sources, that
has the potential to change the energy politics of the region
in a positive way that reinforces what has been United States
policy for more than two decades, at this point, which is
United States support for the territorial integrity and
independence of a democratic and European Ukraine.
Senator Johnson. Can you just speak a little bit in terms
of political corruption, whether it is the wheat program, wheat
exports, and your thoughts on what we can do, in terms of
bringing pressure to bear to minimize that problem?
Mr. Pyatt. Again, Senator, critical issue. I am glad you
raise it. I know the mission has been engaged, for instance, on
the question of the extractive industry's transparency
initiative. The Ukrainian Government has adopted a roadmap. It
is pursuing membership in that initiative, which would have the
effect of building confidence in the business environment and
establishing rules of the road, which would benefit, not just
foreign investors, European or American, or, for that matter,
Russian, companies, but also Ukrainian investors and Ukrainian
companies.
And, I think, again, this is part--as I look at it, and
having spent much of my career working in countries that are in
transition, which are developing their democratic cultures,
this is part of that building process. And it has certainly
been my experience that economic and commercial modernization
and political modernization go hand in hand. There is a great
deal that Ukrainians can be proud of, in terms of what they
have accomplished since independence in political development.
The 2010 Presidential elections absolutely met international
standards, in terms of a free and fair electoral process. You
have a flourishing civil society. You have got an active press.
And you have a vibrant political opposition. But, that is a
foundation on which Ukraine ought to build more.
As Secretary Clinton said in one of her comments not so
long ago, Ukraine deserves better. And if I am confirmed, I
want to work with the Ukrainian people, and especially the
emerging new generation of younger Ukrainians, to achieve that
more hopeful future.
Senator Johnson. If I can risk going over a little bit, I
am almost reluctant to ask this question, but, in terms of
political prosecutions--not necessarily always a black-and-
white issue. And without speaking to any one particular case, I
mean, how muddied is the water there? How many are pure--I
mean, to what extent is it pure political prosecution versus
there sometimes are not all angels? Do you know what I am
trying to get at?
Mr. Pyatt. I think I know exactly what you are getting at,
Senator. I think I would answer it this way. I, of course, have
not looked over any of the prosecutorial dossiers on this. I do
not have the factual background on the specific cases. But, I
do know, as--in fact, as Senator Durbin, who, of course, has
the legal expertise and has looked at these issues, said, just
yesterday, when a former Prime Minister is imprisoned on the
basis of a political--of a legal judgment against a decision
she reached while in office, that raises questions about rule
of law, and it raises the specter of the allegation of
politically motivated prosecutions.
So, that is, I think--let me leave it at that. Thank you.
Senator Johnson. OK. Well, I appreciate that.
Senator Murphy. Thank you.
Let me just ask one last question to you, Dr. Mushingi. I
wanted to ask a broader question, given your lifetime's work on
United States/African relations. We spend a lot of time here
talking about the investment that China is making in the
African economy; in particular, their interest in natural
resources. We, thankfully, have a renewed interest in our
relationship with African nations, but largely because of the
tumult in northern Africa and a growing recognition of the
security challenges that are presented to the United States in
Africa. We do not talk enough here, I think, about the work
that we can do with foreign aid and economic development
assistance to try to keep up with the interest that China is
showing.
Can you just speak for a second as to what, given your
broad experience in the region tells you, should be United
States policy with respect to economic investment in Africa? In
particular, standing next to a pretty impressive buying spree
from the Chinese over the last several decades.
Dr. Mushingi. Thank you very much, Senator, for your
question.
I have dealt with that issue, the presence of the Chinese
and other people in many of those countries. My last posting,
which was Ethiopia, where I was Deputy Chief of Mission, we had
to grapple with that issue, and deal with it. In fact, I had a
chance to brief Senator Durbin when he came around to visit us.
And one question was about the Chinese presence.
On Burkina Faso, one thing that I can say for sure is that
we have the will of the people. They want to work with us. And
we believe that investment in promoting economic growth and
strengthening the rule of law are insurance against violent
extremism, regional conflicts, but, more importantly, poverty.
Now, if confirmed, one of my priorities will be working
with the Burkinabe Government to have a level of playing field
so that everybody involved in the country, whether they are
Chinese, French, Americans--that we can compete for the same
opportunities, starting from the same level.
The Chinese interests in many of those countries or--is--
can be, also, a--an opportunity for us that we can see where
the--those companies are, and what they are doing. But, working
with the local government, my priority, if confirmed, will be
to ask and make sure that the American companies, as well,
can--American companies can compete as well as those other
companies from the other countries.
Senator Murphy. Well, thank you.
Thank you to both of our witnesses. I think this has been a
very good hearing. My only disappointment is that we did not
spend more time talking about the very important Burkina Faso/
Ukraine bilateral relationship. [Laughter.]
But, maybe we will save that for next time.
We have given members until Friday to submit questions. If
there are additional questions, we hope that you will return
answers to us with as much speed as possible. We are hopeful
that we will be able to bring your nomination before this
committee in the very near future, perhaps before our next
recess.
And again, thank you both for appearing here before us.
Assuming your successful confirmation, we look forward to
working with you.
And, with that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record
Responses of Geoffrey Pyatt to Questions Submitted by
Senator Robert Menendez
Question. Last year, Ukraine removed the last batch of highly
enriched uranium (HEU) from two of its remaining nuclear sites,
bringing it closer in line with the commitments made by President
Yanukovych and President Obama at the 2010 Nuclear Security Summit.
This past May, Ukraine demonstrated its own long-term commitment to
nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation when it opened a rocket engine
airframes disposal facility to house the destruction of RS-22 (SS-24)
missiles.
How is the United States prepared to assist Ukraine as it
enters the final stage of fulfillment of its international
commitments stipulated under the Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty?
Answer. We consider Ukraine a key strategic partner on issues of
nonproliferation, arms control, and nuclear security. Since becoming a
non-nuclear-weapon state in 1996, Ukraine has continued to play a
leading role in global efforts to reduce the threat of WMD, including
by removing all highly enriched uranium from Ukraine in 2012.
Ukraine is financing the operation of a full-scale water washout
facility to remove the propellant from Ukraine's remaining legacy SS-24
solid rocket motors. Through the Department of State's Nonproliferation
and Disarmament Fund (NDF) and the Department of Defense's Cooperative
Threat Reduction program, the United States assists with this project
through three primary efforts:
Construction of an empty motor case elimination facility to
facilitate the safe, ecologically sound incineration of
residual propellant and empty motor cases.
Provision of a fixed-fee payment for the empty motor cases
once Ukraine has removed the propellant.
Support for the safe storage of the remaining solid rocket
motors.
The United States is proud to work with and support Ukraine on
these projects.
Question. The Tymoshenko prosecution and imprisonment has been a
disaster for Ukraine and has hurt the country's reputation. The release
of Lutsenko was a positive step, but how many other political prisoners
do we know about in Ukraine? What sorts of conditions are they being
held in and what are the prospects for their release?
Answer. The Department has engaged at the highest levels, including
directly with President Yanukovych, to express concern about the
politically motivated prosecution of opposition leaders, including
former Prime Minister Tymoshenko.
As far as the Department is aware, Mrs. Tymoshenko is the last
high-profile political figure still in detention as a result of a
politically motivated prosecution. She currently faces criminal charges
in three other cases and is under investigation for her alleged
involvement in the 1996 murder of Yevhen Shcherban. Former Interior
Minister Yuriy Lutsenko was released in April 2013, following a
Presidential pardon. Former Deputy Minister of Defense Valeriy
Ivashchenko was released on probation, but following Denmark's decision
to grant him asylum, the Prosecutor General's Office has proposed to
reinstate his original 5-year prison sentence.
The Department's 2012 Human Rights Report noted that prison and
detention center conditions in Ukraine remained poor, did not meet
international standards, and at times posed a serious threat to the
health of prisoners. In the case of Mrs. Tymoshenko, she was
transferred from prison to a hospital in April 2012.
Question. The administration recently identified Ukraine as a
``Priority Foreign Country'' (PFC) for its lax IP practices, and has
now launched a section 301 investigation. This was the first time since
2005 that USTR had designated any country a ``Priority Foreign
Country.'' To quote USTR's 2013 Special 301 report, ``The PFC
designation is reserved by statute for countries with the most
egregious IPR-related acts, policies, and practices with the greatest
adverse impact on relevant U.S. products, and that are not entering
into good faith negotiations or making significant progress in
negotiations to provide adequate and effective IPR protection.''
In its 2013 report, USTR specifically cited the rampant use of
pirated software by the Ukrainian Government itself as one of the
reasons for its PFC designation. Overall, estimates are that only 16
percent of the software utilized in the country is legitimate. Ukraine
is certainly not the only country with a poor regime for protecting IP,
but the Ukraine Government has demonstrated a lack of responsiveness in
addressing these issues. The U.S. Government has been pressing the
Ukrainians on this issue for a long time, including signing an IPR
Action Plan with the Ukrainian Government in 2010.
Unfortunately, we have seen little progress in implementing
this Action Plan. What do you plan to do once you have arrived
in Kiev to ensure that this issue gets the attention it needs
from the Ukrainian Government?
Answer. As you note, Ukraine was designated a Priority Foreign
Country for failing to provide adequate and effective protection of
intellectual property rights (IPR). Following this designation,
Ukrainian Government officials announced their intent to cooperate
fully with the United States to develop and implement a plan to push
forward IPR protections.
If confirmed, I will make it a priority to advocate on behalf of
U.S. companies and to work with Ukrainians, both in and out of
government, to advance the protection of intellectual property rights.
Working with Deputy Prime Minister Gryshchenko, I intend to hold the
Government to its commitments to legalize the software on its
computers, crack down on Internet piracy sites and pass legislation to
protect copyright.
I will also seek to partner with Ukrainian business associations,
industry, and other diplomatic missions to mobilize our shared
interests in strengthening the Government's IPR protection effort. I
also intend to continue the Embassy's efforts to raise awareness about
how IPR protection benefits Ukraine's economy.
______
Response of Geoffrey Pyatt to Question Submitted by
Senator Christopher A. Coons
Question. This year, the United States Trade Representative (USTR)
designated Ukraine a ``Priority Foreign Country'' (PFC) due to the
Eastern European nation's disregard for the protection of U.S.
intellectual property, particularly copyrighted works. This marks the
first new PFC designation in 8 years. Ukraine's piracy rate for
software alone is over 80 percent, and USTR noted the widespread use of
pirated software by the Ukrainian Government as one of the reasons for
the designation. The United States has pushed the Ukrainian Government
to crack down on piracy for many years, including the signing of an IPR
Action Plan in 2010. But Ukraine has failed to implement the bulk of
the Action Plan, and little progress has been made.
In your new role, how will you help to ensure that the
Ukrainian Government more directly addresses American concerns
over intellectual property right protections?
Answer. As you note, Ukraine was designated a Priority Foreign
Country for failing to provide adequate and effective protection of
intellectual property rights (IPR). Following this designation,
Ukrainian Government officials announced their intent to cooperate
fully with the United States to develop and implement a plan to push
forward IPR protections.
If confirmed, I will make it a priority to advocate on behalf of
U.S. companies and to work with Ukrainians both in and out of
government to advance the protection of intellectual property rights.
Working with Deputy Prime Minister Gryshchenko, I intend to hold the
Government to its commitments to legalize the software on its
computers, crack down on Internet piracy sites, and pass legislation to
protect copyright.
I will also seek to partner with Ukrainian business associations,
industry, and other diplomatic missions to mobilize our shared
interests in strengthening the Government's IPR protection effort.
I also intend to continue the Embassy's efforts to raise awareness
about how IPR protection benefits Ukraine's economy.
NOMINATION OF DANIEL R. RUSSEL
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
Daniel R. Russel, of New York, to be Assistant Secretary of
State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:24 p.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin L.
Cardin, presiding.
Present: Senators Cardin and Murphy.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. The Committee on Foreign Relations will
come to order.
I want to thank Chairman Menendez for allowing me to chair
today's hearing in which we will consider Mr. Daniel R. Russel
of New York to be Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian
and Pacific Affairs.
Today I am pleased to welcome Mr. Russel, the nominee for
the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific
Affairs to our committee. I had a chance to be with Mr. Russel
before my recent trip to Asia, and I want to thank him
personally for the briefing that I received. And I know that he
is well qualified to be the Assistant Secretary.
I first want to thank Mr. Russel for your willingness to
continue to serve the public. I know that your family is here,
and we want to thank your family as well because we know public
service is a family sacrifice and we thank the members of your
family for being willing to put up with your desire to serve
your country.
Mr. Russel is a career diplomat since 1985; he was a major
architect of the administration's rebalance to Asia policy as a
member of the White House National Security staff since 2009.
As chair of the Subcommittee on East Asia and Pacific
Affairs, I have been holding a series of hearings examining the
rebalance to Asia policy. So I welcome the opportunity to
discuss Mr. Russel's plans for the rebalance. Asia is
tremendously important for America's economic growth. Yet, it
faces serious challenges from nuclear proliferation to cyber
attacks to climate change. I look forward to hearing from Mr.
Russel as to how he will tackle these challenges in his new
position.
America's economic and national security interests are
inextricably tied to East Asia's strength, stability, and
security. The rebalance is a statement of our intent to more
fully invest in the region, to support our allies and partners,
and to contribute to the economic prosperity and stability of
the region. I look forward to hearing what Mr. Russel's
priorities will be for the rebalance in the coming years.
As we rebalance to Asia, we must emphasize how critical the
universal values of human rights and good governance are for
security and prosperity. I held my first hearing on what the
rebalance policy means for democracy, good governance, and
human rights to illustrate this point. These values should be
integral to every element of our rebalance policy.
For instance, in my second hearing on security cooperation,
we made it clear that our military engagement should support
human rights, civilian control of the military, humanitarian
assistance, and disaster relief. On economics, the Trans-
Pacific Partnership, the centerpiece of our regional economic
engagement, can move forward only if progress is made on labor
rights and basic human freedoms. Good governance also
recognizes the strains we put on our environment that threaten
food, water, and energy security.
I welcome Mr. Russel's thoughts on how to undertake the
rebalance not only through military and economic strategies,
but by expanding human rights and good governance.
I can see opportunities for progress on many fronts. Closer
engagement with our allies and partners and active partnership
with multilateral organizations such as ASEAN are key to a
successful rebalance. ASEAN and China are working toward a
binding code of conduct to resolve the South China Sea
conflicts, which is encouraging.
Myanmar's emerging democracy is also a bright spot. I have
met with Myanmar's President and speaker and am impressed by
their commitment to continue democratic progress. Cautious
engagement has worked. I want to see it continued and reforms
to succeed on all fronts, especially human rights.
There have been signs of movement on North Korea as
recently as today with some reports. I welcome Mr. Russel's
views on how we should proceed for security on the Korean
Peninsula. During my visit to the Republic of Korea, I
encouraged the Republic of Korea's President Park to pursue her
vision of a Helsinki-like process to realize her goal of a
Northeast Asia confidence-building dialogue and to continue her
humanitarian approach to help starving North Koreans. I welcome
your ideas, Mr. Russel, as to how to engage that separated
families of two nations to move toward reconciliation,
including through closer cooperation with China.
And that brings me to China and the stumbling block to our
relations, human rights. During my visit to Beijing, I learned
how extensively the government suppresses human rights. It is
still not healthy to disagree with the government or you can
end up in labor camps without trials for years. We must
continue to have an honest, constructive dialogue with China on
human rights, cyber security, and intellectual property. We
want them to stop stealing our ideas and come up with their own
to become an innovative society that is a true partner.
We can partner with China in many areas, such as military-
to-military relations and climate change. I was encouraged by
President Obama's informal meeting with President Xi, which
symbolized the kind of relationship building necessary to
increase mutual trust. And with their agreement to reduce
hydrofluorocarbons, climate change is a promising area for
cooperation.
We must get our relations with China right in order to
contribute to peace and stability in the region as two great
Pacific powers.
As you can see, Mr. Russel, you have a full plate ahead of
you, and you will not be bored in your new position.
And we look forward to your testimony. And with that, I
will turn to Mr. Russel and just acknowledge that your full
statement will be made part of our record. You may proceed as
you wish and then we will engage in questions.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL R. RUSSEL, OF NEW YORK, TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS
Mr. Russel. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
this hearing today, and thank you very much for your comments
and thank you also for the leadership that you have shown since
taking over the chairmanship of this committee on the Asia-
Pacific account.
With your permission, I would like to begin by
introducing----
Senator Cardin. Please do.
Mr. Russel [continuing]. My wife Keiko, my wife of 31
years, who has stood by me and sacrificed so much for me and
for my career, but also for my country. I would also like to
introduce my two sons, Byron and Kevin. They, like their sister
Emily, who is mercifully gainfully employed and therefore could
not join us today, are what is called ``Foreign Service
brats.'' They have grown up bouncing around the world, changing
countries, changing schools, changing houses, changing
languages every 3 years, and that has represented a great
sacrifice, as has their waiting for me late into the night and
missing me on weekends. So it is something that I am very
grateful to them for.
I appreciate your comments about families in the Foreign
Service, Mr. Chairman. I think that my own family exemplifies a
truth about the entire Foreign Service which is that the spouse
and the children are really the unsung heroes. And I cannot
thank them enough.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Murphy, I am really honored to appear
before the committee today and grateful to President Obama and
to Secretary Kerry for their confidence in nominating me for
the responsibility of serving as Assistant Secretary of State
for East Asia and the Pacific, which is a region vital to our
national interests.
As a career member of the Foreign Service, I have devoted
28 years to serving America's interests abroad, largely in
Asia. In 1985, my first assignment was to serve as the staff
aid to the U.S. Ambassador to Japan who, at the time, was the
former Senate majority leader, Mike Mansfield, and he took me
under his wing. He and his wife became mentors to me and to my
wife. He became a lifelong friend, and to this day, he remains
my hero, my role model, and my inspiration. His life
exemplified honor, honesty, hard work, loyalty, modesty,
respect for others. It is from him that I acquired a deep
respect for this institution, and there is hardly a day that
goes by where I do not think of him and miss him.
My public service also taught me the value of the State
Department's greatest asset, which is the wonderful and
talented and dedicated men and women who serve in Washington
and who serve abroad. In my career, I have been entrusted with
assignments that carried responsibility for management, for
security, and for the welfare of American citizens, and if
confirmed, I pledge to maintain high ethical and managerial
standards. I will insist on the best possible security for our
personnel, rigorous safeguarding of our national security
information, clear and straightforward communications,
including with this committee and with your staff.
Mr. Chairman, as you mentioned, President Obama has made a
strategic commitment to rebalance our policy toward the Asia-
Pacific region because America's prosperity and security are
inextricably linked to that region. I have had the privilege of
serving as the President's special assistant for Asia, and I
know that his objective in the region is to create and ensure a
stable security environment and advance a regional order rooted
in economic openness, a peaceful resolution of disputes, and
respect for universal rights and freedoms. Secretary Kerry has
affirmed his strong commitment to this strategy, and if
confirmed, I will vigorously pursue this approach, which is
yielding important benefits to the American people and to the
region.
I firmly believe that America's treaty alliances underpin
our strategic rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region and are a
unique attribute of American strength.
More broadly, I believe the United States has a strong
interest in inclusive and transparent regional institutions, as
you alluded to, where countries work together to confront
common challenges. We want these institutions to help ensure a
stable, rules-based environment for economic growth, to promote
respect for international law, and to encourage the resolution
of disputes.
I also recognize the importance of opening markets, of
leveling the playing field, and deepening America's economic
ties to Asia, and if confirmed, I will work closely with
Congress and other stakeholders to promote U.S. exports and job
creation, to advocate for U.S. firms, and to foster economic
integration, and work to advance the administration's
initiatives on energy, on the environment, and on climate
change.
Similarly, with respect to China, as you mentioned, Mr.
Chairman, if confirmed, I will work to encourage China to
resolve key bilateral issues, to cooperate on regional
challenges, such as North Korea and maritime security, and to
play a constructive and responsible role in addressing global
challenges. I will seek to impress on the Chinese Government
that protecting universal human rights is in China's own
interest, and I will press China to take steps to stop this
cyber theft of American companies' intellectual property.
If confirmed, I will implement President Obama's policy of
promoting a rules-based system in the Asia-Pacific, respectful
of universal values, human rights, good governance, and
democracy.
Mr. Chairman, you mentioned North Korea's situation. North
Korea presents, through its nuclear and ballistic missile
programs, a serious threat to the United States, to our allies,
and to the global nonproliferation regime. If confirmed, I
would actively pursue the verifiable denuclearization of the
Korean Peninsula and work to block North Korea's efforts to
proliferate or to blackmail its neighbors. I am also concerned
about the well-being of the North Korean people, including
those who have fled tyranny there.
In addition, the United States has a profound interest in
the peaceful resolution of territorial disputes in the South
and the East China Seas. It is essential that we uphold freedom
of navigation and commerce, and if confirmed, I will support
the U.S. policy of opposing coercion or the threat or the use
of force, of reinforcing stability and adherence to
international law, rules, and norms, and of preventing
escalation or conflict.
I would like to close, Mr. Chairman, by reiterating my
commitment to do everything in my power to advance American
security, to advance American interests. And I am firmly
committed to good coordination with the legislative branch, and
if confirmed, I look forward to close cooperation with you and
your colleagues and your staff.
So I thank you again for the opportunity to appear before
the committee and for your consideration. I look forward to
hearing your views and answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Russel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel R. Russel
Chairman Cardin, Senator Rubio, and distinguished members of the
committee, it is an honor to appear before you today as President
Obama's nominee to be the next Assistant Secretary of State for East
Asian and Pacific Affairs. I am deeply grateful to President Obama and
to Secretary Kerry for placing their confidence in me with this
nomination to serve the United States of America in the capacity of
Assistant Secretary for a region that is so vital to our national
interests.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank and introduce to the
committee my wife of 31 years, Keiko, who has stood by me and
sacrificed so much for me and for this country over the years. I would
also like to introduce my sons Byron and Kevin who, like their sister
Emily (who is gainfully employed and could not attend today), grew up
as ``Foreign Service Brats'' moving from country to country, school to
school. They, too, have made many sacrifices for me and tolerated my
long hours at work and frequent travel. My family exemplifies a truth
about the Foreign Service--the spouse and the children are the unsung
heroes--and I can't thank them enough.
Mr. Chairman, this nomination is deeply meaningful to me because,
as a career member of the Foreign Service, I have devoted 28 years of
service to promoting America's interests abroad, largely in East Asia.
After traveling to Asia as a 22-year-old and studying martial arts in
Japan for 3 years, I returned home to New York and used my Japanese
language ability in a multinational company. Over time, I recognized
that whereas businesses throughout Asia were intensely interested in
learning about the United States, back home too few Americans gave much
thought to foreign affairs or to the necessity of defending our
interests overseas. This concern motivated me to pursue a career of
public service, and in 1985 I left the private sector, and proudly
accepted an appointment as a United States Foreign Service officer. It
is a decision I have never regretted. As my first assignment, I was
posted to our Embassy in Tokyo, where I had the honor to work as the
staff aide to former Senate majority leader and Senate Foreign
Relations Committee chairman, Ambassador Mike Mansfield. Mike Mansfield
took me under his wing, served as my mentor, and to this day is my role
model and inspiration. His life exemplified honor, honesty, hard work,
loyalty, modesty and respect for others. As a former Senator he taught
me the importance of teamwork between the executive and legislative
branches. And as an ambassador who represented the United States under
both President Carter and President Reagan, he taught me the value of
bipartisan cooperation.
I have worked for other exceptional American diplomats and been
given extraordinary opportunities to contribute to important foreign
policy priorities. As Political Advisor for Asia under Ambassador Tom
Pickering at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations from 1989 to 1992,
I traveled widely in Asia and to the Pacific Island nations, I
participated in the Cambodia peace talks, played a small role in the
restart of our relations with Vietnam, and coordinated our successful
efforts to bring the Republic of Korea into the United Nations as a
full member state. As Political Unit Chief at our Embassy in Seoul,
Republic of Korea, I participated in nuclear negotiations with North
Korea and helped to negotiate the 1994 Agreed Framework. In later
positions in the State Department, including as Chief of Staff to the
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs and during my service at
the National Security Council over the past 4\1/2\ years, I have been
granted the opportunity to contribute to the formulation of America's
foreign policy and to work on some of the most pressing challenges
facing our country. I very much hope for the opportunity to continue
that work as Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the
Pacific.
Mr. Chairman, almost three decades of government service have
taught me to value the State Department's greatest asset--its talented
and dedicated employees. The women and men of the State Department
represent the best this country has to offer, and I am humbled to be
considered for this position of leadership. If confirmed, I will take
every opportunity to promote their role and skills, while relying
heavily on their expertise, enthusiasm, and deep sense of loyalty to
the United States. I care deeply about the State Department and will do
my utmost to strengthen it as an institution. This includes pursuing
resource requests for operations commensurate with the Department's
mission and national interests and for foreign assistance funding that
represents sound investments by the American people to promote our
prosperity and security, as well as our values as a democratic nation.
Over the years I have been entrusted with responsibility for
managing two of our embassies in Europe--in Cyprus and in The Hague--as
Deputy Chief and Mission and Charge d'Affaires. Those positions, as
well as my service as Principal Officer in Osaka, one of our largest
consulates in Asia, carried significant responsibility for management,
security, and the welfare of American citizens. I have always placed a
high premium on management excellence. If confirmed, I will emphasize
proper and responsive management within the Bureau and at our posts
abroad. I pledge to maintain high ethical standards, careful
stewardship of resources, the best possible security for our personnel,
rigorous safeguarding of information relating to national security, and
clear and straightforward communications, including with this committee
and its members.
Mr. Chairman, this is an extraordinary time of opportunities and
challenges for East Asian and Pacific countries and for the United
States. With the recognition that America's future prosperity and
security are very much intertwined with the Asia-Pacific region,
President Obama made a strategic commitment to rebalance our interests
and investments in Asia. The President set out a clear, overarching
objective for the United States in the region to sustain a stable
security environment and advance a regional order rooted in economic
openness, peaceful resolution of disputes, and respect for universal
rights and freedoms. As underscored by Secretary Kerry during his trip
to the region in April, the State Department remains committed to this
U.S. strategic objective by building an increasingly active and
enduring presence in the region. As Senior Director for Asian Affairs
on the National Security Staff, I have worked to promote the United
States increased focus on the Asia-Pacific in line with the President's
strategic priorities and the national interest. I wholeheartedly
believe that as a Pacific country with profound interests in the
region, America should engage deeply throughout the region and provide
inspiration, security, and leadership. If confirmed, I will sustain a
``whole-of-government approach'' ensuring that the efforts of the State
Department are closely coordinated with USAID, the Defense Department,
and other agencies. I will work with Congress, the business community,
and nongovernmental organizations to build on and shape the important
partnerships that promote our prosperity and security.
Over the past 4 years, our robust engagement with the Asia-Pacific
through governments, institutions, and people-to-people programs has
yielded positive returns politically, socially, economically, and
militarily. I intend to sustain this focus and continue the
Department's efforts to strengthen and modernize our alliances, enhance
our partnerships with regional powers, support regional multilateral
institutions, boost trade and investment, advance democracy and the
respect for human rights, and strengthen ties between Americans and the
people of the region. Mr. Chairman, I will touch briefly on some of
these aspects.
First, I firmly believe our treaty alliances with Japan, the
Republic of Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and Thailand remain the
bedrock for our strategic rebalance to the Asia-Pacific. These enduring
relationships represent a unique asset for the United States and an
important multiplier of our influence in the region. Our alliances are
grounded in history, shared values, and our common commitment to
democracy, free markets, rule of law, and human rights. They provide
the foundation for close cooperation that ensures regional stability
and reassures our friends and regional partners of U.S. commitment to
the Asia-Pacific region. I believe that our ties with our East Asian
and Pacific allies are stronger than ever. If confirmed, I will work
closely with colleagues at the Defense Department to ensure that our
alliances are maintained and modernized in a way that promotes
operational needs and our shared strategic goals, including new
cooperative efforts in cyber security, space, counterpiracy, and
counterterrorism.
Second, Mr. Chairman, beyond our bilateral relationships, I believe
the United States has a strong interest in the further development of
an inclusive and transparent regional architecture of multilateral
institutions. The Asia-Pacific region is increasingly seized with the
need to develop rules-based frameworks for dialogue and cooperation
that will help maintain stability, resolve disputes through diplomacy,
and ensure that countries can rise peacefully. If confirmed, I will
work to strengthen regional structures, such as the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations Regional Forum and the East Asia summit, so
that these bodies effectively ensure countries work together to
confront common challenges, provide a stable environment for economic
growth, and act with respect for international law and rules.
Many of these forums are built on the underlying platform of the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN. For decades, ASEAN
has embodied a framework for regional cooperation based on mutual
respect and the renunciation of force. Not only does ASEAN provide a
platform on which to build a regional architecture, but the countries
of Southeast Asia are becoming increasingly important as their
economic, political, and social dynamism grows. The increased U.S.
focus on ASEAN in recent years mirrors our enhanced engagement with
Southeast Asia as a whole, representing a ``rebalance within the
rebalance.'' Southeast Asia's strategic geography, population of over
600 million, economic growth, and its rapidly expanding middle class
underscore its significance. If confirmed, I will ensure that we
continue to bolster our ties with Southeast Asia, including with
emerging centers of influence, such as Indonesia, where we are
strengthening our relationship through the Comprehensive Partnership.
This engagement includes strengthening efforts like the Lower Mekong
Initiative, which supports narrowing the development gap in Southeast
Asia, and regional mechanisms to improve human rights and the rule of
law.
The United States has historic ties to the Pacific Island nations,
our neighbors on our farthest, westernmost maritime boundaries and home
to vast marine resources. As such, the Pacific Islands have an
important role to play in our rebalance, and if confirmed, I will help
to deepen and institutionalize our ties with these partner nations and
with regional bodies such as the Pacific Islands Forum and the
Secretariat of the Pacific Community. This includes working with the
committee and others in Congress to implement the Palau Compact Review.
Third, Mr. Chairman, millions of U.S. jobs are tied to exports to
the Asia-Pacific region, and that should increase through sustained
U.S. economic statecraft with the growing economies of the region.
Having seen the benefits of such high-quality agreements such as the
U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement and our free trade agreements with
Australia and Singapore, I recognize the importance of trade
liberalization and deepening our economic relations with the Asia-
Pacific.
If confirmed, I will work closely with Congress, USTR, U.S.
stakeholders, and partner countries to advance an agenda that promotes
U.S. exports and job creation, advocates for U.S. firms, fosters
regional economic integration, and lays the foundation for robust,
sustained growth at home and throughout the Asia-Pacific.
We are now committed to an even more ambitious project in the
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade negotiations. If confirmed, I
will work in support of the successful conclusion this year of the TPP
negotiations to develop a next-generation regional trade and investment
agreement, which also promotes internationally recognized labor rights,
environmental protection, and transparency.
In an effort to sustain momentum for achieving free, fair, open,
and transparent trade throughout the region, if confirmed, I will
ensure continued strong U.S. leadership in the 21-member Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, a key organization for addressing
practical issues affecting U.S. consumers and businesses and
establishing policies and standards that facilitate trade and
investment in the region. Additionally, I will continue to advance
Presidential initiatives on Expanded Economic Engagement with ASEAN and
the U.S.-Asia-Pacific Comprehensive Energy Partnership, and examine new
opportunities to work with the region on environmental protection and
climate change issues.
Fourth, Mr. Chairman, over the last 4 years the Obama
administration has placed great importance on the U.S.-China
relationship and has made substantial progress in building a
relationship that can address the challenges of the 21st century. As
President Obama has made very clear, including at his recent summit in
California with President Xi, the United States welcomes a stable,
prosperous, and successful China that takes responsibility on the
global stage commensurate with its stature. If confirmed, I will
continue to build on the progress that has been made and further
encourage China to take a constructive role in addressing global
challenges.
Two themes have guided the U.S. approach to China. First is the
recognition that the U.S.-China relationship will continue to have
elements of both cooperation and competition. To prevent the emergence
of old-style strategic rivalry, we must continue to reject the premise
that a rising power and an established power are somehow destined for
conflict. Instead, the United States and China must focus on fostering
new patterns of practical cooperation on issues that matter to both
countries. Second, the administration has stressed the importance of
sustained and substantive dialogue across the range of issues in the
relationship, including stronger U.S.-China military-to-military ties.
Only by pursuing a whole-of-government approach in our dialogues can
the United States and China create consensus around rules and norms
while we remain committed to our values and interests. If confirmed, I
will continue to impress upon the Chinese Government that protecting
human rights is not only about China's adherence to international norms
governing the protection of universal values, but it is also
intrinsically in China's interest. This is because greater respect for
fundamental freedoms will ultimately strengthen the U.S.-China
bilateral relationship and contribute to China's continued peace,
prosperity, and stability. On cyber-enabled theft, the U.S. has made
clear that we need China to recognize the urgency and scope of this
problem and the risk it poses--to international trade, to the
reputation of Chinese industry, and to our overall relations. Beijing
should take serious steps to investigate and put a stop to these
activities. Finally, we need China to engage with us in a constructive
discussion on acceptable norms of behavior in cyber space within the
recently announced U.S.-China cyber security working group.
Regarding our friendship with Taiwan, the United States remains
firmly committed to our one China policy based on the three U.S.-PRC
Joint Communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act. Under our one China
policy, the United States maintains close unofficial relations with
Taiwan, which is a thriving democracy and an important trading partner.
Our friendship and robust commercial, cultural, and people-to-people
exchanges with Taiwan have never been stronger.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I will continue to promote and
support a rules-based system respectful of universal values, human
rights, and democracy in the Asia-Pacific. It is not a coincidence that
virtually every country that threatens peace is a place where human
rights are in peril. It is also not a coincidence that many of our
closest allies are countries that embrace pluralism, tolerance, equal
rights and equal opportunities. In short, there is a strong link
between standing up for human dignity abroad and the national interests
of the United States. As such, I will ensure our diplomats continue to
monitor and promote the respect for human rights in bilateral and
multilateral settings, and support the region's own efforts to foster
vibrant, democratic civil societies.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make note of the historic reforms in Burma
over the past few years. Burma, a country impoverished by decades of
authoritarian military rule and self-imposed isolation, is undergoing
an unprecedented political transition marked by a rapid expansion of
civil liberties and human rights. These reforms have allowed us to open
a new chapter in bilateral relations and expand our channels for
assistance. We recognize that much more remains to be done. To ensure
that this extraordinary transformation succeeds, I will push for
continued reform, including advancing democracy and respect for human
rights of all citizens, protection of ethnic and religious minorities,
increased efforts toward national reconciliation, advancing economic
development, and cooperation on nonproliferation. Burma remains
important to U.S. interests as a demonstration of the benefits that can
accrue to a nation that pursues a progressive path to change.
Having served extensively overseas, I believe passionately in the
power of people-to-people ties and in the importance of our public
diplomacy initiatives. Our public diplomacy programs introduce foreign
audiences to the diversity of American culture and society, showcase
the role that civil society plays in the United States, and create the
long-term foundation for understanding and collaboration. If confirmed,
I will fully support expanding innovative educational and cultural
endeavors. We will also continue to increase our bilateral dialogues
and create multilateral dialogues on educational and cultural issues
such as the U.S.-China Consultation on People-to-People Exchange. I
will give priority to conveying American ideals through social media
platforms in tech-savvy East Asia to connect us with young and diverse
audiences.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I will strongly encourage building
greater interparliamentary connections, and toward that end I encourage
Members of Congress and congressional staff to travel to the region and
engage with the region's leaders and people. I will pledge the warm
welcome and full support of our Embassies.
The Asia Pacific security landscape continues to evolve, and I am
committed to ensuring that we are responsive to longstanding challenges
as well as changing demands. North Korea's illicit nuclear and
ballistic missile programs, proliferation activities, and flagrant
violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions constitute a serious
threat to the United States and its allies, the region, and the global
nonproliferation regime. The United States remains steadfast in its
commitment to the defense of our allies, and to maintaining peace and
security in the region. If confirmed, I will work with absolute
determination to pursue the full and verifiable denuclearization of the
Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner and to block North Korea's
efforts to engage in proliferation and blackmail of its neighbors. We
remain deeply concerned about the well-being and human rights of the
North Korean people and join the international community in urging the
DPRK to cooperate with the U.N. Commission of Inquiry regarding the
widespread violations of human rights in the DPRK.
Territorial and maritime disputes have resurfaced as key challenges
to peace and stability. Although the United States is not a party to
the underlying sovereignty disputes, we have a profound interest in
seeing that these disputes are managed and resolved peacefully and in
accordance with international law and that freedom of navigation and
commerce are upheld. If confirmed, I will fully support a U.S.
diplomatic and security role that reinforces stability and discourages
escalation of tensions.
Cyber space also poses unique and compelling challenges to our
prosperity and security and that of the region. If confirmed, I will
work hard to safeguard the intellectual property of our highly
innovative companies and institutions from cyber theft and malicious
cyber actors, as well as protect our critical infrastructure. We will
work actively with both interagency and foreign counterparts to step up
our efforts on this front, which includes sustaining our engagement
with China.
Mr. Chairman, let me close by reiterating my fundamental
commitment, if confirmed, to do all in my power to ensure that the
United States shapes trends in this dynamic region in ways that benefit
both our own interests and those of the region as a whole. I strongly
believe that close coordination between the executive and the
legislative branches will be crucial to this endeavor, and, if
confirmed, I look forward to close cooperation with you, Mr. Chairman,
and your colleagues.
Thank you, again, for this opportunity to appear before you. I am
happy to respond to any questions you may have.
Senator Cardin. Well, thank you very much for your
testimony. You have already answered one of my questions about
your cooperation with this committee and Congress I think three
or four times during your opening statement. You reinforced
your willingness to work closely with our committee, and you
have already demonstrated that in your other capacities. So I
thank you for that.
I am going to let Senator Murphy inquire first.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome. Congratulations on this step forward. We hope
to be able to move your nomination forward expeditiously.
I wanted to explore the interplay of our rebalance to Asia,
both with respect to what is happening at the State Department
through diplomatic channels, but also how that works together
with our military rebalance. And I wanted to ask you to talk
about this in the context of the maritime territorial disputes
in the region. They greatly worry me. I know we have, in part,
dedicated more military resources and more ships to the region
to make it clear that we are going to continue our historic
commitment to maintaining open seas, but I also know that we
have been encouraging for some of the regional forums to be
used as a dispute settlement mechanism with great resistance
from China.
And so I would love to hear your thoughts about the path
forward and how the United States interplays with some of these
maritime disputes but also how you see the interplay between
the tools that we have on the diplomatic side and tools that we
have on the military side specifically with respect to this
question.
Mr. Russel. Thank you very much, Senator, for that
question. I think the juxtaposition of the two issues that you
identify, which is the coordination of roles and resources
between the security and diplomatic tracks and the challenge in
the maritime space, is really a central challenge that faces
the United States at the moment and in the years to come.
The essence of the President's rebalancing strategy has
been to create a stable environment in a region that is
critical to America's future prosperity and interests that is
built on an existing investment by the United States in
security arrangements that have allowed for the development
and, frankly, the prosperity that the region has seen, but also
to help overlay that with a structure and system of rules and
norms that are respectful of and consistent with international
law. Nowhere is it more evident or more important to us and to
our friends and partners for the approach to territorial and
sovereignty disputes in the Asia-Pacific region to be addressed
in a peaceful and diplomatic manner in ways that are consistent
with international law.
The United States is itself not a claimant. We have no
interest in the territory itself, but we have a profound
interest in the conduct of the claimants and other parties,
including and particularly that of China. We firmly oppose
coercion whether it is military coercion or economic coercion
and the threat and the use of force.
As a key element of rebalancing, as you alluded to, the
President has made clear to his military establishment that
security in the Asia-Pacific region is a strategic priority for
the United States, and I know that my colleagues in the
Pentagon have planned and operated on the basis of that
strategic guidance.
At the same time, the President has also made clear that
there is an important role for the State Department on the
diplomatic side in helping to build up the relationships
between the United States and our allies. The rebalancing
strategy has begun with modernizing our alliances. We have
invested heavily in the development of the institutions in the
region that are built around ASEAN, the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations. And that, most importantly, includes
the decision by President Obama to begin participating
personally in the annual East Asia summit, which we see
emerging as the premier forum for leaders to discuss security
and political strategic issues, something that frankly they
cannot do in any other forum because the only other major
regional institution, APEC, is an economic cooperation
organization. And I think that the President feels that we have
made some headway on that front.
Senator Murphy. But talk to me about China's interest in--
if China wants to become a true superpower standing next to the
United States, then they have to accept that they need to play
by international norms and that they have to be a player in
some of these regional dispute settlement forums. And thus far,
we have not seen a lot of interest in them to do that.
Tell me about what pressure the Chinese feel to join in on
some of these efforts and what we can do to try to encourage
them to get there rather that continuing to sort of be a
diplomatic rogue.
Mr. Russel. Senator, the issue of China's engagement with
ASEAN and with the other claimant countries diplomatically, as
well as China's particular behavior on the seas, whether it is
in Scarborough Shoal or the Second Thomas Shoal in the Spratlys
and the Paracels in the South China Sea as well as in the East
China Sea, is an issue that the President and top officials,
including Secretary Kerry, have in fact raised very directly
and very consistently with the Chinese, as well as in the fora
with the ASEAN, such as the East Asia summit, where China is
very much present and accounted for. We have had this
discussion directly in bilateral and in multilateral fora with
the Chinese.
And I think the Chinese similarly are in no doubt that
America stands by our allies and that the existence of the
Philippines, a treaty ally, as a competing claimant, our
relationship with Japan, with whom China has a sovereignty
dispute over the Senkakus in the East China Sea--these are
issues that the Chinese understand directly implicate United
States interests and will have an effect on the prospects for a
United States-China relationship.
So I believe, Senator, that we have delivered this message
consistently and clearly. I think we have reinforced the
confidence of our partners and allies and given a constructive
boost to ASEAN's effort to begin negotiations directly with
China on a code of conduct. I think we have supported other
diplomatic and recourse to international law on the part of
some of the claimants, and if confirmed, Senator, I certainly
will do everything in my power to try to lower the temperature,
push claimants including China into a diplomatic track, and
continue to warn them that the region in which China will
flourish is a region of law, a region of order, and a region of
respect for neighbors, not one in which there is space for
coercion and bullying.
Senator Murphy. I think the administration has been very
clear on this point. I certainly did not mean to suggest that
it has not been.
I am certainly very pleased at your nomination and look
forward to working with you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cardin. Let me follow up on the maritime security
issues because I think Senator Murphy is right on target here.
As you point out, we have treaty responsibilities with several
of the countries that are involved in maritime disputes. There
are also the shipping lanes that are important for commerce.
When I was in Northeast Asia, the East China Sea disputes were
mentioned by just about every public official I met with as
being a major area of concern. Of course, in the South China
Sea, there are very, very serious issues that have already in
some cases mushroomed into violence and could become more
widespread.
Recently Vietnam and China agreed on a hotline to deal with
fishing incidents. One could look at that as a very positive
sign. After all, they now have a way of communicating if
something develops, trying to cool it down rather than
escalating it. But it is also of concern as to whether China is
trying to circumvent ASEAN and other international forums where
these issues need to be developed, particularly with a code of
conduct.
What is your prognosis on how we can cool down the maritime
issues and get the parties directly negotiating rather than
seeing the loss of life and violence?
Mr. Russel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I begin, let me say that I think that your visit to
Northeast Asia was very productive, and I thank you for taking
the time to go there. And I will put in a plug. If confirmed, I
am a great believer in the tremendous value of congressional
delegations, and I can promise you that the East Asia-Pacific
Bureau and posts will roll out the red carpet and open their
doors not only to you, Senator, but any Member of Congress or
any staff member who is willing to take the time to go because
I think it is very important.
With respect to the claimants to the disputed territories
in the South China Sea, it is our view that there should be a
consensual, inclusive, collaborative process among the
claimants, that it is unacceptable for any party, including
China, to demand that only bilateral negotiations are possible
or allowable. By the same token, we, not being a claimant, are
entirely comfortable with bilateral discussions and
negotiations being part of the mechanisms for addressing both
some of these disputes and the question of how to appropriately
share and manage the maritime resources, which are really a
treasure that belong to the people.
Specifically, we think that the negotiations among the
claimants should not only be friendly and diplomatic but should
be undertaken on the basis of international law. And we have
called on the claimants to clarify their claims in ways that
are consistent with the Law of the Sea, specifically to base
them on recognized land features. We, at the same time, think
that a broader diplomatic process that gets at not the question
of who owns what and whose border begins and ends where, but
the issue of how nations behave in the South China Sea, in the
common area, and particularly in areas of dispute is critically
important and is urgent. And we have given ASEAN our full
backing in their efforts to go beyond the declaration of
conduct that they had agreed to in 2002, which is somewhat
theoretical, to a practical code of conduct.
Now, China and ASEAN have held informal discussions. I
understand that there are plans for meetings later in the
summer at the ministerial level. Secretary Kerry will travel to
Brunei at the end of this month to attend the ASEAN regional
forum. And these are places where there is both an opportunity
for China to make progress with ASEAN, but also in the case of
the ASEAN regional forum and then in October the East Asia
summit where President Obama will attend, an opportunity for
senior U.S. officials to speak out clearly and constructively
to urge not only adherence to the principles that I have
mentioned but also to try to galvanize the kind of diplomatic
process that will address both the need for responsible conduct
and the desirability of actual negotiations.
Senator Cardin. And I think the United States has been very
clear about our commitments on the maritime issues. I do not
think we could leave any doubt because it is a matter of major
security concerns to our partners in Asia.
When President Park was here, she mentioned developing a
security dialogue organization for Northeast Asia. When I was
in the Republic of Korea and also, by the way, in Japan and
China, I talked about a regional security dialogue. And it was
favorably thought about by all the parties.
One of the things that I think surprises most Americans is
that we usually think of the Republic of Korea and Japan as
being our two strongest allies in that region, and the
relationship between those two countries could certainly use
some improvement. They certainly have areas that still remain
unresolved. A regional dialogue organization may help resolve
some of these issues. And of course, dealing with China,
dealing with North Korea--and they would also want to see the
participation of Russia and the United States. I think there is
a lot of promise to that type of organization to be patterned
sort of after the Helsinki process.
Do you have a view as to whether a separate organization in
Northeast Asia could be helpful?
Mr. Russel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I am very familiar both with the Helsinki Commission
and also with your role as the cochair here. I served for 6
years in Europe, and I saw firsthand the progress that the
Helsinki Commission was able to galvanize and to drive on the
European side. And I think that you are asking a question that
is worth seriously looking into. And if confirmed, it is
something that I would like to continue to discuss and to
probe.
I also noticed and I saw, in fact, Mr. Chairman, in your
remarks on the Senate floor earlier this month, your reference
to this, that there are real analogies between the Helsinki
process and the Northeast Asia Peace and Cooperation Initiative
that President Park Geun Hye has put forward. I think it is
worth looking and thinking at quite carefully. There are
parallels.
There are likely to be some differences in Asia, and one
outstanding question would be whether there is a role for the
Helsinki Commission itself to help and to cooperate in the
region or whether there should be a regional institution
developed along those lines.
An associated question would be the balance between
engaging on some of the softer issues that help build
confidence, that help build trust. As I have heard President
Park speak about her initiative, she has tended to favor that
approach, starting more softly, so to speak. I know that the
key six parties in Northeast Asia have come together repeatedly
both in the six-party talks itself and in other subformats over
the years in an effort to deal directly with security.
I think at its heart, the security challenge that faces all
of us in the East Asia and Pacific region is manifested most
vividly in the threat from North Korea.
Senator Cardin. Of course, we have the six-party talks
dealing with North Korea, and there have been some encouraging
signs just very recently that there may be a desire for North
Korea to engage in discussions under the framework of complying
with their agreements on a denuclearized Korean Peninsula.
The interesting part about a Helsinki-type process as it
relates to North Korea is that we are all focused on their
nuclear ambition and their military prowess. But as we heard
over and over again from President Park and other South
Koreans, that in order to have a stable Korean Peninsula, it is
not just getting rid of the nukes. It is also dealing with the
human rights conditions of the people that are living up in the
North and economic opportunities for the people who are living
in the North. So it is really a more comprehensive approach.
And what the South Koreans seem to want is for North Korea to
comply with their commitments for a nuclear-free peninsula but
then to engage on ways in which there could be cooperation for
the economic development and the basic respect for the rights
by the government of the people of North Korea.
Mr. Russel. I agree, Mr. Chairman. And in fact, at the risk
of quoting you back to yourself, I remember watching your
speech at CSIS earlier this spring, and you used a formula that
really made an impression on me. You said governments need to
understand that they will never achieve economic security or
political security without respect for good governance and
human rights. I think that is a critically important principle
that applies, I am sure, globally but certainly in the East
Asia region and nowhere more so than to North Korea.
President Obama has said very clearly that North Korea can
never achieve the security, the respect, or the economic
prosperity that it says it wants through its pursuit of nuclear
weapons and missiles.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that the two issues you have
identified, North Korea's egregious pattern of human rights
abuses and its failure to feed its own people and its headlong
pursuit of nuclear and nuclear missile capability that is
highly destabilizing and threatening to the region--these are
in a way two sides of the same coin. North Korea is choosing
not to feed its people. North Korea is prioritizing, frankly
useless--pursuit of a useless military capability against an
imaginary threat at the expense of the kind of growth and
economic development that it claims to want and that its people
deserve.
I am deeply concerned about the plight of the North Korean
people, as well as those who have managed to escape from
tyranny, and I am particularly concerned about North Korea's
continuing efforts to proliferate and to further develop
nuclear and missile capabilities that we find so threatening. I
have dealt directly with the North Koreans and the North Korean
issue for more than 20 years in my position in the National
Security Council. I have traveled to North Korea. I know these
guys. If confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I will make the effort to
accelerate the achievement of denuclearization, not just the
theory, to actually help bring about a halt, a rollback, and an
elimination of North Korea's nuclear program a top priority,
and I believe in that effort, we stand a much greater chance of
being able to address the human rights problems in that
country.
Senator Cardin. And a country that could help us achieve
change in North Korea is China. I was very impressed by my
meetings with the Chinese as to how sincere I believe they are
in trying to have a change in direction in North Korea as it
relates to nuclear weapons, as well as opening up their economy
as China has opened up its economy.
You cannot help but notice tremendous change in China. You
see entrepreneurs on the streets. You see more freedom than has
been enjoyed in past generations, and you see a country that is
clearly moving in a more aggressive way economically.
Having said that, as I said in my opening statement, the
one-party, Communist-ruled country violates the basic human
rights of its citizens. It is not good to disagree with the
government too loudly in China. They still have these
reeducation labor camps where you could be detained for an
extended period of time because you disagree with the
government. I was absolutely so disappointed talking to
religious leaders as to how the government stops just about any
organized religion from being able to carry out its normal
assemblies. And then most of the people in the country are
locked into where they are born. They do not have a chance to
really benefit from the economic advancements of the country.
You have the ``have and have-nots.''
So I guess my question to you is we need to develop a
stronger relationship with China. We need their help on many
issues, including North Korea, including the environment,
including the fact that they are a member of the permanent
council of the United Nations Security Council.
So how do we handle China, recognizing its strategic
importance to the United States, but also our concern for basic
good governance and human rights?
Mr. Russel. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Clearly, China is a hugely important and hugely
consequential country and relationship for the United States.
Before I turn to China, let me say that I entirely agree that
China has an important role to play in our efforts to deal with
North Korea.
I believe also, Mr. Chairman, that Burma does as well. I
think that the model, the example of Burma, an authoritarian
leadership that made an affirmative decision to pursue a
peaceful path to democracy and economic reform, stands as a
tremendous role model for what North Korea should and can do.
And I think that the strong support from the United States and
from the rest of the international community in backing Burma's
reform efforts answers the question that the North Koreans ask,
which is how can we trust that if we make the right decision
and take this path that you actually will support us.
With respect to China, Mr. Chairman--and again, thank you
for expressing your views in advance of the meeting that
President Obama and President Xi had at Sunnylands. I know that
reached the President, and he appreciated it, as well as your
other comments, including today.
The President has invested, since the day he took office,
in attempting to build a balanced relationship with China. He
has made clear that our interest is in seeing the peaceful rise
of a China that is stable, that is prosperous, and that rises
in a way that is consistent with and reinforcing of the
international and the regional rules and norms that are
important to all of us.
So there is a lot of balance required in the Asia-Pacific
more broadly but within the United States-China relationship
specifically. There is a need for balance between the
cooperative elements of our relationship and the competitive
aspects of our relationship. And if confirmed, Mr. Chairman,
one of my challenges will be to try to ensure that we are
cooperating more, cooperating in a way that returns benefits to
the American people and that in our competition, that we are
sure that the competition is a healthy one.
We are looking for a model of practical cooperation with
China that delivers benefits to both people and to the region
in areas like climate change. And as you alluded to, President
Xi and President Obama reached an important agreement on the
hydrofluorocarbons, HFCs, and the Montreal Protocol, which will
pay dividends down the road. And as you alluded to, North Korea
is the other area where I think our positive cooperation is not
only possible but essential, and both President Obama and
President Xi committed to deepening both our dialogue and our
cooperation in the effort to denuclearize North Korea.
Human rights is not a stand-alone issue, either in the
region or in the United States-China relationship. It is
something that we raise always at every level in virtually
every meeting for several reasons, both of which you alluded
to. First, these are universal values, not boutique American
preferences. Second, although they are universal, they are
deeply embedded in the DNA of Americans. This is who we are.
These are our values. But third, as you pointed out, the
economic prosperity, the creativity, the ability for China to
continue to satisfy the demands of its citizens requires good
governance. It requires a willingness to build and abide by
rules and law. It requires a judiciary. It requires a thriving
and a vigorous civil society, and it requires a respect for
human rights.
We talk directly to the Chinese in various fora about the
general principle. As I said in my statement, I genuinely
believe that it is in China's interest to demonstrate their
respect for human rights that is enshrined in its own
constitution. We also raise individual cases. We raise problems
such as the inability of the New York Times or Bloomberg to
maintain Web sites that Chinese citizens can access. And we do
this wanting a stable China. We do this respecting China's
choices, but we do it in a conviction that not only are these
universal principles, but that they are central to the
prospects for a successful and enduring U.S.-China cooperative
partnership.
Senator Cardin. Well, you can add to the New York Times and
Bloomberg that our U.S. consulate office was also blocked in
China. So the cyber issues are real, and the access to the
Internet, as well as cyber threats that we know we are moving
forward on.
There was just reported today that in Singapore there is a
haze over the entire area because of forest fires in Indonesia.
And when I was in Beijing, I never saw the sun, and that was
not because of clouds. There is a huge environmental challenge
in Asia today.
The good news for dealing with it is that it is so visible;
it is a problem that the government officials have to deal with
because the public sees it every day. And it gives us a chance
to really make progress. As you pointed out, President Xi and
President Obama did make significant progress during their
meeting in California. There appears to be a real opportunity
for countries that were not as engaged a couple years ago in
international leadership, that they could very well provide the
type of impetus necessary to move forward globally on climate
change initiatives.
How do you see your role in regards to promoting that type
of leadership?
Mr. Russel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I could not agree with you more that this is a principle
concern and a priority not only for the United States, but for
all the countries in the region. As you alluded to, the problem
is forcing itself onto the top of the agenda of leaders who
might prefer to turn a blind eye to them.
If I am confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I would like to pursue a
number of the initiatives that are already underway that I
think are extremely important in helping to address the
challenge of climate and environmental degradation as
partnerships, not just as rhetorical talking points.
One of them is an initiative that President Obama launched
last year at the East Asia summit in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, the
Comprehensive Energy Partnership, in tandem with President
Yudhoyono of Indonesia and the Sultan of Brunei. This is an
effort to promote renewable energy, green growth, low-emission
energy sources, as well as to facilitate rural electrification
that will be critical to the responsible growth of the
Southeast Asian region.
Another is the Lower Mekong Initiative, which is a
collective of the five major Mekong Southeast Asian nations
with the United States and along with some other partners,
where they are working to preserve forests, to preserve access
to water and the riparian challenges given the many borders and
the importance of water to the livelihood and to the ecological
system there.
Another, Mr. Chairman, is the Extraction Industry
Transparency Initiative. I am very proud that I have been able
to help in a small way, including in cooperation with our USAID
mission in Burma, with an effort to bring the Burmese up to the
standards that would allow them to accede to this EITI because
Burma, like its poor neighbors, Cambodia and Laos, along with
Vietnam and Thailand, have phenomenal environmental resources
to protect.
There is also, Mr. Chairman, in the South China Sea, as we
discussed, a treasure trove of undersea and maritime wealth in
the form of fish and coral, as well as hydrocarbons.
Responsible management of those resources is a priority not
only for the owners but for the people and for the region.
So on those issues, as well as on other environmental
challenges like wildlife where there is a nexus between
poaching of elephants in Africa, including by terrorist-related
groups, and consumption of ivory in East Asia, if confirmed,
this is an area where I think that the State Department, the
Bureau, and I can make a difference. And I would like to work
closely with the relevant posts with our ambassadors and our
missions to promote coordination, communication, and
partnerships to try to make some real and measurable progress
on this issue.
Senator Cardin. I want to mention one other area in regards
to China that has recently come to light, and that is, China
was downgraded in the State Department's Trafficking in Persons
Report from a Tier 2 Watch List to the lowest rung, Tier 3,
after 2 years on the Watch List. So this is moving in the wrong
direction, and trafficking is one of our highest priorities.
Will you commit to making this a top priority, if
confirmed, and work with the Chinese? This is an area where I
think most countries really want to do the right thing. So it
seems to me there is a way that we should be able to help China
in dealing with this modern day type of slavery.
Mr. Russel. Mr. Chairman, the short answer is yes. This is
an issue that is important in its own right. It is important
for moral reasons. It is important for development reasons
regionwide but also in China.
I am aware of the fact that yesterday the trafficking in
persons report was unveiled by Secretary Kerry and that I think
as part of the automaticity in the Tier 2 Watch List system,
that China was downgraded. My understanding is that there has
been progress in certain areas by China with regard to the
development of an action plan, that in the past year, there
have been some favorable signs with regard to extradition or
prosecution. But there is no question that the problem of
trafficking in China and in some of China's neighbors is a very
serious one, one in which the United States can be helpful and
one in which, if confirmed, I would make best efforts to
support.
Senator Cardin. The administration's top priority economic
initiative is the Trans-Pacific Partnership. That includes a
variety of nations in our hemisphere and in the Asian region.
It was mentioned a couple times in my visit to China they are
not exactly sure what the TPP means as far as China is
concerned. There is some concern that it is being used to try
to contain China.
Could you just briefly review with the committee the
priority placed on TPP and why?
Mr. Russel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes.
The President has directed many of my colleagues, including
the recently confirmed U.S. Trade Representative, Mike Froman,
to spare no effort to work toward the completion of
negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership by the end of
this year. The President believes that this is a high-quality,
high-benefit trade arrangement that has immense economic as
well as strategic value. And I know that our negotiators are
hard at work on this. And if confirmed, I would like to
contribute and participate in the effort to try to bring it to
closure.
The TPP, as it is called, is not an exclusive arrangement.
It is an inclusive arrangement. We foresee in the first
instance that ultimately 11 members will accede, that if in
fact Japan does join TPP, it will represent 40 percent of the
world's GDP among its membership.
What I mean, Mr. Chairman, by saying it is not an exclusive
economic and trade agreement is not only that the door is not
closed eventually to additional countries joining it. Although
our strategy is first things first. This is an ambitious
undertaking and we want to do it and we want to do it right and
in a timely manner. But I mean not exclusive in the sense that
it is perfectly consistent with the important work that we are
doing elsewhere and through APEC or, for that matter, the other
trade discussions that are occurring on bilateral or
multilateral bases.
What we are looking for, though, Mr. Chairman, is a trade
arrangement that will lower barriers to trade, that will
increase access by American companies and exporters to foreign
markets, that will support good labor practices and standards,
that will have good environmental standards to it. We would
like TPP to be the highest quality, most inclusive and
transparent trade arrangement ever, and in doing so, we think
we will engineer an outcome that will pay huge dividends to
American companies, to American citizens, to promote jobs, and
lend a real boost to the entire region.
Senator Cardin. When we are talking trade, we always have a
country's attention, and we have made tremendous progress with
Vietnam. Yet, Vietnam still has significant improvements that
need to be made on labor, on human rights, good governance, et
cetera. We have the opportunity to make those advancements as
we have their attention at the bargaining table. So I would
hope that you in your new position would remind our negotiators
that we will be expecting progress made on each of these
fronts.
And it is not just the countries in transition. We also
have problems with some of our close allies. Japan just
recently joined the International Treaty on Child Abduction,
but there are a lot of pending cases and their law, as I
understand it, does not deal with already existing cases of
child abduction. So will you help us and help the Embassy try
to close and deal with as many of those open cases as we can to
try to end this chapter in our relationship with Japan on child
abductions?
Mr. Russel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, with respect to Vietnam, I could not agree with you
more. I think that the political security and economic
relationship that we have with Vietnam is an important one, and
certainly we are in the midst of negotiations with Vietnam over
the TPP, Trans-Pacific Partnership, issues. But human rights is
a hugely important dimension of our relationship and, frankly,
a problem area. We are not satisfied and, in fact, unhappy
about some degree of backsliding in Vietnam on human rights.
And we believe that the TPP is one vehicle among many that we
can use to help to address issues of labor, issues of the
environment, promote economic and political reforms and respect
for intellectual property. And if confirmed, that is something
I will work on.
You alluded, Mr. Chairman, to the issue of Japan's belated
accession to the Hague Convention on Parental Child Abduction.
This is an issue that I have followed extremely closely, and I
can attest that it is an issue that President Obama has raised
directly with his Japanese counterpart. If confirmed, at the
State Department this is an issue that I too will work on. The
story has not ended for the parents of children who were taken
back to Japan who will not be covered under the provisions of
the treaty that Japan has just acceded to.
I am a parent, as you see. I am deeply, deeply sympathetic
to the plight of these families. I know that the State
Department has an important role in looking after the welfare
of America's most vulnerable citizens, its children. And I know
that the State Department is committed to working to ensure
their welfare and to try to facilitate access by parents to
children who are overseas, including in Japan. And it is a long
way of saying, Mr. Chairman, yes, I will do what I can, should
I be confirmed, in a new position to be supportive of them in
this effort.
Senator Cardin. Well, thank you for that response. These
are difficult issues, and we appreciate you making them a
priority.
I just want to observe that in my visits to Japan, the
Republic of Korea, and China, I raised the Iranian sanction
compliance in all those countries. The countries under your
portfolio play a critical role in enforcing sanctions against
Iran to prevent them from becoming a nuclear weapons state. And
I know that President Obama has made that a top priority. And I
just wanted you to know that we should use every opportunity we
can, particularly with countries that we have very close
relationships with, for example, the Republic of Korea. If they
do not want to see a nuclear power on their peninsula, they
could use less Iranian oil. They are doing a good job, but they
could do a better job. So I think that needs to be something
that we focus on; reducing the amount of oil purchased in Asia.
I know you agree on that, but I just thought I would put it
into the record.
Mr. Russel. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cardin. One last question. We have talked a lot
about the rebalance. If you had to just quickly summarize what
you would hope you would see during the next 3 years as far as
what the rebalance would mean as far as U.S. relationships and
participation in Asia, what would you like to see accomplished
in the next 3 years?
Mr. Russel. Thank you for the opportunity to address that
question, Mr. Chairman, which is really close to my heart. I
certainly am committed to sustaining the rebalance and to
moving it to the next level, so to speak.
I would say that the three areas that I would propose to
focus on with regard to rebalance, if confirmed, would be,
first and foremost, the diversification of rebalance. The
security element and the security underpinning of our Asia-
Pacific strategy in our rebalance is hugely important. It will
not go away. It must not go away. We must strengthen that. But
there is more to America than hard power, and in fact, it is
the economic agenda, the energy agenda, the education agenda,
the values agenda, the people-to-people connection, the public
diplomacy that I think, in the long run, will have the most
significant and enduring impact in this young, thriving, and
dynamic region.
I think also, Mr. Chairman, second, that I would pursue
what I would call a rebalance within the rebalance. I think
that our relationships in Northeast Asia are very mature and
well developed. Of course, they will take a great deal of our
attention, but I think that the Southeast Asia and Pacific
areas are ripe for intensification of American engagement and
involvement. I think the return on investment for the United
States and the U.S. taxpayer in our programs, both
operationally and in terms of foreign assistance, in Southeast
Asia is absolutely huge. It is a region with a GDP in the order
of $2.2-plus billion, 600 million--trillion dollars--600
million people within a few years, at least half of whom will
meet the World Bank definition of middle class, a large
proportion and growing proportion of which are young, under 30.
This is an area where the United States can make great friends
and great strides, including through educational and other
forms of exchange. Already the educational exchange programs
that we have bring huge benefits. I am told that the students
who come to the United States from the Asia-Pacific region,
including to your State and my residence State of Maryland,
bring a value in the order of $9 billion a year to the U.S.
economy.
The third area, speaking of money, Mr. Chairman, is on
resources sustainability and outreach. Typically the East Asia-
Pacific Bureau within the State Department has been the least
best funded of the regional bureaus. Now, by dint of hard
effort by a number of people under the direction of the
President, and in an era of fiscal austerity, we have seen in
the fiscal year 2014 budget a 7-percent increase. I think that
is important, and I pledge, Mr. Chairman, that I will fight for
the right tools and the resources to allow the wonderful men
and women working in the area and in the East Asian and Pacific
Bureau to do their job and to earn the benefits for the
American people that are there for us.
Senator Cardin. I really do appreciate that answer. I agree
with you. I think people-to-people ties are a critical part of
our success in Asia, as well as business-to-business and
military-to-military ties. I think a better understanding among
our partners will be critically important, particularly as we
develop stronger ties.
Your answers were complete. I thank you very much. And as I
said in the beginning, you have been incredibly generous of
your talent in serving our country, and we very much appreciate
that and your willingness to continue to serve. The post that
you have been nominated to is one of the most important posts
in this country and will, I am sure, keep you very much engaged
in some long hours and some restless nights. And we thank you
for your willingness to continue to serve your country.
With that, the hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:29 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record
Responses of Daniel R. Russel to Questions Submitted by
Senator Robert Mendendez
Question. What is your understanding of the ``new model'' or ``new
type'' of U.S.-China relations that President Obama and President Xi
discussed at their recent summit at Sunnylands? What are the
constituent elements of this ``new model'' relationship? Can it lead to
more productive interaction, or is it largely an attempt by China to
gain concessions or deferential treatment from the United States?
Answer. Developing deeper ties between the United States and China
is in the national interest of the United States and is important to
safeguarding U.S. interests in the region and around the world. Earlier
this month in California, President Obama and President Xi agreed to
continue exploring ways to strengthen our overall political, economic,
cultural, and military ties to develop a ``new type'' relations that
are marked by practical cooperation, not strategic rivalry.
There are few diplomatic, economic, or security challenges that can
be addressed without China at the table and without a broad,
productive, and constructive relationship between our countries. If
confirmed, I will use the diplomatic tools at my disposal to advance
the U.S.-China relationship and our cooperation on issues of importance
to the American people at the same time as I work to strengthen our
alliances and relations with countries throughout the region.
Question. Recently, the United States and China worked together to
make a public pledge about the phase-out of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).
What work is being done to work with China to phase out other short-
lived climate pollutants such as soot and methane? What more could be
done to foster cooperation with China to reduce these short-lived
climate pollutants?
Answer. On June 8, the United States and China announced an
agreement to work together to use the expertise and institutions of the
Montreal Protocol to phase down the consumption and production of
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). The administration is encouraged by China's
efforts to address environmental issues and looks forward to working
together with China's new leadership in bilateral and multilateral
fora, including the Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED), the Ten-
Year Framework for Energy and Environment Cooperation, and the Major
Economies Forum. The upcoming S&ED in July provides opportunities for
bilateral discussions on environmental issues, including climate
pollutants.
Question. The United States, China, Japan, and many other countries
in the region are deeply committed to developing and further
commercializing renewable energy technologies. How can we work
cooperatively with these nations to provide greater access to renewable
energy in the developing world?
Answer. At last year's East Asia summit meeting, President Obama
announced the formation of the U.S.-Asia-Pacific Comprehensive Energy
Partnership (U.S.-ACEP) to address energy issues across the entire
Asia-Pacific region. The Partnership is designed to bring cleaner and
more reliable sources of energy, as well as greater access, to the
people of the Asia-Pacific region. The Department of State, Department
of Energy, and other U.S. agencies are leading training and capacity-
building efforts to address technical and policy constraints in order
to promote U.S. energy investments and exports in the region. The
United States has identified up to $6 billion in U.S. export financing
and investment credits for the Partnership, led by the Export-Import
Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, to support
sustainable power and energy infrastructure projects over 4 years.
The Department of State, the Department of Energy, and the U.S.
Trade and Development Agency are supporting capacity-building programs
through APEC and ASEAN as well as with our bilateral partners in the
priority areas of markets and interconnectivity, natural gas, renewable
and clean energy, and sustainable development. Successful
implementation of these projects will improve the region's ability to
be able to provide energy for its citizens and drive U.S. exports.
In 2012, the United States began work to establish a new energy
security pillar within the Lower Mekong Initiative (LMI). The United
States and its LMI partners are negotiating the final language of the
pillar plan of action, which will be finalized at the LMI ministerial
meeting July 1, and proposes work in regional power market development,
power interconnection, energy efficiency and conservation, transparency
and good governance, and energy research and development. Once the plan
of action is approved, the United States will begin real, tangible
projects that will create opportunities for U.S. businesses.
Bilaterally, the United States and China have worked together under
the bilateral Ten-Year Framework (TYF) since its launch in 2008 to
facilitate the exchange of information and best practices to foster
innovation and develop solutions to the pressing environment and energy
challenges both countries face. Agencies in each country implement the
TYF, which consists of seven action plans, including electricity and
energy efficiency. Specific to clean energy, the U.S.-China Clean
Energy Research Center (CERC) facilitates joint research and
development on clean energy technology by teams of scientists and
engineers from the United States and China. It is a flagship initiative
with broad participation from universities, research institutions, and
industry.
The United States cooperates closely with Japan on a range of
energy issues, including the development of clean and renewable energy
sources, energy security, and the peaceful and safe use of nuclear
energy. In 2011, U.S. agencies, including the Department of Energy,
Department of State, Department of Commerce, and our national
laboratories, established the U.S.-Japan Clean Energy Policy Dialogue,
a forum for regular exchange among U.S. and Japanese experts. Through
the Tohoku Green Communities Alliance, the United States and Japan have
also collaborated to develop and deploy clean energy technologies in
areas affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake.
If confirmed, I will continue the State Department's work on these
endeavors.
Question. The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act and the Six Assurances of
1982 have contributed to the peace and stability of Asia-Pacific region
for the past three decades. With the military balance gradually
shifting in China's favor, what are your plans to implement the
security commitment the United States has for Taiwan under this
framework? As Taiwan is likely to retire some of its older fighter
aircraft in the next 5 to 10 years, do you believe that sales of
advanced aircraft are an important, next step in this commitment?
Answer. Consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act and the United
States one-China policy, the United States makes available to Taiwan
defense articles and services necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain
sufficient self-defense. If confirmed, I will continue to support steps
the administration has taken to fulfill its commitments to Taiwan.
With U.S. assistance, Taiwan is currently undergoing an extensive
modernization of its F-16 A/B fleet, and we are aware of Taiwan's
desire to replace older F-5, and perhaps Mirage 2000-5 fighters, with
additional F-16 aircraft. No decision has been made about possible
future sales of military aircraft to Taiwan.
If confirmed, I will continue to support U.S. policy to meet our
commitments to Taiwan and assist Taiwan's maintenance of a sufficient
self-defense capability. Doing so increases stability both across the
Taiwan Strait and within the region.
Question. As you know, no Cabinet-level official has visited Taiwan
in 13 years. During the 1990s, officials of Cabinet-rank visited Taipei
virtually every 2 years of that decade. Given the fact that Taiwan is a
partner of 23 million people, who contribute greatly to the global
economy, and enjoy a healthy democracy, aren't visits from U.S. Cabinet
officials overdue? Can we expect such visits to resume in the near
future?
Answer. As an important economic and security partner of the United
States, Taiwan has hosted many senior Obama administration officials in
recent years. Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman visited Taiwan
in December 2011 to promote greater cooperation on energy issues. Under
Secretary of Commerce Francisco Sanchez visited Taiwan in November 2012
to celebrate Taiwan's designation into the U.S. Visa Waiver Program.
Most recently, Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Demetrios Marantis
traveled to Taiwan in March of this year to participate in Trade and
Investment Framework Agreement meetings. In addition, in September
2012, on the margins of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
Leaders' Meeting, Secretary Clinton met with Taiwan's APEC
representative Lien Chan. If confirmed, I will continue to promote such
senior-level engagement by U.S. government officials and will encourage
the travel of senior administration officials to Taiwan.
Question. The administration is on the record as having stated that
``the United States is a strong, consistent supporter of Taiwan's
meaningful participation in international organizations.''
Additionally, the administration is on the record as having stated that
``Taiwan should be able to participate in organizations where it cannot
be a member, such as the World Health Organization, the International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and other important international
bodies whose activities have a direct impact on the people of Taiwan.''
As you know, my bill, S. 579, recently passed by the Senate, would
direct the Secretary of State to develop a strategy to obtain observer
status for Taiwan at the triennial ICAO Assembly, the next meeting of
which will take place this fall in Montreal.
What specific steps has the administration taken--or is
undertaking--to make Taiwan's participation a reality in time
for this fall's meetings?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue U.S. policy to support Taiwan
membership in international organizations where statehood is not a
requirement and encourage Taiwan's meaningful participation, as
appropriate, in organizations where its membership is not possible.
U.S. goals for supporting Taiwan's participation include: enabling
the people on Taiwan to comply with international regulations and
safety guidelines, addressing transborder health issues, facilitating
international travel, giving and receiving appropriate international
assistance and advice, and assisting in regional capacity-building.
I support Taiwan's goal to cooperate with the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO). If confirmed, I will continue the State
Department's work with the international community to promote Taiwan's
meaningful participation in ICAO.
If confirmed, I will also ensure the State Department continues to
instruct U.S. missions to encourage the U.N., its agencies, and other
international organizations to increase Taiwan participation in
technical or expert meetings.
Question. While the breadth of the relationship between the United
States and China is impressive, I remain concerned regarding the
Chinese Government's apparent lack of respect for universal human
rights. Several recent cases, including that of Liu Xia, Gao Zhisheng,
the treatment of the family of Chen Guangcheng, and the treatment of
Falun Gong adherents, speak to both specific cases but also larger
structural challenges.
What is your thinking about how the United States can
effectively increase attention and make clear to China's
leaders that human rights cannot be pushed aside by security
and economic concerns, but must be addressed through genuine
change and support for the rule of law?
Answer. I believe the promotion of human rights is a crucial
element of American diplomacy. If confirmed, I will work to promote
universal values, such as transparency, rule of law, human rights, and
good governance. Promoting the protection of human rights in countries
around the world, including in China, is central to who we are as a
nation. If confirmed, I will ensure that human rights will remain a
central part of U.S.-China relations.
The U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue is an important channel to
discuss our key human rights concerns. If confirmed, I would strongly
support the Dialogue and raise our human rights concerns directly with
Chinese counterparts. I strongly believe respect for the rule of law
and protection of universal human rights are critical to China's long-
term prosperity and stability. If confirmed, I would raise cases of
concern directly with the Chinese authorities, including the cases of
Liu Xia, Gao Zhisheng, and the family of Chen Guangcheng, as well as
issues of religious freedom and the treatment of Tibetans and Uighurs.
Question. What are your plans, if confirmed, for further developing
dialogue between the United States and China on cyber security issues,
and to address China's theft of U.S. intellectual property through
cyber espionage, specifically?
Answer. Cyber security is one of the administration's top
priorities. Cyber-enabled theft, emanating from China, of intellectual
property, trade secrets and confidential business information is of
paramount concern and has been discussed with China at senior levels,
including by the President. If confirmed, I plan to ensure that the
State Department continues to engage the Chinese on the cyber-enabled
theft of U.S. intellectual property, including in fora such as the U.S-
China Cyber Working Group, which Secretary Kerry announced in April.
If confirmed, I will ensure that the State Department takes an
active role in the development of the working group as a venue in which
the U.S. Government can address U.S. concerns and have a constructive
dialogue with China on cyber issues. The United States and China are
among the world's largest cyber actors, and it is vital that our
countries continue a sustained, meaningful dialogue and work together
to develop an understanding of acceptable behavior in cyber space.
Question. The Asia-Pacific region has made considerable progress in
recent years in developing functional problem solving architecture,
including the EAS as well as through a deepening and thickening of
ASEAN, ARF, and the ADMM, among other institutions.
If confirmed as Assistant Secretary, what is your vision for
how the United States can work to effectively further continued
development of Asian architecture and institutions?
What are your views on if and how the United States can
support ASEAN centrality and unity through these efforts?
Answer. The United States firmly believes that regional
institutions such as ASEAN, the East Asia summit (EAS), ASEAN Regional
Forum (ARF), ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting (ADMM), and Expanded ASEAN
Maritime Forum (EAMF) have a leading role to play in shaping the future
prosperity and stability of the Asia-Pacific. As the only ASEAN-driven
institution that includes all key regional players and meets at the
Leaders level, the administration supports the EAS as the region's
premier forum for addressing political and strategic issues. As
President Obama made clear at last year's EAS, these institutions are
most effective when they produce concrete results for the people of the
region. The United States is already helping the region manage three
pressing challenges for the region: maritime security, disaster relief,
and the linked challenges of protecting the environment and energy
security. The United States is working with our regional partners to
develop the Rapid Disaster Response Agreement concept, which would
expedite the delivery of supplies, services, and personnel in the event
of a natural disaster. The United States is also investing over $60
million annually to support programs across the Asia-Pacific that
combat climate change, as well as promoting a sustainable energy future
through the U.S. Asia-Pacific Comprehensive Energy Partnership
(USACEP). We are supporting ASEAN's economic integration and trade
liberalization efforts through the U.S.-ASEAN Expanded Economic
Engagement (E3) initiative. We are also sponsoring joint capacity-
building between ASEAN and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
forum on topics such as food security and business ethics.
If confirmed, I will continue to expand U.S. efforts in support of
regional institutions that manage these and other pressing challenges.
Question. What are your priorities for regional partner capacity-
building, including in areas such as maritime domain awareness as well
as new and nontraditional security issues such as global climate
change?
Answer. The Department of State is actively engaged in capacity-
building and the sharing and dissemination of information to meet
traditional security challenges, such as terrorism and transnational
crime, and nontraditional security issues, such as food insecurity,
pandemic disease, and global climate change. The administration seeks
an Asia-Pacific region in which countries are equipped with military
and law enforcement capabilities that are aligned with U.S interests
and that enable them to adequately defend themselves from external
threats, address territorial disputes peacefully, and deter provocation
from a diverse array of state and nonstate actors. Our strategy
emphasizes that countries adopt internationally recognized, U.S.-
aligned best practices, standards and norms, particularly in the areas
of maritime security, counterterrorism and law enforcement. If
confirmed, I will support State Department's continued engagement on
this strategy.
Maritime security capacity-building measures that support these
goals include working with maritime police from Thailand, Cambodia,
Vietnam, and Malaysia in the Gulf of Thailand to establish mutual
objectives, common coordination mechanisms, operating procedures, and
maritime domain awareness. The United States also support robust land-
based and maritime police training programs in Indonesia and the
Philippines, as well as an International Law Enforcement Academy in
Bangkok which fosters transnational cooperation and multilateral
training on countering wildlife trafficking and corruption.
Counterterrorism capacity-building is another example where the
United States works with Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines, and
Indonesia to strengthen their abilities to detect, deter, and respond
to terrorist actions. The United States also works across the region to
improve law enforcement's capabilities to investigate and prosecute
complex transnational threats such as organized crime, terrorism,
wildlife trafficking, trafficking in persons and illicit drugs.
The countries of the Asia-Pacific region also contend with a range
of nontraditional security issues, such food security and health, which
threaten regional stability and security. To respond to these emerging
threats, the administration supports efforts to deepen partnerships and
private sector engagement in regional agriculture to encourage and
increase investments in regional agricultural development. We also
support programs to develop strong democratic institutions that provide
the framework for improved health outcomes, greater food security, and
stronger livelihoods overall. We are tackling global climate change
through reinforced disaster risk reduction efforts to mitigate its
impact through integrated natural resource management, including
biodiversity conservation, which provides climate cobenefits.
Addressing climate change at home and abroad is a priority for
President Obama and for Secretary Kerry. The innovative programs the
United States is making substantial progress in forging low-emission
development pathways and strengthening resilience to climate change
impacts, including through reinforced disaster risk reduction efforts
and integrated natural resource management, including biodiversity
conservation.
A key administration priority is achieving and maintaining a
geographically distributed, operationally resilient, and politically
sustainable military force posture to meet challenges such as
territorial and maritime disputes, threats to freedom of navigation,
and the heightened impact of natural disasters. We are pursuing this
priority by deepening our ability to train and operate together with
militaries in the region and improving our ability to respond
collectively to a wide range of contingencies in the region.
If confirmed, I will continue U.S. efforts to support capacity-
building measures that enhance both traditional and nontraditional
security priorities as discussed above.
Question. As you know, over the last 4 years, the administration
and members of the U.S. Congress have made the issue of international
child abductions to Japan a priority. Yet to date, there has not been
even one single criminally kidnapped child returned to their lawful
home here in the United States, with the assistance of the Japanese
Government.
Should you be confirmed, what specific action can you take
to create a more balanced level of reciprocity on this issue?
Would you be willing to press forward on criminal extraditions?
Can you promise an action plan for remedying these cases, if
confirmed in this job?
Answer. I am grateful to the U.S. Congress for its consistent
engagement on this issue. The administration welcomed the recent
Japanese Diet ratification of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects
of International Child Abduction, as well as the subsequent action to
ratify and implement the Convention. Once fully implemented, this will
give parents a civil legal mechanism for resolving abduction cases. If
confirmed, I will work to ensure that the treaty serves as the legal
framework within which we can address these issues.
Specifically, I will encourage the Japanese Government to use the
Hague Convention to make necessary changes to domestic custody laws to
help parents with existing cases to attain better access to their
children.
The administration is committed to resolving all outstanding cases.
The Department of State regularly updates ``left behind parents''
through a Japan-specific
e-mail distribution list, global open houses, and in-person meetings,
informing parents of media reports and public statements by government
officials on abduction issues.
The Japanese Government has established a legal hotline to provide
information about the Japanese legal system for ``left-behind
parents,'' and it has set up a mediation program to assist efforts to
arrive at an agreement between the estranged parents regarding access
to their children. If confirmed, I will take steps to expand on these
efforts.
One of the State Department's highest priorities is the welfare of
U.S. citizens overseas, particularly children, who are our most
vulnerable citizens. If confirmed, I will fully support efforts to
resolve these difficult cases.
Question. Maritime and territorial disputes in the East and South
China Seas continue to cause friction and uncertainty in the Pacific.
How, and if, these disputes are managed will serve as an important
litmus test for the emergence of a peaceful, cooperative, and rules-
based order in Asia. Given the enduring U.S. interest and commitment to
the maritime domains of the Asia-Pacific, what are your views on the
most effective policy tools available to the United States to assure
the development of guidelines for the peaceful settlement of disputes
through diplomatic and collaborative mechanisms, including the ASEAN-
China Code of Conduct; to makes clear our view that any disputed claims
must be fairly arbitrated under international law, without coercion--
and that the United States will stand by our treaty commitments?
Answer. The United States has a national interest in the
maintenance of peace and stability, respect for international law,
lawful unimpeded commerce and freedom of navigation in the South China
Sea and East China Sea. If confirmed, I will support these principles.
I believe that the nations of the region should work
collaboratively and diplomatically to resolve the various disputes
without coercion, intimidation, threats, or the use of force.
With respect to the South China Sea, the United States does not
take a position on competing sovereignty claims over land features.
However, the administration will continue to voice strong support for
both ASEAN and China to make meaningful progress toward finalizing a
comprehensive Code of Conduct to establish rules of the road and clear
procedures for addressing disagreements.
The administration has clearly expressed support for the use of
diplomatic and other peaceful means to manage and resolve disagreements
in the South China Sea, including the use of arbitration or other legal
mechanisms, and that, in a rules-based system, states should be able to
seek peaceful means of dispute resolution without fear of coercion or
retaliation.
Through the ASEAN Regional Forum and other related forums, the
United States will continue to advance norms of safe maritime behavior
as well. Ensuring operational safety at sea for all vessels and the
free, safe flow of commerce is vital for the entire international
community.
Our alliance commitments are the cornerstone of our strategic
rebalance. If confirmed, I will ensure that we continue our efforts to
work with allies and partners around the region to ensure peace and
stability on the seas.
Question. Senior administration officials have indicated in recent
weeks that the United States would be willing to engage in discussions
with North Korea, but that the administration is not interested in
discussions for the sake of discussions, and that for these discussions
to happen North Korea needs to take concrete steps to demonstrate they
are serious in meeting their commitments to denuclearization.
What concrete measures does North Korea have to undertake to
demonstrate their seriousness and commitment to
denuclearization and to make it ``worthwhile'' for the United
States to consider reengaging in the six-party or other
diplomatic process? What is the level of coordination with the
Republic of Korea and Japan as we consider how, when and if the
United States engages with North Korea?
Answer. North Korea committed on numerous occasions, including in
the September 2005 Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks, to
abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs. The
United States and the international community must continue to hold
North Korea to those commitments and to its international obligations
under all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. To be authentic
and credible, North Korea must demonstrate it is prepared to halt and
ultimately abandon all of its nuclear weapons and programs. This means
taking steps to come into compliance with its international obligations
under U.N. Security Council resolutions and its own commitments.
The United States, Japan, and the Republic of Korea (ROK) have
regular consultations to exchange views on a wide range of issues
related to North Korea. If confirmed I would remain committed to
maintaining close bilateral and trilateral coordination with the ROK
and Japan, and continue to coordinate closely with its other allies and
partners to press North Korea to choose a path leading to peaceful
denuclearization.
Question. Can you comment on why the United States has chosen not
to participate in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership
(RCEP)? What is your vision of how the Trans-Pacific Partnership and
RCEP fit together in an open and inclusive regional economic and trade
architecture?
Answer. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a key element of
President Obama's agenda for deepening U.S. economic engagement in the
Asia Pacific. TPP is designed to address the concerns that our trade
and investment stakeholders--businesses, workers, other groups--see as
impeding regional trade and investment in the 21st century. TPP will
make the regulatory systems of TPP countries more transparent and
compatible, so companies can operate more seamlessly in TPP markets.
The TPP will also include strong protections for workers, the
environment, intellectual property, and innovation.
Research shows that an ambitious agreement like TPP will generate
significantly higher benefits than a less ambitious agreement that
excludes sensitive products and issues. The rapid expansion of TPP
membership since the negotiation's launch suggests the broad appeal of
this high standard approach within the region. The TPP will be a living
agreement and can serve as a platform for broader, high-standard
regional integration and an eventual Free Trade Area of the Asia
Pacific.
We recognize there are a number of different initiatives for
liberalizing trade in the region and advancing regional economic
integration, including the recently launched Regional Comprehensive
Economic Partnership (RCEP) involving members of the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and its six Free Trade Agreement (FTA)
partners. We don't view initiatives such as the TPP and RCEP as
mutually exclusive. However, we believe the high-standard approach
embodied by the TPP is the most effective way to open new markets and
deepen regional economic integration.
Question. The Tibetan people continue to face challenges to their
traditions, religion and culture through environmental destruction, the
influx of domestic immigrants, and other causes. This seems likely to
increase as Beijing develops infrastructure links to and within the
Tibetan plateau.
What can the administration do to advance protections for
Tibetans in their homeland? Do you believe the Chinese
Government has engaged in its discussions with representatives
of the Dalai Lama in a good-faith manner?
Answer. I am concerned about the deteriorating human rights
situation in Tibetan areas and, if confirmed, will raise U.S. concerns
with Chinese officials. This includes our concerns over the
increasingly severe government controls on Tibetan Buddhist religious
practice, and the government policies that undermine the preservation
of Tibetan language and that target Tibetan youth and intellectual and
cultural leaders. If confirmed, I will ensure the State Department
continues to encourage the Chinese Government to engage with the Dalai
Lama or his representatives, without preconditions, as the best means
to address Tibetan concerns and relieve tensions. I will also
consistently raise concerns about Tibetan self-immolations and continue
to urge the Chinese Government to address the underlying problems in
Tibetan areas and reexamine existing, counterproductive policies that
exacerbate rather than resolve existing tensions. I will also continue
to press the Chinese Government to allow journalists, diplomats and
other observers unrestricted access to China's Tibetan areas.
Question. China has recently been named a Tier 3 nation under the
State Department's International Trafficking in Persons Report. Will
the administration place sanctions on China as provided for in the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act?
Answer. I am concerned about human trafficking in China and, if
confirmed, I will carefully review all our efforts to combat
trafficking in persons in the region to ensure that we are taking all
appropriate steps to address this issue. The Trafficking Victims
Protection Act (TVPA), as amended, authorizes restrictions on
assistance for countries ranked Tier 3 in the Trafficking in Persons
Report, but the President may waive some or all restrictions if he
determines that the affected assistance ``would promote the purposes of
[the TVPA] or is otherwise in the national interest of the United
States.''
Question. Cambodia will hold national elections on July 28, and the
government there shows no sign of having this vote measure up to basic
standards of legitimacy. Assuming nothing changes before then, will the
administration adopt a ``business as usual'' approach to the Hun Sen
regime that has run the country since 1985, or will there be
significant changes in our engagement and efforts to achieve democracy
in that country?
Answer. The United States has consistently and frankly raised our
concerns about human rights and democracy at all levels in the
Government of Cambodia. The United States has also emphasized that the
lack of progress on these issues would be an impediment to deeper
relations between our two countries. The upcoming Cambodian national
elections will be a critical test of the government's commitment to
strengthening the nation's democracy. The United States has urged the
Cambodian Government to consider seriously the recommendations by the
U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Cambodia. We are monitoring
the situation closely and will reassess as appropriate our assistance
and/or engagement with the Government of Cambodia in light of how the
election is conducted. If confirmed, I will continue to promote
improvements in human rights and a credible, free, and fair electoral
process that allows for the full and unfettered participation of all
political parties and their leaders and the Cambodian people.
Question. The United States has committed to engage Vietnam in an
annual Political, Security, and Defense Dialogue, and in recent years
both sides have steadily increased the breadth of bilateral defense
cooperation. Concurrently, Vietnam has increased its crackdown of
freedom of expression, convicting 46 bloggers and pro-democracy
activists so far this year.
Why is the administration warming relations with a country
that has so reprehensible human rights record? Why is the
administration not adopting a ``whole of government approach''
to furthering human rights concerns in Vietnam?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that advocating for respect for
human rights continues to factor into our policy with Vietnam. The
administration has conveyed to the Vietnamese leadership that the
American people will not support a significant upgrading of our
bilateral ties without demonstrable progress in human rights. Greater
respect for human rights, including labor rights, will help ensure
Vietnam's future economic, social, and political development, which is
consistent with our forward-looking vision for the bilateral
relationship.
The administration has made clear to Vietnam's defense and civilian
leaders that for the United States to consider lifting the remaining
restrictions on defense equipment exports, including on lethal weapons,
there would need to be demonstrable, sustained improvement in the human
rights situation.
In the April 2013 U.S.-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue, the U.S.
delegation raised the full range of our concerns about Vietnam's
deteriorating human rights record and pressed for the release of
political prisoners, including bloggers imprisoned for expressing their
views online. The United States has also raised human rights concerns
with the Vietnamese Government within the context of our overall
defense relationship during the Political, Security, and Defense
Dialogue, as well as through our normal diplomatic engagement.
Question. Can you please describe efforts to advance the political
transition in Burma? How are you ensuring that the economic and
political benefits of liberalization are not disproportionately
benefiting retired generals and their cronies? Do you believe that
Burma's 2015 Presidential election would be legitimate if Aung San Suu
Kyi is not able to take part?
Answer. The United States recognizes the important ongoing reform
efforts underway by President Thein Sein, his government, Parliament,
and key stakeholders among civil society to build a modern, peaceful,
and democratic country. Building on a long legacy of support for the
democratic aspirations of the Burmese people, the United States is
providing assistance to strengthen and accelerate the political,
economic, and social transition; promote and strengthen respect for
human rights; deliver the benefits of reform to the country's people;
and support the development of a stable society that reflects the
diversity of all its people. If confirmed, I will continue to support
these efforts.
The United States support for the reform efforts by the Government
of Burma and for the people of Burma in numerous ways:
The U.S. Government is assisting in improving electoral
administration to ensure free, fair, and credible elections
in 2015 and is promoting voter education, strengthening
Parliament, supporting political party development, and
promoting legal reform.
U.S. assistance aims to address the root causes of long-
running conflicts and ethnic tensions as well as provide
substantial humanitarian assistance to conflict-affected
and vulnerable populations in border areas, the interior of
the country, and in the region.
The United States encourages U.S. businesses to bring
responsible investment to Burma to extend the benefits of
economic reform to all of the country's people. The United
States is supporting civil society and promoting programs
to combat corruption and hold businesses accountable for
respecting human rights in their operations, including
labor rights.
The United States recently announced a partnership with the
Government of Burma to strengthen transparency and good
governance in Burma's extractive industries sector. This
initiative will provide technical assistance in support of
the implementation of international best practices in oil
and gas management and oversight, financial accountability,
and safety and environmental stewardship.
The American Center in Rangoon, which has the highest
attendance of any American Center in the world, trains
political, civil society and labor activists in democratic
systems, and civic engagement.
The United States has carefully calibrated the easing of our
sanctions in an effort to ensure that the benefits of economic
engagement with the United States do not flow to bad actors. For
example, the 2012 easing of the ban on new investment was structured to
ensure that new investment with the Burmese military or with military-
owned companies remains off limits for U.S. persons. Similarly, because
of our continuing concerns about the military's human rights record,
financial services transactions with the military for the provision of
security services also remain off limits for U.S. persons.
To ensure U.S. companies undertake due diligence, the United States
is requiring U.S. persons with more than $500,000 of new investment in
Burma to report on a range of policies and procedures with respect to
their investments in Burma, including human rights, labor rights, land
rights, community consultations and stakeholder engagement,
environmental stewardship, anticorruption, arrangements with security
service providers, risk and impact assessment and mitigation, payments
to the government, any investments with the Myanmar Oil and Gas
Enterprise (MOGE), and contact with the military or nonstate armed
groups. The information collected will be used as a basis to conduct
informed consultations with U.S. businesses to encourage and assist
them to develop robust policies and procedures to address a range of
impacts resulting from their investments and operations in Burma. The
United States seeks to empower civil society to take an active role in
monitoring investment in Burma and to work with companies to promote
investments that will enhance broad-based development and reinforce
political and economic reform.
The Department of the Treasury maintains a Specially Designated
Nationals list, which includes individual and company designations of
``bad actors,'' including those who engage in practices that violate
human rights or who seek to slow or hinder reform progress. U.S.
persons are prohibited from transacting business with these individuals
and entities. This list, which is regularly reviewed and updated, is
another tool to help marginalize those who obstruct Burma's reform
efforts. Many of the estimated 100 individuals and entities on the SDN
list are economically significant ``cronies.'' If confirmed, I will
support these efforts to ensure that the people of Burma, not the
``cronies,'' benefit from economic engagement with the United States.
The United States is actively supporting Burma's efforts to achieve
free and fair elections. Article 59 of Burma's constitution currently
disqualifies opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi from becoming President
since her sons and late husband are foreign nationals; many have
commented that this provision of the constitution appears specifically
designed to block Aung San Suu Kyi from becoming President. The former
military junta drafted the constitution of 2008, which reserves 25
percent of the seats in Parliament for uniformed military. The State
Department has publicly and privately noted its concerns about these
provisions and believes that reform of the 2008 constitution is
essential to establishing a true democracy.
The Burmese Parliament, of which Aung San Suu Kyi is a member, has
convened a constitutional review committee. That review may consider
amendments that could potentially strengthen reform and democracy. If
confirmed, I will continue to offer United States support and advocacy
to help Burma successfully complete its democratic transition.
Question. The political changes in Burma also appear to have
exacerbated some longstanding religious and ethnic disputes. Can you
comment on the role of different branches of the Burmese Government in
religious violence, including in Rakhine State, and in ethnic conflict,
particularly with the Kachin minority. Does the Burmese Government have
the ability and will to quell these clashes? What can the United States
do to facilitate this?
Answer. Under President Thein Sein, the Burmese Government has
entered into preliminary cease-fire agreements with 10 of 11 major
armed ethnic groups. The Burmese Government engaged in constructive
talks May 28-30 in Myitkyina, Kachin State with the remaining group
that has not yet signed a cease-fire, the Kachin Independence
Organization (KIO). These talks resulted in a seven-point joint
agreement, which includes commitments to hold a political dialogue,
undertake efforts to cease hostilities, and assist internally displaced
persons. In addition, on June 20, the Burmese Government signed an
eight-point agreement with the Karenni National Progressive Party in
Kayah State, committing to a nationwide cease-fire accord. I am
encouraged by the progress from those recent talks and look forward to
continued progress in building trust and delivering lasting peace. As a
fundamental matter, I support dialogue as the best and only way to
address the root causes of longstanding conflict and to ultimately
achieve lasting peace, justice, reconciliation, and equitable
development throughout the country, including Kachin State.
I remain deeply concerned about the safety and well-being of
internally displaced persons and other civilians in need in Kachin
State and other conflict-affected areas. I am encouraged that on June
14, the government allowed a U.N.-led convoy aimed at providing
humanitarian relief to access displaced persons in Kachin-controlled
areas. This was the first time in nearly a year that the U.N. has been
allowed to deliver food and household supplies to areas beyond
government control, though local NGOs have been able to provide some
assistance to these populations. If confirmed, I will continue to urge
that all sides ensure unhindered humanitarian access to enable those in
need to receive adequate food, shelter, and other urgent assistance.
I understand that the Burmese Parliament is also closely monitoring
the peace process, and I encourage the Parliament to support efforts to
ensure a sustainable peace. The Speaker of Burma's lower House of
Parliament, Thura Shwe Mann, visited Kachin State in February and met
with internally displaced persons. I welcome the constructive efforts
of all branches of the Burmese Government to work toward peace and
reconciliation.
I am highly concerned about anti-Muslim violence, including in
Rakhine State. Comments and actions by local authorities, including the
``NASAKA'' border force, have at times raised tensions and been deeply
troubling. The Burmese Government must hold all perpetrators of
violence accountable regardless of race, religion, or citizenship
status. Senior Department officials, including Ambassador Derek
Mitchell, have consistently raised U.S. concerns with officials at all
levels of the Burmese Government about sectarian violence and the
urgent need to end impunity by ensuring equitable accountability for
those responsible.
I believe that the Burmese Government's commitment to work toward a
peaceful and prosperous future for the entire country is sincere. I
welcome President Thein Sein's public appeals for tolerance, religious
freedom, and diversity. I encourage him and other national and local
officials to actively promote tolerance and peaceful coexistence among
all of Burma's people. If confirmed, I will continue to work with our
interagency partners, Congress, and the international community to help
support Burma's peaceful transition to democracy.
Question. On December 15, 2012, Lao civic activist Sombath Somphone
was abducted at a police checkpoint in Vientiane. Since that time Human
Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Members of Parliament within the
region, and also this Congress have urged for an immediate, transparent
investigation into his disappearance and whereabouts. The Department
has also been engaged with Lao authorities to push for a resolution to
this case.
Can you provide an update on the investigation and whether
the Lao authorities are fully committed to finding Mr. Sombath.
In addition, have we offered any investigative assistance to
the Lao authorities?
Answer. I am deeply concerned over the abduction of Sombath
Somphone and Lao authorities' failure to share any meaningful details
from their investigation into his disappearance. The Lao Government's
June 7 press statement on Mr. Sombath added nothing of substance about
his case. To date, Lao authorities have not offered members of Mr.
Sombath's family or representatives from the international community an
opportunity to review the government's surveillance camera footage that
reportedly shows his abduction. The Department of State has repeatedly
offered technical assistance to aid in the investigation, but the
Government of Laos has not accepted our offer.
The refusal on the part of the Government of Laos to share
meaningful details of its investigation into Sombath's case calls into
question the Lao Government's commitment to uphold human rights and the
rule of law and to engage responsibly with the international community.
Question. How do you plan to further develop and implement the
Department's approach to ``economic statecraft'' in the Asia-Pacific
region, including: promoting and supporting U.S. businesses abroad to
expand exports; attracting foreign direct investment to the United
States; establishing a level playing field for U.S. firms everywhere
through regional and global trade agreements and institutions;
preserving global monetary and financial stability; economic assistance
to developing countries, opening markets, improving governance,
increasing consumption of high-quality U.S. products, services, and
know-how?
Answer. Through its economic statecraft initiative, the Department
has prioritized moving economics to the center of our overall foreign
policy agenda. Nowhere has this focus been more evident than in the
Asia-Pacific. The United States is working hard with our partners in
the region to spur closer economic integration, to increase trade and
investment, and to advance our major goal of greater shared prosperity.
This approach reflects an understanding that the prosperity of the
United States is inextricably linked to the prosperity and growth of
the very dynamic Asia-Pacific. Our bilateral and multilateral economic
and commercial relations have comprised a central pillar of our overall
effort to rebalance our policies in the direction of Asia.
The United States has established its economic leadership in the
region by accomplishing ambitious, trade-oriented goals, including: the
U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, launching and maintaining strong
momentum behind the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), expanding economic
engagement with ASEAN, and building on the success of our 2011 host
year of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum.
If confirmed, I will work to enhance the Department's already
substantial contributions to key U.S. regional economic/commercial
initiatives as well as to encourage the continued efforts of our
missions in the region to assist U.S. companies in the field, and to
promote inward investment into the United States.
If confirmed, I will work in concert with the Office of the U.S.
Trade Representative and the Department's Bureau of Economic and
Business Affairs to bring the TPP trade negotiations to a successful
conclusion this year. The Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs
(EAP) will also continue to advance economic statecraft objectives
through support of regional economic initiatives, such as the
President's Enhanced Economic Engagement (E3) initiative, which aims to
expand trade and investment ties with ASEAN members and help those not
in TPP to prepare for future membership in high-standard trade
agreements. As part of the U.S.-Asia Pacific Comprehensive Energy
Partnership (U.S.-ACEP), the EAP Bureau will continue to work with the
Department's Bureau of Energy Resources and interagency colleagues,
including the Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM) and the
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), to encourage private
sector involvement in energy development in the region. I will also
ensure that we retain a leadership position in APEC for advancing trade
and investment liberalization throughout the Asia-Pacific.
Equally important to these policy initiatives, if confirmed, I will
work with our missions in the region to expand the already extensive
assistance they give to U.S. companies on a daily basis in identifying
new business opportunities and advocating on their behalf, whether to
win bids for government contracts or press host governments to revise
policies impede trade and investment. As part of these efforts I will
work to ensure continued focus on deepening our economic engagement
with China with the aim of promoting an economic relationship in which
China demonstrates a commitment to the global rules-based trading
system.
Question. What have been the main results to date of the
rebalancing initiative? What parts of the initiative can be improved or
modified? Are you comfortable that you and Secretary Kerry are on the
same page in your conception of how the rebalancing strategy should be
implemented going forward?
Answer. The administration's rebalance, which covers diplomatic,
economic, development, security, and cultural initiatives, is rooted in
the recognition that America's prosperity and security are very much
intertwined with the Asia-Pacific region. As underscored by Secretary
Kerry during his trip to the region in April, the State Department is
working hard to implement this U.S. strategic objective by building an
increasingly active and enduring presence in the region. I
wholeheartedly support the Secretary and President's shared vision for
the Asia-Pacific in which the United States engages deeply throughout
the region and advances our values and national interests, security,
and leadership. The State Department and the Bureau of East Asian and
Pacific Affairs (EAP) have already taken tangible actions in support of
that commitment. For example, the United States is providing new
resources for regional efforts such as the Lower Mekong Initiative,
which helps improve water management, disaster resilience, and public
health. EAP is deeply involved with implementation of the U.S.-Asia
Pacific Comprehensive Energy Partnership and the U.S.-ASEAN Expanded
Economic Engagement (E3) initiative announced by President Obama last
November in Cambodia. EAP leads U.S. participation in APEC, the premier
forum for U.S. economic engagement with the Asia Pacific.
If confirmed, I will continue these programs and support the early
conclusion of negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP),
which will deepen U.S. trade and investment ties in the Asia Pacific.
Question. Have the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the
National Security Staff put out a budget data request asking agencies
for more detailed information about their activities in and associated
budgetary resources devoted to Asia? Has the administration circulated
a priorities memo as part of the FY 2015 budget process that directs
agencies to assign greater importance to Asia? How important is an
integrated whole-of-government approach to the region to achieving U.S.
objectives?
Answer. The Department of State works very closely with the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), the National Security Staff (NSS), and
other key interagency partners such as Department of Defense and USAID,
in preparing an integrated budget that supports whole-of-government
strategy for the rebalance in the Asia-Pacific. The administration
routinely provides whole-of-government budget guidance to agencies that
include a strong focus on the Asia-Pacific region given the
administration's rebalance policy. I firmly believe we need to lock in
and sustain resources from around the U.S. Government, both in the
short- and long-term, in order to advance the administration's
ambitious rebalance agenda.
If confirmed, I look forward to participating in important
interagency deliberations on the FY 2015 budget and other planning
efforts to ensure that our resources are aligned with the
administration's policy priorities.
Question. More than 2 years after the administration launched its
rebalancing initiative, staffing in and funding for the State
Department's East Asia and the Pacific (EAP) Bureau continue to rank
among the lowest among the Department's six regional bureaus. Since the
premise of the rebalancing is that Asia has become more important to
U.S. national interests, is the EAP Bureau being given sufficient
priority to carry out its mission?
Answer. As underscored by Secretary Kerry during his trip to the
region in April, the State Department remains committed to building an
increasingly active and enduring presence in the Asia-Pacific region.
Despite an overall decrease in the State Department and USAID's budget,
the overall FY 2014 budget request provides $1.2 billion in funding for
East Asia and the Pacific, which reflects a 7.1-percent increase from
FY 2012 in support of the East Asia rebalance--the largest growth rate
of any region. The FY 2014 budget is but one aspect of building our
longer term budgetary efforts to advance the rebalance, which also
include advancing our public diplomacy agenda and political dialogue.
If confirmed, I will advocate for staffing and funding levels
appropriate to the important missions of the EAP bureau.
Question. President Park has called for creating a ``new era'' on
the Korean Peninsula by building trust between North and South Korea.
Despite the North's recent behavior, she has indicated she wants to go
forward with modest, incremental initiatives, including providing some
humanitarian aid.
Does the Obama administration support such moves? Would it
consider also providing humanitarian assistance, including food
aid? What, if any conditions, would the administration insist
upon to ensure humanitarian aid is not diverted to the
military? Are there any additional efforts to strengthen the
U.S.-ROK alliance that you think are important and necessary to
undertake in parallel with any efforts at North-South
reconciliation?
Answer. The Obama administration is committed to working closely
with the Republic of Korea (ROK) on the North Korea issue. This
includes close coordination to press Pyongyang to demonstrate
seriousness of purpose by taking meaningful steps to abide by its
international obligations and its commitment made in the 2005 Joint
Statement of the Six-Party Talks, to pursue the denuclearization of the
Korean Peninsula. This also involves coordination on ways to engage
with North Korea diplomatically and, over time, build trust in its
willingness to cooperate in the pursuit of denuclearization and inter-
Korean reconciliation.
The longstanding policy of the United States is that humanitarian
assistance, including food aid, should not be linked to political or
security issues. Decisions on U.S. humanitarian assistance are based on
three factors: (1) the level of need in a given country; (2) competing
needs in other countries; and (3) the ability to ensure that aid
reliably reaches the vulnerable populations for which it is intended.
If confirmed, I will continue to implement the Obama administration's
policy, including the prevention of diversion of food or other
assistance.
On the 60th anniversary of the U.S.-ROK alliance, our partnership
has never been stronger. The United States and the ROK maintain a
comprehensive strategic alliance with longstanding mechanisms for
cooperation on security issues. The United States is working to enhance
our combined capabilities to deter North Korea, including for extended
deterrence, and, if confirmed, I will support this effort. The United
States continues to hold regular and close consultations with the ROK
on North Korea issues, as illustrated by ROK Special Representative for
Korean Peninsula Peace and Security Cho Tae-yong's June visit to the
United States.
Question. China's assertive behavior toward the Senkakus has grown
increasingly heated since summer 2012. U.S. officials have consistently
stated that while the United States takes no position on the question
of sovereignty, it is the U.S. position that Japan administers the
Senkakus and that they are covered by the U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty.
In the face of rising tensions and increasing Chinese
activity in the area, has the United States taken the proper
stance in the situation? How might the United States help Japan
to resolve this dispute?
Answer. The consistent U.S. position on the Senkaku Islands is that
while we do not take a position on the question of ultimate sovereignty
over the islands, we call on all parties to manage their differences
through peaceful means.
Japanese administration of the islands places them within the scope
of Article 5 of the 1960 U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and
Security. Our alliances are the cornerstones of our Asia policy, and we
take our commitments under them very seriously.
The United States has a strong interest in ensuring the stability
of a region that is an engine of global economic growth. To this end,
the administration has engaged in sustained, intensive, and high-level
diplomacy on this issue to encourage all parties to exercise restraint,
avoid coercive or unilateral actions, and pursue dialogue to lower
tensions and resolve differences.
We urge all parties to avoid actions that could raise tensions or
result in miscalculations or incidents that would undermine peace,
security, and economic growth. If confirmed, I will work to promote the
reduction of tensions and risk, appropriate diplomatic dialogue among
the concerned parties, and will firmly oppose coercive or destabilizing
behavior.
Question. Japanese Prime Minister Abe has called for revising and/
or reinterpreting Japan's Constitution to allow Tokyo to participate in
``collective self-defense,'' moves that have been welcomed by U.S.
defense officials in the past. Abe also has embarked on an ambitious
economic agenda to revitalize the Japanese economy, including entering
TPP negotiations.
What position do you think the United States should take on
Abe's proposals? What opportunities do you see for
strengthening and deepening the U.S.-Japan alliance and
economic partnership? How might Abe's initiatives, should he
take them, hurt or help the rebalancing strategy?
Answer. The U.S.-Japan alliance is the cornerstone of peace and
security in the region. We work in a partnership around the world to
advance common values and shared interests. The United States and Japan
are currently working together to strengthen the already excellent
quality and capabilities of the alliance to ensure that it remains
prepared to respond to the evolving security environment of the 21st
century. If confirmed, I will be deeply involved in and supportive of
our efforts to strengthen and deepen our alliance with Japan.
The administration believes it is for the Japanese people and their
elected representatives to decide whether, when, and in what manner to
revise or reinterpret their constitution. We are following developments
closely as Japan considers a potential relaxation of its self-imposed
restrictions on collective self-defense in order to assess the
potential impact on our alliance and its roles, missions, and
capabilities.
On the economic front, Prime Minister Abe's policies appear to be
helping to reinvigorate the Japanese economy, and a healthy Japanese
economy is good for both Japan and the United States. The TransPacific
Partnership (TPP) is a key piece of the Japanese Government's reform
efforts, as well as the economic centerpiece of our rebalance toward
Asia.
If confirmed, I will urge the Abe government to follow through on
its economic reform proposals, and will work closely with the United
States Trade Representative and other U.S. Government agencies to
pursue productive trade negotiations with Japan both within TPP and in
parallel bilateral talks.
______
Responses of Daniel R. Russel to Questions Submitted by
Senator Bob Corker
Question. Despite our continuing efforts to increase ``mutual
understanding,'' the United States and China have very different views
on a wide range of economic, security and human-rights-related issues.
How best can the United States pursue deeper engagement with
China while simultaneously articulating, clearly and publicly,
an overall foreign policy strategy that advances America's core
interests and values?
Answer. The United States welcomes a strong, prosperous, and
successful China that plays a key role in world affairs and adheres to
international standards. The administration is committed to pursuing a
positive, comprehensive, and cooperative relationship with China. The
United States advances our national interests and values and encourages
China to adhere to international standards on human rights, trade, and
other issues by clearly articulating U.S. principles and by promoting
high-level, consistent, and constructive dialogue between the United
States and China.
Key elements of the U.S. approach to economic relations with China
have been to encourage China's integration into the global, rules-based
economic and trading systems and to expand U.S. exporters' and
investors' access to the Chinese market. Human rights issues also
continue to be a central element of U.S. foreign policy and the U.S.-
China bilateral relationship. The administration is committed to
raising human rights issues directly with Chinese counterparts and to
urging China to respect the rule of law and protect the human rights
and fundamental freedoms of all its citizens.
Additionally, working with China on cyber security is one of the
administration's top priorities. The U.S. Government is actively
addressing cyber issues, including the growing concern about the threat
to economic and national security posed by cyber-enabled theft of
intellectual property and business and trade secrets. As Secretary
Kerry announced in April, the U.S. Government established a Cyber
Working Group with the Chinese to facilitate sustained and meaningful
diplomatic discussions regarding cyber.
Question. In April 2013, Secretary Kerry stated that the United
States wants ``a strong, normal, but special relationship with China.''
Traditionally, the United States has reserved the term ``Special
Relationship'' to describe ties with the United Kingdom.
Do you agree with the Secretary's call for a new ``special
relationship'' with China?
Answer. Developing deeper ties between the United States and China
is in the national interest of the United States and is important to
safeguarding U.S. interests in the region and around the world. I
believe the importance we place on U.S.-China ties is consistent with,
and in no way detracts from, the continued importance and strengthening
of our existing partnerships and alliances.
There are few diplomatic, economic, or security challenges that can
be addressed without China at the table and without cooperation between
our countries. Earlier this month in California, President Obama and
President Xi agreed to continue exploring ways to strengthen our
overall political, economic, cultural, and military ties. If confirmed,
I will use the diplomatic tools at my disposal to advance the U.S.-
China relationship and our cooperation on a range of issues at the same
time as we work to strengthen our relations with countries throughout
the region.
Question. How can the United States more effectively press China to
enforce international rules regarding intellectual property, which
continue to negatively impact and undermine key sectors of the U.S.
economy?
Answer. Despite greater protections being incorporated into the
Chinese legal system, American and other companies lose billions of
dollars each year due to intellectual property (IP) theft in China.
Piracy and counterfeiting levels in China remain unacceptably high,
harming U.S. and Chinese consumers and enterprises. Stronger
enforcement mechanisms and efforts are still needed.
I believe the United States must urge China to: (1) continue the
work of the permanent State Council-level leadership structure to focus
IP enforcement efforts at all levels of government on IP theft,
including the growing problem of theft over the Internet; (2) recognize
the importance of trade secrets protection to the health of China's
overall IPR regime, which is essential to promoting innovation and
economic growth; (3) achieve measurable results on software
legalization, both in government and in enterprises; and (4) make
intermediaries such as online content hosts liable for the infringement
that their sites facilitate.
If confirmed, I will ensure that the protection of intellectual
property rights through robust laws and enforcement remains a top
priority in our engagement with China. Copyrights, trademarks, patents,
and trade secrets must have adequate safeguards in China to protect the
ideas of American entrepreneurs and the jobs of American workers.
Question. If confirmed, what role do you envision for the EAP
Bureau in the recently established U.S.-China cyber working group?
Answer. Cyber security is one of the administration's top
priorities, and cyber-enabled theft of trade secrets and confidential
business information emanating from China is of particular concern and
has been discussed with China at all levels of government, including by
the President. The State Department, including the Bureau of East Asian
and Pacific Affairs (EAP) and the Office of the Coordinator for Cyber
Affairs (S/CCI), plays a key role in these discussions, and, if
confirmed, I envision this role continuing for EAP.
To have a meaningful, and constructive dialogue with China on this
issue, Secretary Kerry announced the establishment of the U.S.-China
Cyber Working Group in April. The State Department will lead the
working group, and if confirmed I will ensure that the EAP Bureau, in
close cooperation with S/CCI, will continue to play a central role in
shaping the development of the working group.
Question. During the recent Obama-Xi summit in California, National
Security Advisor Tom Donilon said that ``President Xi indicat[ed] that
China was interested in having information on the [Trans-Pacific
Partnership] process as it went forward and being briefed on the
process and maybe setting up a more formal mechanism for the Chinese to
get information on the process and the progress that we're making with
respect to the TPP negotiation.''
What is the administration's position on sharing such
information with a country that is not a party to the TPP?
Do our TPP allies support China's reques?
Do you view China's request to be informed on TPP's progress
as a sign Beijing is interested in joining the regional free-
trade agreement?
What steps would China need to take in order to obtain
approval to eventually join TPP discussions or a finalized
agreement?
Answer. The United States is working hard with our TPP partners to
conclude the TPP negotiation as expeditiously as possible. We and our
partners believe our work in TPP will be important not just for current
and future TPP members, but for the trade and investment environment
throughout the Asia-Pacific. The administration welcomes China's
interest and that of others in the region in learning more about TPP.
The United States and its TPP negotiating partners have stated that
TPP is open to Asia-Pacific economies that are prepared to adopt its
ambitious commitments and eliminate trade and investment barriers.
Economies that are interested in pursuing this path initiate a process
of bilateral consultation with each of the TPP members to demonstrate
their readiness, and the consensus of all current TPP members is
necessary for new parties to join. That is the process that Mexico and
Canada successfully completed in 2012, and is the process that Japan is
currently engaged in.
In the past, we have offered briefings at a general level on the
broad outlines and principles behind the agreement to interested
countries in the region that are not presently a party to the TPP, and
have done so in coordination with our current TPP partners. We would
respond to expressions of interest by China with this type of general
briefing, and I would refer you to USTR for details of what information
we would be able to provide in such a briefing. It is difficult to
assess at present the significance of China's request. Many non-TPP
countries have sought information to understand the development of the
regional trade and investment context, even if they have no specific
interest at present in joining the negotiations. Clearly, China would
need to take many steps to open its economy, promote transparent
regulatory practices, and address a range of specific issues to be able
to demonstrate its readiness for the TPP.
Question. Some in the U.S. business community believe that the 2012
Revised Model Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) does not sufficiently
cover issues related to China's state-owned-enterprises (SOEs) and have
called for the BIT with China to include appropriate disciplines to
ensure that China's SOEs do not enjoy preferential advantages over
their foreign competitors.
With respect to talks with China on a BIT, does the
administration support an ambitious agreement that includes
appropriate disciplines on China's SOEs?
Does the administration believe that the provisions of the
2012 revised model BIT sufficiently cover SOE issues that have
been raised by U.S. businesses?
Answer. The United States seeks to reach agreement on a bilateral
investment treaty that sets high standards, including on openness,
nondiscrimination, and transparency for American investors and
investments. We are taking an ambitious approach in our bilateral
investment treaty negotiations with China, and one of our top
priorities is to seek disciplines to help level the playing field
between American companies and their Chinese competitors, including
SOEs and national champions. The 2012 U.S. Model BIT provides a number
of tools to address this issue, including the comprehensive approach
that it takes to the national treatment nondiscrimination obligation
and the application of all BIT obligations to SOEs exercising delegated
government authority. Negotiations are at an early stage, and we will
continue to address the U.S. business community's concerns as we move
forward. We are also seeking to address other top-priority concerns in
the China market, including protecting trade secrets from forced
transfer and enhancing transparency and the rule of law.
Question. Given that SOEs are an important component of the TPP
trade negotiations, how does the administration intend to coordinate
negotiations on the SOE provisions in the TPP with the negotiations on
the China BIT and the SOE issues that have been raised with respect to
China?
Answer. Leveling the playing field for U.S. businesses and workers
that compete with foreign state-owned enterprises is a priority for
this administration. The United States is seeking to address this issue
through coordinated efforts in a range of bilateral and multilateral
forums, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations and our
ongoing work in the OECD. A top priority in the bilateral investment
treaty negotiations with China is to level the playing field for U.S.
firms that face unfair competition from Chinese state-owned enterprises
or national champions. We have also been using results-oriented, high-
level dialogues like the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade and the
Strategic and Economic Dialogue to address trade distortions and
discriminatory treatment resulting from China's heavy reliance on
state-owned enterprises.
Question. The United States and Republic of Korea are presently
engaged in negotiations on a new nuclear cooperation agreement or 123
Agreement. The U.S. negotiating team is led by the Department of
State's International Security and Nonproliferation (ISN) Assistant
Secretary, Thomas Countryman.
If confirmed, will you commit to maintain the EAP Bureau's
supporting role in 123 negotiations led by A/S Countryman and
his team of nuclear experts?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I can reassure you that the Bureau of
East Asian and Pacific Affairs will remain committed to supporting ISN
Assistant Secretary Countryman and the interagency team of nuclear
experts to conclude a successor civil nuclear cooperation agreement
with the Republic of Korea.
Question. Please state your views on U.S. engagement with North
Korea. Should the United States pursue bilateral talks with North Korea
or should the six-party talks framework remain the forum for engagement
between Washington and Pyongyang?
Answer. The United States remains committed to seeking a negotiated
solution to the North Korea nuclear issue, which will require
multilateral diplomacy. North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile
program, proliferation activities, and provocative behavior are a
threat to the entire international community. The United States
maintains channels for bilateral contact with North Korea and
coordinates closely with its allies and partners to press North Korea
to choose the path of peaceful denuclearization.
North Korea committed on numerous occasions, including in the
September 2005 Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks, to abandoning
all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs. The United States
and the international community must continue to hold North Korea to
those commitments and its international obligations. The United States
seeks authentic and credible negotiations to implement the September
2005 joint statement and bring North Korea into compliance with all
applicable Security Council resolutions through irreversible steps
leading to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The onus is on
North Korea to take meaningful actions toward denuclearization and
refrain from provocations.
Question. Please state your views on the provision of humanitarian
assistance to North Korea, including food aid.
Answer. I am deeply concerned about the well-being of the North
Korean people.
The United States has a longstanding policy that decisions on
humanitarian assistance, including food aid, are based on three
factors: (1) the level of need in a given country; (2) competing needs
in other countries; and (3) the ability to ensure that aid reliably
reaches the vulnerable populations for which it is intended. If
confirmed, I will continue to implement this longstanding U.S. policy
on humanitarian assistance.
Question. How would you assess China's willingness to use its
leverage to alter North Korea's behavior? Are there still limits to how
much pressure Beijing will apply to Pyongyang?
Answer. China has stated that it shares the concerns of the
international community regarding North Korea's destabilizing and
provocative behavior and agrees that the denuclearization of the Korean
Peninsula is of critical importance. If confirmed, I will continue to
concentrate U.S. diplomatic energy and efforts on deepening dialogue
and cooperation on North Korea with China. I will also encourage China
to more effectively leverage its unique relationship with North Korea
to achieve our shared goal: the verifiable denuclearization of the
Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner.
China has cooperated in a number of significant and constructive
ways to address North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs
and provocations. For example, China played a critical role in crafting
U.N. Security Council Resolution 2094, which imposed new sanctions on
North Korea. If confirmed, I will continue to press China to enforce
all provisions of the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions on
North Korea, including tough new sanctions, and to address North
Korea's threats to regional peace and security and the global
nonproliferation regime.
Question. Last year, the United States and Japan announced that our
governments will review the Guidelines of Japan-U.S. Defense
Cooperation, which are intended to provide a framework for bilateral
roles and missions in response to military contingencies. Please
outline the objectives of the United States for this review, including
our position on engaging Japan on collective self-defense.
Answer. The U.S.-Japan Defense Guidelines are the framework upon
which our bilateral defense cooperation rests. The present version of
the Guidelines dates back to 1997, and in the intervening years Japan
has expanded the Self Defense Forces role, including by dispatching
them to Indian Ocean to support Operation Enduring Freedom, to Iraq,
and to Djibouti in support of antipiracy efforts. Our security
relationship has naturally evolved since 1997 and the United States and
Japan have agreed that the time is right to review the Guidelines and
discuss the future of the Alliance. At the conclusion of the review, if
a mutual decision is made to revise the Defense Guidelines, we will
engage in a deliberate process to reach a consensus outcome that is
firmly supported by fiscal resources on both sides. If confirmed, I
will work closely with the Department of Defense to use the Guidelines
review to establish a joint vision for the shape of our Alliance over
the next 15-20 years. How Japan addresses its self-imposed restriction
on collective self-defense will be a subject of Japanese domestic
debate and will help shape the future of the Alliance, and we will
engage with Japan on this matter closely.
Question. Under current law, U.S. companies can export liquefied
natural gas (LNG) if the Department of Energy deems it to be the public
interest. If the United States has a free-trade agreement with the
importing country, the public interest determination is automatically
satisfied. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz recently said he would
review LNG export applications ``on a case-by-case basis
expeditiously,'' but to date, only two export facilities have been
approved by the Obama administration.
Does the administration believe that expediting natural gas
exports to formal allies and emerging partners will strengthen
strategic ties and contribute to the administration's
rebalancing in the Asia-Pacific? If so, what steps is the
administration planning to take to expedite pending
applications for natural gas exports?
Answer. I recognize the importance of energy security for ourselves
and our allies. The administration has had a number of discussions with
allies and partners interested in importing U.S. LNG. The projects that
have been approved, so far, include potential sales to Japan and India,
as well as to companies that intend to market gas into global markets.
The Department of Energy has the statutory responsibility to review
export license applications, and is therefore best placed to answer
specifics about the application review process. I would note, however,
that the public interest determination is not a simple question. The
various applications for LNG exports total almost 40 percent of U.S.
gas production, and the applicants are considering multibillion dollar
investments and seeking approval for long-term (typically 20-year)
sales commitments. It is important that we get this right, and that the
process reflects careful consideration of all the factors.
If confirmed, I will work with the State Department's Bureau of
Energy Resources and the Department of Energy to ensure that this issue
is given the attention it requires.
______
Responses of Daniel R. Russel to Questions Submitted by
Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Question. We welcome the administration's rebalance to Asia. While
the rebalance has a strategic basis, I have stressed that we need to
make sure that the promotion of human rights is not forgotten. The
situation in Tibet is both a strategic matter and a human rights
problem.
Could you speak to how the administration plans, first, to
improve the human rights situation in Tibet, and second, to
engage on the strategic aspects of the Tibetan issue, including
India-China relations and tensions over the sharing of water
flowing off the Tibetan plateau?
Answer. I am concerned about the deteriorating human rights
situation in Tibetan areas and, if confirmed, I will raise U.S.
concerns with my Chinese counterparts. We will continue to call on the
Chinese Government to engage with the Dalai Lama or his
representatives, without preconditions, as the best means to address
Tibetan concerns and relieve tensions. We will consistently raise
concerns about Tibetan self-immolations and continue to urge the
Chinese Government to address the underlying problems in Tibetan areas
and reexamine existing, counterproductive policies that exacerbate
rather than resolve existing tensions. I will also continue to press
the Chinese Government to allow journalists, diplomats, and other
observers unrestricted access to China's Tibetan areas. We will
continue to work broadly across the Himalayan region to encourage
countries to work together cooperatively to manage their shared water
resources.
Question. For over 30 years, the Taiwan Relations Act and the Six
Assurances have governed United States policy toward Taiwan, and have
contributed to the peace and stability of the Asia-Pacific region.
As the United States undertakes plans to expand and
intensify the already significant U.S. role in the region, how
does it plan to continue to implement the security commitment
the United States has for Taiwan under this framework?
Answer. Consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act and the United
States one-China policy, the United States makes available to Taiwan
defense articles and services necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain
sufficient self-defense. The administration approved nearly several
billion in new defense sales to Taiwan, as notified to Congress in
2012. If confirmed, I will continue to support the sale of defense
articles to Taiwan. Such sales help meet our commitments to Taiwan and
at the same time help maintain stability both across the Taiwan Strait
and within the region.
Question. Discrimination against minorities in Myanmar remains a
serious problem. For example, discriminatory local orders in Rakhine
State which require members of the minority Rohingya community to seek
government permission to travel, marry, have more than two children per
household, and repair their houses and places of worship are sources of
severe persecution and undermine any prospect of regional economic
development.
What policy option does the U.S. Government have to urge the
Government of Myanmar to create and implement a plan to
eliminate discrimination toward religious and ethnic
minorities, end ethnic segregation; and engage in voluntary
resettlement of displaced persons?
Answer. I am deeply concerned about recent religious conflict in
Burma and urge all parties to refrain from violence and the government
to end impunity by holding all perpetrators accountable for criminal
acts of violence regardless of race, religion, or citizenship status.
Ambassador Mitchell and Embassy Rangoon officers continue to travel
throughout Burma to engage and petition government, religious,
political, and community leaders to advocate restraint, tolerance, and
reconciliation.
Tensions remain high in Rakhine State since outbreaks of violence
in June and October 2012 left over 200 people dead and at least 140,000
displaced. Most victims were Muslim Rohingya. Reports in May that local
Rakhine State officials planned to enforce a two-child limit for
Rohingya in two townships are also worrying. Senior Department of State
officials, including Ambassador Mitchell in Rangoon, continue to
encourage the Government of Burma to develop a long-term solution to
the crisis that addresses humanitarian needs of all Rakhine State's
residents in a manner consistent with international norms and
principles, including implementing the constructive recommendations
included in the recent report by the government's Rakhine Investigation
Commission. Our officials have stressed to the government, local
authorities, religious leaders, and representatives of civil society
that respect for and protection of human rights and fundamental
freedoms, along with reintegration, redress, and reconciliation are the
path toward lasting peace.
The administration led coordination efforts with the international
community to mobilize a response ahead of this year's rainy season to
meet the needs of communities affected by the conflict, and we will
continue to underline the urgency of that response in the coming
months. The United States has provided more than $7 million in
humanitarian assistance since June 2012 to address the shelter, food,
nutrition, and water and sanitation needs of internally displaced
persons (IDPs).
I also remain very concerned about anti-Muslim violence that
erupted on March 21 in Meiktila Town, central Burma, and spread to
several neighboring townships displacing nearly 13,000 people, killing
an estimated 100, and destroying homes, mosques, and other buildings.
In April, the State Department received disconcerting reports of anti-
Muslim violence in Lashio in Burma's Shan State that led to burning of
Muslim shops and religious buildings. The State Department recently
provided $100,000 for humanitarian assistance to aid the victims of
violence. Although the Government of Burma has reported that
authorities detained a number of alleged Buddhist perpetrators in the
wake of anti-Muslim violence, the State Department is aware of none
that have been publicly sentenced. In contrast, authorities have
prosecuted Muslims following these outbreaks, including, for example,
two Muslim women who received sentences of 2 years hard labor for
bumping into a young monk and allegedly sparking an outbreak of mob
violence on April 30. If confirmed, I will continue to strongly urge
the Government of Burma to hold accountable all individuals responsible
for the March and April anti-Muslim violence in central Burma in a
nondiscriminatory manner. I remain deeply concerned by the lack of
equitable justice and accountability to date.
The administration is committed to working with other donor
governments, affected countries in the region, and the international
community to meet critical humanitarian protection and assistance needs
and develop comprehensive durable solutions for Burmese IDPs, refugees,
asylum seekers and vulnerable migrants in Burma and the region. The
United States and international community support voluntary returns in
safety and dignity. The U.S. Government continues to express to
affected countries in the region our commitment to provide assistance
to improve conditions in ethnic minority areas inside the country that
will allow for the safe return of displaced persons.
Question. If current Cambodia Prime Minister Hun Sen secures a new
term in July through an election process which is not free and fair,
how should the U.S. Government respond?
Answer. The United States has conveyed to Cambodia at high levels
that the lack of progress on democracy and human rights is an
impediment to deeper relations between our two countries. The upcoming
national elections will be a critical test of the Cambodian
Government's commitment to strengthening the nation's democracy. We are
monitoring the situation closely and will reassess as appropriate our
assistance and/or engagement with the Government of Cambodia in light
of how the election is conducted. If confirmed, I will continue to
press for improvements in human rights and a credible, free, and fair
electoral process that allows for the full and unfettered participation
of all political parties and their leaders.
Question. The rebalance to Asia policy aims to use military,
diplomatic, and economic tools of power and influence in a more
coherent and deliberate fashion. Will these policy pronouncements be
translated into an across-the-government plan to implement new elements
of the strategy? What are our current skills and abilities in terms of
language and area studies outside the State Department, in Energy,
Commerce and other agencies?
Answer. The administration's rebalance, which covers diplomatic,
economic, development, security, and cultural initiatives, is rooted in
the recognition that America's prosperity and security are very much
intertwined with the Asia-Pacific region. As underscored by Secretary
Kerry during his trip to the region in April, the State Department is
working hard to implement this U.S. strategic objective by building an
increasingly active and enduring presence in the region. I
wholeheartedly support the Secretary and President's shared vision for
the Asia-Pacific in which the United States engages deeply throughout
the region and advances our values and national interests, security,
and leadership.
I believe that our policy and resource planning must be fully
integrated and closely coordinated with our interagency partners in
order to advance our shared military, diplomatic, development, and
economic objectives in the Asia-Pacific. I personally participated in
interagency planning sessions on our Asia rebalance during my tenure as
Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Asian
Affairs in the National Security Council. For example, the Department
of State works very closely with the Office of Management and Budget,
the National Security Staff, the Department of Defense, and USAID in
preparing an integrated budget that supports our whole of government
strategy for the Asia-Pacific. If confirmed, I will look at additional
ways to coordinate our planning and, just as importantly, to
communicate our strategy and thinking to the American public.
I believe that efforts within the State Department, and with our
interagency partners, to strengthen language and areas studies skills
of our overseas and domestic staff will become increasingly vital as we
rebalance our U.S. engagement to a region with over half of the global
population, 10 languages designated as either hard or super hard, and a
tremendously diverse range of cultures and ethnicities. The
administration has consistently placed a high value on ensuring our
diplomats and interagency officials obtain the right skills and
expertise to advance our foreign policy.
The Foreign Service Institute (FSI), the government's premier
training institution for officers and support personnel of the U.S.
foreign affairs communities, continues to be an especially valuable
asset in our support for other agencies, particularly those in need for
knowledge of foreign language, cultures, and international affairs. FSI
provides training for some 47 U.S. Government agencies. Training
offered to our interagency partners includes language training and
country-specific and regional area studies courses including on East
Asia, China; South Asia, Southeast Asia, Japan, Korea, Maritime
Southeast Asia, and Mainland Southeast Asia. My own view is that we
could do more to train U.S. officials in the region and at home--for
State as well as officials in our sister agencies. If confirmed, I will
continue to work with our State and interagency partners to enhance the
relevant skills and knowledge to advance our core policy objectives for
the Asia-Pacific.
Question. President Park has called for creating a ``new era'' on
the Korean Peninsula by building trust between North and South Korea.
Despite the North's recent behavior, she has indicated she wants to go
forward with modest, incremental initiatives, including providing some
humanitarian aid. Should the United States consider also providing
humanitarian assistance again?
Answer. The longstanding policy of the United States is that
humanitarian assistance, including food aid, should not be linked to
political and security issues. Decisions on U.S. humanitarian
assistance anywhere are based on three factors: (1) the level of need
in a given country; (2) competing needs in other countries; and (3) the
ability to ensure that aid reliably reaches the vulnerable populations
for which it is intended. If confirmed, I will continue to implement
this longstanding U.S. policy on humanitarian assistance.
______
Responses of Daniel R. Russel to Questions Submitted by
Senator Marco Rubio
Question. Can you explain how, in pursuing the Asia pivot/
realignment, the United States will deal with countries like Vietnam
and Cambodia, which have highly problematic human rights records?
Answer. Promoting human rights is an essential element of the
administration's rebalance strategy. If confirmed, I will conduct
candid and constructive human rights discussions with Asian governments
in bilateral and multilateral settings. In close consultation with
Congress, I will also work with my colleagues in the State Department
and USAID to ensure that foreign assistance programs for East Asia and
the Pacific reflect our commitment to bolster civil society, support
human rights, and promote democracy throughout the region. The
administration has been disappointed by the deterioration in human
rights conditions over the last several years in Vietnam, particularly
by the ongoing crackdown on bloggers and restrictions on Internet and
media. If confirmed, I will urge Vietnam to respect human rights and
emphasize that advancing the relationship with the United States is
contingent on improving its human rights performance. Although
Vietnam's record is of significant concern, there were some positive
developments earlier this year, including Vietnam's decision to release
lawyer Le Cong Dinh for humanitarian reasons and to host a high-level
visit by Amnesty International.
The Department of State has consistently and frankly raised our
concerns about human rights with Cambodia. President Obama has
emphasized that the lack of progress on human rights in Cambodia would
be an impediment to deeper relations between our two countries.
Challenges remain, such as land rights disputes and evictions without
adequate compensation, judicial interference by the ruling political
party to intimidate the opposition, and the infringement of the freedom
of speech and press. However, Cambodia has taken some positive steps
including the release of Mam Sonando in March. If confirmed, I will
urge Cambodia to systemically improve its human rights record and to
take measures to provide for a healthy democratic process, particularly
in the runup to national elections in July.
Question. If confirmed, what will you do to address the issue of
China's repeated repatriation of North Korean refugees back to a
country where they face almost certain torture and imprisonment?
Answer. If confirmed, I will urge China to comply with its
obligations as a party to the 1951 Convention Relating to Status of
Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, including not to expel people protected
under these treaties and to cooperate with the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in the exercise of its mandate.
Question. Should the President impose the sanctions on China called
for in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, now that China has been
lowered to Tier 3. If not, why?
Answer. I am concerned about human trafficking in China and, if
confirmed, will carefully review all our efforts to combat trafficking
in persons in the region to ensure that we are taking all appropriate
steps to address this issue. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act
(TVPA), as amended, authorizes restrictions on assistance for countries
ranked Tier 3 in the Trafficking in Persons Report, but the President
may waive some or all restrictions if he determines that the affected
assistance ``would promote the purposes of [the TVPA] or is otherwise
in the national interest of the United States.''
Question. If confirmed, would you commit to attend the Human Rights
Dialogue to show the importance of this aspect of our discussions with
China to our bilateral relationship?
Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to supporting the Dialogue and
continuing to raise our human rights concerns directly with our Chinese
counterparts. The promotion of human rights is a key tenet of U.S.
foreign policy, and the U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue is an
important channel to discuss our key human rights concerns with China.
I would welcome the opportunity to participate. I strongly believe
respect for the rule of law and protection of universal human rights
are critical to China's long-term prosperity and stability.
Question. What steps is the administration taking to support the
work of the U.N. Commission of Inquiry on North Korea, including its
efforts to gain access to China to examine the conditions faced by
those fleeing North Korea?
Answer. The United States remains deeply concerned about the human
rights situation in North Korea, and cosponsored the annual resolution
that established the U.N. Human Rights Council's Commission of Inquiry
(COI) to investigate the grave, widespread, and systematic violations
of human rights in North Korea.
If confirmed, I will continue U.S. efforts to urge North Korea to
cooperate with the COI--including by granting COI members access to the
country to evaluate human rights conditions on the ground--and actively
work with our partners and international organizations to address and
raise attention to the deplorable human rights conditions in North
Korea.
I will also continue U.S. efforts to urge all countries in the
region, including China, to cooperate in the protection of North Korean
refugees and asylum seekers within their territories and to act in
conformity with their obligations under the 1951 U.N. Convention
Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, including (1)
not to refoule North Koreans protected under these treaties, and (2) to
cooperate with the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.
Question. As Taiwan is likely to retire some of its older fighter
aircraft in the next 5 to 10 years, do you believe that sales of
advanced aircraft and other weapons systems are an important, next step
in this commitment?
Answer. Consistent with the Taiwan Relations Act and the United
States one-China policy, the United States makes available to Taiwan
defense articles and services necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain
sufficient self-defense capability. With U.S. assistance, Taiwan is
currently undergoing an extensive modernization of its F-16 A/B fleet,
and we are aware of Taiwan's desire to replace older F-5, and perhaps
Mirage 2000-5 fighters, with additional F-16 aircraft. No decisions
have been made about possible future sales of military aircraft to
Taiwan.
If confirmed, I will continue to support U.S. policy to meet our
commitments to Taiwan and assist Taiwan's maintenance of a sufficient
self-defense capability. Doing so increases stability both across the
Taiwan Strait and within the region.
Question. What is the administration's position regarding the
eventual participation of Taiwan in the Trans-Pacific Partnership
negotiations?
Answer. The United States and its Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
negotiating partners have stated that the TPP is open to economies in
the Asia-Pacific that can establish their readiness to meet the high
standards of the agreement. The addition of new members into the TPP is
based on the consensus of current members. The Ma administration has
set a goal of joining the TPP within 8 years, indicating that Taiwan
understands it will take time to prepare for possible future entry into
the TPP. The State Department and other U.S. trade agencies welcome the
liberalization of Taiwan's economy and have encouraged this in meetings
under our Trade and Investment Framework Agreement. If confirmed, I
will continue to encourage Taiwan's liberalization efforts.
Question. If confirmed, will you personally commit to restate the
administration's support for President Reagan's ``Six Assurances'' to
Taiwan, as was done during the first term by Assistant Secretary
Campbell?
Answer. The United States remains firmly committed to the U.S. one-
China policy, the three joint communiques, and our responsibilities
under the Taiwan Relations Act. The ``Six Assurances'' indeed help form
the foundation of our overall approach to Taiwan. If confirmed, I will
uphold this approach.
The United States opposes attempts by either side to unilaterally
alter the status quo across the Taiwan Strait. The United States does
not support Taiwan independence.
The United States has long maintained that differences between the
People's Republic of China and Taiwan are matters to be resolved
peacefully.
Question. Knowing that the current Taiwan 123 Agreement will expire
in March 2014, and knowing that the renewal will need 90 legislative
days to sit with Congress before it comes into effect, when does State
plan to send the negotiated renewal to Congress so as to avoid a
situation where a legislative fix is needed?
Answer. For the Department of State, the Bureau of International
Security and Nonproliferation (ISN) leads on negotiation of agreements
regarding peaceful uses of nuclear energy, often referred to as ``123
Agreements.'' I understand that, through the American Institute in
Taiwan (AIT), on the U.S. side, and Taiwan's Taipei Economic and
Cultural Representative Office in the United States (TECRO),
negotiators are working hard to reach a new agreement at an early date.
Their goal is to put a new AIT-TECRO 123 Agreement before Congress this
autumn. If confirmed, I will support efforts to bring the negotiations
to an early, successful conclusion with sufficient time to allow for
the required congressional review period prior to entry into force.
______
Responses of Daniel R. Russel to Questions Submitted by
Senator Christopher A. Coons
Question. Under your leadership, how will the Bureau of East Asian
and Pacific Affairs further advance economic opportunities for women in
the region and expand programs such as the South Asia Women's
Entrepreneurship Symposium?
Answer. If confirmed, I will strongly support programs that create
opportunities for and empower women and girls as a vital component of
our economic engagement in the region. The United States currently
works both bilaterally and through multilateral frameworks, including
the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, Lower Mekong
Initiative (LMI), and the Association of Southeast Asian nations
(ASEAN), to support women's economic empowerment.
For example, under APEC, the State Department is focused on
implementing the San Francisco Declaration, which calls on APEC members
to take concrete actions to realize the full potential of women,
integrate them more fully into APEC economies, and maximize their
contributions toward economic growth. Within this framework, the United
States is implementing capacity-building activities focused on women's
access to markets and capital and is supporting a number of studies to
identify specific, actionable barriers to women 's participation in the
economy in targeted APEC member economies.
The United States has also supported the efforts of the ASEAN
Commission on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and
Children to strengthen economic rights and opportunity for women. The
Department supports USAID's upcoming launch of the 5-year U.S.-ASEAN
Partnership for Good Governance, Equitable and Sustainable Development,
and Security (PROGRESS), which will include women's and children's
rights as a key focus area. The Department will also soon announce open
applications for the U.S.-ASEAN Science Prize For Women, which will be
awarded to a promising, early-career woman scientist from the ASEAN
region.
The Lower Mekong Initiative (LMI), the Mekong Technology,
Innovation Generation, and Entrepenuership Resources (TIGERS) Project
will facilitate access to economic opportunities for women
entrepreneurs and support the development of an ``innovation
ecosystem'' in the countries of the Lower Mekong subregion.
Bilaterally, the United States will bolster women's participation
in the private sector in Papua New Guinea through training programs to
support the development, sustainability, and advocacy skills of the
nascent Papua New Guinea Women's Chamber of Commerce.
In December 2012, the State Department held a Women's
Entrepreneurship Symposium to galvanize women's economic empowerment
along the New Silk Road and the Indo-Pacific Economic Corridor, which
links India and Bangladesh with Southeast Asia. The Symposium brought
together over 100 women entrepreneurs, government officials, private
sector and civil society leaders from 11 South and Central Asian
countries, including Burma, to identify opportunities and priorities
for advancing women's entrepreneurship in South Asia.
Question. How will the Bureau address violence against women and
girls in the region, including sexual- and gender-based violence, as
recently highlighted by the gang rape and death of the 23-year-old
woman on a Delhi bus in India?
Answer. The Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs (EAP) is
working closely with the Secretary's Office of Global Women's Issues
(S/GWI), and Bureaus and Offices across the Department to
comprehensively prevent and respond to gender-based violence in the
Asia-Pacific. S/GWI's small grants programming around the world,
including in the Asia-Pacific region, supports the advancement of
respect for women's and girls' human rights, and will include targeted
programs that address gender-based violence. These grants work to
support and build the capacity of local, grassroots organizations,
raise awareness of gender-based violence, legal rights, and strengthen
community referral systems. Additionally, EAP supports S/GWI's efforts
to increase women's participation in peace negotiations, conflict
prevention and response efforts, and peace-building processes.
Preventing and responding to gender-based violence is a critical
step toward the U.S. Government's goal of supporting the emergence of
stable, democratic countries that are at peace with their neighbors and
provide for the basic needs of their citizens. If confirmed, I commit
to continuing EAP's close cooperation with S/GWI and all other
stakeholders to prevent violence against women and girls.
______
Responses of Daniel R. Russel to Questions Submitted by
Senator John Barrasso
Question. Like many U.S. industries, soda ash faces significant
trade barriers around the world. It is a key manufacturing component of
glass, detergents, soaps, and chemicals. Soda ash is also used in many
other industrial processes.
U.S. ``natural soda ash'' is refined from the mineral trona. It has
long been regarded as the standard for quality, purity, and energy
efficiency in production. The Green River Basin in Wyoming is the
world's largest area for naturally occurring trona.
As part of your effort to promote U.S. industries in the
East Asian and Pacific region, can you commit to me that you
will be an advocate for eliminating trade barriers for soda ash
and other important U.S. industries in the international
marketplace?
Answer. If confirmed as Assistant Secretary, I will prioritize the
East Asian and Pacific (EAP) Bureau's promotion of U.S. exports and the
facilitation of U.S industries' participation in international markets.
I understand the Department is aware that some countries have pursued
actions against the importation of soda ash, including barriers to
trade in soda ash. I will ensure that EAP provides necessary support to
the Department of Commerce and the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative to address this issue and other trade-distorting
measures. I will also advocate strongly for U.S. firms and industries,
encouraging our trading partners' adherence to their international
trade obligations in providing nondiscriminatory market access for our
exporters, including those in the soda ash industry.
Question. Last year, the U.S. Department of State and U.S.
Department of Defense initiated a process to remove a war memorial in
Wyoming. It honors the lives of 48 soldiers who were massacred in their
sleep by insurgents in the Philippines on September 28, 1901. The
Department of State and Department of Defense intentionally withheld
information about the commencement of its removal from Congress.
Will you commit to me to not send our war memorials, which
honor our fallen service men, women, and their families, to
foreign lands?
What is your position on providing Congress with information
and notice about these types of actions?
Answer. I understand and appreciate the deep historical and
emotional connections Americans have to the Bells of Balangiga, which
represent the ultimate sacrifice of so many young Americans in the
service of our Nation. If confirmed, I will continue to consult with
Congress, the Department of Defense, and all other interested parties
on this issue.
Question. As you know, the North Korean Government has appealed to
the United States to open talks to ease the tensions on the Korean
Peninsula.
Do you believe the United States should reward the North
Koreans by directly engaging with North Korea?
Do you believe the North Koreans will dismantle their
nuclear program as a precondition to hold talks with the United
States?
If you were in a position to set the preconditions for U.S.-
Korean direct talks, can you please detail those preconditions?
Answer. I believe the United States should not seek talks for the
sake of talks. Rather we should be open to authentic and credible
negotiations to implement the September 2005 joint statement and bring
North Korea into compliance with all applicable Security Council
resolutions by ending its ballistic missile program and abandoning all
nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs in a complete,
verifiable, and irreversible manner. For negotiations to be authentic
and credible, North Korea must demonstrate it is prepared to halt and
ultimately abandon all of its nuclear weapons and programs.
The onus is on North Korea to take meaningful actions toward
denuclearization and refrain from provocations, and improve relations
with South Korea. North Korea committed on numerous occasions,
including in the September 2005 Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks,
to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs. The
United States and the international community must continue to hold
North Korea to those commitments and its international obligations.
The United States remains committed to finding a diplomatic
solution on North Korea, which will require multilateral action. North
Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile program, proliferation
activities, and provocative behavior are not just bilateral issues
between the United States and North Korea, but are of concern to the
entire international community. If confirmed, I would continue to
coordinate closely with allies and partners to press North Korea to
choose a path different leading to peaceful denuclearization.
Question. Do you believe tougher sanctions should be imposed on
North Korea for its continued violation of all its nonproliferation
agreements?
Answer. I believe the United States should continue to work with
the international community to ensure full enforcement of international
and national sanctions as part of our effort to bring about
denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The international community
has posed strict measures in response to North Korea's defiance of its
international obligations, and the United States continues to demand
that North Korea fully comply with its international obligations.
In unanimously adopting U.N. Security Council Resolution 2094,
which expanded sanctions on North Korea in response to the February 12,
2013, North Korean nuclear test, the U.N. Security Council expressed
its determination to take further significant measures in the event of
a future North Korean missile launch or nuclear test. The United States
has also imposed--and as necessary will continue to impose--national
measures on entities and individuals involved in proliferation-related
activities proscribed by U.N. Security Council resolutions.
Sanctions on North Korea are aimed at impeding its ability to
sustain and advance its proscribed nuclear, ballistic missile, and
proliferation programs and activities. The international community's
concerted efforts to implement these sanctions have demonstrated to
North Korea the increasing costs of defying the international
community.
If confirmed, I will strongly support full implementation of
sanctions by our international partners and will work closely with the
Department of the Treasury and other agencies to examine further
unilateral or multilateral sanctions as appropriate.
Question. What additional unilateral sanctions are available to the
United States to impose against the regime in North Korea?
Answer. The United States has a range of unilateral sanctions
authorities available to address North Korea's proliferation activities
and will continue to use them to expand sanctions on North Korea and
target entities and individuals associated with North Korea's
proscribed nuclear and ballistic missile programs and other illicit
acts.
I believe that sanctions are a valuable and effective part of our
overall strategy to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and their means of delivery.
If confirmed, I will cooperate with the Department of the Treasury
and other agencies to consider all appropriate measures to impede North
Korea's ability to sustain and advance its proscribed nuclear and
missile programs and associated proliferation activities.
Question. What consequences have there been, if any, for North
Korea's long-range missile test in February?
Answer. The February 12, 2013, North Korean nuclear test resulted
in the unanimous adoption of U.N. Security Council Resolution (UNSCR)
2094, which significantly expanded an already strong set of sanctions
on North Korea, as well as in broad international condemnation--from an
unprecedented 80-plus countries and international organizations.
The measures contained in UNSCR 2094 are already being implemented
and making it harder for North Korea to move the funds, equipment, and
personnel needed to develop its prohibited nuclear and ballistic
missile programs. The United States has worked closely with the
international community to ensure that these measures are fully
implemented.
On March 11, 2013, the United States designated the North Korea's
Foreign Trade Bank, consistent with UNSCR 2094's obligation to prevent
financial transactions that could contribute to North Korea's illicit
programs. The United States also designated four senior North Korean
officials for their role in activities explicitly proscribed by U.N.
Security Council resolutions.
Question. What is the current relationship between Iran and North
Korea? How much cooperation is there between the two countries on
missile and nuclear development?
Answer. U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1718 and 1874 prohibit
the transfer to or from the DPRK of goods and technology related to
nuclear, ballistic missile or other weapons of mass destruction-related
programs. Likewise, any cooperation with Iran on prohibited,
proliferation sensitive nuclear and ballistic missile activities could
violate multiple U.N. resolutions on Iran.
If confirmed, I will strongly support U.S. efforts to prevent
collusion and to press both the DPRK and Iran to comply fully and
transparently with their international commitments and obligations and
to refrain from any undertakings which would further threaten the
global nonproliferation regime.
______
Responses of Daniel R. Russel to Questions Submitted by
Senator Rand Paul
Question. Over the past few years we've seen reduced tensions in
the Taiwan Strait. How will you continue to encourage the development
of cross-strait relations?
Answer. I applaud the cross-strait agreements signed by China and
Taiwan over the past 5 years. Cultural exchange, direct transportation
links, and investment promotion are just a few examples of these
accomplishments.
For the past 34 years, the United States has pursued its one-China
policy based on the three communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act.
Regional stability and U.S. policy have provided Taiwan with the
confidence and flexibility needed to improve cross-strait relations.
If confirmed, I will encourage both Taiwan and China to continue
expanding cross-strait cooperation and oppose any attempts by either
side to unilaterally alter the status quo.
Question. Would the United States support expanding the Trans-
Pacific Partnership to include Taiwan?
Answer. The United States and its Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
negotiating partners have stated that the TPP is open to economies in
the Asia-Pacific that can establish their readiness to meet the high
standards of the agreement. The addition of new members into the TPP is
based on the consensus of current members. The Ma administration has
set a goal of joining the TPP within 8 years, indicating that Taiwan
understands it will take time to prepare for possible future entry into
the TPP. The State Department and other U.S. trade agencies welcome
steps Taiwan is taking to liberalize its economy, and have encouraged
this in our discussions under our Trade and Investment Framework
Agreement. If confirmed, I will continue to encourage Taiwan's
liberalization efforts.
Question. Do you see an enhanced role for Taiwan under the
rebalance to Asia policy on economic and security fronts?
Answer. Taiwan is a vibrant democracy and a developed market
economy. It is the United States 11th-largest trading partner, 7th-
largest export market for American agricultural and food products, and
the 6th-largest source of international students in the United States.
If confirmed, I will ensure the United States expands its commercial,
economic, and cultural engagement with Taiwan through our Trade and
Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA), through economic integration
initiatives in Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), and through
greater people-to-people contacts, including student exchanges. Our
people-to-people engagement has been further facilitated by Taiwan's
entry into the Visa Waiver Program in 2012. If confirmed, I will also
ensure the United States continues to build a robust unofficial
relationship with Taiwan and fulfill its longstanding commitment to
enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability, in
accordance with the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act.
NOMINATIONS OF VICTORIA NULAND, DOUGLAS LUTE, AND DANIEL BAER
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 11, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
Hon. Victoria Nuland, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of
State for European and Eurasian Affairs
Douglas Edward Lute, of Indiana, to be United States Permanent
Representative on the Council of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization
Daniel Brooks Baer, of Colorado, to be U.S. Representative to
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:25 p.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Christopher
Murphy, presiding.
Present: Senators Murphy, Cardin, Shaheen, Kaine, Johnson,
Risch, Rubio, McCain, Barrasso, and Paul.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER MURPHY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Murphy. I call this nomination hearing to order.
Today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will consider
three nominations: Victoria Nuland to be the Assistant
Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs; Douglas
Lute to be the U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO; and
Daniel Baer to be the U.S. Ambassador to the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Before we begin, let me remind members that the deadline
for submission of questions for the record is the close of
business, this Monday.
First, let me welcome our nominees as well as your
families:
Our first nominee, Victoria Nuland, is a 29-year veteran of
the Foreign Service. She most recently served at the State
Department as the spokesperson there, but Ambassador Nuland has
worked at the highest levels of both Republican and Democratic
administrations, earning the respect of her colleagues at every
step along the way. She served with integrity and dedication as
the Special Envoy for Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, the
U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO, and the Principal Deputy
National Security Advisor to Vice President Cheney. As her
colleagues note, her 20 years of work as an expert specifically
on Russia, as well as her talents as a diplomat, negotiator,
and strong voice for democracy and human rights, makes her
ideally suited for the position of Assistant Secretary for
Europe and Eurasia.
Victoria is originally from my home State of Connecticut,
so I am especially pleased to preside over her confirmation
hearing today. She is here with her family--her parents, as
well as her husband, Robert, and her son, David. We welcome
them, as well.
Daniel Baer is the Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau
of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, currently at the U.S.
Department of State. Prior to joining the administration in
2009, he had teaching positions at both Georgetown and Harvard.
And during his time in academia, the private sector, and
government, Dr. Baer has distinguished himself as a talented
diplomat and passionate defender of human rights, and I believe
that he is an excellent choice for our Ambassador to the OSCE.
He is here today with his partner, Brian Walsh, and we
welcome him.
Douglas Lute has long had a distinguished career in both
military and civilian service. He is currently serving as the
Deputy Assistant to the President and Coordinator for South
Asia and the White House national security staff. He retired
from Active Duty in the United States Army as a lieutenant
general in 2010, after 35 years of service. General Lute's
previous positions include time at the U.S. European Command in
Germany and as the commander of U.S. Forces in Kosovo, where he
first worked with NATO.
General Lute, we thank you for your service. We look
forward to working with you in your new position, and we also
welcome your wife, Jane, who is here today.
I congratulate all of you on your nominations.
Let me say that, as we are going to be talking about Europe
today, probably the most overused word in the foreign policy
community today is ``pivot.'' There is no doubt that America
has new and important diplomatic, economic, and security
interests in Asia, and there is no doubt that the original
reason for many of our values-based alliances with Europe--the
cold war--is no longer present today. But, today, no less than
ever before, Europe, as a unit and as European nations
individually, remain America's most important allies to be
found anywhere on the globe. Our most important security
relationship is with Europe. When confronting a global crisis,
the first place we almost always turn is to our European
allies. Our most important economic relationship is with
Europe. That is why we are reinvesting in this side of the
relationship, with a kickoff, this week, of negotiations on the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
In a lot of ways, as the United States and Europe face the
new economic growth in Asia, as we look at communal security
challenges in places like Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan, our
alliance is now more important than ever before.
So, if confirmed, Ambassador Nuland, you will be
formulating U.S. policy toward Europe at a crucial moment in
our alliance's history, and I look forward, today, to hearing
your thoughts, for instance, on how the State Department can
assist the U.S. Trade Representative in moving forward a
potentially transformational economic deal with Europe. We need
to hear from you as to how we continue to maneuver an
increasingly complicated--to frankly use a generous term--
relationship with Russia. How do we work together on common
goals, like arms control and Middle Eastern stability while not
letting them off the hook for a dangerous downward turn in the
treatment of civil society? And, while we welcome the EU's
emergence as a leader in the Balkans, how do we work with our
partners in Europe to continue to integrate these fragile
nations into the world community?
General Lute, you are going to be working with NATO
partners to bring our troops home from Afghanistan, while, at
the same time, formulating the future role of the alliance.
NATO still remains the world's preeminent security alliance.
But, to remain strong, you are going to continue the work of
your predecessor in emphasizing the importance of smart
defense, of interoperability and coordinated strategic
planning.
And, Dr. Baer, you are going to be going to an organization
that, more than any other, represents our ideals, and yet you
will be faced with the challenge--maybe more of a challenge
today than ever--of putting those ideals into action.
So, I congratulate each of you on your nomination. And my
hope is that the full Senate will work quickly and positively
on your confirmations.
At this point, I turn it over to Senator Johnson for
opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON JOHNSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate your
opening remarks, and I certainly appreciate, also, the
distinguished service that the nominees have already provided
to their Nation, and truly appreciate the fact that you are
willing to step up to the plate again and serve your Nation in
new capacities, here. So, we have some, I think, first-class
nominees here, and I am looking forward to your testimony.
What is being contemplated, however, in the United States
Senate, I think, requires some comment, and I would like to
utilize my opening remarks to talk about what we were talking
about in both of our caucuses, that the majority is
contemplating taking action, breaking precedent, basically
breaking the rules to change the Senate rules in a way that I
believe would be incredibly damaging, if not very destructive,
to the United States Senate, this institution that we totally
revere. And it is doing it on the basis of what, I think,
certainly the folks on our side of the aisle believe is a
manufactured crisis. It has to do with nominations and,
supposedly, Republican obstruction and, apparently, our
blocking of nominations. But, here are the facts.
In the 111th Congress, there were 920 of President Obama's
nominations confirmed, only one was rejected. In the 112th
Congress, 574 nominations were confirmed, only two were
rejected. During the 113th Congress, our current Congress,
there have been 66 nominees confirmed, with only one being
rejected. Hardly a record of obstruction.
In terms of Cabinet nominees, just in terms of the length
of time it has taken to get confirmation, President Obama, his
Cabinet nominees have taken 51 days, on average. During
President Bush's administration, it was 52 days. During
President Clinton's administration, it was 55 days. Again,
President Obama has been, certainly, given due consideration.
His nominees have been, really, moved forward very rapidly.
In this term, in his second term, President Obama has
already confirmed 28 judges--or we have--the Senate's confirmed
28 judges, compared to 10 judges in President Bush's second
term.
This is manufactured crisis. And I am not the only one that
believes that the nuclear option would be incredibly damaging.
This is the words of Majority Leader Harry Reid when he wrote a
book, in March 2009. He said, ``The nuclear option was the most
important issue I had ever worked on in my entire career,
because if that had gone forward, it would have destroyed the
Senate as we know it.'' That is not the only thing Senator
Harry Reid has mentioned about breaking the rules to change the
rules. He said, ``In violating 217 years of standard procedure
in the Senate, changing the rules by breaking the rules is
about as far as you could get from a constitutional option.''
He also said, ``For people to suggest that you can break the
rules to change the rules is un-American.''
The only way you can change the rule in this body is
through a rule that now says, ``To change a rule in the Senate
rules to break a filibuster still requires 67 votes.'' You
cannot do it with 60 votes. You certainly cannot do it with 51.
Now we are told the majority is going to do the so-called
``nuclear option.'' The Parliamentarian would acknowledge it is
illegal, it is wrong, you cannot do it, and they would overrule
it. It would simply be, ``We are going to do it because we have
more votes than you.'' You would be breaking the rules to
change the rules. That is very un-American.
And finally, he said, ``The American people, in effect,
reject the nuclear option because they see it for what it is,
an abuse of power, arrogance of power.'' Lord Acton said,
``Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.''
That is what is going on. The rules are being changed in the
middle of the game. They are breaking the rules to change the
rules. Regardless of one's political affiliations, Americans
understand this is a political power-grab, a partisan political
grab.
Vice President Biden commented on this when he was a
Senator. He said, ``The nuclear option is ultimately an example
of the arrogance of power. This is a fundamental power-grab by
the majority party. It is nothing more or nothing less.''
Former Senator Christopher Dodd, in his farewell address,
said, ``But, whether such a temptation is motivated by a noble
desire to speed up the legislative process or by pure political
expedience, I believe such changes would be unwise. To my
fellow Senators who have never served a day in the minority, I
urge you to pause in your enthusiasm to change the Senate
rules.''
Now, Senator Murphy, neither one of us, unfortunately, had
the pleasure of serving with Senator Robert C. Byrd, from West
Virginia, somebody who, certainly as I watched the Senate from
afar, was acknowledged as somebody who revered the Senate, who
fully understood the rules. We, unfortunately, did not get to
have him speak to us during orientation, but he gave a very
famous orientation speech on December 3, 1996, for that
incoming Senate class, and I would like to take some time--
because I think his words bear repeating.
He said, ``Let us clearly understand one thing. The
Constitution's Framers never intended for the Senate to
function like the House of Representatives''--in other words,
be a majoritarian body. ``I have said that, as long as the
Senate retains the power to amend and the power of unlimited
debate, the liberties of the people will remain secure. The
Senate was intended to be a forum for open and free debate and
for the protection of political minorities. I have led the
majority and I have led the minority, and I can tell you, there
is nothing that makes one fully appreciate the Senate's special
role as the protector of the minority interests like being in
the minority.
``Since the Republican Party was created, in 1854, the
Senate has changed hands times 14 times, so each party has had
the opportunity to appreciate, firsthand, the Senate's role as
guardian of minority rights. But, almost from its earliest
years, the Senate has insisted upon its members' rights to
virtually unlimited debate. When the Senate reluctantly adopted
the cloture rule in 1917, it made the closing of debate very
difficult to achieve by requiring a supermajority and by
permitting extended post-cloture debate.''
By the way, back then, the supermajority was two-thirds
votes, now it is three-fifths.
``This deference to the minority view sharply distinguishes
the Senate from the majoritarian House of Representatives. The
Framers recognized that a minority can be right and that a
majority can be wrong. They recognized that the Senate should
be a true deliberative body, a forum in which to slow the
passions of the House, hold them up to the light, examine them,
and, through informed debate, educate the public. The Senate is
the proverbial saucer intended to cool the cup of coffee from
the House. It is the one place in the whole government where
the minority is guaranteed a public airing of its views.
``Woodrow Wilson observed that the Senate's informing
function was as important as its legislating function. And now,
with televised Senate debate, its informing function plays an
even larger and more critical role in the life of our Nation.
The Senate is often soundly castigated for its inefficiency,
but, in fact, it was never intended to be efficient. Its
purpose was, and is, to examine, consider, protect, and be
totally independent--a totally independent source of wisdom and
judgment on the actions of the lower House and on the
executive. As such, the Senate is the central pillar of our
constitutional system.
``The Senate is more important than any or all of us, more
important than I am, more important than the majority and
minority leaders, more important than all 100 of us, more
important than all of the 1,843 men and women who have served
in this body since 1789. Each of us has a solemn responsibility
to remember that, and to remember it often.''
And finally, in a speech he gave on May 19, 2010, Senator
Byrd said, ``The Senate has been the last fortress of minority
rights and freedom of speech in this Republic for more than two
centuries. I pray the Senators will pause and reflect before
ignoring that history and tradition in favor of the political
priority of the moment.''
I have that same prayer. I came to the Senate because this
Nation is facing enormous challenges. You, in serving this
Nation, will face enormous challenges. We simply cannot afford
to damage this incredibly important institution, the United
States Senate. And I hope our colleagues on the majority side
contemplate exactly what they are doing.
But, with that, Mr. Chairman, I will turn it back over to
you and look forward to the testimony.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Senator Johnson.
Let us go to our right to left, and we will start with
Ambassador Nuland.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. VICTORIA NULAND, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS
Ambassador Nuland. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member Johnson, all the members of this committee.
I am honored to come before you to be considered for the
position of Assistant Secretary of State for European and
Eurasian Affairs, and I am grateful for the confidence that
President Obama and Secretary Kerry have shown in me. If
confirmed, I pledge to work with all of you to protect and
advance U.S. interests, in promoting security, prosperity,
democracy, and human rights in Europe and Eurasia, and working
with our allies and partners there to advance our shared global
interests.
I am also delighted to share this panel today with my
colleagues and friends, Doug Lute and Dan Baer. I can think of
no better partners to provide vital U.S. leadership at our two
essential transatlantic multilateral institutions.
As a lifetime Europeanist, I have witnessed firsthand some
of the most profound moments of change in Europe and Eurasia.
From my days as a young political officer in Moscow, when I
stood on Red Square on New Year's Eve in 1991, when the Soviet
flag came down and the Russian flag went up, to the brutal wars
in Bosnia and Kosovo, the enlargement of NATO and the EU, the
creation of the euro. I know that, when Europeans and Americans
join forces in defense of our common security and values, we
are more effective than when we work alone, whether it is in
Afghanistan, Iran, Mali, Burma, countering terrorism, promoting
nonproliferation, good governance, human rights, development,
health, or a cleaner planet. America needs a strong, confident
Europe, and our European allies depend on America's unwavering
commitment to their security and our continued support for
Europe's prosperity, its cohesion, and its growth.
As we look at the agenda ahead of us, our first task is to
revitalize the foundations of our global leadership and our
democratic, free-market way of life. We need growth, we need
jobs, on both sides of the Atlantic. The Transatlantic Trade
and Investment Partnership, that Senator Murphy mentioned, that
we began this year with the EU could support hundreds of
thousands of additional jobs. But the T-TIP is about more than
our economic underpinnings. T-TIP is also a political and
strategic investment in our shared future and our effectiveness
as global leaders in the 21st century.
We have also got to focus on the unfinished work within
Europe. Today, we have a real chance to capitalize on changing
attitudes and circumstances to address the 40-year-old division
of Cyprus. Kosovo and Serbia have made important commitments
toward long-term reconciliation, and those deserve our support.
And we must not break faith with other members of our European
and Eurasian family, who have been trapped for too long in
frozen conflicts and territorial disputes.
We must also do more to defend the universal values that
bind us. The quality of democracy and rule of law in Europe and
Eurasia is gravely uneven today; and, in some key places, the
trends are moving in the wrong direction. If, as a
transatlantic community, we aspire to mentor other nations who
want to live in justice, peace, and freedom, we have got to be
equally vigilant about completing that process in our own
space.
And we must also continue to work together beyond our
shores. As the President has said so many times, as you have
said, Mr. Chairman, Europe is our global partner of first
resort. Whether in Afghanistan, Libya, working on Iran, on
Syria, the United States and Europe are strongest when we share
the risk and the responsibility and, in many cases, the
financial burden of promoting positive change.
When we can, we also have to work effectively with Russia
to solve global problems. With respect to Iran, DPRK policy,
Afghanistan, counterterrorism, and nuclear arms control, we
have made progress in recent years, and the President's looking
for opportunities to take our cooperation to the next level.
However, we must also be very frank when we disagree with
Russian policy, whether it is with regard to weapon sales to
the Assad regime or with regard to the treatment of civil
society, political activists, and journalists inside of Russia.
Finally, we have got to be attentive to the fast-changing
energy landscape of Europe and Eurasia. We welcome the many
steps that Europeans have taken to diversify their energy
market. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that U.S. companies
continue to play a leading role in this dynamic market. As the
President said in Berlin last month, ``Our relationship with
Europe remains the cornerstone of our own freedom and
security.'' If confirmed, I pledge to work with all of you to
seize the opportunities before us to revitalize and deepen our
ties with Europe and to ensure we continue, together, to have
the will, the trust, and the capability to advance our shared
security and prosperity and to meet our many global challenges
together.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Nuland follows:]
Prepared Statement of Victoria Nuland
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, and all the
members of this committee. I am honored to come before you to be
considered for the position of Assistant Secretary for European and
Eurasian Affairs, and I am grateful for the confidence that President
Obama and Secretary Kerry have shown in me. If confirmed, I pledge to
work with all of you to protect and advance U.S. interests by promoting
security, prosperity, democracy and human rights in Europe and Eurasia,
and working with our allies and partners there to advance our shared
global interests.
I am also delighted to share the panel today with my colleagues and
friends, Doug Lute and Dan Baer. I can think of no better partners to
provide vital U.S. leadership at our two major TransAtlantic
multilateral institutions.
As a lifetime Europeanist, I have witnessed firsthand some of the
most challenging and profound moments of change in Europe and Eurasia's
recent history--from my days as a young political officer in Moscow
when I stood on Red Square on New Year's Eve 1991 as the Soviet flag
came down and the Russian flag went up, through the bloody and
agonizing Bosnia and Kosovo wars, to the birth of the EURO, and the
enlargement of NATO and the EU to include much of Central Europe. I
have also learned through decades of shared effort that when Americans
and Europeans join forces in defense of our common security and values,
we are stronger and more effective than when we work alone--from
Afghanistan to Iran to Mali to Burma; from countering terrorism to
promoting nonproliferation, good governance, human rights, development,
health and cleaner planet. America needs a strong, confident Europe.
And our European allies depend on America's unwavering commitment to
their security, and our continued support for Europe's prosperity,
cohesion, and growth.
As we look at the agenda that lies ahead of us, our first task with
our European allies is to revitalize the foundations of our global
leadership and our democratic, free market way of life. We need growth
and jobs on both sides of the Atlantic. The TransAtlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership that we began negotiating this week with the EU
could support hundreds of thousands of additional jobs and strengthen
our international competitiveness. But T-TIP is about more than our
economic underpinnings. T-TIP is also a political and strategic
investment in our shared future and our effectiveness as global leaders
in the 21st century. When we break down trade barriers between us, we
also strengthen our ability to raise international standards in favor
of free and open societies.
We must also focus on the unfinished work within Europe. Today, we
have a real chance to capitalize on changing attitudes and
circumstances to address the 40-year-old division of Cyprus. Kosovo and
Serbia have made important commitments toward long-term reconciliation,
thanks to the good offices of EU High Representative Ashton. We need to
support the full implementation of these agreements, and with them, the
integration of both countries into European structures. Croatia's
acceptance into the European Union last week sets a powerful example
for other Balkan States. And we cannot break faith with other members
of our European and Eurasian family who have been trapped for too long
in frozen conflicts and territorial disputes.
We must also do more to defend the universal values that bind us.
While all states in the EUR region hold elections and most have
democratic constitutions, the quality of democracy and the rule of law
in Europe and Eurasia is gravely uneven, and in some key places, the
trends are moving in the wrong direction. Too many citizens do not feel
safe criticizing their governments, running for office or advancing a
vibrant civil society. In too many places, press freedom is stifled,
courts are rigged and governments put their thumbs on the scales of
justice. If, as a TransAtlantic community, we aspire to support and
mentor other nations who want to live in justice, peace, and freedom,
we must be equally vigilant about completing that process in our own
space. Our democratic values are just as vital a pillar of our strength
and global leadership as our militaries and our economies.
We must also continue to work together beyond our shores to advance
security, stability, justice and freedom. As the President has said so
many times, Europe is our global partner of first resort. Our
investment together in a safe, developing, democratic Afghanistan is
just one example. Even as we wind down the ISAF combat mission in 2014,
we will keep our promise to support the ANSF and Afghanistan's
political and economic development. More than a decade of deploying
together in that tough terrain has also made our NATO alliance more
capable, more expeditionary and better able to partner with countries
across the globe. As we look to future demands on our great alliance--
and they will come--we must build on that experience, not allow it to
atrophy. In these difficult budget times, that will require working
even harder to get more defense bang for our buck, Euro, pound, krone
and zloty with increased pooling, sharing and partnering to ensure NATO
remains the world's premier defense alliance and a capable coordinator
of global security missions, when required.
America's work with European partners and the EU across Africa, in
Asia, on climate and on so many other global challenges must also
continue. Today, the most urgent focus of common effort should be in
Europe's own backyard and an area of vital interest to us all: the
broader Middle East and North Africa. From Libya, to Tunisia, to Egypt,
to Lebanon, to Iran, to Syria, to our work in support of Middle East
peace, the United States and Europe are strongest when we share the
risk, the responsibility and in many cases, the financial burden of
promoting positive change. When we join forces with Canada, our Gulf
partners and others, the effect is even stronger.
When we can, we must also work effectively with Russia to solve
global problems. With respect to Iran, DPRK policy, Afghanistan,
counterterrorism and nuclear arms control and nonproliferation, we have
seen important progress in the past 4 years, and the President is
looking for opportunities to take our cooperation to the next level.
However, we must also continue to be frank when we disagree with
Russian policy, whether it's with regard to weapons sales to the Assad
regime in Syria or the treatment of NGOs, civil society and political
activists or journalists inside Russia. And we must encourage the next
generation of Russians and Americans to reject zero sum thinking, and
instead invest in the ties of business, culture, and people that will
create opportunities for both of us.
Finally, we must be attentive to the fast changing energy landscape
of Europe and Eurasia, and the opportunities and challenges that
brings. Europeans have taken important steps to diversify their energy
market with new routes, new regulations, new power plants and LNG
terminals, and investments in new energy sources. We welcome these
developments, which are also creating opportunities for U.S. firms. If
confirmed, I will work to ensure our companies continue to play a
leading role in this dynamic market.
As the President said in Berlin last month, our relationship with
``Europe remains the cornerstone of our own freedom and security.
Europe is our partner in everything we do . . . and our relationship is
rooted in the enduring bonds . . . (of) . . . our common values.'' In
every decade since World War II those bonds have been tested,
challenged and in some quarters, doubted. In every decade, we have
rolled up our sleeves with our European Allies and partners and beat
the odds. These times of tight money, unfinished business at home and
competing priorities abroad are as important as any we have faced. If
confirmed, I pledge to work with all of you to seize the opportunities
before us to revitalize and deepen our ties with Europe, and to ensure
we continue to have the will, the trust, and the capability to advance
our shared security and prosperity and to meet our many global
challenges together.
Senator Murphy. Thank you.
General Lute.
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS EDWARD LUTE, OF INDIANA, TO BE UNITED
STATES PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE ON THE COUNCIL OF THE NORTH
ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
General Lute. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Johnson, and all the members of this committee.
I am honored to be considered, today, for the position of
Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization. I am grateful for the confidence that President
Obama has shown in my nomination. And, if confirmed, I pledge
to work with all of you to represent, faithfully, America's
interests in NATO, the alliance that, since 1949, has served as
the cornerstone of our security interests.
It is a privilege today to sit here and appear alongside
Victoria Nuland and Daniel Baer, two distinguished colleagues.
If we are confirmed, the three of us will join the corps of
U.S. officials devoted, full-time, to securing our interests in
Europe and beyond. I could have no better teammates.
At the outset, I want to recognize and thank my wife, Jane,
who joins me here today, along with my sister, Pat. Jane
recently completed service as the Deputy Secretary at the
Department of Homeland Security. Her public service also
includes work in several foundations and over 6 years in the
United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Together,
we have served the Federal Government for a combined total of
nearly six decades, with both of us beginning as Army officers
right out of college. We both took initial assignments in
Germany at the height of the cold war; Jane in Berlin, and I
along the East-West German border. I would not be here today
without her support.
This opportunity for me to serve once again with NATO began
with that first assignment in Germany, and it continues to this
day. I was in Germany when the wall fell, in 1989. I remember
well that, on September 11, 2001, NATO, for the first time
ever, invoked Article V of the Washington Treaty in response to
the terrorist attacks here in America, demonstrating that an
attack on one is an attack on all. Later, I commanded U.S.
forces in NATO's Peace Enforcement Mission in Kosovo, an
important crisis response on the periphery of NATO. Most
recently, I have spent the last 6 years in the White House,
focused on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where, again, NATO
has played important roles. If confirmed, I look forward to
this opportunity to proudly serve my country again in NATO.
Much has changed in Europe over the past several decades,
but there has been one cornerstone for transatlantic security:
NATO. Large multilateral institutions like NATO do not adapt
quickly or easily; yet, in the last 20 years, we have seen NATO
adjust to the end of the cold war, expand its membership to
former enemies, extend its reach to threats on its periphery,
and adapt its defense structures to emerging threats. No one
would have believed, in 1989 when the wall fell, that NATO
would conduct operations in places like the Balkans,
Afghanistan, and Libya.
Serious challenges lie ahead for NATO. The key operational
challenge is Afghanistan, where NATO leads, today, a coalition
of 50 nations. We are on a path to pass full security
responsibility to Afghan forces by the end of 2014, next year.
This is a path set by NATO and the Afghans, together, at the
Lisbon summit in late 2010, and it was refined last year in
Chicago.
Several weeks ago, the Afghans reached a very important
strategic milestone along that path as they assumed the lead
for security across the entire country, with NATO passing into
a support-and-advisory role. But, the military campaign is only
one part along this path, and it represents only one variable
in a very complex equation that includes: political transition
that culminates next April in the Presidential elections; it
includes economic transition, which has Afghanistan adjusting
to the reduced presence of Western forces; it includes a
political process that explores the potential of the Afghan
Government talking to the Taliban, with an effort to bring an
Afghan solution to this conflict. Finally, Afghanistan lives in
a very tough neighborhood, and regional dynamics will play a
major role.
None of this work will be completed in the next 18 months,
by December 2014, so NATO and the United States are both
planning for a military presence beyond 2014, with a mission to
continue to train, advise, and assist Afghan forces. Such a
post-2014 mission requires a political agreement with the
Afghan Government, and our negotiators are making progress in
advance of next year's Afghan election season. Afghanistan has
been NATO's largest operation. Drawing it to a responsible
close will be a significant challenge in the next several
years.
NATO also faces a fundamental policy challenge, and that is
the growing gap between NATO's mission and the resources allies
commit to fulfilling that mission. This ends/means gap is
centered on the imbalance between America's defense resources
committed to the alliance and those of the other allies. All 28
members of the alliance benefit from that membership. All 28
have to contribute equitably. This is especially true as NATO
recovers from a decade of operations in Afghanistan and faces
new challenges, like missile defense and cyber security.
There are ways to approach this challenge, including smart
defense, pooling and sharing high-end resources, and exploring
specialization among allies, and, finally, nurturing
partnerships that extend the reach of NATO beyond the core 28
members. But, this ends/means gap may be the most severe
challenge the alliance has faced since the end of the cold war.
NATO operates on a firm foundation of shared democratic
values that bind together the 28 member nations. Because of
these shared values, I am confident that NATO can, today,
fulfill its three core tasks--collective defense, crisis
management, and cooperative security--while also addressing the
challenges of the future. If confirmed, I will do my best to
represent American interests in the most successful, most
durable alliance in history, the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization. I ask for this committee's support.
[The prepared statement of General Lute follows:]
Prepared Statement of Douglas Lute
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, and all the
members of this committee. I am honored to be considered for the
position of Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO). I am grateful for the confidence that President
Obama has shown in me by this nomination. If confirmed, I pledge to
work with all of you to represent faithfully America's interests in
NATO, the alliance that since 1949 has served as the cornerstone of our
security interests.
It is a privilege to appear alongside Victoria Nuland and Daniel
Baer, two distinguished colleagues. If we are confirmed, the three of
us will join the core of U.S. officials devoted full time to securing
our interests in Europe and beyond. I could have no better teammates.
At the outset, I want to recognize and thank my wife, Jane, who
joins me here today. Jane recently completed service as the Deputy
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Her public service
also includes work in several foundations and over 6 years in the
United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Together we have
served the Federal Government for a combined total of over six decades,
with both of us beginning as Army officers right out of college. We
both took initial assignments in Germany, Jane in Berlin and I along
the East-West German border, at the height of the cold war.
This opportunity for me to serve once again with NATO began with
that first assignment and continues to this day. I was in Germany when
the Wall fell in 1989. I saw Germans from the east walk across no-mans-
land to buy fresh fruit in the west. I remember well that on September
11, 2001, NATO for the first time ever invoked Article V of the
Washington Treaty in response to the terrorist attacks here in America,
demonstrating that an attack on one is an attack on all. Later I
commanded the U.S. forces in NATO's peace enforcement mission in
Kosovo, a crisis response mission on the periphery of NATO. Most
recently, I have spent the last 6 years in the White House focused on
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where again NATO has played key
roles. If confirmed, I look forward proudly to this opportunity to
serve my country again in NATO.
Much has changed in Europe over the past several decades, but there
has been one cornerstone for trans-Atlantic security--NATO. Large
multilateral institutions like NATO do not adapt quickly or easily. Yet
in the last 20 years we have seen NATO adjust to the end of the cold
war, expand its membership to former enemies, extend its reach to
threats on its periphery, and adapt its defense structures to emerging
threats. No one would have believed in 1989 when the Wall fell that
NATO would conduct operations in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Libya.
Serious challenges lie ahead for NATO. The key operational
challenge is Afghanistan, where NATO leads a coalition of 50 nations.
We are on a path to pass full responsibility to Afghan forces by the
end of 2014, a path set by NATO and the Afghans at the Lisbon summit in
late 2010 and refined last year at the Chicago summit. Several weeks
ago the Afghans reached a strategic milestone along that path as they
assumed the lead for security across the entire country, with NATO
passing into a support and advisory role. But the military campaign is
only one part of a complex equation to stabilize Afghanistan and ensure
it is not a safe haven for al-Qaeda. The outcome will not rely solely
on NATO. Perhaps most important, Afghan political transition culminates
next April in the Presidential elections. Economic transition must
adjust to the reduced presence of NATO forces. A political process that
explores the possibility of Afghan Government talks with the Taliban is
struggling at its outset. Finally, Afghanistan lives in a tough
neighborhood, and regional dynamics will play a major role. None of
this work will be fully completed in the next 18 months, so NATO and
the United States are planning for a military presence beyond 2014,
with the mission to continue to train-advise-assist the Afghan forces.
Such a post-2014 mission requires a political agreement with the Afghan
Government and our negotiators are making progress in advance of the
Afghan election season. Afghanistan has been NATO's largest operation.
Drawing it to a responsible close will be a significant challenge in
the next several years.
NATO also faces a fundamental policy challenge--the growing gap
between NATO's mission and the resources allies commit to fulfilling
that mission. This ends-means gap is centered on the imbalance between
America's defense resources committed to the alliance and those of
other allies. All 28 members benefit from the alliance; all 28 have to
contribute equitably. This is especially true as NATO recovers from a
decade of operations in Afghanistan and faces new challenges like
missile defense and cyber security. There are ways to approach this
challenge, including ``smart defense,'' pooling and sharing high-end
resources, exploring specialization among allies, and nurturing
partnerships beyond the core 28 members. This ends-means gap may be the
most severe challenge the alliance has faced since the end of the cold
war.
As we look to the future, the alliance is committed to keeping open
the door to NATO membership. Our position is clear: Membership must be
earned. Candidate nations must meet standards.
Beyond adding new members, NATO effectively extends its reach
through partnerships based on reciprocity, mutual benefit, and mutual
respect. Today NATO's partners include countries from the Middle East,
Africa, and from across Asia. These partnerships broaden and increase
the flexibility of NATO-led coalitions, expand and diversify NATO's
political influence, and are a vehicle to emphasize common values.
Recent NATO operations in Afghanistan and Libya have benefited from
significant partner contributions.
NATO's partnership with Russia--the NATO-Russia Council--provides
an important venue for frank political dialogue and can lead to
practical cooperation, as in Afghanistan today. Areas of cooperation
include counterterrorism, counternarcotics and nonproliferation. This
partnership also faces challenges including missile defense cooperation
and defense transparency. The NATO-Russia Council remains an important
channel to address mutual interests and potential areas of cooperation.
NATO operates on a firm foundation of shared democratic values that
bind together the 28 member nations. Because of these shared values, I
am confident NATO can today fulfill its core tasks of collective
defense, crisis management and cooperative security, while addressing
the challenges of the future. If confirmed, I will do my best to
represent American interests in the most successful, most durable
alliance in history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I ask for
this committee's support.
Senator Murphy. Thank you, General.
Dr. Baer.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL BROOKS BAER, OF COLORADO, TO BE U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE TO THE ORGANIZATION FOR SECURITY AND COOPERATION
IN EUROPE
Dr. Baer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and
members of this committee.
It is an honor to come before you as the President's
nominee to serve as the United States Permanent Representative
to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and
I am grateful for the confidence that President Obama and
Secretary Kerry have expressed through this nomination.
I am humbled to be here in front of you, and also humbled
to be here with two great American public servants, Ambassador
Nuland and Ambassador-designate Lute. If we are confirmed, I
look forward to working with each of them, and with all of you,
to advance U.S. interests.
I have worked closely with Toria over the last few years,
and she has been, not only a great friend, but a great partner
in fighting for human rights. I would also like to acknowledge
my family--my parents, thank them for the investment of love
and resources in my future; my wonderful siblings; my sister,
Marrett, who is here today--and my partner, Brian, who, though
seated three rows behind me, is always standing beside me.
Mr. Chairman, for the past 4 years, I have had the
privilege of serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary in the State
Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. In
this capacity, I have welcomed the opportunity to contribute to
a long tradition, sustained through both Republican and
Democratic administrations, of putting human rights at the
center of U.S. foreign policy. This experience has deepened my
conviction that human rights must be at the core of any
successful long-term strategy for peace and security, and that
U.S. leadership is as crucial today as it was when Eleanor
Roosevelt helped draft the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights almost 70 years ago. There is no genuine security or
lasting peace in the absence of respect for human rights and
adherence to the rule of law. Recent history has shown us that
the apparent stability afforded by repressive regimes is
illusory, and, because of this, when states violate the rights
of their citizens and fail to uphold international obligations,
it is not merely internal affairs, but the rightful concern of
the entire international community.
The OSCE is unique in having embraced a comprehensive
approach to security at its founding and is the only regional
security organization that places the political/military,
economic and environmental, and human dimensions of security on
an equal footing. The 57 participating states have recognized
that whether and how an OSCE state is implementing its
commitments is a legitimate concern for all participating
states. This principle is part of a broader framework of highly
elaborated human rights, cooperative security, and rule-of-law
norms that are reflected in the mandates of OSCE institutions
and field operations, enabling them to respond to a range of
challenges, from attacks on media freedom to ethnic tensions
across the OSCE, from Vancouver to Vladivostok. From election
observation to arms control, military transparency, and
confidence-building regimes, from the quiet diplomacy of the
High Commissioner on National Minorities to the exchange of
technical expertise in combating trafficking, supporting women
entrepreneurs, or maintaining border security, the OSCE's
resources encompass expertise and established habits of
cooperation that cannot be replaced, recreated, or duplicated.
Challenges to security, human rights, and rule of law are
prevalent across the OSCE space, including intolerance and
xenophobia, corruption, flawed elections, declining military
transparency, and unresolved conflicts. Some participating
states are failing to uphold and implement their commitments,
including as they relate to fundamental issues, such as media
freedom and the role of civil society. This is troubling, but
it cannot, and does not, change the fundamental truth on which
the OSCE is based, that the three dimensions of security are
interconnected and must be advanced together. Shortcomings
reinforce the fact that the work goes on and that we need the
OSCE to continue to address challenges in a practical,
principled manner in order to achieve true comprehensive
security for all citizens throughout the OSCE space.
If confirmed, in all my efforts my priority will be to
leverage and strengthen the OSCE as an institution that
efficiently and effectively advances American and European
interests.
Ambassador Nuland and Ambassador-designate Lute have laid
out the enduring and unquestionable U.S. interests in a strong,
democratic, prosperous, and secure Europe as a central
component of maintaining our own national security in the 21st
century. By supporting robust and deep transatlantic ties
through our bilateral diplomacy, maintaining the strength and
agility of our NATO alliance, and continuing to advance
transatlantic cooperation through a comprehensive approach to
security issues like those at the center of the OSCE's work,
the U.S./European relationship will remain a foundation for
progress toward a more peaceful and democratic world.
Thank you again for having me. If confirmed, I will look
forward to working with members of this committee and, of
course, with the Helsinki Commission. And I welcome your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Baer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel B. Baer
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and members of the
committee.
It is an honor to come before this committee as the President's
nominee to serve as the United States Permanent Representative to the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and I am
grateful for the confidence that President Obama and Secretary Kerry
have expressed through this nomination.
I am humbled to be here in front of you, and also humbled to be in
such good company, with Ambassador Nuland and General Lute. I look
forward to working with each of them--and with you--to advance U.S.
interests if we are confirmed. I have worked closely with Toria over
the last few years, and she has been not only a great friend but also a
great partner in fighting for human rights.
Mr. Chairman, for the past 4 years I have had the privilege of
serving as a Deputy Assistant Secretary in the State Department's
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. In this capacity, I have
welcomed the opportunity to contribute to a long tradition--through
both Democratic and Republican administrations--of putting human rights
at the center of U.S. foreign policy and to be part of that team that
helps shape our response to emerging human rights challenges, such as
growing threats to Internet freedom.
This experience has deepened my conviction that human rights must
be at the core of any successful long-term strategy for peace and
security, and that U.S. leadership in advancing human rights is as
critical today as it was when Eleanor Roosevelt helped draft the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights almost 70 years ago. Today, no
serious observer can doubt the link between human rights and security.
We know that respect for human rights cannot be relegated to the ``nice
to have, but not essential'' category, because there is no genuine
security in the absence of respect for human rights and adherence to
the rule of law. Recent history has shown us that the apparent
stability afforded by repressive regimes is often proven illusory. And
we know that because of this, when states violate the rights of their
citizens and fail to uphold their international human rights
obligations, it is not merely ``internal affairs'' but the rightful
concern of the entire international community.
The OSCE is unique in having embraced this comprehensive approach
to security at its founding, and is the only regional security
organization that places the human, economic and environmental, and
political-military dimensions of security on an equal footing. The 57
participating States of the OSCE have recognized that whether and how
an OSCE State is implementing its OSCE commitments is a legitimate
concern for all participating States.
This principle is part of a broader framework of highly elaborated
human rights, cooperative security, and rule of law norms that are
reflected in the mandates of the OSCE institutions and field
operations, enabling them to respond to a range of challenges--from
attacks on media freedom to ethnic tensions--across the OSCE--from
Vancouver to Vladivostok. From election observation to arms control and
military transparency and confidence-building regimes; from the quiet
diplomacy of the High Commissioner on National Minorities to the
exchange of technical expertise in combating trafficking, promoting
good governance in the public and private sector, supporting women
entrepreneurs, or maintaining border security; the OSCE's resources
encompass expertise and established habits of cooperation that cannot
be replaced, recreated or duplicated.
Over almost four decades--from its origin at the signing of the
Helsinki Final Act in 1975, to its emergence as the OSCE in 1990 when
Europe and Eurasia were undergoing deep and turbulent transformation,
we have witnessed enormous progress toward our goal of a Europe whole,
free, and at peace. But there is still more work to be done.
The ``Helsinki+40'' process, a 3-year framework for action leading
up to the 40th anniversary in 2015 of the signing of Helsinki, provides
an opportunity for participating States to reaffirm existing OSCE
commitments and to bolster the Organization across all three
dimensions. Helsinki+40 should promote trust and mutual confidence in
the political-military realm, help revitalize conventional arms control
as well as confidence and security-building regimes, and seek to
address the protracted conflicts in the OSCE space. The security
afforded to OSCE participating States is often uneven, particularly in
the so-called ``gray zones'' of Europe. We should aim to rebuild an
environment at the OSCE where military transparency is the norm,
creating a more stable security environment for all.
In the economic and environmental dimension, we will maximize fully
the OSCE's unique position to leverage the connection between human
rights, accountable and responsive government, and economic prosperity.
We will continue to promote good governance and prioritize the
organization's work to improve trade and transport connections, notably
at border crossings, where good governance practices and efficient
customs procedures are helping to increase trade volumes between
participating States and improve income generation for small business
entrepreneurs.
If confirmed, I will work with my colleagues across the
administration, as well as in Congress, to advance a vision that
preserves what we value most about the OSCE, including its
comprehensive approach to security, while developing a strategic
framework that addresses 21st century challenges, leveraging U.S.
resources together with those of our partners to achieve results. And
even as we aim to rebuild an environment at the OSCE where military
transparency is the norm, the OSCE can leverage its security
cooperation experience and knowledge, reaching out to other regions on
measures for nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction and
confidence- and security-building regimes.
Challenges to security, human rights and rule of law are prevalent
across the OSCE space including intolerance and xenophobia, state-
sponsored corruption, flawed elections, declining military
transparency, and unresolved conflicts. Some participating States are
failing to uphold and implement their commitments, including as they
relate to fundamental issues such as media freedom, investigative
journalism and the role of civil society. This is troubling. But it
cannot and does not change the fundamental truth on which the OSCE is
based: that the three dimensions of security are interconnected and
must be advanced together. Shortcomings reinforce the fact that the
work goes on, and that we need the OSCE to continue to address
challenges in a practical, principled manner, in order to achieve true,
comprehensive security for all citizens throughout the OSCE space.
I know that some experts and some OSCE states have expressed doubts
about the Organization's efficiency and effectiveness. We need to make
a clear-eyed assessment of the OSCE and address these concerns. We
should deal with challenges in a practical way that reaffirms our
shared values and principles. The OSCE remains the only regional
organization that includes all of Europe and Eurasia as well as Canada,
the United States, and most recently Mongolia. Though its scope can
make consensus difficult, it also makes the organization that much more
powerful when we find ways to address challenges together.
And we should remember that when shared political will exists, the
results are impressive. The OSCE's role in facilitating the peaceful
participation in Serbian elections for dual nationals in Kosovo last
year is a case in point. Based on the OSCE's success in that
challenging mission, the EU has called on the organization to help
administer local elections in northern Kosovo this fall, a key aspect
of the recent normalization agreement between Serbia and Kosovo.
Looking to the decade ahead, the OSCE has the potential to play a
pivotal role in advancing interests we share with OSCE participating
States, including support for democratic development, economic
integration, and security in Central Asia, as well as contributing to
ongoing transitions on the periphery of the OSCE space among our
Mediterranean Partners and in Afghanistan. The OSCE has expertise and
experience that is directly relevant to our Partners' aspirations.
In all of my efforts, if confirmed, my priority will be to
strengthen the OSCE as an institution that efficiently and effectively
advances American and European interests in maintaining and deepening
comprehensive security. The sustained commitment of the United States
and other like-minded democracies is essential to the establishment of
rights-respecting and sustainable institutions, military transparency
and cooperative security, increased engagement with civil society, and
greater adherence to rule of law and respect for human rights across
the OSCE space. No state can achieve this outcome alone; we need strong
partners and organizations such as the OSCE.
Ambassador Nuland and Ambassador-designate Lute have laid out the
enduring and unquestionable U.S. interest in a strong, democratic,
prosperous and secure Europe as a central component of maintaining our
own national security in the 21st century. By supporting robust and
deep transatlantic ties through our bilateral diplomacy; maintaining
the strength and agility of our NATO alliance; and continuing to
advance trans-Atlantic cooperation through a comprehensive approach to
security issues like those at the center of the OSCE's work, the U.S.-
European relationship will remain a foundation for progress toward a
more peaceful and democratic world.
Thank you again for having me and I welcome your questions.
Senator Murphy. Thank you, again, to all of our nominees.
Let me start with questions to you, Ambassador Nuland. Let
me draw on your years of expertise with respect to Russia. This
is an immensely important relationship; and, given all of the
attention on the disputes we have, it sometimes belies the fact
that we are actually at work with them on a variety of issues
in which we have deep mutual interests, whether it be
antiterrorism efforts, missile defense, or the work we have
done together with respect to Afghanistan.
That being said, as I mentioned in my opening statement, we
cannot let them off the hook with respect to the fairly severe
downward turn that the Kremlin's take on civil society has
undergone. As I have said before, if you are sitting in front
of a court today accused of political crimes, you are less
likely to be acquitted than you were during the Great Purge.
So, we can attack the issue of United States-Russia
relations from a number of perspectives, but let me ask you to
talk about this. What are the right pressure points upon Russia
to try to turn around, I think, this very detrimental turn that
has come in the way in which Putin and others are treating
civil society and political dissidents?
Ambassador Nuland. Well, thank you, Senator. I certainly
share your concern about the internal political environment in
Russia. As I said at the outset, I agree with you, as well,
that, wherever we can, as we tried to do with the Soviet Union,
we have to try to work with Russia in our common interests. And
we have had some success in that regard, particularly on some
of the foreign policy issues that we share.
With regard to our support for democratic change, for
reform, for those speaking out for a pluralistic society with
rule of law, we have to, despite the environment, continue to
do what we can to work with those Russians who are willing to
work with us. If we are not able to support them as fully as we
used to inside Russia, we still need to make support available
in other ways. And I will, if confirmed, be eager to work with
all of you on this committee to look for more ways to do that.
In addition, we have to speak out, as you said and as I
said in my opening, when we disagree. And we have to work more
intensively and more cohesively with our European allies and
partners, because, when we speak together about our concerns,
our voice is even stronger.
Thanks.
Senator Murphy. Let me ask you one question about the trade
agreement. How worried are you about the ability of Europe to
be on the same page throughout these negotiations? We have
seen, just over the past week, France seems to--at every turn,
trying to--try to find an excuse to postpone or maneuver the
beginning stages of these negotiations. There are two sets of
negotiations happening; one between European nations and one
between the United States and Europe. What is your role, in
coordination with the Trade Representative, in trying to make
sure that Europe speaks with one voice throughout these
negotiations?--which is the only way that we are going to end
up getting a product which is as big and bold as we all hope we
can get.
Ambassador Nuland. Thank you, Senator. Well, you are right
that, on the one hand, it is a bilateral trade agreement
between the United States and the European Union, but it is
obviously a trade agreement between the United States and the
28 member states of the European Union, if we are able to be
successful. So, we do have an interest in the European position
remaining clear, remaining cohesive. I think we have a role to
play, at the State Department, through our 28 embassies, in
continuing to help make the case, along with our colleagues in
USTR who lead these negotiations, for a trade agreement that
will increase jobs on both sides of the Atlantic, and will
reduce barriers. We need to be coordinated in the way we use
our public diplomacy and the way we work with business groups
on both sides of the pond.
And, as I have said in some of my calls to meet some of you
in advance of this hearing, I also hope that we will have
bipartisan support in the Senate and in the House for working
closely with parliamentarians in Europe, and particularly with
Members of the European Parliament, who will have
responsibilities for ratifying this agreement. I know some of
them were here to see some of you, just in the last week, and
we thank you for taking the time to do that.
But, we are going to have to provide a clear sense of the
landscape in Europe and where we have points of agreement,
where we have difficulties emerging in member states from our
embassies. And we are going to have to provide a strong
American voice out in Europe through our embassies. And I look
forward to supporting USTR and Mr. Froman in that regard, from
EUR, and also working with our Under Secretary for Economic
Affairs at the Department.
Senator Murphy. Well, Senator Johnson and I have already
led several of those conversations with our parliamentary
colleagues from Europe. We hope that we will continue that.
General Lute, I think, today there is only about three or
four nations in NATO that are at the targeted percentage of GDP
dedicated to defense. And clearly, the way things are going
with respect to the European economy, we probably cannot bet on
that number getting any better. So, we are having a
conversation, one that occurred in Chicago at the last summit,
about specialization.
The Europeans, though, believe that that has to be a two-
way street, that if they are going to be asked to specialize,
so should we, and that we might, as part of that negotiation,
consider giving up some of our capabilities on, maybe, some
nonintegral defense platforms, to our European allies.
Talk to me about both the European and the American will to
get into a serious conversation about specialization, which
ultimately could solve the problem, today, of the United States
picking up 75 percent of the tab for NATO.
General Lute. Thank you, Senator. I think the
specialization argument largely hinges on different views of a
balance--different views among the 28--of a balance between
full-spectrum ability by each of the 28 to fulfill their
Article V commitments for mutual defense. And, on the one hand,
those capabilities, balanced against, as you--suggesting,
increased efficiency across the 28, by way of specialization--
national specialization.
If you look at the 28 allies today, clearly the United
States has full-spectrum capacity in every defense realm. But,
there are only a couple of other allies that even approach
that. And even those who approach the full-spectrum capability
can do so for only limited durations before they again rely on
us.
I think the Secretary General and NATO already have begun
to move down the path of some specialization. You see this by
way of the pooling of resources, especially high-end, high-
tech, expensive niche capabilities, like the airborne--or, air-
ground surveillance system, based on the pooling of resources
to buy the Global Hawk surveillance aircraft; you see it with
AWACs; you see it with the C-17 pool of lift resources.
I must tell you that, in my view, we should not relent on
the 2-percent goal. We should let no one off the hook, that
equal membership means equal contributions. And 2 percent is
the standard. But, at the same time, we should pursue these
kinds of efficiencies, that it could include national
specialization, because the reality is that the economic
pressures across the 28 members is not likely to relent in the
next 5-plus years.
Senator Murphy. Including on this Nation, as well.
General Lute. Exactly.
Senator Murphy. I have run out of time, so I will turn it
over to Senator Johnson.
I will just mention that we may have votes, at some point
over the course of this hearing. We hope that not to be the
case, but, if we do have time for a second round--we will have
to inquire--you, Dr. Baer.
Turn it over to Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And again, I would like to thank all the nominees for
taking time to meet with me. I enjoyed the conversations. And
again, I appreciate your service to the country.
And, Ambassador Nuland, I particularly want to say thank
you for coming in, you know, during, kind of, the height of the
talking-points controversies, sitting down with me in my office
and explaining a few things.
Unfortunately, there are an awful lot of questions that
still remain about what happened following Benghazi, and, quite
honestly, even before it. For example, we still have not been
given the names or access to the survivors. I asked General
Dempsey, in a Budget Committee hearing, you know, really what
was the status of the commander in-extremis force that was on
patrol in--or, actually, on training in Croatia. Still have not
found out what the end-plus time was, in terms of their ready
reaction. So, there are still an awful lot of questions.
And, you know, during the hearings of this full committee,
both--with Secretary Clinton, in response to my question, when
she uttered, you know, ``At this point, what difference does it
make?''--or, I guess, ``At--what difference, at this point,
does it make?''--the question I have is, Do you believe that,
in your role representing the United States Government, that
the American people deserve the truth out of members of the
administration?
Ambassador Nuland. Senator, the American people deserve the
truth, this body deserves the truth, those of us who were
friends of the victims, as I was, deserve the truth, yes.
Senator Johnson. In reviewing the change from the talking
points--original talking points, and how they were sanitized--
it is pretty remarkable how sanitized they really were. And I
know you had some participation in there. In your September 14
e-mail, it states that changes made to the CIA talking points
still, ``don't resolve all of my issues or those of my building
leadership.'' Can you just tell me who that ``building
leadership'' was? who you were referring to there?
Ambassador Nuland. Senator, I very much appreciate the
opportunity to talk about my role in the talking-points issue.
With your forbearance, I would like to give a little bit of
background before I answer your specific question.
First, I just want to make clear that, when I was reviewing
these talking points, which was only on the Friday evening of
September 14, they were not for a member of the administration
to use; they were talking points that the CIA was proposing to
give to members of the House Intelligence Committee----
Senator Johnson. Correct.
Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. To use. Right? So, that was
the first thing.
Second, I was not in a policy role in this job; I was in a
communications role. So, my responsibilities were to ensure
consistency of our public messaging, but not to make policy.
So, I never edited these talking points, I never made changes.
I simply said that I thought that policy people needed to look
at them.
Also by way of background, by the time Friday came around,
as spokesperson for the Department, I had already given three
public briefings on Benghazi. The first was on Wednesday
evening. I gave a background briefing in which I clearly said
that this had been a complex attack, it was an attack by
extremists. Then I gave two briefings at the podium: my regular
midday briefing on Thursday, and my midday briefing on Friday.
In those briefings, I was on agreed interagency talking points
in which I noted, again and again, our firm commitment to
investigate, fully, what had happened. But, I declined to give
any more details, citing the need to have a full investigation,
and particularly the integrity of the FBI's investigation.
So, when I saw these talking points on Friday night, just a
few hours after that had been my guidance, they indicated a
significant evolution beyond what we had been saying at noon.
And it was on that basis that I raised three questions, in my
communications role.
The first was--and, again, these were for Members of the
House to use, not for an administration official to use--so my
first question was with regard to consistency. It struck me as
strange that we were giving talking points to Members of the
House that went considerably further than what we, in the
administration, had been saying at that point. And I felt that
if House Members were going to say this, we, government
communicators, should be able to say it, too.
The second was that I had been under very tight guidance
that we must do and say nothing that would prejudice the
integrity of the FBI's investigation, so I wanted to make sure
that the CIA had actually checked with the FBI and Justice, and
that they were comfortable with these talking points.
The third concern that I had was with regard to the second-
to-last paragraph of the talking points, as I was looking at
them, which made reference to past agency reporting about the
situation in Benghazi. And, frankly, Senator, I looked at them,
and they struck me as a partial rendering of some of the
background information behind the situation, and I was
concerned that giving them to the--out this way would encourage
Members of Congress and members of the public to draw
inaccurate conclusions about our respective agency's role in
the entirety of the Benghazi issue. So, I did not change them--
--
Senator Johnson. OK, let us not----
Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. I did not edit them----
Senator Johnson. OK, I appreciate that, but----
Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. Yes.
Senator Johnson [continuing]. I think your specific quote
in your e-mail about that penultimate point was that you were
concerned that Members of Congress would beat the State
Department. So, you were a little more concerned about the
State Department getting beat up by Members of Congress than
potentially getting the truth out to the American people. I
mean, that would be my concern, in terms of interpretation of
that.
Ambassador Nuland. Sir, as I said, my concern was that this
was not an accurate representation of the----
Senator Johnson [continuing]. OK.
Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. Full picture----
Senator Johnson [continuing]. But, again, let us----
Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. That they were----
Senator Johnson [continuing]. Just get back to some facts.
Ambassador Nuland. Yes.
Senator Johnson. So, who would be the ``building
leadership'' that were not--or that were not satisfied with the
resolution of suggested changes to the talking points? Who
would those people be?
Ambassador Nuland. So, after my first e-mail with these
concerns, the agency came back with another draft, but that
draft continued to make reference to the past agency reporting
that I thought was a prejudicial way of characterizing it. So,
it was on that basis that I raised objections again.
Senator Johnson. OK, but----
Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. And here, this was----
Senator Johnson [continuing]. Ambassador Nuland, I am
running out of time, so, you know, I----
Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. Yes.
Senator Johnson [continuing]. I just really wanted some--
just facts. I mean, who were the ``building leadership'' that
you are referring to that was not satisfied with the suggested
changes? Who would those individuals be?
Ambassador Nuland. Again, I----
Senator Johnson. And then, further--because I will--the
next question would be, Who was at the deputy's meeting? Who
were those people?
Ambassador Nuland. With regard to ``building leadership,''
I was concerned that all of my bosses at the policy level
would--needed to look at these to see if they agreed with me
that they were----
Senator Johnson. And who would those bosses be?
Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. Potentially inaccurate.
Senator Johnson. What about names? I mean, who were those
individuals?
Ambassador Nuland. Well, obviously, as I reported to the
full spectrum of Under Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries and
everybody----
Senator Johnson. Were there particular----
Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. At the Department----
Senator Johnson. Were there particular people that were
concerned about the changes that were not being made?
Ambassador Nuland. The only person that I consulted with
that night was my regular reporting channel, with regard to
issues that I was not able to solve at my level. So, our
regular procedure, when I, as spokesperson, could not solve an
issue at my level, was--or when I thought that there needed to
be more policy input versus communications input--was to send
my concerns up to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy. That is
what I did that night. I----
Senator Johnson. And that----
Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. Did not----
Senator Johnson [continuing]. Person is?
Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. Consult with anybody else.
Senator Johnson. And that person is?
Ambassador Nuland. At the time, that was Jake Sullivan.
Senator Johnson. OK, thank you.
Ambassador Nuland. And he is on the e-mails, as you can see
them, as they----
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. Were released to you.
Senator Murphy. Thank you.
Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me thank all three of our nominees for their
extraordinary service to our country over many years. And we
thank you for your willingness to assume these new
responsibilities. And I particularly want to acknowledge your
families, because this is a family sacrifice, and we very much
appreciate your willingness, at this important juncture in
American diplomacy, of taking on these responsibilities.
I want to spend a moment, since I have Mr. Baer and
Ambassador Nuland here, to discuss the Helsinki Commission and
human rights. I particularly want to acknowledge Senator
McCain, on this day, where, as you might have seen, the Russian
courts held Mr. Magnitsky guilty of certain crimes; whereas,
the international community knows full well that Mr. Magnitsky
was the victim.
My question, basically, to Mr. Baer and Ambassador Nuland,
is that--we have worked very closely together, the
administration and Congress, on human rights issues, good-
governance issues, on economic-stability issues for countries
in Europe, Central Asia, and partner countries within the OSCE,
all coming under, Ambassador Nuland, your portfolio in the new
position on which you have been nominated, and to, Mr. Baer,
your responsibility in Vienna. I would like you to comment as
to how important you see the relationship to the Helsinki
Commission and to the Congress in the work that you do to
advance the priorities of America in its participation in the
OSCE.
Dr. Baer. Thank you very much, Senator Cardin, and thank
you for your leadership on human rights across the world. The
last time I testified for you was on Asia; and so, it is a
pleasure to have a conversation about a different part of the
world this time. And thank you for your leadership on the
Helsinki Commission, as well.
I see the Helsinki Commission as one of the unique gifts
that whoever is fortunate enough to be serving as the U.S.
Ambassador to the OSCE has, because, if confirmed, it would be
a real boon to be able to have that institutional connection to
Congress that is really unique in the world. And, as you know,
there is somebody from the Commission who serves on the staff
of the mission in Vienna. There is also a detailee from the
State Department who serves on the staff of the Commission. And
there is, you know, an opportunity for open communication and
collaboration on the full range of OSCE issues--political/
military, economic/environmental, human rights issues--on an
ongoing basis. And, if confirmed, that is an asset that I would
look forward to leveraging to the fullest extent.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Ambassador Nuland. I fully agree with what Dr. Baer has
said. In my long experience working with the Bureau and serving
in Europe, Helsinki principles, the Commission, are the
foundation of all we do together. They undergird our values.
And when we stray from those values, all we need to do is look
back at that document from 1975. So, I look forward to working
on these issues with Dan, if confirmed, and with you, Senator,
and with this whole committee.
Senator Cardin. Thank you. One of the most challenging
countries will be Russia. We have already talked about Russia a
couple of times. Russia's participation within many
international organizations has been challenging. They have
committed to the Helsinki principles, but, at opportunities
that they can undermine those principles, they have done that,
whether it is election monitoring, whether it is the Magnitsky
issues. Ambassador Nuland, as you are responsible, with the
present administration, to develop agendas for the bilaterals
and the international organizations, can you assure this
committee that human rights with Russia will remain a high-
priority issue?
Ambassador Nuland. Absolutely, Senator. I have never, in my
career, been shy about speaking out about human rights, and I
will certainly continue to do so, if confirmed.
Senator Cardin. And, Mr. Baer, you are going to be
confronted with some tough choices with Russia. They are going
to say, ``You need our consensus; therefore, back off,'' on
different issues. Will you commit to us that the United States
will stand strong on the human rights basket within the OSCE as
it relates to Russia?
Dr. Baer. Senator, you have my full commitment to stand
strong. It is part of the reason why I am interested in
serving, is to stand strong for human rights.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my time.
Senator Murphy. Thank you.
Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you.
Ms. Nuland, I do not want to dwell on the Benghazi
question, but the Benghazi question is there, and it has not
been answered. And I have got some questions maybe you can help
me with.
The administration is focused on this--hiding behind a
curtain of, ``Oh, well, we are doing an investigation.'' And
they have done that since day one on this. And, when we get
briefed on stuff, this is the only situation, in my experience
here, that they have done this.
Senator McCain and I sat in a briefing--what was it, a week
after, or 10 days after? We had the Secretary of State, the
head of the CIA, the number two in the FBI, and we asked them,
``Who did this?'' Because that was the question. The American
people wanted to know who did this. Was this a protest gone
bad, or was this, indeed, a terrorist attack? Which, of course,
we all know it was. These people told us they did not know.
Now, we are 10 days out, and they are telling us that they do
not know.
Since then, we have run into a number of people who have
said that they advised both the State Department and virtually
every agency of government that it was, indeed, a terrorist
attack, and they told them that in real time.
When was the first time that you were advised that this was
a terrorist attack?
Ambassador Nuland. Senator, I do not recall the precise
date that we moved to being confident that it was a terrorist
attack, but I do recall that the President made reference, in
that first week, to a terrorist attack, and I believe that
Secretary Clinton did, as well, on the Friday. So, my talking
points would obviously have derived from what they were ready
to say and what the intelligence indicated.
Senator Risch. Well, of course, Susan Rice was on TV,
telling people that, indeed, they did not know whether it was a
terrorist attack. You are aware of that, are you not?
Ambassador Nuland. I am aware of those programs, yes.
Senator Risch. What other information did you have that
this was a terrorist attack, and when did you get it, within
the first 48 hours?
Ambassador Nuland. Senator, I just need to remind that I
was not in a policy job, I was in a communications job at that
time, so I was, frankly, not reading intelligence reporting,
because it was difficult to keep one brain for the public and
one brain privately. So, I was the conveyor of agreed policy
and agreed decisionmaking about what we could say publicly. So,
I really--you know, I think it was quite clear, when the
President made his first reference to terror, that this is what
we were dealing with. But, I never took an intelligence
briefing, myself, that week.
Senator Risch. Since then, have you gone back and looked at
that intelligence information you had, that you had access to?
Ambassador Nuland. Sir, it was not something that I was
privy to, because I did not need it in the jobs I was in.
Senator Risch. Did you help in choosing Susan Rice to speak
on the Sunday talk shows?
Ambassador Nuland. No, sir.
Senator Risch. Did you brief her at all?
Ambassador Nuland. No, sir.
Senator Risch. You had no conversations with her prior to--
from the time of the attack until she appeared on the Sunday
talk shows?
Ambassador Nuland. I had no conversations with Susan Rice,
herself. I had--we had interagency discussion, which her staff
participated in, on the days that I briefed, which was the
Wednesday, the Thursday, the Friday. I never spoke to her. I,
frankly, never saw the talking points that were prepared for
her, in final form. As I said, when I saw the talking points,
they were for members of the House Intelligence Committee.
Senator Risch. Mr. Baer, Senator Shaheen and I had the
honor and privilege of representing the United States at the
October 1st elections in Georgia, as overseers. And we came
back, gave our reports, and what have you. I was interested in
the report from the OSCE on the subsequent elections that took
place in April. And I realize this is dated just July 9. It is
dated Warsaw, July 9. Have you had an opportunity to review
their report on this?
Dr. Baer. I have not yet, sir.
Senator Risch. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Nuland, the Georgians are concerned regarding getting
back Abkhazia and South Ossetia. I met with our Ambassador
yesterday, and we had a robust discussion about this. What is
your view of that situation and the likelihood that they are
going to get back those two provinces in the near future?
Ambassador Nuland. Thank you, Senator. And thank you for
taking time to see Ambassador Nordland. I appreciate that very
much. We, as a Department, appreciate that.
Senator, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of
Georgia is absolutely vital and essential. The United States
has supported that from the moment of Georgia's independence.
It is personally important to me. This was an issue that came
up quite clearly when I was in the job as Special Envoy for
Conventional Forces in Europe. And, as you may know, we were
trying to look at how we might update that treaty, and we came
to consensus within NATO about how that might be done. We came
to consensus among most of the 35 members who were party to the
treaty--36. But, we were unable to come to consensus with
Russia because of the problems agreeing on territorial
integrity issues, both with regard to Georgia and with regard
to Moldova. And it was my judgment and my recommendation to the
Secretary at that time that we call off the negotiations
because it was not possible to settle the issue without
impugning those basic principles of democracy in Europe.
Senator Risch. Is there any plan, at this point, that you
are putting forward, to assist the Georgians in recovering
these two provinces? The Russians refuse to leave. Obviously,
that is a huge issue. Do we have a plan in that regard?
Ambassador Nuland. Senator, we have been active in
supporting efforts that Tbilisi, that the Georgians themselves,
have initiated to try to reach out to the people of Abkhazia
and the people of South Ossetia so that they can have a better
understanding that their future would be bright in Georgia,
itself, and to impact and give them a better understanding of
the conditions in that country. Because, as you may know, the
media environment is controlled pretty heavily. We will
continue to do that, and we will be--continue to be guided by
Georgian efforts to work on these issues.
Senator Risch. Thank you.
My time is up. Thank all three of you for your service to
the country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Murphy. Thank you.
Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And, to the witnesses, my best. Thank you for your service.
Senators do a lot of things, but there are actually not
that many things we do that are part of our written job
description in the constitution. Article II, Section 2 says
that the President shall make appointments to executive
positions, and that that shall be done with the advise and
consent of the Senate. That same section stipulates that
``advise and consent'' is supermajority when it is about
treaties, but not supermajority when it is about appointments.
I wish you the best as we move forward. And it is good to be
about this work.
General Lute, my questions are really going to be, for you,
about Afghanistan, because of the karma of a Foreign Relations
Committee meeting I was in earlier today, in the same room,
that was all about Afghanistan. We heard a number of
witnesses--Ambassador Dobbins, Dr. Peter Lavoy, Stephen Hadley,
former National Security Advisor, Ahmad Nadery, from a
elections foundation--Free and--Elections Foundation in
Afghanistan, and Sarah Chayes, from the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace. I asked a basic, kind of, threshold
question of the witnesses, to which they all agreed, and I
wonder if you do, and that question was, Was it their opinion
that a strong majority of the Afghanistan population wanted
there to be a residual United States and NATO force, post 2014?
And they all said that they believed a strong majority of the
Afghan population wanted that. Is that your sense, as well?
General Lute. It is, Senator. And all our opinion polling
and our work across the political spectrum in Afghanistan
supports that view.
Senator Kaine. And just--I know, from your background, that
you were--you have been deeply involved in questions about
Iraq, as well. Was there similar polling done or a similar
effort to undertake what the Iraqi population sense was about
that question?
General Lute. I do not know that there is a close parallel
with the Iraq experience in this regard. There certainly was
among the two political classes, the two political elites, the
two sets of political elites. I do not recall, from my Iraq
experience, that kind of countrywide opinion poll----
Senator Kaine. And just----
General Lute [continuing]. Popular opinion.
Senator Kaine [continuing]. Just from your--and regardless
of polling, just from your experience in the area, do you have
a sense, of your own, about the Afghan population for a desire
for a follow-on residual force, versus that desire in the Iraqi
population at the time?
General Lute. I think there are two things that clearly
underline Afghan interest in a continuing Western presence of
some sort beyond 2014. One is the question of just raw
resources. The Iraqi people always knew that they did not
really require external resources to prosper as a nation, and
clearly the Afghans know that they do require external
resource.
The other thing is the neighborhood. Iraq lives in a
difficult neighborhood. But, I would argue, Afghanistan lives
in a worse neighborhood.
Senator Kaine. Yes.
General Lute. And it is very clear, from even the last 30
years of experience, that all Afghans understand that very
clearly.
Senator Kaine. General Lute, your opening testimony talked
a little bit about the need for the residual force. And there
is obviously all kinds of debates going on about potential
size, and I am not going to get into that. But, Stephen Hadley
testified--and I thought it was an interesting bit of testimony
that was both written and then I followed it up orally--that
his recommendation was that the United States should announce,
relatively promptly, with some clarity, the size of a robust
follow-on force, and that, if that happened, there would be the
following consequences. It would create more confidence among
the Afghan population in the runup to the 2014 elections. It
might encourage more candidates to consider standing for
election, which would be a positive thing. It would potentially
deter or dissuade some who want to manipulate either the
bilateral security agreement negotiation process or the
elections, themselves. And he also indicated, in oral, not
written, testimony, but that a relatively prompt and certain
statement from the United States about the follow-on force
might also promote prompt and certainty--certain commitments to
be made from the partners--the NATO partners that we have in
Afghanistan. That was if you will just take it from me--I think
I have done a pretty fair job of summarizing the written
testimony--do you--What would your opinion be of that
testimony?
General Lute. So, certainly those factors ring true to me.
I would just argue--and I actually heard Steve's presentation.
Senator Kaine. Oh, OK.
General Lute. I would argue that the size and scale, scope
of the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan beyond 2014 is one
factor in Afghan confidence, but maybe it is not the dominant
factor. I think equally dominant or equally important will be
the smoothness, the efficiency of the political transition,
which I know also the testimony covered in a lot of detail this
morning. I think Afghans need to see that, under the
constitution, for the first time, that they can efficiently and
smoothly, peacefully transfer political power from the Karzai
regime of the last 10 years to whoever succeeds President
Karzai.
I think, frankly, that that is the dominant factor in
Afghan confidence. There are others, as well. They need to see
that their security forces are going to be sustained. And, of
course, the international community, alongside NATO, has taken
steps to secure that funding beyond 2014 so that they can feel
confident in that way. They need to see that their economy's
not going to crumble. And the international community, last
July in Tokyo, marshaled the resources for 4 years, beginning
in 2013 through the transition period, to fill the budget gap
between what the Afghan budget can provide for itself and the
needs of the country itself.
So, there are a number of confidence factors, one of which
might be U.S. military presence, but I am not even sure it is
the dominant one.
Senator Kaine. Would you agree that the commitment of the
U.S. and NATO allies to a presence might have an effect upon
the smoothness of the transition, to the extent that it might
encourage people to run for office, to the extent that it might
give people some confidence going into the election season?
Would you agree that U.S. and NATO commitments, vis-a-vis the
residual force, might be a factor in the smoothness of a
political transition, which I agree is ultimately the most
important element that we are looking at?
General Lute. I think it is a factor, Senator. I think,
alongside that factor, though, is the political factor, the
political commitment made by NATO in Lisbon in 2010, and by the
United States, by way of our strategic partnership agreement
last spring, that, politically, we are committed to be there
beyond 2014, and then also the counterpart economic commitment
made both for security assistance--that is, to sustain the
Afghan forces--but, beyond that, for economic assistance. And
then, finally, I think the presence of some residual force
would be a factor.
Senator Kaine. Great.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, to the witnesses.
Senator Murphy. Thank you.
Senator Rubio.
Senator Rubio. Thank you, to all the nominees, for your
service and for being here today.
Ms. Nuland, I wanted to, first, say that I think there is
very little debate on this committee about your qualifications
to serve in this post. And, as I mentioned to you yesterday,
the only reason you are getting questions, quite frankly, about
the Benghazi issue, is because you were in that policy role.
And, because the committee is not holding any further hearings
on it, you are, quite frankly, the only witness we have--on
questions with regards to these things that we want answers to.
So, I wanted to briefly touch on it, hopefully in an effort to
expedite the hearing and maybe close the book on it.
I read your e-mail, that is now available, that is dated
the 14th of September at 7:39 p.m. You raised two concerns,
primarily. The first was that there were mentions of Ansar--
Ansar al-Sharia--in the context of that September 11, 2012,
attack and that you did not want to prejudice the
investigation. The second concern talked about the agency
having produced--``agency'' being the CIA--having produced
numerous pieces of information on the threat of extremists
linked to al-Qaeda in Benghazi and eastern Libya. Those were
the two concerns that you raised in that e-mail.
So, on point No. 1, about the mention of Ansar al-Sharia
and prejudicing the investigation, did the FBI share that
concern?
Ambassador Nuland. Senator, thank you for that.
I want to clarify here that, with regard to the substance
of mentioning Ansar al-Sharia, I did not have concerns about
that.
Senator Rubio. OK.
Ambassador Nuland. As I mentioned earlier, it was not for
me to decide what we knew, nor what we could declassify. I
assumed, that evening, that if the agency was prepared to have
Members of Congress name Ansar al-Sharia, that their
information was solid and it was releasable to the public.
My concerns were the two that I mentioned earlier; namely,
that I did not understand why Members of Congress could say
more about it than we could, in the administration; and,
second, that we had been under tight guidance not to prejudice
the investigation, so I wanted to make sure my CIA colleagues
had cleared these points with the FBI and Justice. I was later
reassured that they had.
Senator Rubio. OK, good. Then, the second question I had is
on point No. 2, and it is the one about the agency having
produced numerous pieces of information on the threat of
extremists linked to al-Qaeda in Benghazi and eastern Libya. We
now know that that is accurate, correct?
Ambassador Nuland. The agency had produced some pieces. My
concern was not about the accuracy of what was on the paper,
Senator; my concern was that it was an incomplete
representation--and, frankly, a prejudicial one, I felt--of the
totality of the situation in Benghazi. I had been under pretty
tight instructions, for the 3 days running up to that, along
the following lines: that we were to stay, as the State
Department, very tightly lashed up as an interagency community,
with regard to what we could say, and that the integrity of the
investigation was paramount, that we had to get all of the
facts so that we could learn the lessons from this tragedy; and
that I had to be extremely attentive to the equities of other
government agencies--there were a number of other government
agencies that had very sensitive equities in this; and that
that was the environment that all of us should be operating in.
So, my concern, when I saw that particular paragraph, which was
retained, was that it might not be in that spirit. And again, I
did not edit them, I simply asked----
Senator Rubio. Right.
Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. That policy people above me
check my instincts.
Senator Rubio. Those instructions that you have just
highlighted for us, were they from Mr. Sullivan?
Ambassador Nuland. They were from the entire leadership of
the Department, that we needed to get the facts and we needed
to learn the lessons of Benghazi, and that we needed to be good
colleagues in the interagency, yes.
Senator Rubio. Does that--so, does the entire leadership
include Secretary Clinton?
Ambassador Nuland. Secretary Clinton was, as she testified,
herself, the leader in saying we had to get to the bottom of
this, that we had to take responsibility for what had gone
wrong, and we had to fix it. Yes, sir.
Senator Rubio. Did you have any conversations with
Secretary Clinton about the talking points or the specific
concerns that you raised?
Ambassador Nuland. At no point, that evening or
subsequently, did I talk about the talking points with
Secretary Clinton.
Senator Rubio. You did talk to them with Mr. Sullivan about
these concerns, however?
Ambassador Nuland. I did not.
Senator Rubio. So, the--your concerns were unilateral--
these were concerns based on the instructions you had received
from your leadership, but not concerns that they specifically
told you to have.
Ambassador Nuland. Correct. And, as I said before, and as
the e-mails indicate, whenever I had a problem that I could not
solve at my level, or a concern that what I was being asked to
clear was not a communications question but a policy question,
I referred it to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, which is
what I did that night.
Senator Rubio. So, just to close the loop on it, you had
instructions on what the tone and tenor of talking points
should be from the State Department's position. You reviewed
and made decisions on the talking points, based on those
instructions, but they did not specifically tell you, ``Object
to this point'' or ``Object to that point''?
Ambassador Nuland. At no point was I ever told to object to
anything. I was acting on my instincts and asking for a higher
level review to check them, and I did not make any edits, as I
said.
Senator Rubio. Thank you for your answers.
In the minute-and-a-half that I have left, I want to ask
about Russia. We reset our relationship with Russia, about, I
do not know, 3 years ago, 2\1/2\ years ago. What is your
personal opinion of how that has worked out? And where are we
today with Russia? Are we still in a reset mode, or are we in a
reset of the reset? Where are we with Russia? And what is, in
your view, the status of that relationship, given the
reelection, I guess we should call it, of Mr. Putin, and the
direction he has decided to take his country?
Ambassador Nuland. Senator, as I said at the outset, I do
believe that we have made important progress with Russia in
recent years, that the work we do together to contain and
sanction Iran, the DPRK, our ability to exfil and move
equipment from Afghanistan through Russia, our counterterrorism
cooperation, and the New START Treaty, are valuable things that
resulted from the reset. But, I also believe that, when we
disagree with Russia, we have got to be absolutely clear. And
you can see that that is clearly the case now, with regard to
Russian policy in Syria. It is--we are--and you have seen
Secretary Kerry's efforts to try to use the Geneva agreement
that the Russians agreed to under Secretary Clinton to try to
get to the negotiating table, but, at the same time----
Senator Rubio. Can I interject at----
Ambassador Nuland. Yes, please.
Senator Rubio [continuing]. That point? I am sorry to
interrupt you, but----
Ambassador Nuland. Please.
Senator Rubio [continuing]. I am going to run out of time.
I wanted to ask about that, in specific. What is your view,
what are your hopes, what are the odds that Russia could be
enticed or have any incentive to try to reach a negotiated
settlement in the Syrian conflict that results in something
that is in the national interests of the United States? Or are
their interests, vis-a-vis Syria, so diametrically opposed to
ours that any sort of arrangement there is almost impossible,
realistically?
Ambassador Nuland. Senator, without delving too deeply into
it in this setting, I would simply say that I believe that
Russian views of the situation will very much be guided by the
ground situation in Syria.
Senator Murphy. Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Thank you very much.
And thank the witnesses. And, for the record, I have known
and admired Ambassador Nuland for a long time. General Lute,
you and I have been friends for many years. And, Mr. Baer, I
congratulate you on your assignment.
I must say, the progress that you noted, Ambassador Nuland,
is minuscule, as compared to what the Russians are doing. I am
very disappointed in your answer. Did you see--did you see
the--what--the news report yesterday--yesterday--``Dead Russian
Lawyer Magnitsky Found Guilty''? Did you happen to see that?
Did you see that, Mr. Baer? Does that remind you of the good
old days--of the bad old days of the Soviet Union, when we
convict dead people? Doesn't that appall you, I would ask
Secretary Nuland, and you, who are supposed to be an advocate
of human rights? Isn't that outrageous, that a man, who we know
was tortured to death by the Russian authorities--was guilty of
nothing, and we are saying that it is valuable progress that
the Russians are letting us transship some equipment back?
Somebody's got their priorities screwed up, here.
I am proud to have worked with Senator Cardin on the
Magnitsky Act. You both say, ``Well, we will get tougher on
them.'' How about giving me some specifics? How could we get
tougher? Do you know one of the ways we could get tougher?--is
expand the scope of the Magnitsky Act and make some more
Russians feel some pain. Obviously, they did not react well--
or, they did not like the fact that we passed the Magnitsky
Act.
I would like to hear, either now, verbally, or for the
record, what, specifically, do you want to do to--we have reset
back to 1955. And when I meet Mr. Broder and I meet the family
of Sergei Magnitsky, and we have, now, a situation where it
goes almost unremarked by our administration, when they try and
convict a deadman----
I would be glad to hear your responses, and I hope they are
a little more vigorous than what you have been giving, so far.
Ambassador Nuland. Thank you, Senator. And I appreciate----
Senator McCain. By the way, I admire you very much,
Ambassador. I do not admire your choice of spouses, but that is
another issue. [Laughter.]
Ambassador Nuland. You have given me an opening, Senator. I
neglected to thank my fabulous family--my parents and my--the
two handsome gentlemen in the middle, there, my husband and my
son, David, for coming, today. And I thank you for all the
years that we have worked together, including when I was out at
NATO.
I cannot disagree with you that it is a travesty of justice
when one is putting energy into convicting a deadman rather
than finding out who is responsible for his murder. When I was
spokesperson of the Department, I was very proud to speak out
forcefully on this issue, as well as on the Magnitsky
legislation.
With regard to the legislation, our work on the list is
ongoing, and we will add names, as we are able to.
Senator McCain. You will.
Ambassador Nuland. We will.
Senator McCain. You will.
Ambassador Nuland. Dan, I do not know if you want to add
anything.
Senator McCain. Mr. Baer.
Dr. Baer. What Toria said is absolutely right. My Bureau
has been involved in producing the first list, and we do see it
as an ongoing project, and we plan to add names to the list.
And I certainly share your feeling of being appalled at the
conviction of Magnitsky. It is a tragedy.
Senator McCain. And again, I do not want to--I would rather
ask a couple more questions, but I think it is important to
point out that, literally on every major issue of significant
consequence, that Mr. Putin has exhibited nothing but the most
obdurate and, in many times, aggressive behavior. We know that
the support that they are providing to Bashar Assad. We know of
many of the other transgressions, including internally--and
this is where your work comes in, Mr. Baer--the repression of
the media, the--bringing people to court who disagree, the--the
whole--it all smacks of the old Soviet Union, and it is--and we
seem to want to think, somehow, that things will get better,
when everything that I can see that has real consequence has
been retrograde.
But, let me ask General Lute, real quick.
General, I was a little surprised you did not mention Syria
in your comments. And I would like to have your comments about
that. But, I would like for you to explain to the committee why
the United States is negotiating or seeking to negotiate with a
group, the Taliban, that refuses to renounce its relationship
with al-Qaeda and refuses to commit, ahead of time, to respect
for women's rights. Explain to me the logic there.
General Lute. Well, as you know, Senator, right now we are
not negotiating. What we are trying to do----
Senator McCain. Oh, but we intend to.
General Lute. We would like to explore the possibility of
getting----
Senator McCain. No, I have been briefed several times, and
you have, too, General. Let us be clear that they were setting
up the office in Qatar, and they----
General Lute. Right.
Senator McCain [continuing]. Were doing everything possible
to have negotiations. Why do we want to have negotiations with
an organization that refuses to renounce its relationship with
al-Qaeda and refuses, as a precondition, to recognize women's
rights?
General Lute. The two things you mentioned, the support of
al-Qaeda and the support, generally, for the Afghan
Constitution, which includes the kind of women's rights
provisions that you are suggesting, are both designed to be
outcomes of a discussion with the Taliban. And so, the----
Senator McCain. In other words----
General Lute [continuing]. The attempts----
Senator McCain [continuing]. It is on the table.
General Lute. No, it is not on the table.
Senator McCain. Why shouldn't it----
General Lute [continuing]. Those are our----
Senator McCain [continuing]. They----
General Lute [continuing]. So----
Senator McCain [continuing]. It is either on the table or
it is a precondition, one of the two.
General Lute. It is not a precondition to talks, it is a
precondition to Taliban being considered reconciled and
eligible to return to political life, under the constitution,
in Afghanistan.
So, it is very much the distinction between preconditions
and end conditions. And the idea that is under exploration is
to see if you can get into talks--most important, Afghan-
government-to-Taliban talks--that see if those end conditions
can, in fact, be met.
So, there is no supposing or imagining that reconciliation
comes without achieving those three end conditions. The third
one, by the way, is to end the violence.
Senator McCain. Well, again, I think that if you--if we are
going to really be interested in the Afghan people and their
rights, those are preconditions. There can be no agreement
without them, so they might as well be preconditions. And by
not making them preconditions, we have somehow conveyed the
impression to them that they are on the table. And that is--
they are either on the table or they are preconditions. It is
not, ``the subject''--if they are the subject of negotiation,
then they are the subject of negotiation.
My time has nearly expired.
I want you to say, a little bit, what you think we ought to
be doing in Iraq, in light--in Syria--in light of the 100,000
people that have now been massacred. Do you believe that we
should be moving forward with arms to the rebels and
establishing a new--no-fly zone?
General Lute. Well, Senator, first, I have to just say that
I do not follow Syria like you and I used to follow Iraq
together. It is about 15---actually more than 1,500 miles away
from where I am--I focus, on Afghanistan and Pakistan. I think
that, certainly, the situation in Syria is absolutely central
to stability in a vital region. As much as Iraq was, 5 or 6
years ago, when we were there, and the numbers we ran, and as
much as Iraq is today.
I support the administration's policy of the blend of tools
that are being applied, principally the diplomatic/political
approach, to try to find a resolution, but--that approach, as
supported by humanitarian support to the refugees to address
the humanitarian crisis--and then, finally, the provision of
means, to include lethal means, to the insurgents.
Senator McCain. I thank the Chair.
Senator Murphy. Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ambassador Nuland, General Lute, Mr. Baer, thank you all
very much for being here and for your willingness to serve the
country.
Ambassador Nuland, I am going to begin with you and ask
about Georgia. Senator Risch, who was here earlier, and I had
the opportunity to be election monitors during their recent
elections, last October. And I have watched, with some concern,
to see that the government of Prime Minister Ivanishvili has
arrested a number of the folks who were in opposition to them,
and am concerned about the kind of signal that sends about what
is happening to their move to democracy in Georgia. And I
wonder if you could assess for me how you think the progress is
going under the new leadership, and whether you--what kind of
action we are doing to try and continue to encourage Georgia to
keep moving toward democracy.
Ambassador Nuland. Well, thank you, Senator. And I thank
you and Senator Risch for being willing to be election monitors
and for your long-time commitment to Georgia.
I share your concern. Georgia has come so far in recent
years, including the elections last year, then the peaceful
transfer of power, the development of a vibrant multiparty
parliament, greater media freedom, the efforts to curb police
and prison abuses, and the continuity in foreign policy, but--
and nobody wants to see Georgia slide backward.
We completely understand that this government ran and won
on a platform of redressing past abuses, but we believe
strongly in the primacy of the rule of law. And this cannot
become cover for political retribution, or even the perception
of political retribution. There has got to be full
transparency, there has got to be due respect for the rule of
law, because the world is watching. And this goes to the heart
of Georgia's own aspirations, which we support, to join, fully,
all the transatlantic organizations. So, Georgia's got to stay
on a democratic path.
I am also, frankly, concerned about the economy. So, we
want to see Georgians looking forward, not looking backward.
And, if confirmed, I will be very vigorous on these issues, and
I look forward to working with you and with other friends of
Georgia here in the Senate.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Let me just--to stay on Georgia, General Lute, one of the
things that I have been encouraged about has been to hear Prime
Minister Ivanishvili continuing the commitment to MAP for NATO
and the continued commitment they have had to the conflict in
Afghanistan. They have been a great partner in that effort.
So, can you talk about how you see, and what you see, in
terms of their efforts to get MAP through NATO?
General Lute. One of the great incentives, I think, for
Georgia, to make the kind of reforms that were just addressed,
is the potential to walk through the open door and gain
membership in NATO. So, in this way, the NATO open-door policy
really provides a very positive incentive for Georgians to look
forward.
Georgia is on its path to meet the standards required for
NATO membership. It has got work to do. I know that, by way of
the NATO-Georgia Commission, that work is underway, so we join
that effort, nationally, but we are joined by other members
today, of NATO, to ensure that they understand what the path
consists of and that they are making steady progress along that
path.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Let me ask another question about Afghanistan. One concern
I have heard from some followers of the conflict there, and
what we are hearing from Afghans themselves, is concern about
the zero option: Should we withdraw all American troops? Can
you talk about what--how that discussion is influencing what is
happening on the ground in Afghanistan?
General Lute. Thank you, Senator. So, as we deal closely
with our Afghan counterparts, we remind them that the United
States commitment beyond 2014 is embodied in a binding
international executive agreement signed by President Obama and
President Karzai more than a year ago. So, we already have a
strategic partnership with Afghanistan that extends well beyond
2014. In fact, 10 years beyond 2014.
Likewise, NATO, in fact, beat us to the punch and
established a strategic partnership of its own with Afghanistan
in the Lisbon summit in November 2010.
So, the framework already exists for a continuing
contribution, a partnership, beyond 2014. Beyond that, we have
solidified those commitments beyond 2014 with the funding
commitments, both to support the Afghan security forces, but
also to the Afghan economy, beyond 2014.
So, I think, as we discussed earlier with Senator Kaine,
this is a multipart package of political commitments, economic
commitments, and security commitments.
And the last piece that needs to fall into place is exactly
what will be the size and shape of a U.S. military presence,
and then, beyond that, a NATO military presence. And that is
still under negotiation. But, those negotiations are active,
they are progressing, and we think we will see them through to
a successful conclusion.
Senator Shaheen. Great, thank you.
Ambassador Nuland, on that same trip to Georgia last year,
I had the opportunity to stop in Turkey and meet with the
ecumenical patriarch of the Greek Church who was very
impressive. And I wonder if you can--one of the things that I
talked with him about was what was happening in Cyprus. And I
know that Secretary Kerry has indicated this is an--we have an
opportunity, here, with what he calls ``a frozen conflict,''
perhaps, to make some progress in addressing what has been a
stalemate for a very long time, on Cyprus, between Greece and
Turkey. I wonder if you can talk about whether there is--this
is an opportunity, and how additional diplomatic engagement
might help to change what has been a status quo for too long
there.
Ambassador Nuland. Senator, I do believe we have an
opportunity now. I think circumstances are changing, attitudes
are changing, not just within Cyprus, but also in Greece and in
Turkey, and we have to capitalize on that. We also have natural
gas off the coast of Turkey, which is a--off the coast of
Cyprus--which is a powerful motivator for getting to the
solution that we all want, which is a bizonal, bicommunal
federation that can share the benefits. And it is absolutely
vital to Europe that Turkey--that Cyprus begin to prosper
again, and I think that working on this could be a positive in
that direction, as well.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
My time is up, but let me just say, in closing, I hope that
we will continue to support the very positive progress that has
been made between Serbia and Kosovo on settling their
disagreements there. And anything we can do to support that, I
think is very helpful.
Thank you.
Senator Murphy. Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, on May 10 of this year, the Republican
members of this committee sent a letter to Chairman Menendez
respectfully requesting additional committee hearings to review
the open questions surrounding the September 11, 2012,
terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. It has now been 2 months,
and we have not heard back from Chairman Menendez about our
request.
While the House of Representatives has been holding
hearings and heard from numerous witnesses, including Mark
Thompson, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for
Counterterrorism; Greg Hicks, former Deputy Chief of Mission in
Libya; and Eric Nordstrom, former Regional Security Officer in
Libya, those important witnesses have not had the opportunity
to testify and provide answers in the Senate.
The American people have lingering questions about what
happened on September 11, 2012, and why the State Department
failed to protect our brave Americans in Benghazi, yet this
committee has failed to schedule any additional hearings and
has been attempting to avoid the issue altogether.
Ambassador Nuland, during an interagency e-mail exchange on
September 14, 2012, you expressed concerns that the information
you were providing could be used by Members of Congress to
question the State Department for not paying attention to CIA
warnings about the security situation in Benghazi. In an e-
mail, you stated that you had, ``serious concerns,'' about,
``arming Members of Congress,'' with information from the CIA.
You went on to say that, ``Points should be abused--could be
abused by Members to beat the State Department for not paying
attention to agency warnings, so why do we want to feed that,
either?''
Well, now the President has nominated you as Assistant
Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. This
handles a very critical region. I am concerned about your
willingness to provide truthful and relevant information to the
America people. And I say this because you have implied that it
is dangerous to inform Members of Congress, who are the
representatives of the American people.
So, my question is, Why should we believe that you will be
open and forthcoming on the disclosure of important information
to Congress, when you deliberately and intentionally withheld
information about Benghazi from Congress and the American
people while working at the U.S. Department of State as the
spokesperson?
Ambassador Nuland. Senator, thank you for the opportunity
to address this.
I am 400 percent committed to positive cooperation with the
Congress, to sharing, fully, all information that we can.
As you recall, in that first week after the attack, there
were numerous briefings, classified and some unclassified, and
briefings thereafter of Members of the Senate, Members of the
House of Representatives, that my bosses participated in. My
concern was not, Senator, that evening, about sharing
information with Congress. My concern was that these were
talking points that the CIA was proposing that members of the
House Intelligence Committee use with the media. And I felt
that, if these were used with the media, they would give a
mistaken and flawed perception of our respective agencies'
roles in Benghazi. It was a partial representation of some of
the information that we had had, some of the activity that we
had been involved in together. So, I thought that, as media
points--not as information to Congress; obviously, I have
always, and will continue to, if confirmed, fully support
transparency with the Congress and full cooperation with the
Congress--my concern was that they were inappropriately crafted
as points for the media, and they would be misleading.
Senator Barrasso. So, you--I think you just used the phrase
``partial representation.'' So, were your concerns with the
Benghazi talking points that--were they made to shelter the
State Department from responsibility or accountability
regarding the terrorist attacks in Benghazi?
Ambassador Nuland. Absolutely not, Senator. As I said
earlier, we were under firm instructions, all of us, that what
mattered most was a full and fair investigation of all of the
facts so that we could learn the lessons and ensure that it
never happened again. As I said earlier, I was personal friends
with Ambassador Stephens. He was somebody I was very close to.
For me, it is personal, to get to the bottom of this.
Senator Barrasso. And I think the President, in his
comments--as he said, as soon as he heard about the attack, he
said, ``No.1, I want to make sure that we are securing our
personnel, doing whatever we need to. No. 2, we are going to
investigate exactly what happened, so it does not happen
again.'' And, No. 3, he said, ``We want to find out who did
this so we can bring them to justice.''
In a letter dated December 18, Secretary Clinton stated,
``We continue to hunt the terrorists responsible for the
attacks in Benghazi, and are determined to bring them to
justice.''
Today, July 11, it has now been exactly 10 months since the
attacks. To your knowledge, are we any closer to identifying
and bringing those terrorists to justice?
Ambassador Nuland. Senator, I share your frustration. As I
said, as a citizen, I want to know what happened, as well. I
have to tell you that, in my previous role as spokesperson of
the State Department, and in my current capacity, I am not
privy to information about how the investigation is going.
Senator Barrasso. OK. In your written testimony, you talked
about some things related to energy. You talked about that
Europeans have taken important steps to diversify their energy
market with new routes and new regulations.
I have introduced legislation enabling the United States to
use its newfound abundance of natural gas to help our NATO
allies diversify their energy imports in order to break Russian
dominance over them through its control of their natural gas
supply. Many experts have argued that U.S. natural gas exports
can diminish the cartel behavior of rival suppliers, like Iran
and Russia, help persuade allies to isolate these rogue states,
like Iran, and encourage the decoupling of international gas
prices from oil prices, which can reduce gas prices around the
world.
Do you agree that natural gas exports, including LNG, can
serve as an important diplomatic tool for the United States to
strengthen our relationships with our allies and restore our
standing throughout the world?
Ambassador Nuland. Senator, certainly the fast pace of
change with regard to the natural gas picture in Europe is
making a very valuable contribution to Europe's energy
security. And I think you know that the Department of Energy
has approved some U.S. exports. It is obviously within the
purview of the Department of Energy to decide if we can do more
of that. But, the degree to which Europe has more diverse
sources of natural gas, it is a good thing for Europe, and it
is a good thing for the security of the transatlantic alliance.
Senator Barrasso. It does seem that our energy resources
can, at this point, increase our own economic competitiveness
and enhance our power around the world. Do you support
expediting LNG licenses to our NATO allies?
Ambassador Nuland. Again, Senator, this decision set is not
within the purview of the State Department, it is within the
purview of the Department of Energy, so I would not want to
speak to decisions that they have to make. But, it is certainly
the case that the more sources of natural gas for Europe--and
they are really diversifying their LNG terminals now, they are
also looking at shale gas, as you know, and we are very active
in promoting that--the better for their security and for our
common security.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, my time is expired. At this time, I would
like to submit additional questions for written records.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Murphy. Absolutely. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
Senator Murphy. Senator Paul.
Senator Paul. Congratulations, to the panel, for your
nominations.
Ambassador Nuland, where were you, the evening of Benghazi,
during the attacks and in the aftermath?
Ambassador Nuland. I was at the State Department on
September 11 until about 1 o'clock in the morning, sir.
Senator Paul. Was Secretary Clinton there, also?
Ambassador Nuland. She was.
Senator Paul. I did not hear you. Was or was not?
Ambassador Nuland. She was.
Senator Paul. She was. Were you in the same room with
Secretary Clinton during the period of time during the attacks?
Ambassador Nuland. For some of that period--she did a
written statement on the attacks that evening. I worked with
her on that written statement, but I was not with her the whole
time, no.
Senator Paul. OK. Did you have any conversations with
anybody in Libya during the attacks or during the immediate
aftermath?
Ambassador Nuland. No, sir.
Senator Paul. With anybody from Special Operations Command
in Africa?
Ambassador Nuland. No, sir.
Senator Paul. No. Were you present during any conversations
with Secretary Clinton with anybody in Libya?
Ambassador Nuland. No, sir.
Senator Paul. Were you present with any conversations with
Secretary Clinton and anyone from Special Operations Command in
Africa?
Ambassador Nuland. No, sir.
Senator Paul. Did you have any conversations with Secretary
Clinton concerning reinforcements being sent from Tripoli?
Ambassador Nuland. No, sir. My role with her was purely
with regard to communications.
Senator Paul. You did not have any----
Ambassador Nuland. Public----
Senator Paul. You were not present during any
conversations----
Ambassador Nuland. No, sir.
Senator Paul [continuing]. That had anything to do with
sending reinforcements.
Ambassador Nuland. No, sir.
Senator Paul. Were you present during any conversations
with either--with yourself or with Secretary Clinton--of
General Hamm, Admiral Losey, Lt. Colonel Gibson?
Ambassador Nuland. No, sir.
Senator Paul. OK.
Have you ever had any conversations with Secretary Clinton
concerning the purpose of the CIA Annex?
Ambassador Nuland. I am not quite sure what you--what you
are asking, Senator.
Senator Paul. What was the purpose of the CIA Annex in
Benghazi?
Ambassador Nuland. Senator, I would be delighted to talk to
you about the relationship between the State Department and the
CIA in a separate setting, if that is helpful. I do not think
it is appropriate----
Senator Paul. Have you had any conversations with Secretary
Clinton concerning the purpose of the CIA Annex?
Ambassador Nuland. Not with regard to the purpose, no. But,
with regard to the responsibility of government communicators
to protect the equities and requirements of all other agencies,
yes.
Senator Paul. Did you ever have a discussion with Secretary
Clinton concerning the fact that the function and the
activities of the CIA Annex may have had something to do with
the attacks?
Ambassador Nuland. No, sir.
Senator Paul. Are you personally aware of what the CIA
Annex function is, or was?
Ambassador Nuland. Sir, I do not believe I have had a full
briefing on what the activities were, no.
Senator Paul. Have you read the New York Times article,
from 2 weeks ago, that talks about the fact that the CIA has
been involved with sending arms to Syria over the last year?
Ambassador Nuland. I did see that piece. I cannot assess
its accuracy.
Senator Paul. OK. Are you aware of the reports that a
Turkish ship left Benghazi, or Libya, in the week preceding the
Ambassador's killing, docked in Turkey, interviews have been
conducted with the media, with the captain, distribution of the
arms to Syrian rebels have been reported and discussed in the
media? Are you aware of those reports?
Ambassador Nuland. I am not, Senator.
Senator Paul. All right.
We have got a lot of questions. We have got a lot of very
short answers.
How often in--with your tenure, is sort of your typical
routine, as communications--or in charge of communications at
the State Department--how often would you have personal contact
with Secretary Clinton, or conversations?
Ambassador Nuland. When I was briefing, which was most days
when we were home, I would see her every morning at our senior
staff meeting. I would also support her when she had bilateral
meetings with foreign visitors, particularly when there were
press conferences. That was our home drill. And then, I
traveled with her on all of her foreign travel.
Senator Paul. Right.
Part of the reason I bring up the CIA Annex is that, you
know, we are in the process of becoming involved in a new war,
in Syria, and there are many within the administration, which
you will be part of, who argue for just doing this secretly,
without votes; basically, to have a covert war. And that is
basically what we are having now, according to articles
concerning CIA activity in Syria, is that we are going to have
a covert war, not a war where Congress votes on declaring war
or votes on whether or not we should be involved.
The question, really, here, is a big question of whether or
not, you know, we obey the Constitution, which says the
Congress really declares war, the Congress makes these
decisions, that, unilaterally, these decisions are not made
without the approval of Congress or the people.
There is a question of the rule of law, basically. We have
it on the books that says that, if there is a military coup,
that foreign aid will end--not only if there is a military
coup, if the military is involved in any way--in any
substantial way, in removing a government from power. So, you
can understand the--you know, the displeasure of some of us who
believe in the rule of law, that, basically, this
administration has said, ``We are not going to obey the law, we
are above the law, and we are just going to say it is not a
coup.''
The problem, here, is that there is a certain lawlessness.
There has been a big discussion on, you know, leaks from the
NSA. People have said, ``My goodness, these leaks are damaging
national security.'' Well, you know, what is also damaging to
national security is when people come and lie to Congress. Now,
I am not saying you did. You have said that it was classified,
you cannot talk about it. But, if members of the administration
are going to come to us and say, ``Oh, I am just going to lie,
because it is classified, and tell you the least untruthful
thing,'' what it does is, it really does damage the
intelligence community, it damages the reputation of your
administration, or the administration you will choose. It
just--it damages the whole community, in a way, to say that it
is OK to lie to Congress. That is basically what the opinion is
now, and what is being told to the public, ``It is fine to lie
to Congress.'' If that is true, it really damages the
credibility of people who do things.
So, when I ask the question, which I understand your
inability, maybe, to answer it because it may be classified--
there are many of us who believe that it was--it had to do with
an arms trade going out of the CIA Annex, and that perhaps
people were unhappy about arms being taken from one group to
another and sent to another, that may have incited the rioting
and may have incited the terrorist attack. But, the problem is,
we cannot ever get to the truth, because people just say, ``Oh,
it's secret.'' That is the problem with running a secret
government and running secret wars. We do not get any
oversight. We cannot have oversight because we do not have any
information.
So, all I would say is that we need to think these things
through. If you look at what the public wants right now, the
public is not interested in a new war.
Thank you very much for your testimony.
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Senator Paul.
We will do a second round, maybe of 5 minutes each, for
members that are remaining.
Ambassador Nuland, I just wanted to expand upon the
questions from Senator Shaheen on Turkey, just to ask a broader
question. What Erdogan is doing is certainly not to the extent
of what we have seen in Russia with Mr. Putin, but troubling
nonetheless: the crackdown within Istanbul, his treatment of
journalists, his disposition toward the military. What are the
tools at our disposal to continue to raise these questions of a
free and open civil society in Turkey?--given the same problem
we have with Russia, in that we have so many irons in the fire,
with respect to our very complicated security relationship with
Turkey, that it often makes it difficult to put the issue of
human rights and his treatment of political opponents front and
center. What are the tools at our disposal to continue to press
Erdogan with respect to the--some of the same issues, albeit to
a lesser degree, that we are pressing Putin's government on, as
well?
Ambassador Nuland. Thank you, Senator. Our alliance with
Turkey, our relationship with Turkey, is absolutely critical,
as you know, not just in the Eurasian space, but also in all of
the work that we are doing now in the Middle East and North
Africa, and particularly with regard to Syria. I think it is
because we have such an intense and tight relationship, and
because we have constant contact--I think Secretary Kerry's now
made seven-plus trips to Turkey, the President talks regularly
with President Erdogan--that we can speak very clearly and
frankly when we have concerns about Turkey's democratic path--
and we have done that at all levels, because it is--Turkey's
democracy and the strength of it is important, not only for the
country itself, not only as a NATO ally, but also because, as a
majority Islamic population, Turkey's democracy is looked at by
other countries around the world and in the region who aspire
to be able to be Islamic and democratic at the same time.
So, these are the points that we will continue to make to
the Turkish Government, that freedom of assembly, freedom of
expression, protection of journalists, are fundamental
democratic values that strengthen the country. And, in the
context of the review that the Government of Turkey is doing
now of the constitution, we are urging that these protections
be strengthened and not lightened.
Senator Murphy. Well, I thank you for raising the issue of
constitutional reform. I hope that that will be an issue that
we will continue to raise with them. I think that we should be
troubled by the prospect of Erdogan trying to rearrange the
constitution as a means of continuing his reign there beyond
what has been expected by the people of Turkey. I appreciate
your raising that.
General Lute, just very quickly, with regard to NATO
enlargement, we have got a number of candidates, particularly
in the Balkans. Can you just sort of speak very briefly about
the commitment that you will have, as our Ambassador there, to
actively work with the Balkan nations who are in line for
membership to go through the final stages of that process?
General Lute. Yes, Senator, you have my personal commitment
to do this. Of course, this is standing NATO policy, under the
open-door provision. And it is longstanding U.S. policy, as
well, that the door should be open, not only to the Balkan
States that you are mentioning, but, as we mentioned earlier,
Georgia, as well.
Senator Murphy. Let me just, finally, before I turn it over
to Senator Johnson--I do want to associate myself with at least
the final comment made by Senator Paul. I know this is not
particularly within your individual books of business, but it
may be. I do think he raises a very important point about the
interplay between overt and covert activity. And we have seen
that produce fairly troublesome results for this Nation, but
also for the State Department, in places like Pakistan, as we
move forward in Syria, which is--you may have some interactions
with.
I hope we look to prior history and understand that major
military actions happening in a covert manner present problems,
certainly with regard to oversight by the United States
Congress, but also present problems within the administration,
when there are entities negotiating with players across the
globe who do not necessarily have control over all of the tools
that are subject to those negotiations.
Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Lute, as long as you did listen to the Afghanistan
hearing--I was able to be there--here for the first hour, and
could not ask questions, so let me ask you a couple of
questions.
It was the--a comment was made that ISAF is providing
critical support to the Afghan army and the police force, and
that the elections were--I cannot remember the exact quote, but
``absolutely essential,'' in terms of progress being made in
Afghanistan. But, there have been some real problems. Critical
appointments have not been made.
The point I want to make is, if we are going to stop all
military operations by the end of 2014, and basically turn it
over to the Afghan army and police force by 2015, what if they
are not ready? What is going to happen?
General Lute. Well, the December 2014 goal to arrive at a
point where the Afghans are fully responsible, as we said at
Lisbon in 2010, at the end of this 4-transition process, is
just that: a goal. And the reports--I think you heard, this
morning, but the reports we consistently get, and have gotten
for a number of years now, are that our military believes--and
they have day-to-day, shoulder-to-shoulder contact with their
Afghan counterparts--that we are on track, and that the
remaining 18 months will complete that job to arrive at a
position where they are fully responsible.
Now, I think you also heard, this morning, and we see in
more routine reports, that there remain gaps today. Some of the
ones most obvious are close-air support, medical evacuation,
logistics. When you see--you see----
Senator Johnson. But, let me--I think that one----
General Lute [continuing]. Newspaper reports on these, as
well.
Senator Johnson [continuing]. One of the more critical gaps
is managerial, at the officer level, which is an incredibly
difficult gap to fill, isn't it, in just 18 months?
General Lute. Well, Senator, you--I think you are right.
You do not build an army in 4 or 5 years. And we have really
only been seriously at the building of the Afghan army over the
last 4 or 5 years. And that is why, beyond 2014, the work will
not be done. And that is why we are committed to a training/
advising/assisting mission even beyond 2014. As I mentioned
earlier, that, of course, is--needs to be governed by a
bilateral security agreement, which is under negotiation. So--
--
Senator Johnson. To what extent are militias being stood
back up in Afghanistan?
General Lute. I do not think this is a major change or a
major initiative in Afghanistan today. The ethnic groups,
especially in the rural areas that are quite remote from the
population centers, the metropolitan population centers, have
always been somewhat secured by local power brokers, who have
armed contingents. And this is, to some extent, the natural
state of affairs in Afghanistan. But, these are not dominant.
And I can also tell you that, in the last several years, we
have not seen a dramatic rise in the presence of these sorts of
forces.
Senator Johnson. Do you think those militias are a
stabilizing force?
General Lute. I think they are a natural part of the
security landscape in Afghanistan. We do not see them as a
destabilizing force. They tend to stick quite close to their
home turf. They are ethnically and tribally organized. And they
do not present a, necessarily, destabilizing force.
Now, what is new to the scene is 350,000 Afghan National
Security Forces, both army and police. And the standup of that
national force is designed to be the glue that holds the very
disparate regions of Afghanistan together.
Senator Johnson. OK.
Senator Murphy. Senator Rubio.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
And I apologize for having to do this again, because this
is not directly related to you, but I just want to clearly
understand the timeline on the talking-points issue once more.
So, I want to go back. On October 10, Mr. Carney--Jay
Carney--said that, ``Again, from the beginning, we have
provided information based on the facts as we knew they became
available, based on assessments by the intelligence community--
not opinions--assessments by the intelligence community. We
have been clear all along that this was an ongoing
investigation, that the more facts became available, we would
make you aware of them, as appropriate, and we have done
that.''
He went on to say, later, back in May, that, ``What we
said, and remains true to this day, is that the intelligence
community drafted and redrafted these talking points.'' That
was then.
In fact, the President, on October 18 of last year, said,
on ``The Jon Stewart's Show,'' believe it or not, ``But,
everything we get, every piece of information we get, as we got
it, we laid it out to the American people.''
That's the statements from the White House with regards to
the talking points.
Now, the original CIA talking points were pretty blunt.
They talked about ``an assault on U.S. facilities in Benghazi
as a terrorist attack conducted by a large group of Islamic
extremists, including some with ties to al-Qaeda.'' That was
the original talking points that the CIA circulated. But,
then--well, the original talking points they prepared--they
then circulated these talking points to the administration
policymakers on the evening of Friday, September 14. They had
changed ``Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qaeda'' to,
simply, ``Islamic extremists,'' but they also add a new context
in the references to the radical Islamists. They noted--they
pointed to Ansar al-Sharia's involvement, and they added a
bullet point that highlighted the fact that the CIA had warned
about another potential attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in
the region.
And that was the point where all the things we have talked
about already began, right?--the e-mails circulating, you
raised the concerns, et cetera, and overnight on the 14th. Then
there was that meeting, on the 15th, of the--I do not want to
mischaracterize the name of the group--``the deputies group.''
Is that right? You were not a part of that meeting, but there
was a meeting. Correct?
Ambassador Nuland. Correct. My understanding was that this
issue was taken up there, yes. I----
Senator Rubio. So, you were not in the meeting.
Ambassador Nuland. But, I was not there.
Senator Rubio. But, what we know from subsequent e-mails
from someone--we do not know who it was--but, an e-mail to U.S.
Ambassador Rice after the meeting, and it basically said,
according to the e-mail there were several officials in the
meeting that shared your concerns--you were not part of the
deliberations--that the CIA talking points might lead to
criticism that the State Department had ignored the CIA's
warnings about an attack. And the e-mail also reported to Susan
Rice that Mr. Sullivan would work with a small group of
individuals from the intelligence community to finalize the
talking points on Saturday before sending them on to the House.
So, that was what happened from that meeting, and then
these changes came about, and then we get these talking points.
So, I guess the point that I want to raise is that, while,
in fact, the intelligence community may have physically and
technically written these talking points, the most substantive
changes to the talking points--the most substantive changes to
these talking points, from the original version, either--even
the amended versions that were first circulated--the
substantive changes came as a result of direct input from the
State Department and from these--this deputies meeting. Is
that--that is correct, right?
Ambassador Nuland. Senator Rubio, as you correctly pointed
out, I cannot speak to the whole chain of events. When I
received the talking points, on the evening of Friday the 14th,
they said--they did not make reference to al-Qaeda, they made
reference to Ansar al-Sharia.
Senator Rubio. Right.
Ambassador Nuland. As I said, I had no difficulties, in
substance, with that. When I, as a citizen, read the dozens and
dozens and dozens of e-mails that we released to the Congress,
to the public, about this, it was clear to me, in reading
those, as I am sure it was clear to you, that significant
changes were made, apparently, inside the CIA before they----
Senator Rubio. But, they were----
Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. Were circulated.
Senator Rubio. Right. And I understand that the CIA typed
the changes, but----
Ambassador Nuland. But, the----
Senator Rubio [continuing]. The subsequent----
Ambassador Nuland. While they were in--while they were in
clearance within the CIA----
Senator Rubio. Right.
Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. Before they went into the--
--
Senator Rubio. But, the point is that the major substantive
changes came between Friday evening, after you and other State
Department officials expressed concerns about criticism from
Members of Congress, and the Saturday morning, following the
deputies meeting. That is when the big changes to it came.
And the reason why that raises alarm is another e-mail, to
Chip Walter, the head of the CIA's Legislative Affairs Office,
from Secretary Petraeus, where he expressed frustration at the
new scrubbed talking points, noting that they had been stripped
of much of the content his agency had provided.
So, the point I am driving at has, quite frankly, nothing
to do with you. But, the point that I just wanted to raise here
is, in fact, when Mr. Carney and when the President says that
these talking points were a product of the intelligence
community, that is not accurate. These talking points were--may
have been typed by the intelligence community, but these
talking points were dramatically changed, directly at the input
of non-intelligence-community individuals, primarily in the
State Department and in this meeting of the deputies. That is
where the changes were made. They did not come from the
intelligence community. The intelligence community--in fact,
its leader at the CIA--expressed frustration at the changes
that had been made.
I know my time is up, but I have to get one real-quick
question, and it has to do with--is--the START Treaty. Is
Russia in compliance, in your opinion, with the New START? I
know that is a big change of topic. [Laughter.]
Ambassador Nuland. Senator, at this--in this current state
that I am in, I am not privy to all of the information with
regard to compliance. If confirmed, obviously I would be fully
transparent with you, within my responsibilities----
Senator Rubio. OK.
Then, here's my----
Ambassador Nuland [continuing]. With regard to that----
Senator Rubio [continuing]. Last question. Anyone who wants
to answer it. Maybe, General, you could help with this. Did the
administration seek or receive any input from our NATO allies,
ahead of the President's announcement, 2 weeks ago, about
additional cuts to U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal, beyond the
limits imposed of New START? Did we talk to our NATO allies
about it? And, if we did, what was their reaction?
General Lute. Yes, Senator, I am not aware of that. I am
obviously not following that issue at that time. I can
investigate this and come back to you.
[The information requested of Ambassador Nuland by Senator
Rubio follows:]
Following the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, the President directed
his national security team to conduct further analysis and review of
the U.S. nuclear force structure and posture. The results of this
analysis were announced during the President's speech in Berlin in June
2013, including his commitment to continued consultations with allies.
The speech has been welcomed by our European allies and partners, as
well as our key Asian allies. The United States regularly consults with
our NATO allies about our commitment to further nuclear reductions and
to maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent. Any
changes in NATO's nuclear posture must be decided jointly by the
alliance. This ongoing dialogue with NATO informed the analysis
conducted by the United States and announced by the President in
Berlin.
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Senator Rubio.
Thank you very much for answering all of our questions. You
have all acquitted yourselves very well. You all have had such
impressive careers, and I am just so appreciative of the fact
that you are ready to stand up for this Nation in a new
capability. Congratulations on your nomination. And we look
forward to your confirmation.
This hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record
Responses of Victoria Nuland to Questions Submitted
by Senator Robert Menendez
Question. Do you see the proposals put forward by the new Cyprus
Government involving Famagusta as helpful in regenerating the efforts
to resolve the political situation on the island?
Answer. We would support any agreement on Famagusta that is
mutually acceptable to both parties. This issue underscores the need
for a comprehensive settlement reunifying Cyprus as a bizonal,
bicommunal federation. We firmly believe that a mutually acceptable
settlement is in the best interests of the people of Cyprus, and we
hope the parties will seize the opportunity to end the tragic division
of the island once and for all.
Question. I noted with pleasure the spirit of religious cooperation
demonstrated by the trip of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, the
spiritual head of 300 million Orthodox Christians and the world's
second-largest Christian Church, to Rome for the installation of Pope
Francis, the head of the largest Christian Church, Catholicism.
Historically, the Ecumenical Patriarch and Pope were both bishops in
the same undivided Christian church until the year 1054. This trip
marked the first such recognition between the two churches that has
occurred in nearly 1,000 years and is a great tribute to the ecumenical
spirit of both religious leaders.
Can you share with the committee what you plan to do in
working with Turkish Government officials to push for full
religious freedom for the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Turkey?
Answer. The United States recognizes the ecumenical status of the
Patriarchate, which is a part of the rich tradition of religious
diversity in Turkey. As such, the United States fully supports efforts
to reopen Halki Seminary, a vital institution of spiritual learning for
Orthodox Christians around the world, as a symbol of the Turkish
Government's commitment to ensure full religious freedom for all,
including religious minorities. The Turkish Government's return of
property surrounding the Seminary to the Church earlier this year was a
positive step. If confirmed, I will continue to urge the Turkish
Government to demonstrate its respect for religious freedom by working
cooperatively with the Patriarchate to overcome legislative and
political impediments hindering the reopening of this revered religious
institution and to resolve matters of importance to Orthodox Christians
and other religious minorities in Turkey.
Question. Recent reports indicate that there may be good reason to
question whether there's been mismanagement at the Holocaust Claims
Conference. What steps has the U.S. Government taken to investigate
whether $57 million has been lost to fraud and what are we doing about
it?
Answer. In late 2009, suspecting fraudulent internal activity, the
Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany (``the Claims
Conference'') retained outside counsel to conduct an independent
investigation. The Claims Conference then presented evidence derived
from this investigation to the FBI and the office of the U.S. Attorney
for the Southern District of New York, which then launched an
investigation into the fraud.
In May of this year, the Claims Conference's former Director of
Hardship and Article 2 Funds, Semen Domnitser, and two coconspirators
were convicted in federal court on charges of mail fraud and conspiracy
to commit mail fraud. Twenty-eight others had already pleaded guilty.
No Holocaust victims were deprived of any funds because of those
crimes. After uncovering the fraud, the Claims Conference took steps to
prevent its recurrence. It engaged Deloitte to conduct an independent
review of all processing procedures and subsequently revamped them.
Deloitte has prepared a report with preventative recommendations,
including how to install appropriate safeguards, and the Claims
Conference is currently in the process of implementing them. The Claims
Conference also reviewed thousands of files, one case at a time, to
identify fraudulent applications and instituted a process to obtain
restitution. Whenever it came upon documents confirming fraud, the
Claims Conference suspended improper payments and sought restitution.
Legitimately eligible claimants, however, continued to be paid.
These losses to fraud must be measured against the overall
accomplishment of the Claims Conference, a nongovernmental organization
that since 1951 has sought a measure of justice for Holocaust survivors
through negotiations with the German Government in order to provide
payments both directly to individual survivors and grants to social
welfare organizations serving survivors. As a result of these
negotiations, the German Government has paid more than $60 billion in
indemnification for suffering and losses resulting from Nazi
persecution. Claims Conference negotiations have also resulted in the
disbursement of additional funds from German and Austrian industry, as
well as from the Austrian Government. In May of this year the Federal
Republic of Germany committed to providing approximately $1 billion
over a 4-year period for home care for Jewish Holocaust victims, with
the annual amount increasing every year through 2017.
Question. In recent weeks Transnistrian authorities have acted to
increase the security along their line of control to make it resemble
an international border. Has the U.S. position on Moldovan sovereignty
over Transnistria changed? If not what diplomatic actions have we
undertaken to address this change in the status quo?
Answer. The United States strongly supports a peaceful and
sustainable negotiated resolution of the Transnistria conflict through
a settlement that provides a special status for Transnistria within
Moldova's sovereign borders. The administration has underscored to both
sides the importance of continuing to engage, compromise, and work
toward a comprehensive settlement through the OSCE-sponsored 5+2
process. The administration has also called on both sides to refrain
from any unilateral action that might impede the process or undermine
confidence in the negotiations. The State Department will continue to
raise these points and concerns with authorities in Chisinau and
Tiraspol and work with its partners in the region to amplify this same
message.
Question. President Obama has identified genocide prevention as a
``core national security interest and core moral responsibility'' of
the United States. What role does genocide recognition play in
combating future incidents of genocide? Do you have a personal view on
U.S. recognition of the Armenian genocide?
Answer. The U.S. Government clearly acknowledges as historical fact
and mourns that 1.5 million Armenians were massacred or marched to
their deaths in the final days of the Ottoman Empire. These horrific
events resulted in one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century, and
the United States recognizes that they remain a great source of pain
for the people of Armenia and of Armenian descent, as they do for all
of us who share basic universal values. As the President emphasized in
his April 24 Remembrance Day statements, the achievement of a full,
frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts of what occurred in 1915
is in all our interests.
If confirmed, my duty would be to represent the policies of the
President and administration faithfully, and to work with our allies
and partners in Europe to make sure that such dark chapters of history
are not repeated.
Question. The United States continues to support the democratic and
economic development of Georgia--both through strong levels of economic
assistance and a second Millennium Challenge Corporation compact with
that country. What efforts are being made to ensure that U.S.
assistance reaches all communities and regions in Georgia equally,
including the impoverished region of Samtskhe-Javakheti, which is
predominantly populated by Armenians?
Answer. U.S. Government assistance in Georgia supports democratic
and economic development throughout the country, and this includes the
Samtskhe-Javakheti region. Over the past 6 years, the U.S. Government
has provided over $240 million in assistance projects in Samtskhe-
Javakheti, including through the Millenium Challenge Corporation (MCC).
These assistance projects have ranged from rehabilitating public
hospitals, helping farmers bring crops to market, fostering economic
development, supporting civil society, and giving voice to the ethnic
minority communities.
______
Responses of Victoria Nuland to Questions Submitted by
Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.
Question. After a meeting with Foreign Minister Kasoulides,
Secretary Kerry
stated, ``We also look forward to working with the Foreign Minister and
with President Anastasiades and others to try to move Cyprus forward on
one of the world's frozen conflicts. The United States supports a
bizonal, bicommunal federation. We would like to see us unfreeze this
conflict and be able to move to a resolution.''
What is your assessment of the most effective way to
unfreeze the Cyprus-Turkey conflict?
Do you view the potential for gas exploration in Cyprus's
exclusive economic zone as beneficial or harmful to the efforts
to solve the country's political problem?
Answer. As I noted during the hearing, I believe that we have a
real chance to capitalize on changing attitudes and circumstances to
help address the 40-year-old division of Cyprus. A comprehensive
settlement reunifying Cyprus as a bizonal, bicommunal federation will
benefit the people of Cyprus and help strengthen regional stability by
facilitating normalization of relations between Cyprus and Turkey. The
Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot leaders have confirmed their
intention to resume the settlement process in October, and Turkey has
also expressed its support for the settlement process. If confirmed, I
will work both publicly and privately with the parties and with the
United Nations to encourage a settlement.
The development of offshore energy resources should be a positive
incentive for the parties to work toward a comprehensive settlement. We
continue to believe that, in the context of an overall settlement, the
island's resources should be equitably shared between both communities.
Question. Ecumenical Patriarchate.--I noted the spirit of religious
cooperation demonstrated by the trip of Ecumenical Patriarch
Bartholomew, the spiritual head of Orthodox Christians, to Rome for the
installation of Pope Francis. This trip marked the first such
recognition between the two churches that has occurred in nearly 1,000
years and is a great tribute to the ecumenical spirit of both religious
leaders.
What do you plan to do to push for full religious freedom
for the Ecumenical Patriarchate?
Answer. The United States recognizes the ecumenical status of the
Patriarchate, which is a part of the rich tradition of religious
diversity in Turkey. As such, the United States fully supports efforts
to reopen Halki Seminary, a vital institution of spiritual learning for
Orthodox Christians around the world, as a symbol of the Turkish
Government's commitment to ensure full religious freedom for all,
including religious minorities.
The Turkish Government's return of property surrounding the
Seminary to the Church earlier this year was a positive step. If
confirmed, I will continue to encourage the resolution of legislative
and political impediments that are hindering the reopening of this
important religious institution.
______
Responses of Victoria Nuland to Questions Submitted
by Senator James E. Risch
Question. There has been speculation about a third trial of
Khodorkovsky, Russia's longest serving political prisoner. What would
be the implications for civil society and the democratic opposition in
Russia if a third trial were pursued? What can be done by the United
States or others to ensure Khodorkovsky is released as scheduled next
year?
Answer. The Russian Government cannot nurture a modern economy
without also developing an independent judiciary that ensures equal
treatment under the law, advances justice in a predictable and fair
way, and serves as an instrument for furthering economic growth.
The United States supports the rights of all Russians to exercise
their freedoms of expression and assembly, regardless of their
political views. These rights are enshrined in the Russian Constitution
as well as in international agreements to which Russia is a party.
If confirmed, I will continue to express our concerns to Russia
both publicly and privately about the Khodorkovsky case, selective
prosecutions, and the corrosive effect on society when the rule of law
is undermined by political considerations.
Question. It appears U.S. policy toward Central and Eastern Europe
has lacked focus and this has contributed to the backsliding on
economic and political developments you referenced in your testimony.
What are your thoughts on how to fix this?
Answer. The countries of Central and Eastern Europe are, with one
exception, strong allies and valued partners of the United States that
have made critical contributions to NATO and have worked with us on
other shared priorities around the world. If confirmed, I will seek to
intensify our already active dialogue with these countries to advance
our common interests on a broad range of security, economic, global and
law enforcement issues.
Although we share with the people of the region a commitment to
fundamental democratic values and human rights, we have concerns that
some countries in the region have weakened the institutional checks and
balances that are essential to democratic governance. We are honest
with our friends about our concerns, both bilaterally and in venues
such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and
work with them to address these issues. If confirmed, I will also make
it a priority to work actively with individuals and organizations in
these countries who are striving to strengthen democratic institutions,
civil protections, and the rule of law.
Belarus is an exception. In dealing with the Government of Belarus,
we will continue to impose sanctions until the government releases all
political prisoners and creates space for democracy.
Question. After decades of studied neutrality, the newly elected
Government of Cyprus has decided to adopt a more prowestern foreign
policy, including by seeking to join NATO's Partnership for Peace
(PfP). Among other things, admission of Cyprus to the PfP would end the
anomaly that Cyprus is presently the only significant country in Europe
or Central Asia (other than Kosovo) that belongs to neither NATO nor
the PfP.
Does the Obama administration support Cyprus's aspiration to
join the PfP? If confirmed as Assistant Secretary for European
Affairs, will you work to help Cyprus gain admission to the
PfP?
Answer. The United States has long supported Cyprus's aspiration to
join the Partnership for Peace (PfP) Program. Since its start in 1994,
the Partnership for Peace Program has been an important NATO tool
seeking to promote reform, increase stability, diminish threats to
peace, and strengthen security relationships between individual Partner
countries and NATO, as well as among Partner countries.
If confirmed, I will continue to work for Cyprus' inclusion in the
PfP.
Question. As you know, Cyprus has discovered significant offshore
gas reserves which could provide a future revenue stream for the
country, and could create the basis for energy cooperation with Israel.
Expeditious development of this resource, pursuant to international
law, could substantially improve Cyprus's economic development and
potentially act as a unifying factor in the eastern Mediterranean.
Does the United States support the right of Cyprus to
develop this resource?
Answer. The United States recognizes Cyprus' right to develop
hydrocarbons resources in its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). We
continue to believe that, in the context of an overall settlement, the
island's resources should be equitably shared between both communities.
And, that the development of offshore energy resources should be a
positive incentive for the parties to work toward a comprehensive
settlement.
Question. The stalled negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan
over Nagorno-Karabakh continue to threaten the security and stability
of the South Caucasus. It is even more concerning to see the United
States, one of the cochairs to the Minsk Group, disengage from the
region. Contrary to the passive U.S. role in the negotiations, Russia
is very actively engaged. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev
personally invested substantial political capital on advancing Russian
interests in the South Caucasus vis-a-vis the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. There is concern about a larger Russian military presence in
the region, in the absence of U.S. engagement.
What actions should the United States take to move the
stalled negotiations
forward?
Answer. As cochair of the OSCE Minsk Group, along with France and
Russia, the United States plays a major leadership role in helping the
sides find a peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. If
confirmed, I will make this a priority. I will work with the sides, at
the highest levels, to help them overcome the current impasse, and
involve Secretary Kerry and the President, as appropriate, in our
diplomacy. We will also continue to encourage near term confidence
building measures that the sides can take to minimize the danger of
incidents on the line of control and other actions that could take the
process backward.
We will continue to stress that the parties themselves must find
the political will to make the difficult decisions that a peaceful
settlement requires. Any durable solution will require compromise from
all sides. On June 18, Presidents Obama, Putin, and Hollande expressed
their regret for the recent lack of progress, and called on the sides
to recommit to the Helsinki principles, particularly those relating to
the nonuse of force or the threat of force, territorial integrity, and
equal rights and self-determination of peoples. We will also continue
to emphasize that it is vital that the sides prepare their people for
peace, not war, and avoid actions and rhetoric that could raise
tensions or damage the peace process.
______
Response of Douglas E. Lute to Question Submitted
by Senator James E. Risch
Question. As the Senate considers your nomination, we need to fully
understand your views on what is arguably the most important arms
control regime concerning the stability and security of our NATO
allies--the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. This
agreement prohibits the production or flight testing of all ground-
launched ballistic and cruise missiles with range capabilities between
500 and 5,500 kilometers, thereby promoting stability on the European
Continent. As you are undoubtedly aware, however, Russian officials
have made statements about the viability of the Treaty. For instance,
on June 21, 2013, the Russian Presidential Chief of Staff stated that
the INF Treaty ``cannot exist endlessly.'' Such statements obviously
are cause for concern. I believe it would be helpful to hear your own
perspective.
Could you please provide your views on the importance of
preserving the INF treaty over the next decade, including the
impact of doing so on stability in Europe?
Further, could you provide the administration's current
policy for information and intelligence sharing with our NATO
allied relating to compliance and verification issues
associated with the INF and other treaties of importance to
NATO?
Finally, can you assure the committee that our NATO allies
have been fully and completely informed of all compliance and
certification issues associated with the INF and other
treaties?
Answer. The INF Treaty remains a significant achievement in nuclear
arms control that contributes greatly to peace and security on the
European Continent. It was the first arms control treaty to result in
the elimination of an entire class of weaponry. It remains a vital
element of the security architecture in the Euro-Atlantic region.
Accordingly, it is critical that this treaty be preserved. The Russian
Federation remains a party to the treaty and has not communicated to
the United States an intention to withdraw from it. The reintroduction
of INF class ground-launched missiles would destabilize and threaten
the peace and security in Europe that the INF Treaty has helped ensure
for over 25 years.
I want to reassure you that the administration is committed to
maintaining a full and robust dialogue with NATO allies on the range of
common security issues of concern, including those related to Russia.
In fact, all allies share information bearing on our common security
concerns. In addition, the administration regularly consults with
allies on security and stability issues, at every level. For further
information on these topics, we would be happy to brief you in a
classified setting.
If confirmed, I personally commit both to representing these and
all other American interests in NATO and to working with the Congress
on these critical issues.
The administration is committed to working to seize the
opportunities before us to revitalize and deepen our ties with Europe.
We look forward to working with you on these and other important
issues.
______
Responses of Victoria Nuland to Questions Submitted
by Senator Christopher A. Coons
Question. If you are confirmed, how will you approach the
challenges in Cyprus? What role do you think the United States can play
in supporting Cyprus in its efforts to end the division of the island?
How do you think gas exploration in Cyprus' Exclusive Economic Zone
will impact the political situation?
Answer. The U.S. Government is not a participant in the
negotiations, but we have offered to provide any help that both sides
would find useful. The administration will support the settlement
process under U.N. auspices, which aims at achieving a bizonal,
bicommunal federation, with political equality as stipulated in past
United Nations Security Council Resolutions. As a friend to the people
of Cyprus, the administration will continue to urge the leaders of both
communities to engage constructively in the settlement process as the
best way to reach an agreement. The administration will also engage
Turkey and Greece to encourage reconciliation and reunification.
The development of offshore energy resources should be a positive
incentive for the parties to work toward a comprehensive settlement. We
continue to believe that, in the context of an overall settlement, the
island's resources should be equitably shared between both communities.
Question. During your hearing you spoke at length about your
concerns over human rights issues in Russia. Were you to be confirmed,
how would you advise Members of Congress to approach our Russian Duma
counterparts, with a view to seek changes to Russian legislation, such
as the antigay propaganda bill? What would you do in your new role to
support LGBT rights more broadly?
Answer. The administration has raised concerns about this
legislation and other new laws negatively affecting civil society with
Russian Government officials, both publicly and privately. If
confirmed, I would encourage Members of Congress to do the same with
their counterparts in the Russian Duma. The administration regularly
supports congressional delegations visiting their Russian colleagues.
Interactions of this kind provide an opportunity to urge Russia to
honor its obligations and commitments with respect to freedoms of
expression, association, and assembly.
Throughout my career, I have been an ardent supporter of LGBT
rights, including most recently as State Department spokesperson when I
spoke out regularly on these issues. If confirmed, I will work with our
like-minded partners in all European countries and multilateral fora to
protect the rights of LGBT individuals.
______
Responses of Victoria Nuland to Questions Submitted
by Senator Marco Rubio
Question. What strategic goals does the President expect to
accomplish in Europe by 2016?
Answer. Europe is our partner in everything we do around the world
and as I said in my testimony, this administration's first task with
our European allies is to revitalize the foundations of our global
leadership and our democratic, free market way of life. We need growth
and jobs on both sides of the Atlantic. The Trans-Atlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership (T-TIP) that the United States and European
Union began negotiating last week with the EU could support hundreds of
thousands of additional jobs and strengthen our international
competitiveness. But
T-TIP is about more than our economic underpinnings. T-TIP is also a
political and strategic investment in our shared future and our
effectiveness as global leaders in the 21st century.
We must also focus on the unfinished work within Europe. Today,
there is a real chance to capitalize on changing attitudes and
circumstances to address the 40-year-old division of Cyprus. Kosovo and
Serbia have made important commitments toward long-term reconciliation,
thanks to the good offices of EU High Representative Ashton. And the
United States cannot break faith with other members of our European and
Eurasian family who have been trapped for too long in frozen conflicts
and territorial disputes.
Together, the United States and Europe must also do more to defend
the universal values that bind us. While all states in the EUR region
hold elections and most have democratic constitutions, the quality of
democracy and the rule of law in Europe and Eurasia is gravely uneven,
and in some key places, the trends are moving in the wrong direction.
Too many citizens do not feel safe criticizing their governments,
running for office or advancing a vibrant civil society. In too many
places, press freedom is stifled, courts are rigged and governments put
their thumbs on the scales of justice. If, as a transatlantic
community, we aspire to support and mentor other nations who want to
live in justice, peace, and freedom, we must be equally vigilant about
completing that process in our own space.
The United States and Europe must also continue to work together
beyond our shores to advance security, stability, justice, and freedom.
Our investment together in a safe, developing, democratic Afghanistan
is just one example. As we look to future demands on our great
alliance--and they will come--we must build on that experience, not
allow it to atrophy. In these difficult budget times, that will require
working even harder to get more defense bang for our buck, euro, pound,
krone, and zloty with increased pooling, sharing, and partnering to
ensure NATO remains the world's premier defense alliance and a capable
coordinator of global security missions, when required.
America's work with European partners and the European Union across
Africa, in Asia, on climate and on so many other global challenges must
also continue. Today, the most urgent focus of common effort should be
in Europe's own backyard and an area of vital interest to us all: the
broader Middle East and North Africa. From Libya, to Tunisia, to Egypt,
to Lebanon, to Iran, to Syria, to our work in support of Middle East
peace, the United States and Europe are strongest when we share the
risk, the responsibility, and in many cases, the financial burden of
promoting positive change.
When this administration can, it must also work effectively with
Russia to solve global problems. With respect to Iran, DPRK policy,
Afghanistan, counterterrorism and nuclear arms control and
nonproliferation, we have seen important progress in the past 4 years,
and the President is looking for opportunities to take our cooperation
to the next level. However, we must also continue to be frank when we
disagree with Russian policy, whether it's with regard to weapons sales
to the Assad regime in Syria or the treatment of NGOs, civil society,
and political activists or journalists inside Russia.
Finally, the United States must be attentive to the fast changing
energy landscape of Europe and Eurasia, and the opportunities and
challenges that brings. We welcome these developments and need to
ensure U.S. companies continue to play a leading role in this dynamic
market.
As the President said in Berlin last month, ``our relationship with
Europe remains the cornerstone of our own freedom and security.
``Europe is our partner in everything we do . . . and our relationship
is rooted in the enduring bonds . . . (of) . . . our common values.''
In every decade since World War II those bonds have been tested,
challenged, and in some quarters, doubted. In every decade, we have
rolled up our sleeves with our European allies and partners and beat
the odds. These times of tight money, unfinished business at home and
competing priorities abroad are as important as any we have faced.
If confirmed, I pledge to seize the opportunities before us to
revitalize and deepen our ties with Europe, and to ensure we continue
to have the will, the trust, and the capability to advance our shared
security and prosperity and to meet our many global challenges
together.
Question. Please explain how the administration is ensuring that
growing attention to the Asia-Pacific region does not come at the
expense of security commitments in Europe, the Middle East, and South
Asia?
Answer. The administration's plan to ``rebalance'' our global
posture to augment our focus on the Asia-Pacific region does not
diminish our close and continuing partnerships with European and other
allies. Reductions in U.S.-stationed forces in Europe will not impede
our ability to fulfill our article 5 or other enduring security
commitments to allies and partners. Rather, changes to U.S. force
posture in Europe--such as deployment of missile defense assets to
Europe and an aviation detachment to Poland; steps to enhance our
special operations capability; investment in shared NATO capabilities
like Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) and a revitalized NATO Response
Force--will yield a capable, more modern U.S. presence in Europe that
will enable us to partner with Europeans and other allies on regional
and global security operations, build partner capacity, and respond to
future contingencies. Even after the cuts are implemented, over 60,000
U.S. servicemembers will remain in Europe, supporting our defense
commitments to our allies and U.S., NATO-led, and coalition operations
globally. We will maintain two brigade combat teams in Europe as part
of a large, permanent military footprint, one of the largest military
footprints outside the United States.
NATO will remain the cornerstone of transatlantic security, and our
European allies--NATO allies in particular--are our partners of first
resort for dealing with the full range of global security concerns.
Question. There is significant concern in the Senate about the
administration's
potential interest to conduct further nuclear reductions outside of a
formal treaty process. If confirmed, how would you intend to keep the
Senate informed about discussions with the Russians on this issue?
Answer. The administration is committed to continuing its
consultations with Congress on arms-control-related issues.
Last month the President said in Berlin that he intends to seek
further negotiated reductions with Russia. The administration has just
begun to have conversations with the Russians about how this might
proceed, so it is very early to know their level of interest and what
might be possible. Clearly anything we do must be rooted firmly in our
own national interests and must meet the national security needs of the
American People.
If confirmed, I would look forward to working closely with the
Senate on these issues as they would relate to my responsibilities for
the bilateral relationship with Russia. I have the utmost respect for
the Senate's prerogatives and responsibilities with regard to these
issues.
Question. What is the administration's assessment of civil freedoms
and government transparency in Russia? What factors are most
threatening to the development of independent civil society in Russia?
How has the environment in which independent civil society operate in
Russia changed over the last 4 years? Is there more or less space for
them to operate freely?
Answer. The administration is concerned about the sharply negative
trends in democracy and human rights in Russia, particularly the
shrinking space available for Russian civil society. In the wake of the
mass public protests that followed parliamentary elections in 2011, the
Russian Government has adopted a series of measures aimed at
restricting the workings of civil society and limiting avenues for
public expressions of dissent. These include laws increasing fines for
public protests, restricting the funding of nongovernmental
organizations, recriminalizing libel, expanding the definition of
treason, and curbing the rights of members of minority groups. A number
of activists, human rights defenders, and opposition leaders are facing
charges and prison in what appear to be politically motivated cases,
while civil society organizations like election monitor Golos face
steep fines, criminal prosecution, and the suspension of their
activities under the ``foreign agent'' law.
The administration continues to believe that political pluralism,
democratic accountability, and respect for human rights and rule of law
are the keys to unlocking Russia's enormous potential. We will continue
in public and private to urge Russia to reverse the negative democratic
trends. If confirmed as Assistant Secretary of State, I will make it a
priority to support the work of those Russians that strive to create a
more free, modern, and democratic country.
Question. Does the administration have the tools necessary to
continue to help independent civil society organizations in Russia?
Answer. As you are aware, at the request of the Russian Government,
USAID closed its mission as of October 1, 2012. The Russian Government
has also enacted a series of laws in the last year that restrict
cooperation between Russian nongovernmental organizations and foreign
partners. I regret the decision of the Russian Government to end
USAID's operations and am concerned by its actions against NGOs in
recent months.
While these actions have changed how we work with Russian NGOs, the
administration remains committed to supporting the development of civil
society in Russia and to fostering links between Russian and American
civil society. The tools we have include people-to-people ties and
exchanges, public diplomacy outreach, and the activities of the
Bilateral Presidential Commission. The administration also raises its
concerns about restrictions on civil society with Russian officials,
both publicly and privately. If confirmed, I will keep Congress
informed of efforts to enhance these links, and I look forward to
consulting with Congress as we develop new tools to support the
aspirations of Russian civil society.
Question. What is the administration's assessment of the
prosecution in Georgia of officials from the previous government? What
is the status of the rule of law and due process in Georgia?
Answer. We are closely following the criminal cases involving
officials from the previous government in Georgia. Embassy Tbilisi
personnel observe courtroom proceedings, and meet regularly with
international monitors from the OSCE's Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and with representatives of both
the Office of the Chief Prosecutor and the defendants. We continue to
urge Georgia to conduct prosecutions with full respect for the rule of
law while avoiding the perception or reality of political retribution.
The cases are ongoing, and we will continue to watch them closely with
these criteria in mind.
Question. Does the administration plan to review U.S. civilian
assistance programs in Georgia in light of ongoing political
developments in the country? If so, how?
Answer. U.S. assistance is an important means for us to achieve our
foreign policy goals in Georgia, and a significant portion supports
programs that strengthen the rule of law, civil society, and democratic
institutions. We regularly monitor and review our foreign assistance
programs in every country, including Georgia, in order to ensure their
effectiveness, alignment with our foreign policy goals, and
responsiveness to changing events on the ground.
If confirmed, I will keep a close watch on assistance to Georgia to
ensure it supports that country's democratic development and the rule
of law.
Question. What is the administration's position on the popular
protests that broke out in Turkey in late May and on the Turkish
Government's response? How is this likely to affect United States-
Turkey relations and the regional picture?
Answer. We continue to monitor developments in Turkey closely. As
we have stated repeatedly, as Turkey's friend and NATO ally, we are
concerned about the excessive use of force by police in several
instances, endorse calls for a full investigation, and welcome efforts
to calm the situation through an inclusive political dialogue. The
United States supports full freedom of expression and assembly,
including the right to peaceful protest, as fundamental to any
democracy. If confirmed, I will continue to urge Turkey to strengthen
its constitutional and legal protections of human and civil rights.
Question. What practical steps could the administration take to
work with Turkish authorities in order to meaningfully reduce their
interference with the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Turkey, including full
freedom to choose its leadership?
Answer. The United States supports the Ecumenical Patriarchate's
right to choose its own Patriarch and its efforts to obtain citizenship
for Greek Orthodox Metropolitans, as well as gain recognition of the
Patriarch's ecumenical status from the Turkish Government. We will
continue to urge the Turkish Government to demonstrate its respect for
religious freedom by working cooperatively with the Patriarchate to
resolve these and other matters of importance to Orthodox Christians
and other religious minorities in Turkey.
Question. Secretary Kerry expressed an interest in helping resolve
the Cyprus problem. What are some of the ways the Secretary can do so
in practical terms?
Answer. The U.S. Government is not a participant in the
negotiations, but we have offered to provide any help that both sides
would find useful. We will support the settlement process under U.N.
auspices, which aims at achieving a bizonal, bicommunal federation,
with political equality as stipulated in past United Nations Security
Council Resolutions. As a friend to the people of Cyprus, we will
continue to urge the leaders of both communities to engage
constructively in the settlement process as the best way to reach an
agreement. We will also use our relationship with Turkey and with
Greece to encourage reconciliation and reunification.
If confirmed, I will work with Secretary Kerry to look for
opportunities to support the reunification talks through his personal
diplomacy and travel.
Question. It is troubling to hear Iranian officials' aggressive
rhetoric on Azerbaijan, including discussions at the Iranian Parliament
questioning Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. How is the
administration working with our Azeri partners to counter Iran's
growing threats to the region?
Answer. The United States and Azerbaijan have clear, shared
interests in building regional security, diversifying energy supplies,
pursuing democratic and economic reforms, combating terrorism, and
stemming the flow of illegal narcotics and weapons of mass destruction.
The Government of Azerbaijan has played an important role in enforcing
international sanctions against Iran.
U.S. and Azerbaijani security cooperation is focused on a number of
relevant issues including: Caspian maritime domain awareness, border
security, combating illegal trafficking, and NATO interoperability. We
convene the U.S.-Azerbaijan Security Dialogue each year to review
progress, raise important bilateral issues, and pursue additional areas
of cooperation. We also work with Azerbaijan on counterterrorism, and
continue to support Azerbaijan's independence by cooperating closely
with Azerbaijan to diversify energy routes and resources for European
markets.
______
Responses of Douglas E. Lute to Questions Submitted
by Senator Marco Rubio
Question. Given your role in overseeing Afghanistan policy at the
White House since 2007, what is your view about the appropriate role
for NATO in Afghanistan after 2014?
Answer. At the end of 2014, the Afghan forces will be fully
responsible for security across the country, having already assumed the
lead for security countrywide with the June 18 announcement of the
``Mid-2013 Milestone.'' As agreed at the Chicago summit, the new NATO
mission after 2014 will train, advise, and assist the Afghan forces. It
will be a narrowly focused, noncombat mission, significantly smaller
than the current International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)
mission. NATO's ongoing planning calls for a ``limited regional
approach'' to cover the army corps and police regions, and also focuses
on national institutions, including the security ministries and main
training facilities.
Question. I'm concerned about reports that the President may decide
to not leave any U.S. forces in Afghanistan after 2014. What are your
thoughts on the appropriate post-2014 U.S. presence?
Answer. The President is still reviewing a range of options from
his national security team with respect to troop numbers and has not
made a decision about the size of a U.S. military presence after 2014.
The President has made clear that--based on an invitation from the
Afghan Government--the United States is prepared to contribute to
NATO's train-advise-assist mission and also sustain a U.S.
counterterrorism capability. A number of factors will define the U.S.
contribution beyond 2014, including progress in our core goal to defeat
al-Qaeda, progress with the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), the
Afghan political transition, the potential for Afghan-led peace talks,
regional dynamics, and completion of a U.S.-Afghan Bilateral Security
Agreement (BSA) and a NATO-Afghan Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA).
We've made significant progress on the text of a BSA, which is required
for us to retain U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
Question. I've also been troubled by the administration's recent
decision to apparently drop several key conditions before agreeing to
talk to the Taliban. What role did you play in the formulation of U.S.
policy on this issue and what is your assessment of the likelihood that
such talks will further our goal of a stable democratic Afghanistan
that respects the rights of women and minorities?
Answer. As we have long said, and as President Obama and President
Karzai reaffirmed together in January, as a part of the outcome of any
negotiations, the Taliban and other armed opposition groups must break
ties with al-Qaeda, end the violence, and accept Afghanistan's
Constitution including its protections for women and minorities. There
is no purely military solution to the Afghan conflict. The surest way
to a stable, unified Afghanistan is for Afghans to talk to Afghans. We
have called on the Taliban to come to the table to talk to the Afghan
Government about peace and reconciliation. Our goal remains for Afghans
to be talking to Afghans about how they can end the violence, move
forward, and rebuild their country, while protecting the progress made
over the past decade.
Question. What are your views on Russia's behavior in Europe and
what measures NATO can take to reassure our allies in Central and
Eastern Europe, particularly the Baltic countries, about our commitment
to their security?
Answer. The United States has made clear publicly that Europe--
including Russia--remains a key partner in meeting 21st century
security challenges throughout the world. NATO and Russia disagree on a
number of important issues--Georgia, Syria, and missile defense are
among them--but we also have some areas of common concern, like
Afghanistan.
The United States is committed to strengthening the NATO alliance,
with the cornerstone of NATO being the mutual defense commitment in
article 5 of the Washington Treaty. We have political consultations
with all of our NATO allies at every level, including ministers, on the
full range of security issues. Allies also raise concerns about Russian
policy directly with Russia in the NATO-Russia Council, where the
United States continues to urge frank political dialogue, including on
areas where NATO and Russia disagree.
The United States is fully capable of and determined to fulfill its
article 5 commitments, and will remain so even after our ongoing force
posture changes in Europe are implemented. With respect to the Baltics,
one example of our commitment to their security is that we have
committed to extending NATO's Baltic Air Policing mission and are
working with the Baltic States on their contributions to sustaining
this initiative through host nation support. This mission exemplifies
the spirit of Smart Defense, which will become increasingly important
as we reconcile NATO's security requirements with budget realities.
______
Responses of Victoria Nuland to Questions Submitted
by Senator John Barrasso
russian adoptions
Question. On December 28, 2012, Russian President Vladmir Putin
signed into law a bill ending the intercountry adoptions between the
United States and Russia. The law prevents U.S. citizens from legally
adopting Russian children. The Russian law went into effect on January
1, 2013.
On January 1, 2013, the United States Senate unanimously passed
Senate Resolution 628, which voiced disapproval of the Russian law. It
also urges Russia to reconsider the law and prioritize the processing
of intercountry adoptions involving parentless Russian children who
were already matched with United States families before the enactment
of the law.
There are numerous families across this Nation who are already in
the process of adopting children from Russia, including a family in
Sheridan, WY. According to the Department of State, there are currently
between 500 and 1,000 U.S. families in various stages of the adoption
process.
Since January 1, 2013, what specific efforts have the U.S.
Department of State made on allowing those American families to
finalize their pending adoption of Russian children?
Answer. The United States deeply regrets Russia's decision to ban
the adoption of Russian children by U.S. citizens, restrict Russian
civil society organizations working with U.S. partners, and to
terminate the U.S.-Russia Adoption Agreement. The Department has
repeatedly engaged with Russian officials at all levels and urged them
to permit all adoptions initiated prior to the law's enactment to move
forward on humanitarian grounds.
Despite the Department's continued efforts, Russian officials
reiterated in our April 17 and June 25 U.S.-Russia adoption discussions
that they will only permit those cases where an adoption ruling was
issued before January 1, 2013, to be completed.
The Department continues monthly meetings with the Russian Embassy
to provide information regarding the U.S. child welfare system and to
discuss intercountry adoption matters. The Department also continues to
correspond with families that have reached out to the Department on
broad and case-specific issues and to hold conference calls for
families.
If confirmed, what specific actions do you plan on taking to
help those families already in the process of adopting children
from Russia to be able to complete the adoption process?
Answer. The Department has repeatedly engaged with Russian
officials at all levels and urged them to permit all adoptions
initiated prior to the law's enactment to move forward on humanitarian
grounds.
Despite the Department's continued efforts, Russian officials
reiterated in our April 17 and June 25 U.S.-Russia adoption discussions
that only those cases where an adoption ruling was issued before
January 1, 2013, may be completed.
If confirmed, I will continue to raise this issue with Russian
officials at all levels and encourage intercountry adoption as an
important child welfare measure. While Russia has the sovereign right
to ban the adoption of its citizens, if confirmed, I will continue to
underscore that this ban hurts the most vulnerable members of Russian
society. I will also continue to highlight the dedication of U.S.
families to these children.
Will you commit to addressing this problem directly to the
Russian Government?
Answer. The Department has repeatedly engaged with Russian
officials at all levels and urged them to permit all adoptions
initiated prior to the law's enactment to move forward on humanitarian
grounds. In this effort, the Department continues monthly meetings with
the Russian Embassy to provide information regarding the U.S. child
welfare system and to discuss intercountry adoption matters.
If confirmed, I will continue to raise this issue with Russian
officials at all levels and encourage intercountry adoption as an
important child welfare measure. While Russia has the sovereign right
to ban the adoption of its citizens, if confirmed, I will continue to
underscore that this ban hurts the most vulnerable members of Russian
society. I will also continue to highlight the dedication of U.S.
families to these children.
Will you ensure that the U.S. Department of State works with
impacted U.S. families to provide them with updates and
information regarding their individual cases?
Answer. The Department continues to correspond with families that
have reached out to the Department on both broad and case-specific
issues, and to hold conference calls for families. The Department
values the input of all families and has met with a number of
prospective adoptive parents to further discuss this matter. If
confirmed, I will continue to make it a priority for the State
Department to continue working with all U.S. families impacted by this
ban and to keep them fully informed.
russia's support of syria
Question. It appears the administration's policy is to basically
continue to ask Russia to use its leverage to help stop the violence in
Syria. It is clear Russia has no such interest in doing that.
The Washington Post reported at the beginning of June that
``sophisticated technology from Russia . . . has given Syrian
Government troops new advantages in tracking and destroying their foes,
helping them solidify battlefield gains against rebels.'' The same
article went on to quote a Middle Eastern intelligence official as
saying ``we're seeing a turning point in the past couple of months, and
it has a lot to do with the quality and type of weapons and other
systems coming from . . . Russia.''
It is clear Russia's continued support for Syrian President Assad
is one of the main reasons close to 100,000 have been slaughtered in
the current conflict. Russia has vetoed every resolution to come before
the United Nations Security Council on the matter, and has also voted
against a nonbinding General Assembly Resolution. The absurdity of
thinking Russia is going to cooperate with us on Syria is self-evident.
Can you help me understand why the administration thinks
Russia has any interest at all in helping in Syria?
Answer. Russia's continued support to the Assad regime--military
and otherwise--only serves to prolong the suffering of the Syrian
people. Since the Syrian uprising began, the State Department and the
administration have been extremely vigorous, both publicly and
privately, in exposing and demanding a halt to Russia's support to the
regime and its vetoes of three Security Council resolutions. The
administration opposes any arms transfers to the Syrian regime and has
repeatedly and consistently urged Russia to cease arms transfers and
sales to the Assad regime.
In our Syria discussions with Russia, we continue to make the case
that Moscow's current course of action is exacerbating the very
regional instability that Russia has asserted is a danger to its
interests. We have urged Russia stop all support for the regime and
instead use its influence to bring the regime to the negotiating table
to find a political solution that expresses the sovereign will of all
Syrians. If confirmed, I will place a high priority on our efforts to
change Russia's current calculation and seek more cooperation to end
the suffering in Syria.
What kind of cooperation is the administration currently
seeking from Russia on the situation in Syria?
Answer. The administration continues to urge Russia to end all
support for the Assad regime, especially military support, and to use
its influence to help get the parties to the negotiating table to
discuss a political transition, along the line agreed in the Geneva
Communique.
What steps are being taken to end Russia's support for the
Assad regime and the Russian Federation's complicity in the
crimes against humanity being committed inside Syria?
Answer. The United States opposes any arms transfers to the Syrian
regime, which has used helicopters, fighter jets, and ballistic
missiles to attack civilians. The administration has repeatedly and
consistently urged Russia to cease arms sales to the Assad regime.
Providing the regime with additional weapons inhibits reaching a
negotiated political solution to the conflict and contradicts Russia's
stated policy of seeking an end to violence.
The United States, European partners, and Syria's neighbors have
been consistent and unequivocal in conveying to Russia that supporting
the Assad regime with arms and access to Russian banks is not in
Russia's long-term interest and is damaging to the region and to
Russia's global credibility.
Question. Russia is essentially a serial violator of arms control
treaties. When President Obama completed New START there were a number
of issues outstanding on the original START. The State Department is
unable to verify Russian compliance with the Biological Weapons
Convention or the Chemical Weapons Convention, while it affirmatively
finds Russian noncompliance with the Conventional Forces in Europe
Treaty and the Treaty on the Open Skies.
In his April 2009 speech in Prague promising to rid the world of
nuclear weapons, President Obama proclaimed ``rules must be binding.
Violations must be punished. Words must mean something.''
When Russia violates arms control agreements while the United
States adheres to them, Russia gains a military advantage that puts
U.S. national security at risk. For example, the former Commander of
U.S. Strategic Command, General Chilton, predicated his support for
U.S. nuclear levels and New START on the assumption ``that the Russians
in the post-negotiation time period would be compliant with the
treaty.''
Do you agree with the position that for the arms control
process to have any meaning, parties must adhere to the treaty
commitments they have made?
Answer. Yes, parties must adhere to their treaty commitments. The
administration reports regularly to the Congress on arms control
compliance matters through the annual report on ``Adherence to and
Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation and Related Agreements
and Commitments.'' The Compliance Report for 2012 was transmitted to
the Hill on July 9.
Regarding compliance matters in general, the administration takes
very seriously the importance of compliance with arms control treaties
and agreements. When compliance questions arise, the administration
raises them frankly with our treaty partners and seeks to resolve them,
and the administration will continue to do so.
If confirmed, I will approach issues of noncompliance with arms
control treaties and agreements with the utmost seriousness. I look
forward to working on these issues closely with colleagues in the
administration as they relate to my responsibilities for the bilateral
relationship with Russia.
Do you agree with the position of President Obama that
violations of arms control obligations must be punished?
Answer. As President Obama said in Prague, violations must be
punished. Regarding compliance matters in general, the administration
takes very seriously the importance of compliance with arms control
treaties and agreements. When compliance questions arise, the
administration routinely seeks to resolve them with treaty partners,
and the administration will continue to do so.
If confirmed, I will approach issues of noncompliance with arms
control treaties and agreements with the utmost seriousness. I look
forward to working on these issues closely with colleagues in the
administration as they relate to my responsibilities for the bilateral
relationship with Russia.
How has the administration punished Russia for its
noncompliance?
Answer. As you know, the Department reports regularly to the
Congress on arms control compliance matters through the annual report
on ``Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation
and Related Agreements and Commitments.'' The Compliance Report for
2012 was transmitted to the Hill on July 9. The Compliance Report lists
several instances of concerns with Russian compliance. It also makes
clear steps the United States has taken to address those concerns. With
regard to the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, for example,
in 2011 the United States announced that as a legal countermeasure in
response to Russia's 2007 ``suspension'' of CFE implementation, we
would cease implementing certain treaty provisions vis-a-vis Russia.
All our NATO allies and two other treaty parties took a similar step.
The Department discusses compliance concerns with Russia in
bilateral channels as well as in appropriate multilateral fora, and the
Department will continue to discuss these issues and press for full
compliance with and implementation of treaty obligations. The
Department also keeps Congress informed of such matters, both through
the compliance report and through interagency briefings with relevant
congressional committees.
If confirmed, I will approach issues of noncompliance with arms
control treaties and agreements with the utmost seriousness. I look
forward to working on these issues closely with colleagues in the
administration as they relate to my responsibilities for the bilateral
relationship with Russia.
Can you explain why the United States would enter into
negotiations for future arms control treaties when there is
evidence of a major arms control violations that remain
unresolved with Russia?
Answer. The United States enters into and remains in arms control
agreements that are in our national security interest. Russia is in
compliance with the New START Treaty, which includes the right to
conduct inspections of Russian strategic forces--an opportunity that
the administration would not have without the New START Treaty.
Last month the President said in Berlin that he intends to seek
further negotiated reductions with Russia. The administration has just
begun to have conversations with the Russians about how this might
proceed, so it is very early days to know their level of interest and
what might be possible. Clearly anything we do must be rooted firmly in
our own national interests and must meet the national security needs of
the American people.
If confirmed, I would look forward to working closely with the
Senate on these issues as they would relate to my responsibilities for
the bilateral relationship with Russia.
Question. Presidential candidate Obama promised robust consultation
with allies in developing the foreign policy of the United States.
Specifically, for example, at the Munich Security Conference in 2009,
Vice President Biden said we would develop missile defenses in Europe
``in consultation with you, our NATO allies.''
The facts are, unfortunately, quite different, as ``consult'' has
really turned out to mean ``inform.'' When President Obama in 2009, in
a gift to the Russians, cancelled plans to deploy certain missile
defense systems in Europe, the New York Times reported the Czech
Republic was informed of this decision by ``a hasty phone call after
midnight from Mr. Obama to the Czech Prime Minister.''
This is particularly ironic, given that Senator Obama said on the
floor on July 17, 2007: ``The Bush administration has also done a poor
job of consulting its NATO allies about the deployment of a missile
defense system.''
Do you pledge to consult with our allies in NATO and across
Europe in developing U.S. foreign policy initiatives of
consequence to them, especially U.S. arms control and missile
defense plans?
Answer. Yes. As U.S. Ambassador to NATO from 2005 to 2008, it was
my honor and privilege to maintain the closest possible consultations
with our allies on all issues of shared concern, notably including
missile defense. If confirmed, I look forward to resuming these
relationships.
The administration regularly consults with allies on both arms
control and missile defense. The United States works closely with our
NATO allies regarding our commitment to further nuclear reductions and
to maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent. During his
recent speech in Berlin the President also reaffirmed the U.S.
commitment to continued consultations with allies on future nuclear
reductions. Similarly, the administration works closely with NATO
allies and others on missile defense, regularly updating them and
exchanging views on missile defense plans.
Do you promise to share with [allies in NATO and across
Europe] information we learn about Russia bearing on the
security of our allies?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I look forward to maintaining the
closest possible security consultations with our allies, and sharing
relevant information, including with regard to Russia.
______
Responses of Douglas E. Lute to Questions Submitted
by Senator John Barrasso
Presidential candidate Obama promised robust consultation with
allies in developing the foreign policy of the United States.
Specifically, for example, at the Munich Security Conference in 2009,
Vice President Biden said we would develop missile defenses in Europe
``in consultation with you, our NATO allies.''
The facts are, unfortunately, quite different, as ``consult'' has
really turned out to mean ``inform.'' When President Obama in 2009, in
a gift to the Russians, canceled plans to deploy certain missile
defense systems in Europe, the New York Times reported the Czech
Republic was informed of this decision by ``a hasty phone call after
midnight from Mr. Obama to the Czech Prime Minister.''
This is particularly ironic, given that Senator Obama said on the
floor on July 17, 2007: ``The Bush administration has also done a poor
job of consulting its NATO allies about the deployment of a missile
defense system.''
Question. Do you pledge to consult with our allies in NATO and
across Europe in developing U.S. foreign policy initiatives of
consequence to them, especially U.S. arms control and missile defense
plans?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I pledge to continue the close
discussions we have had with our NATO allies on the full range of
security issues, including missile defense and arms control, as we seek
to further deepen our ties with Europe. In my military career, from
Europe and Kosovo to overseeing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, I
appreciate the value and importance of consulting with our allies. As
Assistant Secretary-designate Nuland has also noted, the policy of this
administration is that the United States works closely with our NATO
allies regarding our commitment to further nuclear reductions and to
maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent. During his
recent speech in Berlin the President also reaffirmed the U.S.
commitment to continued consultations with allies on future nuclear
reductions. The United States is also firmly committed to engaging
allies regularly regarding bilateral consultations with Russia on
missile defense and soliciting their views.
Question. Do you promise to share with [allies in NATO and across
Europe] information we learn about Russia bearing on the security of
our allies?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed as United States Ambassador to NATO, I
look forward to maintaining the closest possible security consultations
with our allies, and sharing relevant information, including with
regard to Russia. We regularly consult with NATO allies on the full
range of security issues, including those related to Russia, at every
level. All allies share information bearing on our common security
concerns. In addition to discussions within NATO, which inform our
approach to issues including arms control and missile defense, we have
also briefed allies on our bilateral conversations with Russia, as
appropriate. NATO allies also raise questions and concerns about
Russian policy directly with Russia in the NATO-Russia Council, where
the United States continues to urge frank political dialogue, including
on areas where NATO and Russia disagree.
NOMINATION OF SAMANTHA POWER
----------
WEDNESDAY. JULY 17, 2013
----------
Samantha Power, of Massachusetts, to be the Representative of
the United States of America to the United Nations, the
Representative of the United States of America in the
Security Council of the United Nations, and to be
Representative of the United States of America to the
Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations
----------
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:18 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert
Menendez (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Udall, Murphy,
Kaine, Corker, Risch, Rubio, Johnson, Flake, McCain, Barrasso,
and Paul.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
The Chairman. Good morning. This hearing of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee will come to order.
Good morning, Ms. Power. Welcome to the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee.
Your nomination as Ambassador to the United Nations has
come with much fanfare and with some criticism which, at the
end of the day, means you must be doing something right. But
without fanfare or criticism, I do not believe anyone can
question your credentials. Nor can anyone question your
service.
And certainly no one can question your willingness to speak
your mind, often forcefully, always passionately, and usually
without hesitation, and I commend you for your willingness to
speak out, particularly on human rights issues around the
world, whether as a war correspondent in Bosnia, in the former
Yugoslavia, in Rwanda and Sudan where, as you said in your
Pulitzer Prize winning book on genocide, you witnessed ``evil
at its worst.''
You have been an unrelenting, principled voice when it
comes to human rights and crimes against humanity, and I know
that voice will be heard around the world, should you be
confirmed.
Personally, I am incredibly appreciative of the principled
position you have taken, on many of these issues, but
particularly on the Armenian genocide. In 2007, you wrote in
Time Magazine, ``a stable, fruitful 21st century
relationship,'' in referring to Turkey, ``cannot be built on a
lie.'' And I completely agree.
Your belief that we should use the lessons of what clearly
was an atrocity of historic proportions to prevent future
crimes against humanity is a view consistent with my own and
many others on this committee and which is supported by your
role on the President's Atrocities Prevention Board.
I agree that we must acknowledge and study the past,
understand how and why atrocities happen, to put into practice
and give meaning to the phrase ``never again.''
As the son of immigrants from Cuba, one whose family and
friends bore witness to, suffered, and continue to suffer under
the Castro regime's oppression, I personally appreciate your
commitment to exposing the Castro dictatorship's total
disregard for human and civil rights and for not idealizing the
harsh realities of communism in Cuba. I know from the
conversation we had in my office that you appreciate the
suffering of the Cuban people, the torture, abuse, detention,
and abridgment of the civil and human rights of those who voice
their dissent.
I also welcomed your commitment to reach out to Rosa Maria
Paya, a daughter of the longtime dissident and Cuban activist,
Oswaldo Paya, who died under mysterious circumstances last year
in Cuba. Ms. Paya is in Washington this week accepting a
posthumous award from the National Endowment for Democracy on
behalf of another young activist from Cuba who died alongside
Oswaldo Paya, making your commitment to reach out to her that
much more timely.
And yesterday's news of the discovery of illegal arms
shipments from Cuba to North Korea reinforces in my view the
necessity of the United States keeping Cuba on the list of
countries who are the sponsors of terrorism.
I share your view that we should not lose sight of these
moral issues even as we are addressing the pressing economic
and security issues that confront our Nation.
It is fitting that you will be at the United Nations, which
was created after a period of atrocity and conflict with the
goal of bringing nations together to achieve peace and
stability.
In the words of the U.N. preamble that was created, quote,
``to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity
and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and
women of nations large and small.''
If confirmed, your focus on the United Nations will, no
doubt, be on the crisis du jour, the Middle East, Syria, Iran,
North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan, increasingly North Africa,
and the nature of nations that emerge from the Arab Spring. But
I would encourage you to also keep your focus and task your
staff to not forget what is happening off the front page as
well as on it: What may be happening on freedom of expression
in Latin America; fighting HIV/AIDS, malaria, and polio in
Africa; on the status of talks to resolve the 66-year-long
question of Cyprus; on women's rights in Pakistan; labor rights
in Bangladesh; and human rights in Sri Lanka.
The United Nations, for all its faults, has a great ability
to serve as an arbitrator and neutral fact-finder and overseer
of peace. I urge you to harness its strengths in the interests
of our Nation and not coincidentally in the interest of
fulfilling the stated purpose of the United Nations, which is
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and
security.
We will address these issues, among many others, in our
questioning, but let me take this opportunity again to welcome
you to the committee and to say that we look forward to a full
and frank dialogue on the issues you will face, should you be
confirmed.
Let me also say for the record if there are additional
questions for the record of this nominee, they should be
submitted by 5 p.m. today.
With that, let me turn to the distinguished ranking member
of the committee, Senator Corker, for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Corker. Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this
hearing.
And I want to welcome the nominee. We had a very good
meeting.
I will be brief.
I know you are going to be received very well here in spite
of the two introducers that you have beside you.
But I do appreciate the time and the candor in our office.
I want to thank you for being willing to serve in this way, and
I think you know our Ambassador to the United Nations is one of
the most important diplomatic posts that we have. You have
daily contact with leaders from all around the world and,
therefore, are maybe out there amongst people around the world
more than anybody else, and it can be a critical component of
our diplomatic efforts.
We are the largest contributor to the United Nations. I
think you know that. And I hope that one of the things you are
going to pursue--I know you are very policy-oriented, and I
appreciate that, but I hope you are also going to pursue
reforms at the United Nations to cause it to function in a much
better way for not only U.S. taxpayers but for the world. All
too often--I think you know this--the United Nations acts as a
place where bad actors deflect criticism. And I hope that you
will--I think you will actually--but I hope you will follow the
footsteps of predecessors like Daniel Patrick Moynihan and
Jeane Kilpatrick who basically got out there and championed our
national interests at the United Nations even when it was
unpopular.
So, again, I thank you for coming before us today. I look
forward to your service. I know there will be a number of
questions today that I know you will answer well. And, again,
thank you for your willingness to serve.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our extra-
distinguished guests today that I know are looking at their
watch wanting to go to the next hearing, even though they are
glad to be here I know.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Corker.
We are pleased to have our distinguished colleagues from
Georgia with us to introduce Ms. Power to the committee. So I
will first recognize the senior member from Georgia, Senator
Chambliss, followed then by Senator Isakson.
STATEMENT OF HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA
Senator Chambliss. Well, thank you very much, Chairman
Menendez and Senator Corker, for allowing Johnny and me to come
today to introduce Samantha Power to the Foreign Relations
Committee.
Samantha is already well known by this committee, but
suffice it to say she is an Irish-born American who
matriculated to Atlanta to become educated in high school to
prepare herself not just for this job but to go to Yale and go
to Harvard Law School. Pretty good credentials coming out of
Lakeside High School in Atlanta.
She has a passion for human rights, as you stated, Mr.
Chairman, and she takes her passion very seriously. She is a
prolific writer who believes in what she is writing about to
the extent that she gets into the fray as she did in Yugoslavia
by dodging bullets to report on the war in Yugoslavia.
She is a Pulitzer Prize winning author.
She has extensive foreign policy experience as a staffer,
as well as a member of the President's national security team.
You know, the job that she has been nominated by the
President to assume is a very difficult job. It is one that
requires charisma and at the same time toughness. Now, I am
told by her friends that Samantha can be kind and gentle, but
she is one more smart, tough lady who can express herself in
very strong terms when she needs to. And she is going to need
that ability.
I look forward to seeing her as an adversary to some of the
tougher leaders around the world that she will be dealing with
at the United Nations because I am confident that the same
passion she has for human rights she has for this country, and
she will express that passion in no uncertain terms.
She is going to be a great representative of the United
States as Ambassador to the United Nations. I commend her to
you highly, and I look forward to seeing her confirmed in short
order.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Isakson.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Chairman Menendez, Senator
Corker. It is an honor to be here to introduce a woman with
Georgia roots.
At the age of 9, Samantha's parents brought her from
Ireland to the United States and she ended up at Lakeside High
School in DeKalb County, Georgia, where she graduated.
I did some research to find out what others said about her
when she was in Georgia, and a good friend of mine, Jeff
Hullinger, who is the sports director for WSB in Atlanta, had
her as one of his interns in 1989. And I want to quote directly
from what he said about Samantha. He said ``she seemed to be a
fish out of water in the sports department. Oh, my God, was she
bright, acerbic, lightning-witted, and the depth of the Mariana
Trench.'' So I do not know if you have got a better
introduction or a better compliment than that, but Jeff said
she is one of the brightest people that he has ever known.
I appreciate her asking me to introduce her today, and I
will just share a few thoughts additional to those Senator
Chambliss said.
As you know, I have traveled to Sudan. I have traveled to
Rwanda. I have been to some of the places Samantha has written
about and been an activist about. In fact, in her book about
Rwanda, ``A Problem from Hell,'' which was a great book, she
wrote that she could not believe that during the 3 months of
the slaughter of over a million Rwandans, there was not even a
high-level meeting at the White House. That, I am sure, was
part of the motivation for her to create the Atrocities
Prevention Board in the White House and for her to be a part of
it.
Rich Williamson, who was the Special Envoy for President
Bush to the Sudan, who I met with in Darfur--Senator Corker
traveled with me to Darfur--gives her high marks.
My dear friend, Senator Bob Dole, sent me an e-mail after
her nomination and said this is one woman who is most
appropriate for the position to which she has been nominated.
Last, I am the Republican designee from the United States
Senate to the United Nations for this session of Congress.
Senator Leahy is the Democrat. I have traveled to the U.N.
Security Council and watched the challenges that Senator Corker
referred to in dealing with those 13 members. I have no
reservation or doubt whatsoever that Samantha Power will be
just what her name implies, a powerful representative of the
United States of America in a very powerful body, the Security
Council of the United Nations.
It is a pleasure and a privilege for me to introduce her
and I wish her the best of luck in her confirmation.
The Chairman. Well, we thank both of our colleagues for
coming and joining our work.
We welcome Senator Isakson back to the committee. Senator
Isakson was a distinguished member of the committee. We miss
him on the committee, and we hope that in some point he will
return in the future.
And I know you have busy schedules. So when you feel it
appropriate, please feel free to leave as you need to.
With that great set of introductions, Ms. Power, you are
welcome to start your testimony. If you have family or friends
here, please feel free to introduce them. We understand this is
a commitment not only of yourself but family, and we appreciate
that.
Your full statement will be entered into the record,
without objection. And the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF SAMANTHA POWER, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE UNITED
NATIONS, THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN
THE SECURITY COUNCIL OF THE UNITED NATIONS, AND TO BE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE SESSIONS
OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Ms. Power. Thank you, sir, and thank you, Ranking Member
Corker and distinguished members of this committee.
It is a great honor to appear before you as President
Obama's nominee to serve as the U.S. Permanent Representative
to the United Nations. Representing the United States would be
the privilege of a lifetime. I am grateful to the President for
placing his trust in me.
I would like to thank my friends and my remarkable family.
My parents, who brought me here from Ireland, Vera Delaney and
Edmund Bourke; my husband Cass Sunstein; and our children, 4-
year-old Declan and 1-year-old Rian, who has already proven
less interested in this hearing than others here today.
[Laughter.]
I would also like to thank Senator Chambliss and Senator
Isakson for their generous, remarkable introductions. Growing
up as an Irish immigrant in Atlanta, GA, I cannot say that the
United Nations was a popular topic with my classmates at
Lakeside High School. But it was in Georgia, while working at
the same local television station, that I witnessed footage of
the massacre in Tiananmen Square and resolved then that I would
do what I could for the rest of my life to stand up for
American values and to stand up for freedom. My Georgia friends
supported me every step of the way, and I am so proud now to
count these two great public servants, Senator Isakson and
Senator Chambliss, among them.
When I first came to this country, I viewed the United
Nations as a place where people assembled to resolve their
differences. It was the stage, as Senator Corker said, on which
iconic Americans like Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane
Kirkpatrick stood up for what was right.
Unfortunately, when I traveled to the Balkans in 1993, I
saw a different side to the United Nations. U.N. peacekeepers
had been sent to protect civilians, but in the town of
Srebrenica, more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys were executed
in cold blood as the peacekeepers stood idly by.
The United Nations is, of course, multifaceted and its
record mixed. It was with the support of the United Nations
that I traveled in 2004 to Darfur where I discovered a mass
grave and many charred villages, hallmarks of the genocide
being carried out by the Sudanese Government. Today it is the
World Health Organization that is helping to provide polio
vaccinations, even as terrorists wage an assassination campaign
against doctors.
And last Friday, it was the United Nations that provided a
stage for Malala, the brave, young Pakistani girl who was shot
last year by the Taliban on her way home from school. Together,
she and the United Nations will inspire millions to stand up
for girls' education.
Yet alongside all of this within the United Nations, an
organization built in part to apply the lessons of the
Holocaust, we also see unacceptable attacks against the State
of Israel. We see the absurdity of Iran chairing the U.N.
Conference on Disarmament. We see the failure of the U.N.
Security Council to respond to the slaughter in Syria, a
disgrace that history will judge harshly.
What is also clear, 68 years after the United Nations was
founded in San Francisco, is that an effective United Nations
depends on effective American leadership. The war in Bosnia did
not end because the United Nations acted. It ended because
President Clinton, backed by a bipartisan coalition in
Congress, including Senator McCain, took robust action. It is
now possible to imagine an AIDS-free generation in Africa not
merely because of the essential work of UNAIDS, but because
President George W. Bush decided to provide lifesaving drugs on
a massive scale.
I believe that America cannot--indeed, I know that America
should not--police every crisis or shelter every refugee. While
our good will knows no bounds, our resources are, of course,
finite, strained by pressing needs at home, and we are not the
world's policeman. We must make choices based on the best
interests of the American people, and other countries must
share the costs and burdens of addressing global problems.
There are challenges that cross borders that the United
States alone cannot meet. There are cases, as with sanctions
against Iran and North Korea, where U.S. efforts pack far more
punch when we are joined by others. There are occasions, as in
Mali today, when the United Nations has to step up to prevent
state failure which abets terrorism.
An effective United Nations is critical to a range of U.S.
interests.
Let me highlight quickly three key priorities that I would
take up, if confirmed by the Senate.
First, the United Nations must be fair. The United States
has no greater friend in the world than the State of Israel. We
share security interests. We share core values, and we have a
special relationship with Israel. And yet, the General Assembly
and Human Rights Council continue to pass one-sided resolutions
condemning Israel. Israel, not Iran, not Sudan, not North
Korea, is the one country with a fixed place on the Human
Rights Council's agenda. Israel's legitimacy should be beyond
dispute and its security must be beyond doubt. And just as I
have done as President Obama's U.N. advisor at the White House,
I will stand up for Israel and work tirelessly to defend it.
Second, the United Nations must become more efficient and
effective. In these difficult budget times, when the American
people are cutting back, the United Nations must do the same.
This means eliminating waste, strengthening whistleblower
protections, ending any tolerance for corruption, and getting
other countries to pay their fair share. It means closing down
those missions and programs that no longer make sense. The
United States has the right and the duty to insist on reform,
and if confirmed, I will aggressively pursue this cause.
Third, the United Nations must stand up for human rights
and human dignity, which are American values and universal
values. Today, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is
widely hailed and yet only selectively heeded.
Taking up the cause of freedom is not just the right thing
to do, it is, of course, the smart thing to do. Countries that
violate the rights of women and girls will never approach their
full potential. Countries that do not protect religious freedom
create cleavages that destabilize whole regions. If I am given
the honor of sitting behind the sign that says ``United
States,'' I will do what America does best: stand up against
repressive regimes and promote human rights. I will also do
everything in my power to get others to do the same.
This means contesting the crackdown on civil society being
carried out in countries like Cuba, Iran, Russia, and
Venezuela. It means calling on the world to unite against human
trafficking and against the grotesque atrocities being carried
out by the Assad regime. And it means uniting peoples who long
to live free of fear in the cause of fighting terrorism.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, and other
distinguished members of the committee, the late ambassador, my
friend, Richard Holbrooke, told this committee that Congress
should be in on the take-offs, not just the landings. I appear
before you today not just to seek your support, but to ask to
join you in a conversation about how to strengthen what is
right and fix what is wrong at the UN. If I am confirmed, I
will continue this dialogue directly and personally. And if the
prospect of visiting the UN does not immediately entice you, my
son Declan has resolved to become a tour guide like no other.
If I am given the privilege of sitting behind America's
placard, behind the ``United States of America,'' you will be
able to count on me. I will fight fiercely every day for what
is in the best interests of the United States and of the
American people. I will be a blunt, outspoken champion of
American values and human rights. I will be accessible and
forthright in my dialogue with you, and above all, I will serve
as a proud American, amazed that yet again this country has
provided an immigrant with such an opportunity, here the
ultimate privilege of representing the United States and
fighting for American values at the United Nations.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Power follows:]
Prepared Statement Samantha Power
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, and distinguished
members of the committee.
It is a great honor to appear before you as President Obama's
nominee to serve as the United States Permanent Representative to the
United Nations. Representing the United States of America would be the
privilege of a lifetime. I am grateful to the President for placing his
trust in me.
I would like to thank my friends and my remarkable family who are
here with me today--my parents, who brought me here from Ireland, Vera
Delaney and Edmund Bourke; my husband, Cass Sunstein; and our children,
4-year-old Declan and 1-year-old Rian, who may prove less interested in
this hearing than others here today.
I would also like to thank Senator Chambliss and Senator Isakson
for their generous introductions. Growing up as an Irish immigrant in
Atlanta, GA, I cannot say that the United Nations was a popular topic
with my classmates at Lakeside High School. But it was in Georgia,
while working at a local television station, that I witnessed footage
of the horrible massacres in Tiananmen Square and resolved that I would
do what I could the rest of my life to stand up for American values and
to stand up for freedom. My Georgia friends supported me every step of
the way, and I am now very proud to count these two great public
servants among them.
When I first came to this country, I viewed the United Nations as a
place where people assembled to resolve their differences and prevent
hunger and disease. It was the stage on which iconic Americans like
Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick stood up for what was
right.
Unfortunately, when I traveled to the Balkans in 1993, I saw a
different side to the U.N. The U.N. Security Council had sent
peacekeepers to Bosnia to protect civilians. But in the town of
Srebrenica, those Bosnians who sought the protection of the blue
helmets were handed over to those who wished them harm. More than 8,000
Muslim men and boys were executed in cold blood, as the peacekeepers
stood idly by.
A decade later, I traveled across the Chadian border into Darfur to
document the genocide being carried out by the Sudanese Government.
After discovering a mass grave and many charred villages, I brought out
some of the burnt remnants of those villages, which were exhibited at
the U.S. Holocaust Museum. It was U.N. humanitarian workers who steered
me to living witnesses, so eager were they to expose the regime-
sponsored horror. I should note that, as the crisis in Darfur once
again intensifies, U.N. peacekeepers on Saturday suffered a horrific
ambush that killed 7 soldiers and wounded 17 others--a reminder of the
risks that U.N. personnel face every day.
Elsewhere, today, we see physicians from the World Health
Organization working with governments and local volunteers to provide
polio vaccinations in Nigeria and Pakistan--determined to heal even as
terrorists wage a campaign of assassinations against them. Just last
Friday, the U.N. provided a platform for Malala Yousafzai--the brave
young Pakistani girl who was shot in the head last year by Taliban
gunmen on her way home from school--to inspire millions to stand up for
girls' education.
Yet within this organization built in the wake of the Holocaust--
built in part in order to apply the lessons of the Holocaust--we also
see unacceptable bias and attacks against the State of Israel. We see
the absurdity of Iran chairing the U.N. Conference on Disarmament,
despite the fact that its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons is a
grave threat to international peace and security. We see the failure of
the U.N. Security Council to respond to the slaughter in Syria--a
disgrace that history will judge harshly.
The U.N. is multifaceted, and its record mixed. But 68 years after
the United Nations was founded in San Francisco, one fact is as true
today as it was then: an effective U.N. depends on effective American
leadership. The war in Bosnia didn't end because the U.N. was shamed by
the massacres in Srebrenica. It ended because President Clinton, backed
by a bipartisan coalition in Congress, decided that American values and
interests were imperiled and acted to end the war. It is now possible
to imagine an AIDS-free generation in Africa not merely because of the
essential work of UNAIDS, but because President George W. Bush decided
to provide
life-saving drugs on a massive scale.
I believe that America cannot--indeed, I know that America should
not--police every crisis or shelter every refugee. While our good will
knows no bounds, our resources are finite, strained by pressing needs
at home. And we are not the world's policeman. We must make choices
based on the best interests of the American people. And other countries
must share the costs and burdens of fighting injustice and preventing
conflict.
That is where the U.N. can be very important. There are challenges
that cross borders that the United States alone cannot meet--terrorism,
nuclear proliferation, and pandemics. There are cases--as with
sanctions against Iran and North Korea--where U.S. efforts pack a far
greater punch when we are joined by others. There are occasions--as in
Mali today--when the U.N. has to step up to prevent state failure,
which abets terrorism and regional instability.
An effective U.N. is thus critical to a range of U.S. interests,
and strong American leadership at the U.N. is indispensable to
advancing those interests. Under the leadership of President Obama, the
U.N. supported action to save countless lives in Libya; assisted a
peaceful referendum giving birth to an independent South Sudan; and
established a new agency dedicated to the empowerment of women
worldwide.
If I am confirmed by the Senate, I will remain clear-eyed about the
U.N.'s flaws as well as its promise, and I will fight fiercely every
day for what is in the best interests of the United States and the
American people. The list of our challenges in New York is of course
long, but let me highlight three key priorities.
First, the U.N. must be fair. The U.N. cannot focus
disproportionate attention on a few, while giving a pass to others
flouting their international obligations. There cannot be one standard
for one country and another standard for all others. The United States
has no greater friend in the world than the State of Israel. Israel is
a country with whom we share security interests and, even more
fundamentally, with whom we share core values--the values of democracy,
human rights, and the rule of law. America has a special relationship
with Israel. And yet the General Assembly and Human Rights Council
continue to pass one-sided resolutions condemning Israel above all
others. Israel--not Iran, not Sudan, not North Korea--is the one
country with a fixed place on the Human Rights Council's agenda.
Israel's legitimacy should be beyond dispute, and its security must be
beyond doubt. Just as I have done the last 4 years as President Obama's
U.N. adviser at the White House, I will stand up for Israel and work
tirelessly to defend it.
Second, the U.N. must become more efficient and effective. In these
difficult budget times, when the American people are facing tough cuts
and scrutinizing every expense, the U.N. must do the same. This means
eliminating waste and improving accounting and internal management.
This means strengthening whistleblower protections and ending any
tolerance for corruption. It means getting other countries to pay their
fair share. And it means closing down those missions and programs that
no longer make sense. As both the U.N.'s principal founding member and
its largest contributor, the United States has the right and the duty
to insist on reform. I will aggressively pursue this cause.
Third, the U.N. must stand up for human rights and human dignity,
which are American and universal values. The U.N. Charter calls for all
countries ``to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights and the
dignity and worth of the human person.'' But fewer than half of the
countries in the world are fully free. The Universal Declaration on
Human Rights is universally hailed and yet only selectively heeded.
Taking up the cause of freedom is not just the right thing to do,
nor is it simply the American thing to do; it is the smart thing to do.
Countries that abuse their own people are unstable. Countries that
violate the rights of women and girls will never approach their full
potential. Countries that allow people to be trafficked provide safe
haven to dangerous transnational criminal organizations. Countries that
do not protect religious freedom create cleavages and extremism that
cross borders and destabilize whole regions. Countries that fail to
invest in the health and education of their citizens undermine our
shared efforts to promote opportunity. Countries that are corrupt
trample upon the dignity of their people, while scaring away
investment. If I am given the honor of sitting behind the sign that
says ``United States,'' I will do what America does best: stand up
against repressive regimes, fight corruption, and promote human rights
and human dignity. I will also do everything in my power to get others
to do the same.
This means pushing for democratic elections, but also pushing for
the freedoms necessary for democracy to work--freedom of speech,
freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion,
independence of the judiciary, and civilian control over the military.
It means contesting the crackdown on civil society being carried out in
countries like Cuba, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. It means calling on
the countries of the world to unite against human trafficking and
against grotesque atrocities of the kind being carried out by the Assad
regime. It means ensuring that in places like the Democratic Republic
of Congo, peacekeepers sent into harm's way have the resources and the
will to protect civilians. It means bolstering U.N. mediation so that
conflicts can be defused before they become costly, protracted wars. It
means strengthening non-U.N. forums like the Community of Democracies
and President Obama's flagship governance initiative, the Open
Government Partnership. It means redoubling our efforts to end extreme
poverty. And it means uniting peoples who long to live free of fear in
the cause of fighting terrorism and terror of all kinds.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, and other distinguished
members of the committee, let me stress before closing that this
administration will most effectively confront our current challenges if
we benefit from the counsel and collaboration of this essential
committee, and if we can earn the bipartisan support of both Houses of
Congress. I would like to echo the words of the late Ambassador, my
friend Richard Holbrooke, who told this committee that ``Congress
should be in on the takeoffs, not just the landings.'' So I appear
before you not just to seek your support, but to ask to join you in a
conversation about how to strengthen what is right and fix what is
wrong at the U.N. If I am confirmed, I will continue this dialogue
directly and personally. If the prospect of visiting the U.N. does not
immediately entice you, my son Declan has resolved to become a tour
guide like no other.
In closing, please know that, if I am given the privilege of
sitting behind America's placard, you will be able to count on me. I
will tirelessly promote and defend U.S. interests. I will be a blunt,
outspoken champion of American values and of human rights. I will be a
straight-shooter, always accessible to you and forthright in my
dialogue with you and the American people. And above all, I will serve
as a proud American, amazed that yet again this country has provided an
immigrant with such opportunity--here, the ultimate privilege of
representing the United States and fighting for American values at the
United Nations.
Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much for your statement.
We will start a round of questioning.
And I would just say that following Declan at the United
Nations, I would not get lost because I would see that red hair
no matter what. [Laughter.]
And he is being very well behaved despite that this is
boring. [Laughter.]
Ms. Power. The day is young. [Laughter.]
The Chairman. We have got a lot of rooms here.
Let me start off. I appreciate your statement on Israel,
and I agree with you wholeheartedly.
You know, above and beyond fighting battles against those
who seek to delegitimize Israel, the United States has been
very helpful in promoting Israel's position at the United
Nations. As you know, Israel is seeking to represent The
Western Europe and Others Group on the Security Council in
2018, representing the first time that Israel would serve at
the pinnacle of the U.N. system.
Do you know if we are working to promote Israel for the
Security Council, and how can we work in that regard? As well
as the other injustice that Israel faces in the U.N. system is
that in Geneva, unlike in New York, Israel is not part of any
regional grouping. So would you commit to the committee that
you will make efforts, should you be confirmed, to have Israel
among the family of nations have an opportunity just like any
other country would?
Ms. Power. Absolutely, sir. I did speak in my opening
remarks about fighting delegitimation, but what is a critical
complement to that is legitimation. We have had modest success
I think working with our Israeli friends to secure leadership
positions across the U.N. system such as the vice-presidency of
the General Assembly several years back, some leadership roles
in U.N. Habitat and other organizations, membership in WEOG and
participation in WEOG in New York.
But you are right. The Security Council seat is one that
has eluded Israel despite its many contributions across the
years. And I commit to you wholeheartedly to go on offense, as
well as playing defense, on the legitimation of Israel and will
make every effort to secure greater integration of Israeli
public servants in the U.N. system.
The Chairman. Now, this committee has had a great deal of
focus and the chair has had a great deal of focus on the
question of Iran and sanctions. You mentioned it in your
remarks about we are stronger when we can multilateralize those
sanctions and I agree with you, although often we take the lead
and we get others to then join us in a multilateral effort. So
sometimes leadership is important in order to bring others to a
point where they may not be, but for American leadership.
As Iran continues, despite our best efforts, to march
toward nuclear weapons capability, clearly the Senate does not
always express itself unanimously. It has on this issue to
continue our efforts to prevent Iran from becoming the next
nuclear state.
How do you plan to use your position at the United Nations
to build consensus for additional measures against Iran and how
do you see bringing that continuing multilateral effort to the
next stage? The clock is ticking. The centrifuges are spinning,
and the window is increasingly closing for us.
Ms. Power. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for all of
your leadership on that issue.
Let me start by saying that the last 4 years have entailed
a ramp-up of very significant pressure on Iran, including of
the multilateral kind. And you are absolutely right that the
foundation for our leadership is the domestic measures that we
have put in place, which other countries have also replicated
with their own national measures.
The Security Council passed a crippling resolution back in
2011 that I think has had a great effect. They are some of the
most stringent sanctions that we have ever seen put in place in
the multilateral system. And I was very much a part of that
effort by virtue of my position as the President's U.N. advisor
working with the team in New York.
I think there are a couple things that we need to think
about going forward. First of all, given that we need to
increase the pressure until Iran is willing to give up its
nuclear weapons program, we should always be prepared to look
at new measures and see whether further action of the Security
Council is required.
In addition, the Panel of Experts, which is a very useful
way of holding countries accountable--it is a body that holds
countries accountable for their compliance with the sanctions
regimen that exists already--has pointed out I think in its
most recent report that there are a fair number of evasive
tactics that are being used not only by Iran but by other
members of the United Nations. So one of the things that we
need to move forward on with haste--and again, the team in New
York is already seeking to do this--is the Panel of Experts'
recommendations as to how those loopholes can be closed and how
those countries that are in deviance of sanctions can be called
out and held accountable and, indeed, how those practices can
stop.
The other thing I would draw attention to, of course, is
the human rights situation in Iran. Again, over the last 4
years, we have had some success. The margin now in which the
General Assembly Iran human rights resolution passes is larger
than it ever has been I believe. We have also created the
first-ever country-specific human rights rapporteur at the
Human rights Council and that is for Iran. And that
individual--I talked to Senator Kirk about this earlier this
week--deserves our full support as the crisis that the Iranians
are facing inside the country is extremely grave.
So what I can commit to you, sir, is to be maximally
consultative with you and to hear any ideas you have about
things that we could be doing within the U.N. system that we
are not doing, ways we can shore up the sanctions regime that
already exists, and any other additional measures we should be
contemplating to try to increase the pressure on Iran because I
agree wholeheartedly with your premise which is that there is a
window, but the window will not stay open forever.
The Chairman. Finally, this committee acted in a bipartisan
manner as it relates to Syria, and the conflict in Syria has
killed over 100,000 Syrians, created 1.7 million refugees,
millions more displaced inside of the country, a continuing, in
my mind, tragedy of enormous proportions, probably one of the
largest ones in the world right now if not the largest one in
the world.
But we have seen Russia and China continue to obstruct
action by the Security Council, so much so that your
predecessor, Ambassador Rice, said that the council's inaction
on Syria is a moral and strategic disgrace that history will
judge harshly.
I assume you agree with that characterization, and how do
you work to move the Security Council to a more vigorous role
on Syria?
Ms. Power. Thank you, Senator. I agree with you. It is one
of the most critical issues facing us today, one of the most
devastating cases of mass atrocity that I have ever seen. I do
not know that I can recall a leader who has in a way written a
new playbook for brutality in terms of the range of grotesque
tactics that the Assad regime has employed in response to a
democratic uprising.
What I will say is that the situation on the Security
Council is incredibly frustrating. I described it as a disgrace
that history would judge harshly in my opening statement, and I
certainly agree with Ambassador Rice's claim that this is a
moral and strategic disgrace in both respects.
What we have sought to do, as you know, is not simply rely
on the Security Council, but to proceed with a multifaceted
approach aimed at isolating the regime, bringing about the end
of the regime, strengthening the opposition, et cetera.
We have worked through the General Assembly to signal just
how isolated Syria is even as the Security Council remains
paralyzed.
We have worked on the Human Rights Council to create a
commission of inquiry to investigate the abuses because when
the Assad regime falls--and it will fall--the individuals
responsible for these atrocities will need to be held
accountable and the evidentiary base needs to be built now.
And we have gone outside the United Nations, of course, to
the Friends of Syrian People to coordinate the efforts of the
likeminded.
I think we have to be clear-eyed about our prospects for
bringing in the Russians, in particular, on board at the
Security Council. I am not overly optimistic. By the same
token, their interests also are imperiled with the rise of
terrorism in the region with the use of chemical weapons. And
we will continue forcefully, repeatedly, to make that argument
to Russian officials and to engage them given the urgency and,
again, the devastating human consequences of allowing this
crisis to persist.
The Chairman. And one final point before I turn to Senator
Corker.
Am I correct in that right now it is the turn of the United
States to chair the Security Council?
Ms. Power. We have the presidency of the Security Council
in the month of July, which happens once every 15 months, yes,
sir.
The Chairman. So right now, that presidency--the person who
is sitting there is in an acting position.
Ms. Power. It is a wonderful Foreign Service officer named
Rosemary DiCarlo.
The Chairman. And I am sure she is wonderful, but it would
be great to have the United States Ambassador to the United
Nations sitting in that chair.
Senator Corker.
Senator Corker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you again for being willing to serve. I enjoyed
our meeting and our discussion about what a liberal
interventionalist is. I certainly, though, would like to drill
down a little bit on the responsibility to protect.
First of all, you know, in following up on the Security
Council discussion that just was had, do you believe that for
us to take unilateral military action, that we need a U.N.
Security Council approval to do so?
Ms. Power. Sir, I believe the President always should act
in the interests of the American people when U.S. national
security is threatened and the Security Council is unwilling to
authorize the use of force but the President believes that it
is judicious to do so. Of course, that is something that he
should be free to do.
Senator Corker. That was brief. [Laughter.]
What exactly does the responsibility to protect mean to
you?
Ms. Power. Well, sir, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, some of the foundational events in my life were----
Senator Corker. I should not say ``to you.'' What does that
mean to us? Knowing that you are going to be at the United
Nations, you no doubt are going to be a force. I think anybody
who has met you knows that that is going to be the case. But
how will that affect our efforts? When is it that we should
respond to atrocities? And what are the guidelines as to
whether we do that unilaterally?
Ms. Power. Thank you, sir.
I believe that the way the President has articulated this
is very important, which is that the United States has a
national interest, national security interest, and a moral
responsibility to respond to cases of mass atrocity, when
civilians are being murdered by their governments. That does
not mean the United States should intervene militarily every
time there is an injustice in the world. What the President has
asked us to do and what I strongly support doing and am eager
to do again, if confirmed by you, is to look at the tools in
the toolbox, diplomatic, economic, arms embargos, radio
jamming, expelling diplomats from various institutions,
creating commissions of inquiry, et cetera, and maybe deploying
peacekeepers, providing different forms of assistance. There
are so many tools in the toolbox.
So I think the concept of the responsibility to protect,
which is less important I think than U.S. practice and U.S.
policy, which is that when civilians are being murdered by
their governments or by nonstate actors, it is incumbent on us
to look to see if there is something we might do in order to
ameliorate the situation. And there is no one-size-fits-all
solution. There is no algorithm, nor should there be. If I am
confirmed to this position, I will act in the interests of the
American people and in accordance with our values. That is the
formula.
Senator Corker. And that action might take place under a
U.N. resolution or it might take place unilaterally. Is that
what you are saying?
Ms. Power. If you are referring to the use of military
force, the President needs to make judgments about when to use
military force on the basis of U.S. national interests.
I think what we have found in history is that there are
times where we have to work outside the Security Council
because the Security Council does not come along, although
Presidents have believed that it is in our national interest to
act.
There are times when we find it beneficial, of course, to
have Security Council authorization because then we tend to be
able to get some buy-in on the back end, maybe get some
assistance with peacekeeping or reconstruction assistance and
so forth. There is no question that internationally a Security
Council authorization is helpful, but from the standpoint of
American interests, it is U.S. national security interests and
the needs of the American people that are paramount.
Senator Corker. Thank you so much.
We may have a scare about just the overall growth of the
United Nations. I know that just in 2000, there was a $2.5
billion budget. It is now up to $5.4 billion. Some people have
advocated a zero growth policy. I would like for you to speak
to that and just whether you believe there are many, many
duplicative programs there that are wasteful and should be
looked at and streamlined.
Ms. Power. Well, thank you, Senator. Again, as I said in my
opening remarks, I completely share the spirit of your
question. These are such tough times for so many people here at
home that we have to be zealous in our scrutiny of every
program and every initiative that the American people are
helping to support through their generosity.
We have had, I think, significant success over the last 4
years on a U.N. reform agenda, building on some of the work
done by our predecessors. We have found in the peacekeeping
budget $560 million to cut, and that is a very substantial
amount when, as you say, the U.S. share of that budget is
significant.
The cuts can come when we have found, in the case of
peacekeeping, duplications where a peacekeeping mission in one
place is staffed or serviced logistically by one base and in
another mission there is another base supporting that
peacekeeping mission. Those have now been consolidated, and
that is where some of those savings have come.
The Security Council has closed down two peacekeeping
missions over the course of the last 4 years, and that is a
very important cost savings, again looking at the situation on
the ground and making sure that closing down a mission is
something that will not squander the gains that have already
been made, but very cognizant of the tough budget times that we
operate in.
We actually brought about the first budget reduction, I
believe, in 50 years in the history of the United Nations. It
is very important that we keep that sensitivity that I think we
have inculcated in New York going forward.
And as you and I discussed, I believe, in your office,
there are always countries who want to throw new programs onto
the table. But what I will commit to you, as I said in my
opening statement, is when I sit down, if confirmed, in New
York with the team and to go over the landscape and be as
aggressive as possible in seeking to deliver again on the
generosity of the American people.
Senator Corker. And that includes looking at other
longstanding peacekeeping missions that may or may not be
necessary.
Ms. Power. Indeed. I think we already, looking out on the
horizon, can see some that can be reduced in size and will be
reduced in size, which should bring about some savings.
Senator Corker. Richard Holbrooke was able to negotiate our
share back in 2000, I think it was, at being 25 percent, and it
got down to just a little under 26 percent I think in 2009. It
is back up today to 28.4 percent. And I am just interested in
your thoughts there and whether you would be willing to try
to--I know there are lots of Holbrooke doctrines, but if this
is one you would try to adopt.
Ms. Power. Certainly, sir, I commit to you that I will do
everything in my power to reduce the U.S. share of the
peacekeeping budget. There are complicated formulas that are
involved in that that we have inherited from our predecessors,
but I will do everything in my power to address that.
I will say also again that the absolute size of the
peacekeeping pie is critical to this as well. So in addition to
dealing with our share, we have to bring down, if we can, the
overall cost, and that becomes evermore challenging with al-
Qaeda and other terrorist actors out there on the scene
targeting the United Nations as they are because the cost of
peacekeeping missions has gone up in light of the threat posed
to U.N. workers, which we have seen cause very tragic
consequences in recent years.
Senator Corker. And briefly--I know we have to move on, but
your view of expanding permanent seats on the Security
Council--I know there has been some discussion there.
Ms. Power. Thank you, sir.
The effectiveness of the Security Council is very important
for U.S. interests, as I have described in my opening
statement. I think any expansion of the membership of the
United Nations Security Council should be one that both
increases the representativeness of the council, which is what
a lot of aspirants have emphasized, but also ensures the
effectiveness of the council. And so it is not enough just to
look to representativeness. We need to look at the degree to
which the Security Council is going to maintain international
peace and security. We do oppose, of course, giving up the
veto.
Senator Corker. Well, we have lots of people who come
before us, some of which are more interesting than others. I
have a feeling that you certainly are going to carve a path at
the United Nations. I look forward to watching that. And I do
appreciate the conversations we have had privately. I look
forward to you carrying out in the same way that we have
discussed things. I thank you for your willingness, and I
certainly look forward to your service. OK?
Ms. Power. Thank you so much, Senator.
The Chairman. Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Power, thank you so much for being here today and for
your willingness to take on this very important role. I
certainly intend to support your confirmation, and I hope the
entire Senate does as well.
You had an interesting exchange with Chair Menendez about
Iran sanctions. Obviously, one of the things that has changed
recently in Iran is the election of their new President, Mr.
Rohani. And I wonder if you think that offers an opening. He
has indicated that it is his intention to improve relations
with the United States. Do you think there is an opening there
with the new President-elect? And how can we pursue that? And
does the United Nations have a role in trying to move Mr.
Rohani and Iran to resume negotiations with the P5+1?
Ms. Power. Thank you, Senator, so much for raising that
issue.
I would say first that whatever the public statements out
of Iran, we have to remember the conditions that gave rise to
that election or the conditions surrounding that election,
which were the furthest thing from free, the furthest thing
from fair. And I do not think anybody can say that the election
in Iran represented the will of the Iranian people. I think we
saw the will of the Iranian people reflected in the previous
election and the democratic will of those people crushed. So
that is point one.
Second, I would say that our policy, the administration's
policy since I am not currently in the administration, is I
think very much reflective of the views of people here in this
body as well, which is verify, then trust, deeds not words. And
again, we have a negotiation track. It is something that we
want very much to succeed, and we recognize that we need to
increase the pressure in order to increase its chances for
success. And so we call upon the Iranians to engage that
process substantively in a way that has not happened to date.
Senator Shaheen. And is there further action that could be
taken at the United Nations that might help move the discussion
in a positive way?
Ms. Power. Again, to my exchange with Senator Menendez, I
think we have to look at everything. This is so critical. This
is so urgent. The clock is ticking. If there are steps that we
can take in the Security Council, we should take them. And
again, this is atop the list of urgent priorities in New York.
But beyond that, I think it is probably best to get into the
specifics in the event I am confirmed and can look at what is
possible.
Senator Shaheen. You mentioned in your opening statement
and you have written very eloquently about the tragedy in
Bosnia. And we have seen, since those days, that Croatia has
achieved EU membership. We are seeing some breakthroughs with
Serbia and Kosovo. But Bosnia really seems to be stalled. And
in talking to some of the folks who have been involved with
efforts in Bosnia for a very long time, they have suggested
that the structure that was set up as the result of the Dayton
Accords has made things more difficult there to really achieve
long-term resolution in the country for some of their
challenges.
Can you speak to that and to what more we might be able to
do to support efforts in Bosnia to move them toward EU
integration and further into the West?
Ms. Power. Thank you, Senator.
And as you know, yes, Bosnia is a country very close to my
heart.
I think what I would say is that, first, it is important to
put today's challenges in some context. The country is at
peace, at relative peace. It is an inspiring tribute, I think,
to American leadership when you travel to the country and see
the cafes open and see the hills no longer a source of target
practice for nationalists and extremists, but instead a source
of beauty. And it is a remarkable country and it is a
remarkably resilient people. So I think the United States can--
especially, again, the Americans who supported U.S. leadership
can feel some sense of satisfaction at what the United States
and our allies have done in preventing what was one of the most
horrific crises of the last half century.
Second, though, in terms of ethnic polarization, I agree
completely with your characterization. I think it is extremely
problematic when you go to central Bosnia and you see entrances
for Croatian students on one side of the building and for
Bosniac or Muslim students on the other side. I mean, how is
that possible in 2013 in Europe?
With regard, I think, to the degree to which the Dayton
structure is to blame versus the absence of political will in
the leadership across Bosnia, I have not worked on that issue
very much over the last 4 years. It is something I certainly
would be eager to look at if I return to the administration.
But I think starting with popular will, popular culture, doing
away with the polarization as a matter of social norms is also
something that needs to be done. And again, there are real
efforts, an amazing set of contributions by the international
community, and amazing leadership at the civil society level in
Bosnia. But of the leadership, we just have not seen that
commitment to multiethnicity that we need.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Finally, there is a relatively new office at the United
Nations that deals with women and empowering women around the
world. I think one of the things that we have realized more in
the last several decades is how important empowering women is
to the success of communities and countries, and that when
women have human rights and the opportunity to participate
fully in a society, that communities and countries do better.
So I wonder if you will commit to doing everything you can
to ensure that that office continues to operate in a way that
continues to support women around the world and recognize the
importance of the future legacy for that office.
Ms. Power. Absolutely, Senator. I think President Bachelet
did a remarkable job. As you know, we worked behind the scenes
with the Secretary General in order to try to bring about that
consolidation of all the efforts on women and girls across the
U.N. system. We are very encouraged with its launch, but
needless to say the stakes and the urgent needs in the real
world are very high. So the more support we can give, the
better. And I think U.N. Women is operating very well in tandem
with some of our bilateral programming on these issues as well.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Rubio.
Senator Rubio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Ms. Power. Congratulations on your
nomination. I know your family is proud of you.
As you recall from our meeting--and I highlighted this at
the time and I am sure you are aware of it--one of the parts of
any nomination is a nominee will be asked questions about
previous statements that they have made and asked to clarify
those. So I wanted to give you an opportunity to do that here
this morning. I am not sure that time will permit to go through
all of them, but I did want to go through a few. And I am sure
you are familiar with them. You have been asked about them
before.
So let me start by a 2002 interview where you advocated the
use of a, ``mammoth protection force,'' to impose a solution to
the Israel-Arab conflict saying external intervention was
needed. Do you still hold that view and how would you place
that in the context of today?
Ms. Power. Thank you, Senator, and thanks for giving me an
occasion to clarify in a very public setting my actual views.
I have disassociated myself from those comments many times.
I gave a long, rambling, and very remarkably incoherent
response to a hypothetical question that I should never have
answered.
What I believe in terms of Middle East peace is I think
what is obvious to all of us here which is peace can only come
about through a negotiated solution. There is no shortcut. That
is why Palestinian efforts at statehood--by the way, my
daughter does not like that quote either, just for the record.
[Laughter.]
Senator Rubio. We have all been heckled.
The Chairman. And we have all answered hypothetical
questions.
Ms. Power. Thank you, sir.
Palestinian unilateral statehood efforts within the U.N.
system--shortcuts of that nature just will not work. A
negotiated settlement is the only course.
Senator Rubio. OK.
Then in 2003 in an article, you recommended, ``a historical
reckoning with crimes committed, sponsored, or permitted by the
United States.'' Which crimes were you referring to, and which
decisions taken by the current administration would you
recommend for such a reckoning?
Ms. Power. Thank you, Senator. And again, thank you for
giving me occasion to respond to that.
I, as an immigrant to this country, think that this country
is the greatest country on earth, as I know do you. I would
never apologize for America. America is the light to the world.
We have freedoms and opportunities here that people dream about
abroad. I certainly did.
And with regard to that quote, one of the things that had
moved me I had, as some have mentioned, written very
critically--I guess Senator Isakson mentioned--written very
critically about the Clinton administration's response to the
Rwanda genocide back in 1994, written in great detail about
that. And President Clinton himself, as you know, had come
forward and expressed his regret that the United States did not
do more in the face of the genocide.
When I traveled to Rwanda, however, having been very, very
critical, I was stunned to see the degree to which Clinton's
visit to Rwanda, his apology for not having done more, how it
had resonated with Rwandans, how it had impacted their sense of
the United States and the kind of regard the United States had
for them. And it moved me and I probably very much overstated
the case in that article.
But the point, I think, that I was trying to make is that
sometimes we, as imperfect human beings, do things that we wish
we had done a little bit differently, and sometimes it can be
productive to engage in foreign publics--excuse me--engage with
foreign citizenry in a productive dialogue. And I think that is
what President Clinton did in the wake of the Rwandan genocide.
It had a great effect. It really meant a great deal. And that
is really all I was meaning.
Senator Rubio. So I would categorize the Rwanda situation
as a crime, the words you used, permitted by the United States.
Which ones did the United States commit or sponsor that you
were referring to?
Ms. Power. Again, sir, I think is the greatest country on
earth. We have nothing to apologize for.
Senator Rubio. So you do not have any in mind now that we
have committed or sponsored?
Ms. Power. I will not apologize for America. I will stand
very proudly, if confirmed, behind the U.S. placard.
Senator Rubio. No, I understand. But do you believe the
United States has committed or sponsored crimes?
Ms. Power. I believe the United States is the greatest
country on earth. I really do.
Senator Rubio. So your answer to whether we have committed
or sponsored crimes is that the United States is the greatest
country on earth.
Ms. Power. The United States is the leader in human rights.
It is the leader in human dignity. As you know, one of the
things that makes us so formidable as a leader on human rights
is that when we make mistakes--and mistakes happen, for
instance, in the case of Abu Ghraib in Iraq. Nobody is proud of
that. Virtually every American soldier operating in the world
is operating with profound honor and dignity. We hold people
accountable. That is what we do because we believe in human
rights. We believe in international humanitarian law and we
observe those laws. We are, again unlike any other country, a
country that stands by our principles.
Senator Rubio. What is the reckoning you referred to? What
would you consider reckoning for those instances that you have
just highlighted for example?
Ms. Power. I think when any of us who have the privilege of
serving in public office deviate in any way, we have procedures
in order to be held accountable--deviate any way from our own
laws, regulations, standards.
Senator Rubio. I understand, but that is true of the
individuals that committed those acts. What about the country?
Because your quote was about the United States committed or
sponsored a crime. What reckoning does the country have to face
in response to acts committed by individuals of that nature?
Because certainly that was not the command they had received.
Ms. Power. Again, sir, I mean, I gave the Rwanda example. I
think sometimes we see in the course of battle--unlike most
militaries around the world, we put every target every choice
through the most vigorous scrutiny, and occasionally there is
collateral damage even after all of that energetic effort. And
in those cases, we engage with foreign publics. That can be
done at a national level. That can be done at a local level. I
think there are various ways one can go about----
Senator Rubio. My time is about to expire, so two very
quick questions.
One is given an opportunity to restate what you wrote in
that 2003 article, it sounds like you would state it
differently.
Ms. Power. Indeed, sir, I would absolutely----
Senator Rubio. So let me bring you to a more recent one. In
a 2008 op-ed, you described the Bush administration's concern
about Iran as a, ``imagined crisis.'' And you said that,
``redundant reminders that military force is still on the
table,'' strengthen the regime.
Do you still hold the views that you held in 2008 with
regard to Iran? Is it still an imagined crisis? And do you
believe that reminders that military force is still on the
table strengthen the Iranian regime?
Ms. Power. Thank you, sir. I have never referred to Iran's
pursuit of a nuclear weapon as an imagined crisis. Ever. What I
have long argued is that it is important both to have a
pressure track and a negotiation track. And as we have
discussed here today, it is essential to kick up the pressure,
to tighten the vice. That is what the sanctions that I worked
on over the course of the last 4 years have done. That is what
we need to do in terms of, again, closing loopholes that have
been established by the Iranian regime. So, of course, part of
pressure is making very clear that military force is on the
table.
With respect to that article, I was stressing the
importance of also having a negotiation track so that if the
pressure could be intensified, there was an off-ramp so that
Iran could, in fact, give up its nuclear weapon, if they ever
chose to do so.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Murphy.
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Ms. Power.
The cold war is over and yet we have seen specifically most
recently with respect to our deliberations internationally over
Syria, that the juxtaposition between the United States and
Russia can effectively cripple deliberations of the United
Nations. Our relationship with them is obviously incredibly
complex. Lots of good news in the last decade: cooperation on
arms control, cooperation on antiterrorism efforts, willingness
to work together on Afghanistan that was maybe unexpected at
the beginning of that conflict. And yet, during that time, we
have seen a very rapid downward slide in terms of the status of
civil society in Russia.
And so without asking you to explain how you are going to
essentially negotiate every different political issue with
Russia, I would love for you to talk for a minute about what
the role of the Permanent Representative is to continue to
raise these issues of civil society and issues of human rights
abuses in Russia knowing, as we heard at a hearing not long
ago, that the State Department is preparing, as they told us,
to send forward another set of names to be added to the
Magnitsky Act which is going to further complicate
relationships with Russia but also give us a renewed platform
to raise some of these issues.
So the administration is always in a difficult position
because there are all sorts of important proactive work to do,
which sometimes makes it difficult for them to try to raise
issues of human rights. You will be in the same position
whereby you will be trying to get them to the table on things
that we care about, which may potentially compromise your
ability to call them to the table on the way in which they are
treating political opposition there.
So talk to me about how you strike that balance.
Ms. Power. Senator, thank you so much. It is, of course,
one of the most important relationships that has to be managed
in New York, and we have a whole range of interests, as you
have indicated, that flow through Moscow.
I think the challenge is to maintain--to stand up for U.S.
interests and to stand up for U.S. values. I mean, it is a sort
of simple formula. Sometimes our interests, of course,
necessitate cooperation, as you have again alluded to,
supplying our troops in Afghanistan, the North Korean and Iran
sanctions regimes where Russia has stepped up and supported
multilateral sanctions that are critical in our larger effort.
These are examples where we have found a way to work with
Russia.
But we can never be silent in the face of a crackdown on
civil society, something I mentioned in my opening remarks
today. We can never be silent--to get to an exchange I know
Senator McCain had earlier in the week or last week, we can
never be silent when the Russian Government sentences Sergei
Magnitsky or convicts him of a crime rather than looking into
those who are responsible for his death. I mean, we have to use
the pulpit. We have to use the platform. We have to recognize
that when the placard says ``The United States,'' people around
the world, including across Russian civil society, are looking
to the United States for leadership.
And I do think we can do both at once. I think it is
extremely challenging, and there is no question that threading
that needle and making sure that you do not sort of silence
yourself and silence the values of your nation in the service
of your short-term needs--it is a big challenge. Every diplomat
has, I think, faced it. But I think our greatest ambassadors in
New York are remembered for how they stood up for our values.
Senator Murphy. I do not want to steal Senator McCain's
thunder on this issue. He has been a hero. But we are at a
fulcrum point, and the problem is not only the very quick
downward slide in Russia. It is that their neighbors are
watching them and we are confronting many of the same issues,
whether it be in the Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan. And when the
United States does not stand up at the United Nations to
Russia, then that is a signal to them that we may allow for
them to engage in that same kind of behavior.
Quickly to turn to the issue of climate change, a really
wonderful new initiative at the United Nations surrounding the
issue of short-lived climate pollutants and fast-acting climate
pollutants, specifically working with other nations to try to
engage in best practices for the capture of methane coming out
of landfills to work, as the United Nations has been doing for
years, on building a new type of cook stove to downgrade the
amount of black carbon escaping into the atmosphere--there is
technology and best practices out there today with respect to
noncarbon dioxide emissions. We are going to have a big fight
over a new international global warming treaty, but there are
some relatively simple things that you can do when it comes to
just managing landfills better or trying to get $15 cook stoves
into the hands of more Indians and Chinese.
I think the answer to my question as to whether you are
going to continue to help lead on this issue is probably self-
evident, but this potentially allows for some of the quickest
gains in the interim between now and when we ultimately get an
operative global warming agreement in 2020. And you can play an
incredibly important role in trying to move forward the work of
the United Nations to engage in voluntary measures with member
countries to try to engage in best practices as to decreasing
the release of short-lived common pollutants, and we would love
to see your leadership on that.
Ms. Power. Thank you, sir. You will have it.
Senator Murphy. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Power, welcome. Like Senator Corker, I certainly
enjoyed our conversation. It was very interesting. I think you
will be a force.
I also want to thank you for your willingness to serve. You
have got a young family. It will be a sacrifice. So we truly do
appreciate it.
I also recognize you are a pretty prolific writer. I did
compare notes. I actually had another 2003 article which I
found very interesting. There are a number of interesting
comments you make in that. And I do have to ask you some
questions. And I realize your thoughts can certainly change
over time, but there are certainly some quotes here that do
disturb me.
Kind of going back to what we talked about in our office, I
was very disappointed in President Obama early in his term
going around the country on, you know, basically what has been
called as an apology tour. I do not believe that is helpful.
You are saying you will never apologize for America now. That
is good.
But back in this article, this was full force in the New
Republic, March 3, 2003. You said a country has to look back
before it can move forward. Instituting a doctrine of mea culpa
would enhance our credibility by showing that American
decisionmakers do not endorse the sins of the predecessors.
Kind of going back to what Senator Rubio was talking about,
which sins are you talking about there? And do you think
President Obama's apology tour was well advised? Did that work
very well?
Ms. Power. Thank you, Senator. I do not know if it is good
news, but the quote that Senator Rubio was referring to is the
same quote as this. So my response is similar.
But let me start just by saying what I should have said
perhaps at the beginning before, which is I have written
probably 2 million words in my career, a million, 2 million. I
have certainly lost track. Only my husband, Cass Sunstein,
has--well, there are others perhaps who have written more, but
Cass has left most of humanity in the dust in terms of
prolificness.
There are things that I have written that I would write
very differently today, and that is one of them, particularly
having served in the executive branch----
Senator Johnson. Move forward in terms of President Obama's
apology tour, the reset with Russia. I mean, has that worked?
Was that a good strategy for us to go across the world and
actually provide that mea culpa? Do you think that was good or
bad? Did it work or did not work?
Ms. Power. I am not sure exactly to what you are--are you
talking about the reset?
Senator Johnson. We can talk about reset, sure.
Ms. Power. So the reset, again, is I think something that
has yielded a very complex set of consequences. In some
respects such as Syria, the reset has not produced the kind of
dividend that we seek in New York and with devastating
consequences again for the people of Syria.
On shipping supplies and reinforcing our troops in
Afghanistan, the fact that we have a channel of dialogue and
cooperation with Russia has produced results.
Honestly, the sanctions imposed against Iran back in 2011,
the sanctions resolutions we have imposed even recently on
North Korea--they come about in part because the bilateral
relationship is strong, at least strong enough to allow us to
agree on issues of shared interests.
There is also a lot, which I did not mention in response to
Senator Murphy, that goes unseen. And again, none of this takes
away from the crackdown on civil society, takes away from
Snowden and his presence in Moscow, takes away from Magnitsky,
takes away again from Syria. But there are things that happen
on the Security Council, for instance, Russian support for
robust peacekeeping action in Ivory Coast, Russian support for
the South Sudan referendum going off on time, which was a major
mass atrocity averted. So we work with them where we can get
them to see that their interests align with ours and that their
interests align with maintaining international peace and
security.
Senator Johnson. You had mentioned earlier that Assad will
fall. I think we have heard that in the past where it is not a
matter of ``if'' but ``when.'' It seems like he is getting more
entrenched, and I am not quite so sure. Do you believe there
was a point in time, had we shown leadership, that we could
have tipped the scales and he could have already fallen by now?
Have we missed opportunities?
Ms. Power. Thank you, sir.
Look, I think the situation on the ground right now is very
worrying for a whole host of reasons. First, the military gains
that the Assad regime has made lately; second, the fact of
chemical weapons use in recent months; third, something you and
I talked about I believe, the growth of the extremist presence
within the opposition, et cetera. So I think nobody is
satisfied with where we are today. I know the President is not.
And the administration is constantly examining and reexamining
how it can heighten the pressure on Assad so as to hasten that
day that he departs.
I guess to come back to my comment where, given some of the
facts on the ground right now, how I could say something of
that nature, just again I think history shows that regimes that
brutalize their own people in that manner, that totally forfeit
their legitimacy, that do not abide by even basic norms of
human decency--they just do not have the support to sustain
themselves. So the day of reckoning will come. I agree
certainly, wholeheartedly with your concern that the day is not
coming soon enough.
Senator Johnson. Obviously he is going to fall because we
are all mortal.
Getting back to that article, the final concluding
paragraph, embedding U.S. power in an international system and
demonstrating humility would be painful, unnatural steps for
any empire, never mind the most important empire in the history
of mankind, but more pain now will mean far less pain later.
Do you believe America is an empire?
Ms. Power. I believe that we are a great and strong and
powerful country and the most powerful country in the history
of the world, also the most inspirational. Again, that is
probably not a word choice that I would use today having
served----
Senator Johnson. Fair enough.
Besides giving up a pinch of sovereignty will not deprive
the United States of the tremendous military and economic
leverage it has at its disposal in the last resort. So you are
basically recommending that we give up a pinch of sovereignty.
Is that still your view?
Ms. Power. One of the things that I would do every day, if
confirmed for this position, is defend U.S. sovereignty. I
think nothing that I have supported the last 4 years would ever
have that effect of giving up U.S. sovereignty. It is
nonnegotiable.
Senator Johnson. So your thinking has changed on that then.
Ms. Power. Again, serving in the executive branch is very
different than sounding off from an academic perch. Yes.
Senator Johnson. Good. I appreciate your answers. Thank
you.
Ms. Power. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Welcome, Ms. Power, and congratulations. I
look forward to working together. You have the ideal
intellectual and values credentials for this position. When I
heard of the appointment, though, my first reaction was, wow,
she is pretty blunt and outspoken. I do not think blunt and
outspoken is actually usually a great qualification for a
diplomatic post, but actually for this one, it is because my
experience with the United Nations is it is vague and
amorphous, and then you translate vague and amorphous into six
languages. [Laughter.]
And I think the United Nations could use a lot more blunt
and outspoken, and I think that is part of the reason why you
are going to do a very good job in that position.
I visited the United Nations recently and spent a day with
Ambassador Rice, and I would encourage any Member of the Senate
to do it. To go to a Security Council meeting even on a topic
that may not be the one that you are most passionate about is
instructive, and you immediately sense some of the dynamics,
some of the good, some of the bad.
One of the things that I really came away with from that
visit, even seeing good and bad, was a real pride, a pride in
this country for having been such a key part in creating the
institution. You know, it was an American President who had the
visionary idea in the aftermath of World War I to try to create
something like it in the League of Nations, and neither the
American public nor Congress or really the world embraced the
idea.
But America would not let the dream die. And in the closing
days of World War II, President Roosevelt and his advisors
planned it. President Roosevelt did not get to see it. He died
before the San Francisco conference.
President Truman had two decisions to make in his first two
days in office, first, whether to keep the Roosevelt Cabinet--
and he decided to do it--and second, when he was asked if we
should cancel or postpone the San Francisco meeting that was
going to happen within weeks of President Roosevelt's death, he
decided that we needed to carry it forward.
And so for all the frustrations of the United Nations--and
there are many, and I am going to ask you about my chief one in
a second. But for all the frustrations, it was the United
States that would not let the dream of an international
institution of this type die. It was birthed here. We have
nursed it along. We have funded it. We have kept it going. We
have hoped for its improvement. We battled for its improvement.
And of the many things to be proud about about this country,
the United Nations I think is one. And yet, there are a lot of
frustrations.
I was in Israel in April 2009. I was at Yad Vashem, at Yom
HaShoah, as a guest of Prime Minister Netanyahu. And at the
very moment we were there, the United Nations had convened an
antiracism conference, Durban II, in Geneva, and it invited
President Ahmadinejad to be one of the keynote speakers. Now,
the United States, this administration boycotted that
conference in Geneva, encouraged other nations to boycott it as
well. Many other nations did. Some others attended and then
walked out during Ahmadinejad's speech.
But I think one of the things that we wrestle with here and
I think the American public wrestles with, too, is the
psychology within an institution that was so critical to the
formation of the State of Israel, to the beginning of the State
of Israel. Explain, because you have been involved with the
institution, the psychology that puts Israel on the permanent
agenda to talk about human rights when North Korea is not, when
so many other nations are not. Israel is not perfect, but
neither is the United States and neither is any of the member
nations of the United Nations. You can be frustrated about the
lack of pace toward a two-state solution, but we can think of
frustrations about any nation that is a member of the United
Nations.
I think the single thing that is the hardest for American
citizens to grapple with is the continual drumbeat out of the
United Nations that is hostile to the nation of Israel and it
seems to hold Israel to a standard that is different than other
nations that ought to also have their time under the microscope
in terms of the analysis of their flaws and the recommendations
for improving those flaws.
So with your experience in the institution and in working
in these areas, I would love for you just to explain to us what
is it about the psychology of the body that makes Israel the
perennial punching bag at the United Nations.
Ms. Power. Thank you so much, Senator.
The constant delegitimation of Israel across the U.N.
system, as I indicated in my opening remarks, is a source of
almost indescribable concern to me and to this administration.
As the President's U.N. advisor the last 4 years, working with
the team in New York, our team in Geneva and elsewhere, we
pushed day in/day out to contest this kind of delegitimation.
In terms of the psychology, what I will say is that fewer
than half of the countries within the United Nations are
democratic. When you are not democratic, it helps to have a
diversion. It helps to scapegoat other countries. And I think
that is part of the psychology, is just having sort of a
reliable way of changing the subject, and that is what these
countries have done over so many years.
We have contested this, again, day in/day out. I
spearheaded the decision not to participate in Durban II,
because it reaffirmed Durban I which was so problematic. We
stood up against the Goldstone Report, against attempts to
politicize and judge Israel over the flotilla incident in the
Human Rights Council which, as you know, we have joined in part
to be within that institution to stand up for Israel. We have
succeeded in cutting down the number of special sessions,
cutting down the number of country-specific resolutions. But
given, again, what I said at the start, the fact that there is
a standing agenda item for one country--and that is Israel--and
not for Cuba and not for North Korea and not for Iran just
reflects a lack of seriousness and just how political and
politicized this has become and unfair this has become.
Senator Kaine. I do not have another question, but I will
just conclude, Mr. Chair, by saying I think the blunt and
outspoken part of you will really be pressed in the service in
this job. And I think the best ambassadors that we have had
have been willing to do that, and it is issues like this double
standard with respect to Israel that really demand very blunt
and outspoken American leadership. And I wish you well.
Ms. Power. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Senator Flake.
Senator Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for the answers so far. I appreciate you coming
by my office and the discussion. It was nice to discover we
have a mutual interest and time spent in Zimbabwe and writing
on the subject too. And thanks for sending those articles.
With regard to the United Nations, our law requires that we
compile a list, an analysis of who votes with us and who votes
against us, and it is sometimes frustrating to see so many
countries where we play a vital role, in terms of aid and
development and in their economy and see them just continually
go against us. It sometimes seems in the General Assembly, if
it were not for Israel, Palau, and the Marshall Islands, we
would not have any friends. But in fact, I think 131 countries
in the United Nations vote against the U.S. position more than
50 percent of the time. In the 2012 General Assembly, there
were about eight resolutions that went before the General
Assembly that were deemed important by the State Department,
and countries voting with us--just about 34 percent of them
voted with our position.
How can we change that culture? What can we do to better
that situation?
You and I have seen situations--just take the country of
Namibia where the General Assembly had long declared just one
of the parties as the sole and authentic representative of the
Namibian people, which was highly detrimental I think for a
number of years and forestalled negotiations that should have
happened. But then the Security Council came in with a
resolution that actually paved the way for Namibian
independence and played a vital role and a good role. And so we
see both within the same institution, just the difference
between the General assembly and the Security Council.
How can we in the General Assembly have a better situation
where countries recognize that we are friendlier than we seem I
guess?
Ms. Power. Thank you, Senator.
This issue of voting divergence is critical. It has been
acutely frustrating. I will say if you could look at the charts
that show the trend lines, we are trending more positively than
you would expect. I would say in the General assembly----
Senator Flake. It is a pretty low base, but yes.
Ms. Power. It is a low base. It is. I very much agree with
that.
I do not think the convergence rate is trending positively
in the General Assembly on Israel, however. And again, that is
something that we have to fight every day to try to change.
But with regard to other countries, it is acutely
frustrating. I mean, some of it relates to my response to
Senator Kaine's question, which is standing up to the United
States can be a cheap and easy political win for a small
country to show that they are not with us. But again and again,
we see them voting against their interests. And in the case of
those countries that are democratic, either fully free or
partly free, we see them acting in defiance of the values that
they are most proud of in their own countries. And that is the
conversation I have certainly sought to have over the last 4
years with countries who vote en masse as part of regional
groupings reflexively rather than thoughtfully. And again, we
are nibbling away at it.
But it is an urgent priority for any incoming official in
New York. And if I am confirmed, getting countries to vote
their interests and their values, getting them to see the
importance of maintaining international peace and security,
doing that has huge consequences for the United States, but it
has huge consequences for these countries as well. Taking
advantage of the fact that a lot of countries, including
several important African countries, are involved in U.N.
peacekeeping, to get their countries engaged in the politics in
the countries where their troops and their police are
deployed--so there are just a lot of disconnects I think
between at least what we would perceive as beneficial for those
countries and, as you suggest, how they have performed on
various votes. And we just have to keep fighting every day and
be aggressive in our pursuit of convergence, not divergence.
Senator Flake. On that last point, with Zimbabwe, a country
that we are both very interested in, elections are scheduled
July 31, likely too soon to have any real prospect of free and
fair elections or elections that mean anything. Can you foresee
a role for the United Nations, a broader role than is currently
planned, in that situation?
Ms. Power. Thank you, Senator.
I mean, that is certainly something we should look to. It
has been very difficult for the United States, very difficult
for United Nations programs that Zimbabwe most needs, for
instance, a human rights office, development assistance that is
spread equally across the country irrespective of the politics
of the recipients, et cetera, the kinds of standards we would
want to see as part of our assistance with the Mugabe regime,
just almost impossible to operate in that environment.
And so I think the hope would be that in the wake of the
election and certainly with the passage of authority to new
leadership, that there is an opening to have a conversation
about what an impactful U.N. presence would look like and how
it could contribute to what has to happen in Zimbabwe, which is
a meaningful transition to democracy.
And I would note--and I know you are more familiar with
this than I am--but the civil society in Zimbabwe is
unbelievable. I mean, just they keep slogging along and
battling it out, going to court, getting released from court,
going on hunger strike, going again and again back at the
regime, refusing to accept that Zimbabwe cannot achieve its
promise. And again, I think the United States has a critical
role. They look to us for leadership. They have some friends in
the U.N. system, but they are now outliers. You know, friends
like Cuba and Iran, et cetera are not credible.
So given that there is a moment of opportunity potentially
upon us, I think we have to look at what programming could be
helpful.
Senator Flake. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome and thank you for your continued service and
advocacy on behalf of human rights. I am glad you are able to
correct the record on some of your past statements. Speaking
for myself and my colleagues, I have never said anything that I
later regretted or wanted to correct in the record. [Laughter.]
And I note your young son there. He has a future in the
diplomatic corps if he has been able to sit quietly through
this ordeal. I congratulate you on this. There he is.
In your testimony, you called the failure of the U.N.
Security Council--failure to respond in Syria a disgrace that
history will judge harshly. Do you think that the Security
Council will ever authorize an international military
intervention in Syria certainly in the foreseeable future?
Ms. Power. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for all that
you have done for me and my family. Thank you for all you have
done for Syria.
Right now, the fact that the Security Council has not
managed even to pass a condemnatory resolution, never mind
economic sanctions, to this point not even anything on chemical
weapons use, I think we could start there in terms of where we
would seek to move the Russians. The Russian position, as you
know----
Senator McCain. I got you. I have got about three or four
questions.
Ms. Power. Oh, please. Go ahead.
Senator McCain. Go ahead. The answer is I think is not
likely in the near future.
Ms. Power. That is probably better put.
Senator McCain. Is that correct?
I was struck by an article by Anne Marie Slaughter in a
piece she published in the Financial Times that said that the
article 52 of the U.N. Charter could serve as a basis for
international action in Syria in the event that regional
organizations like NATO and the Arab League notify the Security
Council of their actions as required by article 54, but not
necessarily seek approval. Do you believe that article 52 of
the U.N. Charter could serve as a basis for international
military intervention in Syria by regional organizations?
Ms. Power. Well, Senator, as you know, the President's
policy is to focus on all forms of assistance to the opposition
to build up the opposition. In terms of the legal rationales,
that is not something I feel eqiupped to weigh in on.
Senator McCain. I hope you will look at that because that
is specifically under your area, article 52 of the U.N.
Charter, because I think with 100,000 people massacred, we are
going to have to look at every option that we possibly can.
Senator Lindsey Graham, with the help of our chairman and
ranking member, has passed a couple of authorizations
concerning Iran. He has now authored, with a large number of
us, a resolution by the Senate or Congress that would authorize
the use of force on Iran if the Iranian nuclear progress
reached a point that the President has described as
unacceptable.
What do you think about that?
Ms. Power. Well, sir, as somebody aspiring to go back into
the executive branch, it may not surprise you that I would want
to ensure that the President had the flexibility that he needed
to make a judgment that he thought best on behalf of the
American people.
Senator McCain. Well, it authorizes him to use force. In
fact, it gives him flexibility.
Ms. Power. Having not studied the authorization, I probably
should not comment.
Senator McCain. I think it is very important because I do
not think there is anyone who would argue that the Iranians
have proceeded undeterred from their pursuit of the ability to
acquire and use nuclear weapons. I think you would agree with
that. Which means that matters are probably going to come to a
head, at least in the view of some experts, within 6 months to
a year. You would agree.
Ms. Power. That is certainly what our assessments have
shown.
Senator McCain. Everybody has for you the cheapest
commodity in this town, and that is advice. So I will not
exempt myself from that privilege.
I have known and admired many men and women who have served
as our Ambassador to the United Nations, and I agree that it is
a very important position. The one I admire most is a woman
named Jeane Kirkpatrick. I hope you will look at her record of
service in the United Nations. She spoke truth to power. She
took on the vested interests. She argued for budgetary
restraint. She spoke up for the United States of America in a
way that I think still many of us admire her and we revere her
memory. So when you look at the record of your predecessors, as
I have looked at my predecessors in the United States Senate, I
hope you will be instructed to some degree by her performance
which I think made all Americans who had a very poor opinion of
the United Nations very proud of the role she played speaking
for them in the United Nations.
Ms. Power. Absolutely, sir. I actually got to know her a
little bit as an intern in this town in the early 1990s when
she was a forceful advocate on Bosnia long after her service in
New York and absolutely will study her legacy.
Senator McCain. Well, I hope you will continue the work you
have done in speaking up for human rights. We are about to see
a Middle East that is already imploding. You may be faced with
issues before the United Nations and the Security Council, the
likes of which we have not seen. So I know that you will
preserve your fundamental beliefs in the supremacy of the role
of the United States in the world and our advocacy for the
freedoms that are so important to all of us. So I look forward
to having you go to work as soon as possible.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Power, first of all, your work in Idaho has not gone
unnoticed, and we thank you for that. It is greatly
appreciated.
Thank you for coming to see me, and you and I talked about
a number of things. One of the things I am concerned about is
one of the matters that Senator Corker raised, and that is
reform at the United Nations.
People in America are not happy with the growth and
particularly with what seems to be this expanding reach. The
United Nations plays an important role when it comes to
peacekeeping, when it comes to nations being able to sit down
and resolve their differences. But this continued growth and
this continued reach in the areas that really are the sovereign
concern of an individual nation bothers me and I think it
bothers a lot of Americans.
What are your thoughts on that?
Ms. Power. May I ask you to be more specific? If not
peacekeeping, what do you have in mind in terms of----
Senator Risch. Well, I am talking about just the continued
growth of the size of it and its reach into areas. I have one
particular item in mind but I am not going to raise it as it
would probably divide the panel as we talk here. But this
continual arena in the matters that are sovereign concerns of
individual nations is concerning.
Ms. Power. OK. Well, let me, if I could, address maybe two
dimensions of that, one, the growth, and then second, maybe
U.N. treaties which tend to raise sovereignty concerns----
Senator Risch. Always.
Ms. Power [continuing]. Particularly in this body, yes.
So in terms of the size, you mentioned peacekeeping, and I
appreciate your recognition and we discussed this in our
meeting as well that peacekeeping can perform an important
service. Mali is a great example today of a mission that 3
years ago, if you had said in 2013, are we going to have a
peacekeeping mission in Mali, we would have said Mali--why
peacekeeping there at that time? And yet, in the wake of the
French intervention, we cannot afford to squander the gains
that have been made and to allow al-Qaeda to regain a foothold
in that country. And again, the peacekeepers are not going to
be challenging al-Qaeda but they are going to be strengthening
the Malian Armed Forces who, hopefully, then will have occasion
or will be in a strong position to hold off any further
resurgence. So that is just one example of something that sort
of comes onto our plate because the world demands it.
The Iraq and Afghanistan missions are much bigger now than
they were 5 years ago--the U.N. missions, that is, political
missions. And of course, it is in our interest to see those
missions do important work particularly in the wake of our
withdrawal from Iraq and as we draw down from Afghanistan. The
last thing we want to see after all of the sacrifices that
Americans have made is those gains in terms of political
reforms and political transition and the road to democracy--
those gains squandered.
So, you know, that is the good side of the growth.
Senator Risch. Let me ask a little more----
Ms. Power. Pardon me. Okay.
Senator Risch. Have you been an advocate for any areas for
the United Nations to expand into that they are not already
into? I do not mean geographical areas. I mean just issue
concerns. Is their reach broad enough, I guess, is what I am
asking.
Ms. Power. There are two issues. One is are there places
the United Nations should go where they have not gone. Nothing
is coming to mind.
Senator Risch. I am not talking about places.
Ms. Power. No, no, no. Sorry. I meant thematic areas.
The United Nations touches so many social and economic
developments, peace, and security issues, but there is plenty.
And I would cite corruption as one where there is a U.N.
Convention on Corruption, but the modalities of actually
tackling corruption in countries around the world are not as
strong as I think they could be. And so there is an example
where there is reach, but not necessarily substance or
sufficient substance. And so those are the kinds of gaps.
So there are two forms of cuts that one would seek. One is,
is there just extraneous stuff being done that was started 50
years ago for one reason and persists today for no good reason?
That, of course, we would need to--or even if it started 10
years ago or 5 years ago. And that is where we draw down
peacekeeping missions when the original motivation for those
peacekeeping missions has gone away or has been addressed. And
then beyond shrinkage are the things the United Nations is
doing that it should be doing but that it is not doing well,
where we increase effectiveness and not just efficiencies. And
so I think both have to be an area of emphasis.
But my message to you, you know, which I hope I have
expressed forcefully, is that the American people are making
cuts. This Congress and this President are negotiating how to
get our fiscal house in order. It is not tenable for the United
Nations to exist immune from that conversation. I do not think
it has in the sense that I think the administration has really
pushed it to tighten its belt, and I think that is where we
found more than half a billion dollars in savings in
peacekeeping just in the last year.
Senator Risch. Let me touch on just a couple other things.
Ms. Power. Please.
Senator Risch. Because my time is running out here.
First of all, as Senator McCain said, advice is rampant in
this town, and I want to give you mine. I hope, as you go to
the United Nations, you will take the view that America is
unique and exceptional, and we are a unique and exceptional
people. We need to hold our heads high. We need to be proud. We
need to not apologize for things that we do. We are leaders in
this world. We need to be leaders in this world, and I
certainly hope that when you go to the United Nations, you will
convey that to them that we are a proud people and we do good
things. And if you look around the world, the world would not
be what it is today without the leadership of America when it
comes to quality of life or anything else.
Finally, let me say one of my concerns, as we talked about,
is Israel. There is a lot of us. In fact, Senator Rubio
yesterday or today dropped a bill on the United Nations
Transparency, Accountability, and Reform Act. I do not know if
you are familiar with that or not. A number of us are
cosponsors of that bill. And it has some really good reform
provisions in it, and particularly one of the several
provisions has to do with withholding the United States
contributions to any U.N. entity that grants full membership to
the Palestinian Authority. As you know, there has been a push
to do that in some of the operations of the United Nations to
include the Palestinian Authority in the absence of a
negotiated peace settlement with Israel. We want to see that. I
am sure you want to see that. Everyone wants to see that. One
of the ways I think we need to do that is to insist that the
United States withhold contributions to any U.N. entity that
would grant full membership to the Palestinian Authority.
Do you have any thoughts on that?
Ms. Power. Thank you, sir.
First, on your first point on advice, I have spent my whole
career standing up for American values.
Senator Risch. Thank you.
Ms. Power. And I will not apologize for America. American
leadership is the light to the world. I could not agree more.
Second, we need to deter the Palestinians in any way we
can, and we need to get their attention. They have held off
but, as you know, they have made clear their previous intention
to join various U.N. agencies in the wake of the General
Assembly vote last fall.
The one caution I would issue--and again, we are completely
aligned on preventing the Palestinians from seeking unilateral
actions at the United Nations. The one caution is that when we
are out of U.N. agencies, which would be the consequence
ultimately of defunding U.N. agencies, we cannot stand up for
Israel, we cannot stand up for American values, we are not
there leading on a range of other U.S. interests. And so I just
think we have to find the right balance.
Senator Risch. That is the decision the agency has got to
make if it goes ahead with that kind of proposal. And I think
we ought to put them in that position where if they are going
to make that judgment, they are going to live with the
consequences of it.
So thank you for your thoughts on that. Thank you for your
candor on that.
My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to follow up a little bit of what Senator
Risch has talked about.
First, congratulations to you and to your family, and I
appreciate you coming by to visit on issues.
I want to talk about the U.S. Arms Trade Treaty. When
Secretary Kerry came before this committee in January of this
year, I asked him during his confirmation process if he would
support any treaty that allows the United Nations to establish
and maintain a gun registry on law-abiding U.S. gunowners. He
stated in writing that we will not support a treaty that
impacts domestic arms transfers or creates a U.N. gun registry.
I have that U.N. Arms Trade Treaty here, and article 12 is
called ``Recordkeeping.'' It encourages countries to maintain
records on the importation of conventional arms, including
small arms. It specifically requests that the states maintain
records on the quantity, the value, the model, the type, and
the end user. These records, it says, must be maintained for a
minimum of 10 years.
Article 13, titled ``Reporting''--that requires signatory
states to issue annual reports to the United Nations on all
imports and exports.
So the question I have is, Do you believe that this
framework could lead to a U.N. gun registry?
Ms. Power. Thank you, Senator.
Let me start just by saying again that we in this
administration and certainly I, if I have the privilege of
going to New York, would never do anything that would infringe
on U.S. sovereignty or that would interfere in any way with
American law. Second Amendment rights are paramount. American
law is paramount. The Constitution is paramount.
Again, in terms of what the U.N.'s designs are in taking
that treaty forward, I am not myself familiar with those. I
think what is important is that Secretary Kerry has given you
the assurance that nothing the administration put forward with
regard to that treaty would ever contemplate a gun registry in
this country or our participation in a gun registry. So I think
that the key point is, irrespective of the provisions that you
have pointed to, the United States, in dealing with this body
in any future engagement on the Arms Trade Treaty, would never,
again, allow anything in that treaty to interfere with American
law or American practice.
Senator Barrasso. So the simple question would be, Do you
support the United Nations in establishing and maintaining a
gun registry on law-abiding U.S. gunowners?
Ms. Power. No.
Senator Barrasso. The answer is no. Thank you.
Following up on also what some other members have asked
about in terms of U.N. budget, reporting to Congress, in 2009-
2010, the Office of Management and Budget provided Congress
with a list of total U.S. contributions to the United Nations
from the State Department, as well as 18 other U.S. departments
and agencies. And I believe this information is valuable for
all citizens. I think it is important for everyone to
understand how the United States is spending taxpayer money at
the United Nations. I do not want to quiz you on the specifics
of the budget, but I would ask, do you support transparency of
U.S. funding?
Ms. Power. I do, sir.
Senator Barrasso. Support the Congress and the American
people receiving a report from OMB on an annual basis on U.S.
contributions provided to the United Nations?
Ms. Power. Full transparency I think to sustain support
for, again, the generous contributions that the American people
make--you have to provide transparency.
Senator Barrasso. The other question that you raised is the
issue of sovereignty. Your position is very important. Can you
just talk a little bit about how you plan on preserving and
protecting American sovereignty within the United Nations?
Ms. Power. Well, one starts, of course, sir, by asserting
again and again the importance of American sovereignty. It also
involves protecting the interests and projecting the values of
the United States within the United Nations when countries seek
to judge us and take steps, any steps, that would interfere,
again, with domestic law or domestic practice, to stand up
against that and to fight for our laws to be ascendant as they
are within this country.
Senator Barrasso. Can you talk a little about your
commitment to challenging the actions of the United Nations
that run contrary to our standards, our values, and our
interests?
Ms. Power. Well, I think there are at least two dimensions
to that, one on the mismanagement side. That certainly runs
contrary to our aspirations for how we govern ourselves. And
then again, on the values side, whether it is corruption or
those countries that trample human dignity or that stand with
human rights abusers, we have to use the bully pulpit and be
forceful in contesting that wherever we can and also creatively
thinking about what other tools we can do beyond speaking out,
what tools we could put in place in order to halt those
practices.
Senator Barrasso. Can you talk a little bit about what
measures you might use in assessing whether or not to veto a
specific U.N. resolution, just how you would think about those
things?
Ms. Power. Obviously, any discussion or decision about
using the veto would be something that one would have in the
context of the interagency and so forth, but we will not allow
anything to go through the Security Council that we deem a
threat to U.S. national security interests. And that is, I
think, a broad standard but a critical one.
Senator Barrasso. I wanted to follow up a little bit with
Senator Risch on the Palestinian Authority. I have a number of
written questions that I will submit.
I am just wondering how you are going to make it clear to
the Palestinians that their actions at the United Nations will
have serious implications and consequences.
Ms. Power. Well, I know from having worked this issue for
the last 2 years that we make it clear in every bilateral
encounter we have with the Palestinians that it will have
serious consequences. Moreover, it will have serious
consequences not just to the United States-Palestinian
bilateral relationship but to the peace process which the
Palestinians have invested in and which all of us have an
interest in seeing bear fruit. I think there is legislation up
here as well that would impose direct symbolic and financial
consequences in terms of the Palestinian office and some of the
funding, and the Palestinians have been made well aware of
those consequences as well.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Paul.
Senator Paul. Congratulations on your nomination, and
thanks for coming today.
Was the recent military takeover in Egypt a coup?
Ms. Power. Thank you, Senator.
As you know and as we discussed, I share the President's
concern and your concern over the seizure of power from
President Morsi, the suspension of the constitution, the
arrests, et cetera.
On the legal matter and on the review that the
administration is carrying out, I just do not feel equipped to
comment not now serving in the administration, not having
access to full facts and not being part of the review.
Senator Paul. So for the record, you are unsure if it is a
coup.
Ms. Power. I do not feel equipped to comment.
Senator Paul. Very politic of your answer.
You stated that whenever a government is killing its
citizens, it is morally incumbent, I presume, for us to
intervene. In Pakistan, they kill their citizens for certain
types of speech. Does that mean we should intervene in
Pakistan?
Ms. Power. Thank you, Senator.
The quotation that you read surprises me because that is
not language that I would normally use, but let me refine my
own view, if I could.
``Intervene'' is a word that can mean a range of things.
When you speak out in a country to contest gross violations of
human rights or mass atrocities, that is a form of intervention
in the sense that you are, in a way, meddling in the internal
affairs of a state on behalf of human rights. Economic
sanctions are a form of response. I think in the face of gross
violations of human rights, mass atrocity, genocide--and this
is, again, something we discussed yesterday--we have a vast
array of tools in the toolbox: assistance----
Senator Paul. I guess my specific question then would be
are you willing today to speak out against the practice of
killing people for making religious statements that are
objectionable to certain religions.
Ms. Power. Absolutely, sir. I have spent my whole life
speaking out about such.
Senator Paul. Because I mean, that is part of it. I think
we have become so timid with certain of these--you know, at the
very least we can call them intolerances, but basically killing
people for religious speech I think is something we should not
be ashamed of speaking out about. I am not proposing we invade
Pakistan to tell them how to lead their lives in their country,
but I am saying that not only should we speak out about it, we
should make our aid contingent upon it. Do you think any aid to
these countries should be contingent behavior?
Ms. Power. Well, sir, again as we discussed, I think every
tool in the toolbox needs to be reviewed, and depending on the
circumstances--it is a little hard to speak in the abstract,
but we need to use the levers we have at our disposal,
consistent with our other interests because we do retain other
interests, of course, with these countries as well, but
certainly examine anything we can do to deter such horrible
practices.
Senator Paul. When we intervene in countries, who gets to
make that decision? The President or the Congress?
Ms. Power. Thank you.
Well, let me just say--and I hope the last few weeks--that
the past is prologue in a way. If I am confirmed, I would
benefit enormously if I could maintain the relationships that I
feel like I have begun to forge here these last weeks and
continue these conversations.
So consultation is indispensable. I cannot do this job,
even if confirmed without you.
Senator Paul. Congress or the President decides whether
we----
Ms. Power. As you know, there is a longstanding debate
between the executive and the legislature that has crossed
Republican and Democratic administrations about authorizations
for the use of force. And all I can say is that I promise to
consult with you extensively at all times.
Senator Paul. It sounds like a nonresponse response.
But, you know, the thing is that these are important
questions. The vast majority of the public is not in favor of
arming Islamic rebels who, in all likelihood, will be killing
Christians in Syria. The vast majority of the American public
is not in favor of giving arms to people who are basically
allied with al-Qaeda in Syria. The vast majority of the public
does not believe that we are going to have a way of knowing who
our friends and who our foes are. We cannot even tell who our
friends are in the Afghan Army, which is a much more stable
situation than Syria. So I find it incredible to think that we
will.
But the thing is those can be honest disagreements among
people who say, oh, absolutely we can say who the good people
are and we are only going to give weapons to good people. I
find it a ridiculous argument, but I think it is an argument
that some could make.
But the thing is that I do not think there is a valid
argument for fighting secret wars without the permission of
Congress. And basically that is where we are right now.
I think it is also untenable to the American public for the
administration to say, well, you know, we are going to go over
there and we are going to arm them. We are not really going to
try so much to win, but we really would like to get to
stalemate so we could get the Russians to negotiate. And I
think that is really not very tenable either and not too
exciting for American GIs who might lose lives and limbs,
should we be stuck in another war in the Middle East, to be too
excited about this, that well, our goal is stalemate.
And I think you have noble purposes in wanting to eradicate
human rights abuses around the world, but realize that war is a
messy business and people do lose their lives, people you know.
A young sergeant in the neighboring town to mine lost both legs
and an arm in Iraq. And so these are not geopolitical games and
they are not things that we can say we are going to make the
world this great, groovy place where nobody has any human
rights abuses, but we are going to do it through war.
And so my caution is to be careful about what we wish for
and to be careful about the belief that even though we are a
good people and we want good things--I think you are a good
person and you want good things--that in all likelihood, as you
do this, there are unintended consequences. And as we slip into
this new war in Syria, if our trainers that are over there--I
do not know how many there are, but the newspaper says several
hundred trainers are over there that are Americans.
So I would just say that even though noble intentions, I
think, are yours, be very wary of what intervention means when
we intervene. And it is one thing to send bread, but it is
another thing to send guns.
Thank you.
Ms. Power. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
I just have some final questions and then we will,
hopefully, let you go. You have been resilient here for 2
hours. And your son is doing exceptionally well. It is amazing
what food can do. [Laughter.]
Let me ask you. First of all, when you get confirmed--and I
believe you will be--I would like you to look at our charge and
mandate at the United Nations on the question of Cyprus and the
division of Cyprus and where we are at in that regard. I
believe the Cypriots have a new President and some new
initiatives even in the midst of economic challenges, and I
would like to see us be able to be more vigorous in our
engagement through what is an ongoing U.N. effort to end the
division of the country for quite some time. So I hope you will
be able to do that.
Ms. Power. Absolutely, sir. I take it that the Special
Representative Downer is hoping to restart talks in October,
and it feels like a ripe opportunity.
The Chairman. Now, these are two generic questions but they
are important I think. Is genocide genocide only when it is
convenient to call it so, or is genocide genocide when it
violates the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide?
Ms. Power. I have written, as you know, a great deal about
this. I think the Genocide Convention is a worthy instrument. I
would note that political groups are excluded from the
convention as a potentially targeted group by virtue of the
role of the Soviet Union in the drafting of the convention. So
it is not a perfect instrument, but I think it is an agreed
upon tenet of international law today.
The Chairman. Well, let us move the convention aside then
for a moment. Is genocide genocide when all of the facts that
we observe would lead to a conclusion that a genocide has taken
place, or is that only when it is convenient to acknowledge it
is genocide?
Ms. Power. The former. The facts should drive the analysis.
The Chairman. And if the facts drive the analysis, then we
should call that set of actions, whether historical in nature
of present--God forbid--in reality a genocide.
Ms. Power. I believe so, yes.
The Chairman. Is a violation of human rights a violation of
human rights depending upon where it takes place, or is it
universal?
Ms. Power. Universal, sir.
The Chairman. I think you understand why I asked you those
questions. And I hope that your past history in this regard,
even in the context of understanding the new role that you will
play, will not diminish your fire for making the case
internally why genocide should be called genocide when the
historical facts attain themselves to that standard.
All right. With that, Senator Corker, any final remarks?
Senator Corker. I do. I want thank you for having the
hearing and I want to thank Ms. Power for coming before us.
There are very few people nominated to positions like this that
have so many people in advance giving strong opinions about
your service, and as I mentioned on the front end, sometimes
our nominees are more interesting than others. You, no doubt,
are one of the interesting nominees.
And I very much appreciate the conversation that we had in
the office. I think you have handled yourself exceptionally
well today. You know, based on those conversations--I know
nothing know about premeeting you a few weeks ago firsthand--I
think you are going to be a significant and positive force at
the United Nations, something that certainly our Nation and the
world needs at this time from, as you mentioned, the world's
greatest nation.
So I happen to be, based on the interaction and again the
way you have answered questions today, exceptionally excited
about the fact that you are going to be in this position, and I
hope that you will continue in your service along the lines
that the answers were today and certainly the meeting that we
had in our office and I think you will.
So, look, we need very, very strong representation and
leadership at the United Nations especially today. My sense is
you are going to be, again, an exceptional advocate for our
country and for causes around the world that we care about. And
I am thankful that you are going to be in this position very
soon.
And I thank your family. I have enjoyed getting to know
them. I had a chance to spend a little extra time with your
daughter in the back. [Laughter.]
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. I would remind members that 5 o'clock today
is the close for any questions submitted for the record. I
would urge you to answer the questions as quickly as possible.
It is the chair's intention to put your name on an executive
calendar meeting for next Tuesday. That will depend upon
answers to questions being submitted in a timely fashion, which
I would expect you would do, so that we could get, hopefully,
you seated while we are still the President of the Security
Council and get you to work.
With the thanks of the committee, this hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record
Responses of Samantha Power to Questions Submitted
by Senator Robert Menendez
Question. U.S. engagement in the United Nations allows us to
leverage both
resources and influence with other like-minded nations toward common
goals.
Please give us examples of how, by working through the
United Nations, we've been able to magnify our efforts. How
does the United States work through the United Nations to
better protect U.S. national interests? Do we do so
effectively? What can we do better?
Answer. As I noted in my testimony, The U.N. has an important role
in a wide range of U.S. national security issues, including efforts to
combat terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and pandemics. The U.N. also
plays an essential role in advancing American values around the world.
The United Nations is a primary partner in our efforts to maintain
peace and security around the world. From Haiti to the Golan Heights to
Cote d'Ivoire, U.N. peacekeeping operations are the lynchpin to
maintaining peace, protecting civilians, and stabilizing fragile
states. In 2011, the United States worked with our partners on the U.N.
Security Council to prevent a massacre in Libya and help the Libyan
people begin a transition to democracy after four decades of brutal
dictatorship. In Mali, U.N. peacekeepers will be critical to our
efforts to restore stability, which will help prevent the creation of
an al-Qaeda safe haven in the Sahel region.
The United Nations also plays a critical role in U.S. and
international efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons
and fight terrorism. Working through the U.N. Security Council, we have
helped facilitate the adoption of robust multilateral sanctions on Iran
and North Korea that remain key tools in our efforts to convince these
actors to change their behavior. Similarly, U.N. sanctions on al-Qaeda
and other terrorist groups are a key tool in our efforts to eliminate
the threat of terrorism.
The United States also relies on the U.N. system to help address
humanitarian crises that require international response. The U.N. World
Food Programme, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the
U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF) have the expertise, capacity, and
networks to reach displaced persons and victims of conflict even in
highly insecure areas. For example, the United Nations has played a
critical role in coordinating and delivering humanitarian assistance to
nearly 7 million people affected by the violence in Syria, as well as
nearly 1.8 million refugees from Syria who have fled to Turkey,
Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt. U.N. agencies such as the World
Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the U.N.
Development Program also play a critical role in U.S. and international
efforts to strengthen global pandemic preparedness, fight infectious
disease, improve food security, and promote development to alleviate
poverty in the world's poorest regions.
Finally, U.S. engagement in the U.N. helps to advance American
values such as freedom of speech and association, protection of
minorities and the rights of women and children. Through the U.N. Human
Rights Council, the United States has helped shine a spotlight on the
worst human rights abusers, including North Korea, Syria, and Iran. We
have also helped pass the U.N.'s first ever resolution on the human
rights of LGBT persons and at a time of crackdown on civil society
created a special rapporteur on freedom of association.
While the U.N. does much to advance U.S. interests around the
world, it could do more. Under President Obama's leadership, the United
States has worked to strengthen and improve the effectiveness of the
U.N. system to carry out its many mandates. This administration has
also worked with the U.N. to reduce waste and inefficiency, and to
guarantee that the contributions of the United States and other member
states are used as effectively and transparently as possible. If
confirmed, I will continue our engagement with the U.N. in pursuit of
U.S. interests, and our efforts to make the U.N. a stronger, more
effective organization.
Question. Please explain the different elements of U.S. assessed
contributions to the United Nations, how they are assessed, and how the
United States provides for their payment. For example, there is the
U.N. regular budget; there is the U.N. Capital Master Plan; and there
are two U.N. War Crimes Tribunals.
Are we assessed 22 percent for each of these? Do you think
these assessment levels are appropriate? What is the success
rate of the United States in keeping the rate of growth in the
U.N. regular budget within certain limits?
Answer. The Unites States pays 22 percent of the U.N. regular
budget. The 22 percent is the maximum (ceiling) rate under the regular
budget scale of assessments. The costs of the U.N. Capital Master Plan
were also assessed according to the regular budget scale. The United
States paid 22 percent of that assessment over 5 years, from FY 2008
through FY 2012.
There is a separate scale of assessments for U.N. peacekeeping
budgets. One half of the budgets for the U.N. War Crime Tribunals are
assessed according to the peacekeeping scale of assessments, and one-
half according to the regular budget scale of assessments. The United
States is assessed 28.4 percent of the total U.N. peacekeeping budget
under the peacekeeping scale and 22 percent of the amount assessed
under the regular budget scale.
The United States and other major contributors to the United
Nations have been working very hard to limit growth in the U.N. regular
budget. The administration has been successful in keeping the 2012-2013
budget level below the level of the 2010-2011 budget, marking only the
second time in 50 years that the U.N. regular budget decreased from the
previous biennium.
Over the next 2 years, in advance of the General Assembly's next
review of the scales of assessment in 2015, the administration will
work to achieve reforms in the U.N. scales of assessment methodology to
better reflect changes to the global economy. Although the latest scale
of assessments included notable increases for several countries,
including China and Russia, the methodology used to calculate each
country's share needs to be streamlined and updated.
The administration will also work to address the scales in the
context of a broader U.N. reform agenda, identifying alternative
formulations for the scales of assessments that better reflect capacity
to pay, and working closely with other major financial contributors to
ensure their support for our efforts.
Question. What is the current status of U.S. arrears in its
contributions to the U.N. regular budget, including the Capital Master
Plan and the two war crimes tribunals? Please explain these arrears.
Answer. The United States has approximately $529 million in arrears
at the U.N., the vast majority of which date from prior to 2000. The
unpaid amount consists of $341 million for peacekeeping missions, $176
million for the regular budget, and $12 million for the U.N. war crimes
tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.
In 2009, with the support of Congress, the administration cleared
$243 million in post-2000 arrears at the United Nations. This amount
consisted of $159 million for peacekeeping missions and $84 million for
the U.N. regular budget. There are no arrears for the Capital Master
Plan.
Question. The United Nations has a longstanding presence in Burma,
focused largely on humanitarian and development issues. The United
Nations has sent aid convoys--which frequently have been blocked--to
aid civilians in areas of fighting between the army and Kachin rebels,
assisted refugees in camps for the displaced along the country's
borders, aided ethnic Rohingya minorities who are denied citizenship by
the government, and carried out disaster risk reduction, health,
environmental protection, and food security programs, among other
activities.
What positive roles do you think the United Nations can play
in furthering Burma's tenuous transformation from military
dictatorship to democracy?
Answer. As you noted, the U.N. has been working in Burma for many
decades and has provided much-needed humanitarian assistance to the
people of Burma. The Burmese Government has taken positive steps,
including the release of hundreds of political prisoners and holding
elections in which the democratic opposition participated as a legal
political party and its leader Aung San Suu Kyi was elected into the
Parliament. In response, the United Nations--with the support of the
United States--has stepped up efforts to assist the transition and
support long-term economic development.
Given its expertise and programming, as well as the experience that
comes with a longstanding presence in Burma, the U.N. can provide
valuable assistance to help the country transition to a prosperous
democratic society. Many areas in which the U.N. can work--legal
reforms regarding political participation, labor, human rights, media,
and commerce, as well as providing health, education, and livelihood
programs--can bring tangible benefits to the Burmese people and help
consolidate political transition. The U.N. can complement U.S. efforts
in these and other areas.
The administration supports efforts to resolve ethnic conflicts
peacefully, and is working with the government, the U.N., and other
international partners to help the parties reach political settlements
that address longstanding grievances as well as to provide needed
humanitarian and development assistance to affected populations.
Despite the positive efforts, the United States remains concerned
about the severe limits on humanitarian access in certain parts of the
country and also concerned about the protection of internally displaced
persons, refugees, asylum seekers, and other vulnerable migrants. The
U.N. can play an important role in both Burma and neighboring countries
to help address these issues. In this regard, the administration
supports the U.N.'s recent extension of the mandate for a special
rapporteur on the human rights situation in Burma, paying particular
attention to the plight of the Rohingya.
On the eve of President Obama's historic visit to Burma in November
2012, President Thein Sein publically committed to take concrete steps
in 11 areas of human rights and humanitarian reforms, including to
``extend an invitation to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights
(OHCHR) to establish an office in Myanmar.'' An OHCHR presence in
country would provide an institution through which the government can
seek technical assistance and human rights expertise to push to
completion the ambitious democratic reform agenda it has set out to
accomplish. During the visit, President Obama spoke at the University
of Yangon and said, ``No process of reform will succeed without
national reconciliation. You now have a moment of remarkable
opportunity to transform cease-fires into lasting settlements, and to
pursue peace where conflicts still linger, including in Kachin State.
Those efforts must lead to a more just and lasting peace, including
humanitarian access to those in need, and a chance for the displaced to
return home.''
If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the commitment to open an
OHCHR office in Burma is fulfilled. I will also work closely with
senior U.N. management as well as like-minded countries to support the
U.N.'s continued provision of assistance to support the country's
transition.
Question. I remain deeply troubled by reports of systematic
discrimination and
organized violence targeting Burma's ethnic Muslim minorities. What can
the United Nations do to deal with this situation? How will you use
your position to advance these efforts rapidly?
Answer. As I said in my opening comments, if confirmed, standing up
for human rights and human dignity will a priority for me as U.N.
Ambassador.
The U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) and the Human Rights Council (HRC)
each adopt an annual resolution on the human rights situation in Burma,
which include expressions of concern regarding discrimination, human
rights violations, and violence directed against persons belonging to
ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities in Burma. Recent
resolutions have maintained scrutiny on Burma and urged continued
reforms while recognizing the positive changes that the Government has
made in the past year. The HRC's resolution also renews the mandate of
the Special Rapporteur (SR) for the Human Rights Situation in Burma.
The current SR for Burma is Tomas Quintana (Argentina), who conducts
regular visits to Burma and reports to the HRC and UNGA on his findings
concerning the situation in the country. If confirmed, I intend to
continue to work closely with and support the important work of the
Special Rapporteur.
During the June HRC session, the Council adopted a Presidential
Statement (PRST) on the ``Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar as
Regards to Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine State and other Muslims'' that
the United States supported and joined consensus on alongside of the
Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and other HRC members.
Despite the evolution in the UNGA and HRC resolutions on Burma and
in the United States bilateral relationship with Burma, significant
human rights concerns remain. There have been ongoing human rights
violations against the Rohingya community in Rakhine State since an
initial flareup in June 2012 and an increase in the expression of anti-
Muslim sentiment across the country.
The United States also continues to engage with the Government of
Burma and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
to press for the establishment of an OHCHR country office in Burma, a
commitment that President Obama secured from the Burmese Government on
his November trip. An OHCHR office could provide the Government of
Burma with valuable training and other assistance to build Burma's
capacity to protect human rights.
Question. A Commission of Inquiry to examine allegations of human
rights abuses in North Korea set up by the United Nations Human Rights
Council began work last week in response to long-expressed concerns by
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay and several
independent U.N. human rights experts that serious crimes, including
crimes against humanity, have been prevalent in North Korea for
decades. The Inquiry will examine claims of ``systematic, widespread
and grave violations of human rights'' in North Korea.
What is your sense of the current human rights situation in
North Korea, and how do you think the United States can most
effectively move the human rights agenda forward in tandem with
our efforts to bring North Korea's nuclear and missile programs
under control?
Answer. As I said in my opening comments, if confirmed, standing up
for human rights and human dignity will be one of my priorities as
Ambassador to the United Nations. The human rights situation in the
DPRK remains deplorable. The DPRK is one of the world's most systematic
abusers of human rights. The State Department's annual ``Country
Reports on Human Rights Practices'' details the breadth and depth of
the government's human rights abuses. The human rights situation in the
DPRK is addressed every year at the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) and
in the U.N. General Assembly Third Committee and U.S. officials use
their voice in these venues and beyond to highlight the horrible
conditions in the DPRK. The United States calls on the DPRK to close
its gulags, and end systematic repression and the starvation of its
population. At the March 2013 HRC session, the United States worked
closely with Japan, the European Union, and the Republic of Korea
(ROK), among others, to cosponsor a resolution that established a
Commission of Inquiry (COI) to investigate the grave, widespread, and
systematic human rights violations in North Korea. The resolution was
adopted by consensus, illustrating the extent to which the
international community shares the concerns voiced repeatedly by the
United States and others on the Council. The COI, led by Michael Kirby
(Australia), and including Sonja Biserko (Serbia) and Marzuki Darusman
(Indonesia), began its work on July 1.
The COI will build on the important work by the Special Rapporteur
on the situation of human rights in the DPRK, Marzuki Darusman, who has
provided insightful and detailed reporting on the human rights
situation despite the DPRK Government's refusal to grant him access to
the country. The Special Rapporteur, whose mandate the United States
has consistently supported, has provided an important monitoring
function, reporting to the U.N. Human Rights Council every March as
well as to the U.N. General Assembly every fall. The United States
takes the opportunity of the interactive dialogue with the Special
Rapporteur to express our concerns about human rights in North Korea.
The United States will continue to work with partners at the Human
Rights Council to support the COI in its important work, and looks
forward to the COI's interim report to the Human Rights Council in
September and its full report of its findings to the HRC in March 2014.
Ensuring the well-being of North Korean refugees and asylum seekers
is also very important. If confirmed as Ambassador, I will ensure that
we continue to work with other countries in the region and our
international organizations, including the U.N. Human Rights Council
and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, to raise attention to the
deplorable human rights conditions in the DPRK and to cooperate in the
protection of partners, especially South Korea, on the issue of North
Korean refugees and asylum seekers. If confirmed, I would continue to
urge all countries in the region to act in conformity with the 1951
U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1976
Protocol.
I would welcome any additional ideas you have on how we might raise
the profile of the human rights crisis in the DPRK.
Question. I'm interested in your insight on where China is
regarding North Korea, and how you intend to work with the Chinese
Ambassador to the United Nations to continue to build on the close
cooperation Ambassador Rice has established with her Chinese
counterpart.
Do you think China is prepared to be serious and implement
and enforce sanctions this time? Do you think the PRC has
leverage to play to change North Korea's behavior?
If North Korea conducts an additional missile or nuclear
test what do you think U.S. policy ought to be? Are there
additional sanctions or action through the UNSC? Additional
unilateral sanctions--along the lines of the Banco Delta Asia
sanctions from 2005--that we ought to pursue? As you know,
there is some consideration in Congress to creating new
statutory authority for additional unilateral U.S. financial
sanctions on North Korea. Do you think that that would be
helpful?
Cuba's recent shipment of weapons systems to North Korea
clearly has serious implications for international security.
Does this shipment amount to a violation of U.N. Security
Council resolutions and sanctions on North Korea? Does the
administration plan to submit this issue to the Security
Council for review?
Answer. The administration has commended Panama for the recent
actions it has taken to implement relevant U.N. Security Council
resolutions with regard to the North Korean ship Chong Chon Gang. The
United States will work closely with the Government of Panama, which
has requested our assistance, and the administration intends to provide
assistance as best we can.
Panama has informed the UNSC DPRK Sanctions Committee of the
incident and has invited the Panel of Experts, which assists the United
Nations Security Council North Korea Sanctions Committee, to conduct an
investigation.
Panama's actions regarding the Sanctions Committee as well as
requesting the involvement of the Panel of Experts will help clarify
involvement of the Government of Cuba with this issue. We will look at
all possibilities regarding appropriate actions once the Committee and
Panel complete their work. The administration will keep your staff
informed.
North Korea's nuclear, ballistic missile, and proliferation-related
activities constitute a serious threat to international peace and
security and undermine the global nonproliferation regime. Shipments of
arms or related material to or from North Korea, and services related
to such items, would violate U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1718 and
1874, as reaffirmed this year in Resolutions 2087 and 2094. These
Security Council resolutions generally provide that all states shall
prevent the direct or indirect transfer of weapons from their territory
or by their nationals to North Korea and shall prohibit procurement of
such weapons from North Korea. The administration hopes that the
Sanctions Committee, with the support of the Panel of Experts, will
investigate this case thoroughly, identify parties responsible and
recommend actions to be taken in response. The administration notes
that the Sanctions Committee has the ability to impose targeted
sanctions (asset freeze/travel ban) on individuals and entities found
to have contributed to prohibited activities or to evasion of the
sanctions.
The United States also continues to work closely with China to
deepen our dialogue on North Korea to achieve our shared goal of
verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful
manner. Through our discussions, the administration will continue to
encourage China to leverage more effectively its unique relationship
with the DPRK. Chinese officials have made clear their concerns about
North Korea's destabilizing and provocative behavior and their
commitment to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
The administration worked closely with China in the adoption of
U.N. Security Council Resolutions 2087 and 2094, the two 2013
resolutions that imposed new sanctions on North Korea. Chinese
officials have stated publicly that China is committed to strict
implementation of UNSC sanctions. It is a leading priority in the
bilateral relationship for the administration to work with China on
enforcement of all relevant DPRK-related UNSCRs and to address North
Korea's threats to regional peace and security and the global
nonproliferation regime.
The United States will continue to work closely with all U.N.
member states to ensure the full and transparent implementation of U.N.
Security Council resolutions concerning North Korea. This will make it
harder for the DPRK to acquire the technology, know-how, and funds to
develop its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, which the
international community has repeatedly condemned. The administration
will likewise continue to exercise our national authorities, where and
when appropriate, to impede Pyongyang's nuclear, ballistic missile, and
proliferation-related activities.
Question. In July 2012, the Azerbaijani State Civil Aviation
Administration said in a statement that planned flights between
Stepanakert and Yerevan would represent an invasion of Azeri airspace
and ``taking corresponding measures in connection with that is
inevitable.''
What has the United States done to prevent Azerbaijan from
committing provocative acts against civil aviation? What
consequences would Azerbaijan face if they threatened a
civilian aircraft? What role can the United Nations do to
protect civil aviation in this situation?
Members of the international community have repeatedly
called for the withdrawal of snipers from the Armenian-
Azerbaijani line of contact. What's the status of international
efforts to accomplish this? Is it true that the Azeri
Government has refused?
Answer. As a Cochair of the OSCE Minsk Group, the United States
remains committed to helping the sides find a peaceful solution to the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Secretary Kerry has discussed the issue of
civil flights to Nagorno-Karabakh with the governments of Armenia and
Azerbaijan at the highest levels. The Cochairs of the Minsk Group
(United States, Russia, and France) are working to help the sides find
a means of resolving this issue diplomatically, and have received
assurances that they will reject any threat or use of force against
civil aircraft. We remain concerned about any action that could fuel
tension in the region or threaten the peace process. We believe the
Minsk Group remains the best mechanism to help the sides reach
agreement.
The Cochairs of the OSCE Minsk Group are working to help reduce
tension in the region. Over the years the Cochairs have proposed a
number of confidence-building measures that would reduce violence and
improve the climate for negotiations. The longstanding proposal from
the Minsk Group to withdraw snipers is one such measure; they noted
with regret in March 2011 that it had not been implemented, and they
continue urging the sides to consider such ideas. In their June 2012
statement on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the Presidents of the
United States, the Russian Federation, and France reiterated the need
for the sides to ``respect the 1994 cease-fire agreement, and abstain
from hostile rhetoric that increases tension.'' We remain committed to
helping the sides find a peaceful resolution to this conflict. Member
states of the U.N. should also reinforce these efforts.
Question. Alexander Downer has been the U.N. Secretary General's
envoy to
Cyprus since 2008. What has he been able to accomplish in his 5 years
in the position? How often is he present on the island? What is your
view of the role Turkey plays in the Cyprus issue and in its
resolution?
Answer. The United States strongly supports the work of the U.N.
Secretary General in Cyprus under the leadership of Special Advisor
Alexander Downer. During his tenure, Downer has worked effectively with
both sides to restart full-fledged negotiations. From 2008 to 2012,
Downer and his team convened approximately 150 meetings of the Greek
Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot leaders, in addition to hundreds of other
meetings of the leaders' representatives and the bicommunal Technical
Committees.
Following the election of President Anastasiades in February,
Special Advisor Downer resumed regular visits to Cyprus to hold
meetings with both leaders and to lay the groundwork on the way
forward. The Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot leaders have confirmed
their intention to resume the settlement process in October, and while
Greece and Turkey have also expressed support for the settlement
process. If confirmed, I would support the efforts of the United States
to work closely with the United Nations, both Cypriot communities,
Greece, and Turkey to encourage reconciliation and reunification. The
administration is prepared to commit energy and resources toward the
goal of finally achieving the fair and lasting settlement that has
eluded the people of Cyprus for so long.
Question. Does the election of a new President of Cyprus present a
new opportunity for peace efforts in Cyprus? What can and should the
United Nations do to take advantage of any existing opportunities? Is
the resolution of this 66 yearlong dispute a policy priority for the
administration?
Answer. The United States applauds the commitment of the two
leaders to resume the settlement process in October. President
Anastasiades has taken promising steps in support of the Cyprus talks,
including the July 16 appointment of a lead negotiator.
If confirmed, I would strongly support intensive U.N. engagement.
The United States firmly believes that a mutually acceptable settlement
is in the best interests of the people of Cyprus and will continue to
support such a settlement. The United States will continue to urge the
leaders of both communities to engage constructively in the settlement
process as the best way to reach an agreement and will also engage with
Turkey and Greece to encourage reconciliation and reunification. And we
will consult with you and look to see if there are additional steps we
should be taking to advance progress.
Question. For years MONUSCO has been criticized for failing to
protect civilians. What are your views on this new intervention
brigade? Tanzania, South Africa, and Malawi are expected to be the
major troop contributors. Do you think they are they up to the task of
rooting out armed groups in the DRC?
Answer. Rooting out armed groups in the DRC is something that has
been attempted by many different groups over many years. Although it
will prove a challenging task, it is significant that in March, the
United States supported the Security Council's approval of an
Intervention Brigade (IB) within MONUSCO. The South African and
Tanzanian battalions now are in place, and Malawi is due to arrive in
the coming weeks. The United States is in the process of providing
training and limited equipment support to the deployment of the initial
Malawian battalion and the follow-on Tanzanian battalion and is
prepared to support South Africa should there be a request. It is in
the U.S. interest for this force to succeed, and we are looking at the
ways in which we can support its mission.
Through the IB, MONUSCO now has a more explicit mandate to conduct
independent military operations to disarm and neutralize armed groups,
which have long been a major source of instability and violence against
civilians, including sexual and gender-based violence, in the DRC. Such
security operations will be essential to create space in which the DRC
Government can undertake security sector reform and deliver on all its
commitments in the Peace, Security and Cooperation Framework (the
Framework) in support of a lasting, regional peace.
The administration has given its full backing to the Secretary
General's recent appointments of Martin Kobler as his Special
Representative and Head of Mission, as well as of Carlos Alberto dos
Santos Cruz as Force Commander. The United States has been assured in
turn that MONUSCO stands ready to protect civilians and that it will
defend Goma if faced with an M23 offensive. The administration
continues to urge all troop-contributing countries of MONUSCO to remain
committed to implementing the mission's robust mandate.
Even though the IB has not fully deployed, it is already having a
positive effect on the ground. M23 defections have risen and morale is
reportedly very low. MONUSCO and its IB will play an important part in
confronting armed groups, but the peacekeeping mission alone cannot
solve the problem. Signatories must abide by and demonstrate their
commitments under the framework, the international community must stay
engaged, and there must be an end to impunity for those who have
committed abuses and violations of human rights or violations of
international humanitarian law. There are no overnight solutions to the
human rights and security challenges in the DRC, but the United States
has demonstrated, with our recent appointment of former Senator Russ
Feingold as Great Lakes Envoy and our significant investments in the
humanitarian and security situation on the ground, how invested we are
in trying to find ways to help stabilize and promote human rights in
the region.
Question. The Security Council recently announced the U.N. Mission
in South Sudan (UNMISS) will be extended for another year. What other
steps can the United States take through the United Nations in order to
help the government better protect civilians?
Answer. I am deeply disturbed by mounting reports of abuse of
civilians, including ongoing killings, beatings, and looting and
destruction of homes and humanitarian facilities in Jonglei State. I am
extremely concerned about the detrimental impact that these ongoing
clashes have on the physical security and humanitarian situation of
tens of thousands of affected South Sudanese. The rainy season,
currently in progress, makes travel difficult or impossible across vast
swathes of South Sudan, and this--combined with SPLA restrictions on
U.N. movement into active conflict areas--greatly complicates
international efforts to gather information about the extent of the
conflicts, deliver humanitarian assistance, or to respond to the
violence that the United States believes to be underway.
The administration continues to strongly advocate for the U.N.
Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), U.N. humanitarian agencies, and NGOs
to have full, unfettered access to all areas in order to protect
civilians. This access would allow UNMISS to conduct timely patrols and
air reconnaissance and permit humanitarian workers and U.N.
representatives to provide assistance and protection to all affected
populations. The United States has also called on the Government of
South Sudan to meet its obligations to ensure the safety and security
of all civilians regardless of their background or ethnicity. The
United States has reiterated that the Government is responsible for
preventing SPLA attacks on UNMISS or humanitarian staff and assets. If
confirmed, I will also continue to press the government to hold
accountable those individuals who are responsible for the violence and
who have committed abuses--including members of the security forces--
through transparent judicial processes that respect the rule of law. I
am also keenly aware of the mobility issues facing UNMISS, particularly
restrictions affecting the use of helicopters, and will work vigorously
with the U.N. and other stakeholders to fill these gaps. I am also
interested in obtaining the views of Members of Congress and advocates
with long histories of working on South Sudan as I think through what
additional steps may be taken.
Question. In the last month, we've seen increasing violence in
Sudan, particularly in Darfur, against U.N. peacekeepers and between
ethnic groups. Earlier this month, the U.N. Representative to the
Secretary General noted that ``[t]he deterioration in the security
situation in parts of South Sudan has been accompanied by human rights
violations by both armed groups and national security institutions . .
. [while] cases of arbitrary arrest, detention, abuse and incidences of
killings by security forces, as well as the inability of the
authorities to hold those responsible to account, are cause for deep
concern.'' And just last week, 7 United Nations peacekeepers were
killed and 17 were injured.
What more can be done to better support the United Nations
Mission in Darfur?
Answer. The United States is deeply concerned about increasing
violence in Darfur and deteriorating humanitarian and human rights
conditions. The administration has also condemned in the strongest
possible terms the attack by unidentified assailants on an African
Union--United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) patrol north
of Nyala in South Darfur on July 13, which may constitute a war crime,
and which constituted the largest single loss of life in the history of
the UNAMID deployment. The United States deplores the persistent
impunity for attacks on U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur and calls on the
Government of Sudan to promptly conduct full and credible
investigations into all attacks against UNAMID and to hold the
perpetrators accountable.
The administration is pressing for a full investigation of this
latest attack by the United Nations and the African Union. Once the
perpetrators are identified, the United States will pursue targeted
U.N. sanctions against those responsible for this attack and other
attacks on peacekeepers.
The administration will continue to engage the African Union and
troop contributing countries and work together to press the Government
of Sudan and all parties to the conflict to cooperate fully with UNAMID
and humanitarian organizations, to lift all bureaucratic and
operational impediments to the mission's freedom of movement, and to
allow the mission to implement its mandate without restriction. The
administration will also emphasize to the U.N. and UNAMID leadership
the importance of UNAMID's troops actually enforcing their Chapter VII
mandate and the rules of engagement under which they operate.
The United States is providing predeployment training to
contingents deploying to UNAMID and is engaging diplomatically with the
governments of nations that provide troops and police contingents to
UNAMID to encourage them to provide better trained and equipped
personnel, and to protest the Government of Sudan's restrictions on
UNAMID.
Obviously what is most needed, beyond better tactical civilian
protection, is a meaningful political solution, which has long remained
elusive. The administration will redouble its efforts to work with
local parties and international stakeholders to resolve the crisis in a
manner that addresses the root causes of the violence, holds
perpetrators accountable, and addresses the longstanding grievances of
the people of Darfur, who have suffered too long.
Question. The discovery of significant petrochemical resources in
Cyprus' offshore economic exclusion zone (EEZ) may provide a new area
for cooperation with the United States and with Israel. Prompt
development of this resource could be a key driver of Cyprus's economic
recovery and could potentially act as a stabilizing and unifying factor
in the eastern Mediterranean. What can the United States do within the
U.N. system to assist Cyprus in defending its right to operate in its
exclusive economic zone?
Answer. The administration recognizes Cyprus' right to develop
hydrocarbon resources in its EEZ. It does not believe that developing
offshore energy resources need hinder the reunification talks. The
administration continues to believe that, in the context of an overall
settlement, the island's resources should be equitably shared between
both communities. It fully supports the settlement process, under U.N.
auspices, to reunify Cyprus as a bizonal, bicommunal federation. Such a
settlement will help to strengthen regional stability as it would
facilitate the normalization of relations between Cyprus and Turkey. If
confirmed, as I stated during the hearing, I will support U.N. efforts
to facilitate the settlement process. I will also support Cyprus' right
to develop hydrocarbon resources in its EEZ, and urge U.N. member
states to adopt a similar posture.
Question. In your book, ``A Problem from Hell: America and the Age
of Genocide,'' you described American inaction during the Armenian
genocide. What is the obligation of the United States to condemn and
commemorate past instances of genocide? What are the dangers of
genocide denial?
Answer. With regard to your question about genocide, condemning and
commemorating such crimes is extremely important. Doing so is a form of
accountability, and it honors the memory of the victims and the
survivors. It also reminds us that such horrors can be repeated unless
we work to bring the promise of ``never again'' to life. As President
Obama said at the launch of the Atrocities Prevention Board, ``We must
tell our children. But more than that, we must teach them. Because
remembrance without resolve is a hollow gesture. Awareness without
action changes nothing. In this sense, `never again' is a challenge to
us all--to pause and to look within.'' If confirmed, as I said in my
hearing, I will stand up for human rights and stand up against
atrocities and genocide.
On the first part of your question, the United States clearly
acknowledges as historical fact and mourns the fact that 1.5 million
Armenians were massacred or marched to their deaths in the final days
of the Ottoman Empire. I will represent the United States Government
and faithfully carry out the policy of the administration. As President
Obama has said, a ``full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts
is in all of our interests.''
______
Responses of Samantha Power to Questions Submitted
by Senator Bob Corker
Question. If confirmed, will you commit to making oversight a
priority of your tenure as U.N. Ambassador? Do you consider the OIOS to
be an independent inspector general and does the current Office of
Internal Oversight (OIOS) have the tools and authority it needs to
adequately perform an effective oversight role? If not, what
recommendations would you make to further strengthen oversight and
transparency?
Answer. As I noted in my opening testimony, making the United
Nations more efficient and effective will be a priority, if I am
confirmed as Ambassador to the United Nations. The United Nations
Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which was established in
1994 and uncovers numerous cases of mismanagement, fraud, and abuse
each year, serves as the U.N.'s inspector general by fulfilling the
Secretary General's internal oversight responsibilities. The General
Assembly resolutions governing OIOS established operational
independence for the Office in order for it to effectively deliver its
mandates without interference. However, the United States continues to
press for even greater operational independence for OIOS, including
greater control over budget and personnel decisions.
If confirmed, I will support efforts to revitalize OIOS and further
strengthen its core functions of audit, investigation, and evaluation.
While I was an advisor at the White House, the United States worked
tirelessly in the General Assembly to establish an Assistant Secretary
General position to serve as OIOS Deputy to improve overall management.
The United States also has strongly supported efforts of the current
OIOS head, Ms. Carman Lapointe of Canada, to reduce vacancies across
the Office, particularly in the Investigation Division where the
vacancy rate was the highest. In addition, the United States supports
the Secretariat's reaffirmation of OIOS' jurisdiction over U.N. funds
and programs, to enable OIOS to have full access to these entities and
all parts of the U.N. system.
Question. The 2008 report of the cochairs of the Mandate Review,
which sought to identify and review the ongoing relevance of ``all
mandates older than five years originating from resolutions of the
General Assembly and other organs,'' concluded that only 155 (56
percent) of the 279 mandates in the Humanitarian cluster were ``current
and relevant'' and that only 18 (35 percent) of the 52 mandates in the
African Development cluster were current and relevant.
Which, if any, of these mandates have been eliminated? Do
you intend to seek an update of the Mandate Registry or revive
the Mandate Review?
Answer. As the United States faces difficult budgetary challenges,
the United Nations also needs to closely scrutinize all its budgeted
activities. The administration remains concerned about the size of the
U.N. budget and the continuation of anachronistic mandates, policies,
and programs. Even before joining the U.S. Government, I was outspoken
about the need for far more rationalization of mandates and missions
across the U.N.
The 2005 World Summit established a process to review U.N.
mandates. That process effectively came to an end with UNGA Resolution
62/278 (2008). While there was some consensus reached in setting aside
74 completed mandates and identifying overlapping mandates during Phase
I of the review, during Phase II of the review, there was limited
progress in reviewing any significant number of mandates and no
progress in eliminating or consolidating any mandates.
Overall, this attempt at a ``mandate review'' was highly
contentious. Developing countries refused to engage in the process in a
meaningful way because they viewed the exercise as an effort by the
United States and others to cut the U.N. budget in areas that they most
strongly support. As a result of the experience and the controversy,
the term ``mandate review'' is now viewed negatively by many member
states. Despite this, I firmly believe the problems this exercise was
attempting to address are real and continue to deserve attention.
The administration continues to push for a more selective and
strategic approach to improve problematic mandates or selective groups
of related mandates such as in the area of development. In addition,
the administration supports inclusion of sunset clauses in mandates.
The administration continues to provide input and look for
opportunities to evaluate mandates on a routine basis, for example
through the application of results-based management. The Secretary
General recently called for the need to seriously review mandates
again, and I look forward to offering him the whole-hearted support of
the United States as well as my personal support.
Question. Previous reform efforts have included strengthening
protections for whistleblowers at the United Nations. What steps do you
intend to take to further protect whistleblowers at the United Nations
from retaliation, including best practices for protecting
whistleblowers from retaliation? Would you support extending
whistleblower protections beyond formal U.N. employees and staff
members to others who report illegality, waste, mismanagement, abuse of
authority, or acts that pose a substantial and specific danger to
public health or safety?
Answer. This administration remains deeply committed to advancing
oversight, ethics, and accountability reforms throughout the U.N.
system. Through the United Nations Transparency and Accountability
Initiative (UNTAI) and U.S. leadership in the General Assembly and
relevant governing bodies, the United States has pressed U.N.
leadership to robustly enforce U.N. policies on whistleblower
protection.
The UNTAI benchmark for whistleblower protection is based on
research of best practices, which includes policies on zero tolerance
of retaliation and mandatory training. If confirmed, I would support
continued consultations with U.N. system organizations on how they can
build a culture of accountability and further effective whistleblower
policies.
I agree that whistleblowers should be able to report fraud and
corruption without fear of reprisal. The current U.N. whistleblower
policy is tailored to protect U.N. personnel against retaliation. The
policy includes measures to reverse administrative actions deemed to be
retaliatory, which deems it largely inapplicable to individuals not
employed by the United Nations. That said, I believe that it is
important to consider measures for providing greater protection to
individuals who report illegality, waste, mismanagement, abuse of
authority, or acts that pose a substantial and specific danger to
public health or safety.
At U.S. urging, U.N. member states made a formal request to the
Secretary General this past spring to expedite the development of
strengthened protections against whistleblower retaliation, and the
U.N. Ethics Office is expected to present recommendations to the
General Assembly this fall. The U.S. Mission to the U.N. also remains
committed to maintaining a hotline for waste, fraud, and abuse on its
Web site where U.N. staff or other persons can report to the United
States any abuse or retaliation at the United Nations.
Question. Considering the expense and difficulty of obtaining troop
commitments for peacekeeping operations, especially those missions with
a more robust mandate, and given the U.S. role as a permanent Security
Council Member, if confirmed, will you commit to reviewing and
reporting back to Congress on the ongoing necessity for longstanding
peacekeeping missions?
Answer. The United States Government reviews individual
peacekeeping missions annually, or more frequently in some cases.
Especially in tough budget times, we need to make sure each mission is
justified. If confirmed, I look forward to consulting with Congress
throughout this process.
In addition, the Department briefs the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee on U.N. peacekeeping on a monthly basis. The Department of
State also provides an annual report to Congress on U.N. peacekeeping
operations. The Department also notifies Congress when impending votes
in the Security Council may modify the mandate of an individual mission
or increase its size, as required by law.
Question. What steps has the United Nations undertaken since 2009
to address sexual exploitation, abuse and misconduct by U.N.
peacekeepers and civilian personnel participating in those operations?
What further steps will you pursue, if confirmed?
Answer. The United States remains a leader in international efforts
to eliminate sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) by U.N. personnel,
including by U.N. peacekeepers (whether international or local,
civilian, military, or police). Predatory behavior by a few discredits
the approximately 111,000 people serving with distinction in U.N.
peacekeeping missions around the world, and undermines the trust that
is essential to the success of each mission.
In late 2011, the United Nations launched an internal review to
ensure that all peacekeeping missions are complying with the
regulations and procedures recommended in the 2005 report by Prince
Zeid of Jordan, the U.N. Secretary General's Adviser on SEA. As a
result of this review, the U.N. has undertaken a program of action
focusing on three aspects: (1) ensuring the credibility of the
Organization's response through increased transparency and cooperation;
(2) strengthening governance, oversight, and enforcement; and (3)
enhanced awareness and advocacy for more responsive protection and
assistance to victims of SEA. These efforts are coordinated by the
Conduct and Discipline Unit (CDU) in the Department of Field Support.
Under this program of action, there have been a number of key
developments over the last year. For example, beginning in September
2014, the United Nations will include in the annual report of the
Secretary General on special measures for protection against sexual
exploitation and sexual abuse, country-specific data on SEA
allegations, including pending actions and any sanctions imposed. Field
missions are currently reviewing a draft accountability framework for
conduct and discipline. The U.N. has also taken steps to improve the
Misconduct Tracking System (MTS), a database for tracking allegations
of misconduct, including SEA. As part of a new human rights screening
policy, issued in December 2012, MTS is now linked to the recruitment
tool used by the Police Division in the Department of Peacekeeping
Operations, facilitating clearance of police personnel prior to
deployment to the field. Work is also underway to establish a similar
link with the recruitment system used by the Office of Military Affairs
for military personnel. The enhanced reporting and improvements to MTS
were undertaken in large part due to sustained engagement by the United
States over the past few years.
Persons guilty of sexual misconduct must be held accountable. While
the U.N. can conduct administrative procedures and waive immunity for
its own civilian employees, many nations which host peacekeeping
operations do not have sufficient capacity to provide for fair trials
or acceptable standards of confinement, which makes local prosecution
problematic. In addition, different procedures apply for military and
police personnel, as often do the laws of the host country and the
sending country. The U.N. can request a sending country to investigate
and hold accountable its military personnel under their national laws,
but the U.N.'s authority is limited to ordering repatriation of a
soldier and requesting the troop contributing country report on actions
taken to discipline its personnel. In 2011, in an important step
forward, the General Assembly adopted a U.S. proposal to withhold
reimbursement to troop-contributing countries for military contingent
personnel repatriated for disciplinary reasons, including violation of
the zero-tolerance policy for SEA.
If confirmed, I will continue to work with the United Nations and
member states. I view pressing for ending impunity for U.N. officials
as particularly important, as well as taking the steps needed to ensure
that the U.N.'s database can effectively prevent previous offenders
from serving again in the U.N. system, in any capacity.
Question. The United Nations Human Rights Council has the authority
to establish mandates to monitor, advise, and report to the Council on
human rights issues with respect to specifically identified countries.
The Special Rapporteurs who govern these mandates are authorized to
investigate and report to the UNHRC on alleged human rights violations
or abuses. The United States has every reason to expect the Special
Rapporteurs to carry out their functions in a professional and
impartial manner. Yet the U.N. does not have a process or system to
provide transparency and ensure accountability for these rapporteurs
and other special mandate holders' poor performance, abuse of their
position, or gross impartiality.
If confirmed, would you support steps to bring greater
transparency, accountability, and professionalism to the
position of Special Rapporteur? For example, would it make
sense to establish processes for dismissing Special Rapporteurs
who repeatedly violate the code of conduct, engage in serious
personal misconduct, or provide evidence that their
impartiality is gravely compromised or otherwise seriously
harms the trust they enjoy of all stakeholders?
Would you support increased transparency on resources
budgeted and expended in support of the mandate?
Would you consider leading an effort to require Special
Rapporteurs to disclose all sources of funding or other
compensation received?
Answer. There are just under 50 different thematic and country
specific U.N. Special Procedures, which include U.N. Special
Rapporteurs, Independent Experts, Commissions of Inquiry, and Working
Groups. While the effectiveness of these mandates depends greatly on
the mandate holder, at their best these independent experts raise and
maintain critical human rights issues on the international agenda,
including gross violations of human rights by countries such as Syria
and Iran, and often conduct important fact finding country visits.
While we do not always agree with specific Special Procedures, we
greatly respect their independence and the overall importance of their
work. It is essential that they maintain their independent voices, as
some nations with poor human rights records regularly engage in
attempts to undermine and weaken mandate holders, especially those who
heavily scrutinize the records of human rights abusers. We work with
mandate holders who are under attack from abusive states, such as the
Iran Special Rapporteur, to ensure their ability to work independently.
The United States regularly consults with the special procedures
mandate holders, and we scrutinize their work through their regular
reports. We also take advantage of the regular interactive dialogues to
press them on their methodology, operations, and the specific findings
of their investigations; convey our views on those issues; and
recommend topics for future inquiry.
I agree that Special Procedures are discredited and
counterproductive when used for political purposes. One notorious and
deeply disturbing example is the biased and discredited United Nations
Special Rapporteur on ``the situation of human rights in the
Palestinian territories,'' Richard Falk, who undermines the credibility
of the Special Procedures and the Human Rights Council--thus hampering
the promotion and protection of human rights. The United States has
repeatedly condemned Falk for his despicable and offensive statements,
as has U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Earlier this year, Falk
sought to blame the terrorist bombings in Boston on U.S. foreign policy
and on Israel. Falk also called for a watchdog NGO to be stripped of
its U.N. observer status after the group rightly criticized Falk's
repeated biased and anti-Israel remarks, including Falk's publishing of
a clearly anti-Semitic cartoon on his blog and his repeated assertions
of an equivalence between Israeli actions toward the Palestinians and
the Holocaust.
That said, as a member of the Human Rights Council the United
States is well placed to engage in efforts to strengthen the
effectiveness of the Special Procedure mechanisms, and we will continue
to work with other countries and the mandate holders themselves to do
so. In 2014, more than one-third of all Special Procedures mandate
holders (including the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human
rights in the Palestinian territories) will reach their maximum term to
serve and will need to be replaced. The United States will seize this
opportunity to seek and support qualified candidates and will work with
the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the HRC
President to fill these positions.
Question. The Gingrich-Mitchell Task Force on U.N. Reform called
for the U.N.'s hiring practices to increase the focus on competence
over geographic considerations. To what extent has this reform been
implemented and, if confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure that
competence is the first and foremost criteria in hiring decisions?
Answer. The United States is a strong proponent for reform of the
U.N. Human Resources Management system. Over the past 8 years, the
United States has advocated for reforms that facilitated recruiting
highly skilled staff in a timely manner, while promoting top
performers, getting rid of underperformers, encouraging mobility, and
providing professional development to ensure continued excellence.
In 2010, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 65/247, which
called for a comprehensive review of the entire recruitment process.
Since then, the Office of Human Resources Management introduced the
``Long List/Short List'' approach that identifies candidates with the
highest qualifications. They also developed a roster system that
compiles the credentials of highly qualified, prescreened candidates to
facilitate swift placement.
The United States has also been a strong advocate for the rigorous
implementation of a comprehensive performance management system. The
administration believes it is important that the U.N. strengthen the
link between performance and career progression, in particular for
those staff members in managerial positions.
Over the next few years, a large number of U.N. Secretariat staff
members will retire. This turnover is an opportunity to reshape and
streamline the U.N. by demanding a thorough review of staffing needs of
the organization. The administration will support efforts to eliminate
those positions that no longer contribute to the strategic objectives
of the organization, as well as plans to combat ``grade inflation'' by
ensuring the adequate classification of vacant positions.
This also is an opportunity to ensure that highly qualified
Americans are employed in the United Nations. As part of the
administration's strategic approach to fill key positions at the United
Nations, the United States has taken a proactive approach by focusing
on positions where the U.S. Government could make the strongest
contributions and by conducting its own targeted recruitment of
exceptionally qualified U.S. candidates.
Question. With respect to U.N. professional compensation, do you
support the principle that U.N. compensation should not exceed
equivalent U.S. civil service salaries? If so, what do you plan to do
to ensure this principle is observed?
Answer. As the United States Government undertakes an austere
fiscal diet, including staff furloughs and other cutbacks, it is
important we send a message to the U.N. that salaries and other
expenses must be controlled. This is key to ensuring that the overall
U.N. budget is in line with the new realities.
The United Nations sets salaries for professional staff according
to the Noblemaire Principle, which states that compensation should be
set high enough to attract nationals from all member states, including
those member states with the highest paid national civil service
employees. Since its inception, the U.N. has based salaries for
professional employees on the U.S. civil service scale. In 1985, the
U.N. General Assembly decided, with agreement from the Reagan
administration that average U.N. net salaries should fall within 110 to
120 percent of average U.S. civil service net salaries.
While the United States has joined consensus a number of times
since 1985 on maintaining the current margin system, this
administration has been vocal about the need for greater clarity in the
methodology used by the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC).
The Department of State readily accepted the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) recommendation in its recent report, ``U.N. COMPENSATION:
United Nations Should Clarify the Process and Assumptions Underlying
Secretariat Professional Salaries,'' which requested that the U.S.
Mission to the U.N. request that the ICSC clarify the methodology and
assumptions used to calculate the margin between U.S. civil service and
U.N. Secretariat staff salaries and to make this information available
to member states.
The administration was pleased that GAO was conducting a follow-on
study because, in actuality, the total U.N. compensation package
includes salaries, locality pay, benefits, and allowances. It is
important to determine whether the U.N.'s compensation package in its
entirety is more generous than the U.S. civil service package. This
study coincides with the administration's successful request for the
ICSC to conduct its own comprehensive review of U.N. compensation and
the methodology used. The administration will continue to push for the
ongoing ICSC comprehensive review of U.N. compensation and use the
findings of GAO as an opportunity to review the various components of
the U.N. compensation package and to seek ways to streamline the
current system.
Question. The international community, including the UNSC, has
imposed broad and far-reaching sanctions on North Korea for its illicit
nuclear, missile, and proliferation-related activities. Yet the record
of member state implementation and enforcement of these sanctions
remains mixed.
If confirmed, what actions will you undertake to ensure
effective implementation and enforcement of sanctions to
prevent North Korea's continued illicit proliferation
activities?
If confirmed, will you support continued efforts by outside
experts to document sanctions loopholes and expose member
states' noncompliance with UNSC resolutions on North Korea?
Do you believe universal implementation of UNSC requirements
in the context of North Korea is achievable?
Are there additional sanctions that the United States should
pursue against third countries should they fail to fully
implement and enforce United Nations Security Council
resolutions?
Chinese adherence to its commitments in UNSC resolutions is
especially important. If confirmed, what actions will you
undertake to specifically influence or pressure China to
implement and enforce existing UNSC sanctions?
Answer. North Korea's nuclear, ballistic missile, and
proliferation-related activities constitute a serious threat to
international peace and security and undermine the global
nonproliferation regime. Shipments of arms or related material to or
from North Korea, and services related to such items, would violate
U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1718 and 1874, as reaffirmed this
year in resolutions 2087 and 2094. These Security Council resolutions
generally provide that all states shall prevent the direct or indirect
transfer of weapons from their territory or by their nationals to North
Korea and shall prohibit procurement of such weapons from North Korea.
The administration notes that the Sanctions Committee has the ability
to impose targeted sanctions (asset freeze/travel ban) on individuals
and entities found to have contributed to prohibited activities or to
evasion of the sanctions.
The United States also continues to work closely with China to
deepen our dialogue on North Korea to achieve our shared goal of
verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful
manner. Through our discussions, the administration will continue to
encourage China to leverage more effectively its unique relationship
with the DPRK. Chinese officials have made clear their concerns about
North Korea's destabilizing and provocative behavior and their
commitment to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
The administration worked closely with China in the adoption of
U.N. Security Council resolutions 2087 and 2094, which imposed strong
new sanctions on North Korea. Chinese officials have stated publicly
that China is committed to strict implementation of UNSC sanctions. It
is a key priority in our bilateral relationship with China for the
administration to work with China on enforcement of all relevant DPRK-
related UNSCRs and to address North Korea's threats to regional peace
and security and the global nonproliferation regime.
The United States will continue to work closely with all U.N.
member states to ensure the full and transparent implementation of U.N.
Security Council resolutions concerning North Korea. This will make it
harder for the DPRK to acquire the technology, know-how, and funds to
develop its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, which the
international community has repeatedly condemned. The administration
will likewise continue to exercise our national authorities, where and
when appropriate, to impede Pyongyang's nuclear, ballistic missile, and
proliferation-related activities.
Question. A United Nations Commission of Inquiry recently convened
to investigate and document North Korea's ``grave, systematic, and
widespread'' human rights abuses.
If confirmed, will you commit the full resources of the U.S.
mission to assist the efforts of the Commission? If confirmed,
how will you use your position to highlight the deplorable
human rights situation in North Korea? Can the United States do
more to assist North Korean refugees, and if so, what?
Answer. As I said in my opening comments, if confirmed, standing up
for human rights and human dignity will be one of my priorities as U.N.
Ambassador. The human rights situation in the DPRK remains deplorable.
The DPRK is one of the world's most systematic abusers of human rights.
The State Department's annual ``Country Reports on Human Rights
Practices'' details the breadth and depth of the government's human
rights abuses. The human rights situation in the DPRK is addressed
every year at the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) and in the U.N.
General Assembly Third Committee and U.S. officials use their voice in
these venues and beyond to highlight the horrible conditions in the
DPRK. At the March 2013 HRC session, the United States worked closely
with Japan, the European Union, and the Republic of Korea (ROK), among
others, to cosponsor a resolution that established a Commission of
Inquiry (COI) to investigate the grave, widespread, and systematic
human rights violations in North Korea. The resolution's adoption by
consensus illustrated the extent to which the international community
shares the concerns voiced repeatedly by the United States and others
on the Council. The COI, led by Michael Kirby (Australia), and
including Sonja Biserko (Serbia) and Marzuki Darusman (Indonesia),
began its work on July 1.
The COI will build on the important work by the Special Rapporteur
on the situation of human rights in the DPRK, Marzuki Darusman, who has
provided insightful and detailed reporting on the human rights
situation despite the DPRK Government's refusal to grant him access to
the country. The Special Rapporteur, whose mandate the United States
has consistently supported, has provided an important monitoring
function, reporting to the U.N. Human Rights Council every March as
well as to the U.N. General Assembly every fall. The United States
takes the opportunity of the interactive dialogue with the Special
Rapporteur to express our concerns about human rights in the DPRK.
The United States will continue to work with partners at the Human
Rights Council to support the COI in its important work, and looks
forward to the COI's interim report to the Human Rights Council in
September and its full report of its findings to the HRC in March 2014.
Ensuring the well-being of North Korean refugees and asylum seekers
is also very important. If confirmed as Ambassador, I will ensure that
we continue to work with other countries in the region and our
international organizations, including the U.N. Human Rights Council
and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, to raise attention to the
deplorable human rights conditions in the DPRK and to cooperate in the
protection of partners, especially South Korea, on the issue of North
Korean refugees and asylum seekers. We will continue to urge all
countries in the region to act in conformity with the 1951 U.N.
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1976 Protocol.
I would welcome any additional ideas you have on how we might raise
the profile of the human rights crisis in the DPRK.
______
Responses of Samantha Power to Questions Submitted
by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Question. Thank you for your thoughtful answers to the many
questions my colleagues and I have raised regarding Israel today and
during our private meeting. As you know, U.S. support for Israel within
the United Nations is critically important to our foreign policy and
national security priorities. As I mentioned during our private meeting
a few weeks ago, I greatly appreciate the constant efforts by you and
the President to defend Israel at the United Nations and other
international bodies. Yet I am discouraged that, as you noted during
your testimony, Israel continues to be singled out at every opportunity
by U.N. member states. As you stated, many close allies and aid
recipients blindly support anti-Israel resolutions in the General
Assembly and various U.N. bodies.
If confirmed, how would you leverage our bilateral
relationships with specific countries, particularly African and
Asian partner countries and U.S. aid recipients, to reduce
hostile activities aimed at delegitimizing Israel at the United
Nations?
In your opinion, how can the United States promote Israel's
fair treatment with the professional staff of the U.N., the
Secretary General and the heads of individual agencies? Do you
believe such engagement is necessary?
What can be done to more effectively push for structural
changes to eliminate the institutional bias against Israel?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue the administration's efforts
to normalize Israel's status at the United Nations, including
vigorously opposing one-sided, biased resolutions, fighting any efforts
to delegitimize Israel, and supporting Israel's positive engagement
with the United Nations.
In addition, I will make clear the administration's position that
one-sided actions in international fora will not advance the
aspirations of the Palestinian people. I believe that such actions at
the U.N. will make it harder to achieve progress toward Middle East
peace, possibly driving the parties further apart, heightening the risk
of violence on the ground that could claim innocent lives on both
sides, and risking hard-won progress in building Palestinian
institutions.
U.S. officials meet regularly with host governments and U.N.
officials to make known our opposition to unfair and biased resolutions
that directly or indirectly target Israel. I will engage with my
counterparts in New York from all regions, including Africa and Asia,
and urge them to put a stop to efforts to delegitimize Israel in the
U.N. system. The United States consistently opposes any texts or
actions that criticize Israel unfairly in any U.N. body or specialized
agency, and I will maintain that position.
If confirmed, I will also explore new opportunities for Israel to
engage in the U.N., whether it is supporting the participation and
selection of Israelis for leadership roles in U.N. programs and
agencies, or backing Israeli initiatives at the General Assembly, like
this year's entrepreneurship resolution. Israel was elected to the
Executive Board of the U.N. Development Programme in 2012 and will
serve on the board of UNICEF in 2013. The United States will continue
to support efforts to expand Israel's participation in an important
negotiating group in New York and Geneva (WEOG) to enhance Israeli
participation in the U.N. system. Israel's candidacy for a seat on the
U.N. Security Council for the 2019-2020 term--which the United States
strongly supports--is based on its membership in WEOG.
Question. Maritime disputes in the East and South China Seas have
caused
increased tensions and considerable friction among East Asian
countries. Secretaries Hagel and Kerry have both emphasized the need
for bilateral and multilateral dialogue and peaceful dispute resolution
mechanisms within ASEAN.
If confirmed, would you be willing to facilitate a meeting
of the relevant East Asian country representatives, and Members
of Congress, in New York to discuss options for the peaceful
resolution of maritime disputes in the East China Sea and South
China Sea?
Answer. I agree that the peaceful resolution of maritime disputes
in the East China Sea and South China Sea must be a priority. U.S.
officials regularly discuss this issue with relevant countries, and if
confirmed, I would support those efforts in my meetings with
representatives from other diplomatic missions. I would also look
forward to having Members of Congress visit the U.N. to participate in
discussions on this topic or any other topic of interest and concern.
Question. During your long and distinguished career as a human
rights champion, you served on the Board of the U.S. Committee for
Human Rights in North Korea. The issue of North Korea's nuclear program
is rightfully on the U.N. Security Council's agenda. The country's
atrocious record of human rights abuse and crimes against humanity,
however, are rarely addressed or invoked there.
If confirmed, do you pledge to publicly raise the North
Korean regime's human rights violations?
Do you believe that in addition to demands on the nuclear
program, the United States should routinely make demands to
North Korea that it undertakes reform, close its gulags, and
end the systematic repression and starvation of its population?
Answer. As I said in my opening comments, if confirmed, standing up
for human rights and human dignity will be one of my priorities as
Ambassador to the United Nations. The human rights situation in the
DPRK remains deplorable. The DPRK is one of the world's most systematic
abusers of human rights. The State Department's annual ``Country
Reports on Human Rights Practices'' details the breadth and depth of
the government's human rights abuses. The human rights situation in the
DPRK is addressed every year at the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) and
in the U.N. General Assembly Third Committee and U.S. officials use
their voice in these venues and beyond to highlight the horrible
conditions in the DPRK. The United States calls on the DPRK to close
its gulags, and end systematic repression and the starvation of its
population. At the March 2013 HRC session, the United States worked
closely with Japan, the European Union, and the Republic of Korea
(ROK), among others, to cosponsor a resolution that established a
Commission of Inquiry (COI) to investigate the grave, widespread, and
systematic human rights violations in North Korea. The resolution was
adopted by consensus, illustrating the extent to which the
international community shares the concerns voiced repeatedly by the
United States and others on the Council. The COI, led by Michael Kirby
(Australia), and including Sonja Biserko (Serbia) and Marzuki Darusman
(Indonesia), began its work on July 1.
The COI will build on the important work by the Special Rapporteur
on the situation of human rights in the DPRK, Marzuki Darusman, who has
provided insightful and detailed reporting on the human rights
situation despite the DPRK Government's refusal to grant him access to
the country. The Special Rapporteur, whose mandate the United States
has consistently supported, has provided an important monitoring
function, reporting to the U.N. Human Rights Council every March as
well as to the U.N. General Assembly every fall. The United States
takes the opportunity of the interactive dialogue with the Special
Rapporteur to express our concerns about human rights in North Korea.
The United States will continue to work with partners at the Human
Rights Council to support the COI in its important work, and looks
forward to the COI's interim report to the Human Rights Council in
September and its full report of its findings to the HRC in March 2014.
Ensuring the well-being of North Korean refugees and asylum seekers
is also very important. If confirmed as Ambassador, I will ensure that
we continue to work with other countries in the region and our
international organizations, including the U.N. Human Rights Council
and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, to raise attention to the
deplorable human rights conditions in the DPRK and to cooperate in the
protection of partners, especially South Korea, on the issue of North
Korean refugees and asylum seekers. If confirmed, I would continue to
urge all countries in the region to act in conformity with the 1951
U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1976
Protocol.
I would welcome any additional ideas you have on how we might raise
the profile of the human rights crisis in the DPRK.
Question. In your last position, one of your main responsibilities
was promoting human rights as part of U.S. foreign policy. Highlighting
human rights issues in China is one of the most contentious parts of
the United States-China relationship; many critics have said that the
U.S. Government soft pedals on human rights in China at the expense of
other political and economic concerns.
If confirmed, how will you use your position to promote
human rights in China? Will you ensure that China's human
rights problems are not made secondary to other issues?
How will you use China's candidacy to the U.N. Human Rights
Council in Geneva--which requires a U.N. General Assembly
vote--to highlight and raise international concerns with
China's human rights record?
Answer. Promoting human rights--including the fundamental freedoms
of religion, expression, assembly, and association--is a central
objective of U.S. foreign policy around the world, including with
China. In my opening statement, I highlighted standing up for human
rights and human dignity as one my priorities, if I am confirmed as
Ambassador to the United Nations. The United States has consistently
pressed the Chinese Government in senior-level meetings and dialogues,
including during the Human Rights Dialogue, to improve its human rights
record. If confirmed, I will emphasize to the Chinese that the
deterioration of the human rights situation in China inevitably affects
the overall bilateral relationship and harms China's own pursuit of
stability and prosperity I will raise publicly and privately human
rights concerns, while pursuing practical engagement with China on a
range of human rights-related issues, such as the benefits of legal
reform and a more robust rule of law. I would welcome additional ideas
from you as to how to advance the case of human rights in China.
The Obama administration has consistently urged the Chinese
leadership to address the counterproductive policies that contribute to
tensions and violence in Tibet and the Uighur areas, and pressed for a
substantive dialogue with the Dalai Lama or his representatives,
without preconditions.
In addition to high-level bilateral dialogues, the United States
uses every appropriate opportunity to highlight China's human rights
record in multilateral fora, including regularly raising China's human
rights abuses during the Item 4 intervention the United States delivers
at the Human Rights Council (HRC).
One useful vehicle for taking up this case is the Universal
Periodic Review (UPR) process of the Human Rights Council. In China's
previous UPR in 2009, participants highlighted repression of religious
and other minorities, harassment and detention of human rights
defenders, and the use of ``re-education through labor.'' As it does
for all states undergoing review, the United States will make a
statement highlighting key human rights concerns and recommendations
for improvement during China's upcoming review in October, ahead of the
elections for the Human Rights Council, expected in November.
______
Responses of Samantha Power to Questions Submitted
by Senator Marco Rubio
Question. On July 16, Panamanian authorities intercepted an illegal
arms shipment from Cuba to North Korea. Cuba's actions violate at least
three United Nations Security Resolutions.
Given North Korea's record of proliferation of weapons
technologies to other state sponsors of terrorism such as Syria
and Iran, doesn't this latest case make clear once again that
North Korea should be relisted as a state sponsor of terrorism?
What actions will the United States take at the United
Nations as a result of Cuba's violation of U.N. Security
Council resolutions regarding trade of prohibited items with
North Korea?
Answer. As a matter of law, in order for any country to be
designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, the Secretary of State must
determine that the government of that country has repeatedly provided
support for acts of international terrorism. The administration makes
these designations after careful review of all available evidence to
determine if a country meets the statutory criteria for designation.
Even without being designated as a state sponsor of terrorism,
North Korea remains among the most heavily sanctioned of any country in
the world based on its announced nuclear detonations, ballistic missile
activity, proliferation activities, human rights violations, and status
as a Communist state. North Korea has also been subject to sanctions
under multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions for its ongoing
nuclear and ballistic-missile related activities, which constitute a
clear threat to international peace. In January 2013, the U.N. Security
Council adopted UNSCR 2087 (2013), condemning North Korea's December
2012 satellite launch, which used prohibited ballistic missile
technology, and on March 7, 2013, the U.N. Security Council unanimously
adopted UNSCR 2094, condemning North Korea's February 12, 2013, nuclear
test and imposing significant new sanctions under Chapter VII of the
U.N. Charter.
The administration has commended Panama for the recent actions it
has taken to implement relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions with
regard to the North Korean ship Chong Chon Gang. The United States will
work closely with the Government of Panama, which has requested our
assistance and the administration intends to provide assistance as best
it can.
North Korea's nuclear, ballistic missile, and proliferation-related
activities constitute a serious threat to international peace and
security and undermine the global nonproliferation regime. Shipments of
arms or related material to or from North Korea, and services related
to such items, would violate U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1718 and
1874, as reaffirmed this year in Resolutions 2087 and 2094. These
Security Council resolutions generally provide that all states shall
prevent the direct or indirect transfer of weapons from their territory
or by their nationals to North Korea and shall prohibit procurement of
such weapons from North Korea.
Panama has informed the U.N. Security Council DPRK Sanctions
Committee of the incident and has invited the Panel of Experts, which
assists the United Nations Security Council North Korea Sanctions
Committee, to conduct an investigation.
Panama's actions regarding the Sanctions Committee as well as
requesting the involvement of the Panel of Experts will help clarify
the involvement of the Government of Cuba with this issue. The
administration hopes that the Sanctions Committee, with the support of
the Panel of Experts, will investigate this case thoroughly, identify
parties responsible and recommend actions to be taken in response. The
administration notes that the Sanctions Committee has the ability to
impose targeted sanctions (asset freeze/travel ban) on individuals and
entities found to have contributed to prohibited activities or to
evasion of the sanctions. The administration will look at all
possibilities regarding appropriate actions once the Committee and
Panel complete their work. The administration will keep you and your
staff informed of progress and would welcome your recommendations on
next steps.
The United States will continue to work closely with all U.N.
member states to ensure the full and transparent implementation of U.N.
Security Council resolutions concerning North Korea. This will make it
harder for DPRK to acquire the technology, know-how, and funds to
develop its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, which the
international community has repeatedly condemned. The administration
will likewise continue to exercise our national authorities, where and
when appropriate, to impede Pyongyang's nuclear, ballistic missile, and
proliferation-related
activities.
Question. The National Security Staff at the White House is
reportedly looking at ways to delist Cuba as a state sponsor of
terrorism. Reports from July 16, 2013, clearly show Cuba's collusion
with North Korea on weapons transfers. Additionally we already know
that Cuba continues to provide safe haven to terrorist groups such as
ELN and the FARC.
Do you agree that it only makes sense to retain Cuba on the
list of state sponsors of terrorism?
Answer. The Reagan administration designated Cuba as a state
sponsor of terrorism in 1982 due to its repeated provision of support
for acts of international terrorism. After a designation is made, it
remains in place until rescinded in accordance with the relevant
statutes. The Department has no current plans to remove Cuba from the
state sponsors of terrorism list. I support Department policy.
The administration has commended Panama for the recent actions it
has taken to implement relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions with
regard to the North Korean ship Chong Chon Gang. The United States will
work closely with the Government of Panama, which has requested our
assistance and the administration intends to provide assistance as best
it can. Panama has informed the U.N. Security Council DPRK Sanctions
Committee of the incident and has invited the Panel of Experts, which
assists the United Nations Security Council North Korea Sanctions
Committee, to conduct an investigation. Panama's actions regarding the
Sanctions Committee as well as requesting the involvement of the Panel
of Experts will help clarify the involvement of the Government of Cuba
with this issue.
Question. I believe that we should immediately cease granting
people-to-people
licenses for travel to Cuba because of this latest evidence of
collusion with North Korea. How can this administration advocate for
relaxing policies with regard to the Cuban regime considering their
support for illegal weapons transfers to North Korea? Is the President
prepared to immediately halt all people-to-people programs to Cuba?
Answer. If confirmed as Ambassador to the United Nations, I will
stand up for human rights and human dignity. As I indicated in my
opening statement, I intend to draw attention to the crackdown on civil
society in several countries, including Cuba.
The administration believes U.S. citizens are the best ambassadors
of American values and that well-defined, purposeful travel that
appropriately expands religious, cultural, and educational connections
between Cubans and Americans allows Cubans to experience the freedom of
association and expression they have too long been denied.
Regulations regarding such travel have been intentionally
structured to maximize the benefits to, and contact with, the Cuban
people.
Question. Will you support efforts to get the United Nations to
increasingly rely on voluntary contributions to fund its regular
budget?
Answer. In these tough times, when American taxpayers are
scrutinizing their budgets, we need to do the same. I share your
concern about the historical growth in the U.N. budget and increase in
our share of the peacekeeping assessment. We have to be zealous in our
scrutiny of every program and every initiative that the American people
are helping to support through their generosity.
We have had significant success over the last 4 years on a U.N.
reform agenda--building on some of the work done by our predecessors.
We have sought reductions in the peacekeeping budget of over $500
million.
The United States and other major contributors to the United
Nations have been working very hard to limit growth in the U.N. regular
budget. The administration has been successful in keeping the 2012-2013
budget level below the level of the 2010-2011 budget, marking only the
second time in 50 years that the U.N. regular budget decreased from the
previous biennium.
Assessed contributions ensure a shared financial responsibility
among all U.N. member states and provide a stable and predictable
funding source needed to enable the United Nations to address a wide
array of global challenges.
A voluntary approach to funding would undercut U.S. arguments for
burden-sharing in areas where the United States has strong national
interests, such as peacekeeping and the special political missions in
Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition to this, a voluntary approach would
likely result in an overreliance on a handful of member states with the
United States paying a greater share of the costs.
Question. Do you agree that the most effective tool we have in
getting the United Nations to become more effective and transparent is
to condition our financial contributions on specific reform metrics?
Answer. We must seek reforms across the U.N. system to guarantee
our financial contributions are spent effectively. The best metric is a
well-run cost-efficient United Nations. By contrast, successive
administrations--Republican and Democratic--have argued against
conditioning U.S. contributions to the U.N., because the U.S.
Government experience has been that the United States has diminished
our leverage for reform when we are not inside. For example, when we
were in arrears, even our closest allies were less willing to cooperate
with us, including on reform issues. In 1996, our candidate to the
Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ)--
an important body that scrubs U.N. budgets and advises on management
issues--suffered an embarrassing defeat (receiving only 55 of 173
votes) in a rebuke over U.S. arrears.
By contrast, we have seen significant reforms achieved by robust,
long-term, sustained engagement. These include: the establishment of
the Office of Internal Oversight Services, the U.N. Independent Audit
Advisory Committee, and the U.N. Ethics Office; advancement in U.N.
transparency efforts by making the Office of Internal Oversight
Services' internal audit reports publicly available; reforms to the
current U.N. air travel policy that put in place common sense
restrictions on use of business class travel and abolishment of several
unnecessary and costly reimbursement practices; and improvements to
U.N. human resources policies, including a pay freeze and right-sizing
exercise pending the outcome of comprehensive reviews of staff needs
and compensation and enhancements to performance management and
management accountability.
Question. Given that several notorious human rights abusers (as is
the case with Iran and Syria currently), perennially try to run for
seats on the Council, do you agree that the United States should make
its participation in the Council contingent upon certain standards for
membership?
Answer. United States engagement in the U.N. Human Rights Council
(HRC) has resulted in real progress in promoting and protecting human
rights globally. U.S. reelection to the HRC last year--with the highest
number of votes among its five Western competitors--was a clear
indication that the rest of the world views U.S. leadership on the HRC
as crucial. Though hard to measure, we also believe the good will
generated by our principled engagements has enhanced U.S. standing as a
human rights leader beyond the Council.
The United States remains concerned that countries with poor human
rights records continue to be elected to seats on the HRC. The U.N.
General Assembly, which elects members of the HRC by secret ballot, is
supposed to elect only members that ``uphold the highest standards in
the promotion and protection of human rights.'' The United States
actively seeks to positively influence the elections both by
encouraging countries with strong human rights records to seek seats
and by encouraging competitive elections for the HRC.
The United States has also worked behind the scenes with other
countries to oppose the election of some of the worst human rights
violators to the Human Rights Council and other important global bodies
and will continue to do so. As you may know, a relentless diplomatic
campaign by the United States helped keep Syria, Iran, and Sudan from
becoming members in the recent past.
We agree it should not take this kind of effort to keep countries
in regional blocs from voting for bad actors. But we pledge to fight
aggressively such disturbing campaigns which undermine the Council and
the broader human rights agenda.
U.S. membership and leadership are critical to improving the
Council's performance, and we recognize that a lot of hard work lies
ahead.
Question. In the last session of the United Nations General
Assembly, 131 countries--out of 193 member states--voted against the
United States position on more than 50 percent of the rollcall votes.
Among these 131 countries are several recipients of considerable
amounts of U.S. foreign assistance.
Do you agree that a country's voting pattern at the United
Nations should be a factor in determining levels of U.S.
foreign assistance?
Answer. A country's voting record at the United Nations is always
relevant to its bilateral relationship with the United States. The
administration references U.N. voting in our bilateral discussions at
all levels, and we believe that member states should be held
accountable for votes we deem problematic.
Obviously, there are a range of factors that go into our assessment
of the bilateral relationship and divergent votes are just one
dimension of a country's relations with the United States. We should
consider the full range of economic, strategic, and political factors
when considering how to utilize our foreign assistance.
Question. In late 2000, the U.N. agreed to lower the U.S.
peacekeeping assessment to 25 percent of its total budget. However, in
the most recent U.N. Budget (2013-2015) the U.S. share of the
peacekeeping budget will rise to 28.4 percent.
Do you agree that the United States should seek to reverse
this trend and lower the U.S. share of the peacekeeping budget
to 27 percent?
What specific steps can you pledge to take to reverse this
increase in the U.S. share of the U.N. peacekeeping budget?
Answer. The United States will work over the next 2 years to try to
achieve reforms in the U.N. scales of assessment methodology to more
equitably distribute the U.N. budget, in advance of the General
Assembly's next review of the scales of assessment in 2015. The United
States believes that emerging power--including China, India, Brazil,
and Turkey--need to pay their fair share of the U.N. budget.
Although the latest scale of assessments included notable increases
for several countries, including China and Russia, the methodology used
to calculate each country's share needs to be streamlined and updated.
If confirmed, I will work to address the scales in the context of a
broader U.N. reform agenda, identify alternative methodologies for the
scales of assessments that properly reflect capacity to pay, and work
closely with other major financial contributors to ensure their support
for our efforts.
Question. Do you support the creation of an inspector general to
investigate and audit the use of U.S. contributions to the United
Nations?
Answer. Strong oversight is important, which is why the United
States has consistently pushed for credible external and internal audit
functions at all U.N. organizations. The United States has great
confidence in the quality and integrity of the National Audit Offices
serving as the external auditors of U.N. organizations, which functions
like a U.S. Government IG. The external auditors examine the financial
statements and accounts of U.N. organizations. This arrangement avoids
duplication of effort and assures that the external auditors are
accountable to the entire membership.
If confirmed, I would support efforts to assure that U.N. internal
auditors have adequate resources and independence to carry out their
oversight responsibilities.
Question. Do you agree that the United States should condition its
contributions to the United Nations on certification that no U.N.
agency or affiliated agencies grants any official status,
accreditation, or recognition to any organization which promotes or
condones anti-Semitism?
Answer. Anti-Semitism is a scourge that cannot be tolerated. Our
special envoy to combat anti-Semitism uses all means and venues to make
sure it is stamped out. The United States is steadfast in combating all
forms of anti-Semitism, and actively works to prevent the United
Nations from being used as a platform for any hate speech. For example,
the United States has continued its opposition to the Durban
Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA) in all U.N. venues given
concern about anti-Israel references, as well as language that calls
for undue restrictions on freedom of expression. Our diplomats have
staged walkout during the presentations by Iranian President
Ahmadinejad or other leaders who spew anti-Semitic hate. At the U.N.
Human Rights Council (HRC), the U.S. delegation calls points of order
if any delegations use anti-Semitic language, including terms such as
``blood libel.'' Senior government officials, including now-National
Security Advisor Ambassador Susan E. Rice and Ambassador Eileen Donahoe
(HRC) have stated publicly several times that Richard Falk is not fit
to serve as a U.N. special rapporteur given his past anti-Semitic
remarks.
If confirmed, I will join these public condemnations. If confirmed
as Ambassador to the United Nations, I would continue to stand up to
every effort that seeks to delegitimize Israel or undermine its
security.
Question. Last year, 19 out of 78 rollcall votes at the General
Assembly, involved the condemnation of Israel. Do you agree that this
represents a disproportionate focus on Israel? If so, what practical
measures would you, if confirmed, take to significantly reduce or end
this practice?
Answer. I agree that the U.N. General Assembly disproportionately
focuses on Israel. As I said in my testimony, ``Israel's legitimacy
should be beyond dispute, and its security must be beyond doubt. Just
as I have done the last 4 years as President Obama's U.N. adviser at
the White House, I will stand up for Israel and work tirelessly to
defend it.''
If confirmed, I will continue the administration's efforts to
normalize Israel's status at the United Nations, including vigorously
opposing one-sided, biased resolutions, fighting any efforts to
delegitimize Israel, and supporting Israel's positive engagement with
the United Nations.
U.S. officials meet regularly with host governments and U.N.
officials to make known our opposition to unfair and biased resolutions
that directly or indirectly target Israel. We repeat this message in
capitals and in Geneva. The United States consistently opposes any
texts or actions that criticize Israel unfairly in any U.N. body or
specialized agency, and I will maintain that position.
If confirmed, just as I did as President Obama's U.N. adviser, I
would take every opportunity to make clear the administration's
position that one-sided actions in international fora will not advance
the aspirations of the Palestinian people. We make the costs of
unilateral action clear to the Palestinians and to those who have
supported counterproductive unilateral action in the United Nations. I
believe that such actions at the U.N. will make it harder to achieve
progress toward Middle East peace, possibly driving the parties further
apart, heightening the risk of violence on the ground that could claim
innocent lives on both sides, and risking hard-won progress in building
Palestinian institutions.
U.S. officials meet regularly with host governments and U.N.
officials to make known our opposition to unfair and biased resolutions
that directly or indirectly target Israel. The United States
consistently opposes any texts or actions that criticize Israel
unfairly in any U.N. body or specialized agency, and I will maintain
that position.
If confirmed, I will also explore new opportunities for Israel to
engage in the United Nations, whether it is supporting the
participation and selection of Israelis for leadership roles in U.N.
programs and agencies, or backing Israeli initiatives at the General
Assembly, like this year's entrepreneurship resolution. Israel was
elected to the Executive Board of the U.N. Development Programme in
2012 and will serve on the board of UNICEF in 2013. The United States
will continue to support efforts to expand Israel's participation in an
important negotiating group in New York and Geneva (WEOG) to enhance
Israeli participation in the U.N. system. Israel's candidacy for a seat
on the U.N. Security Council for the 2019-2020 term--which the United
States strongly supports--is based on its membership in WEOG.
Question. If confirmed, would you advocate for the United Nations
Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)
to harmonize its definition of ``refugee'' with that of the U.N.
Refugee Agency (UNHCR)?
Answer. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
defines a refugee under the terms of the 1951 United Nations Convention
Relating to the Status of Refugees as a person who, ``owing to a well-
founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion,
nationality, membership of a particular social group or political
opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to
or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection
of that country or return there because there is a fear of persecution
. . . ''.
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees
in the Near East (UNRWA), which predates the creation of UNHCR, defines
a refugee for purposes of its operation as any person whose ``normal
place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15
May 1948 and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of
the 1948 conflict,'' and descendants of fathers fulfilling those
criteria.
In protracted situations of displacement, groups experience natural
population growth over time. UNHCR and UNRWA both generally recognize
descendants of refugees as refugees for purposes of their operations;
this approach is not unique to the Palestinian context. For example,
UNHCR recognizes descendants of refugees as refugees in populations
including, but not limited to, the Burmese refugee population in
Thailand, the Bhutanese refugee population in Nepal, the Afghan
population in Pakistan, and the Somali population seeking refuge in
neighboring countries.
The United States acceptance of UNRWA's method of recognizing
refugees is unrelated to the final status issue of Palestinian
refugees, which can only resolved in negotiations between the parties.
Question. July 22 will mark the first anniversary of the death of
Oswaldo Paya Sardinas in a car crash Cuba. Mr. Paya was an
internationally respected member of Cuba's beleaguered democracy
movement, and newly available evidence by a survivor of the crash has
raised questions about the possible involvement of the Cuban regime in
the crash.
If confirmed, what measures would you take to seek a
credible U.N. investigation of the circumstances surrounding
Mr. Paya's death?
Would you commit to give Mr. Paya's surviving daughter (Rosa
Maria Paya) a forum at the United Nations to ask for such
investigation?
Answer. I understand and agree strongly with the call the
Department of State has already made for an independent investigation,
with independent, international observers, into the circumstances
leading to the deaths of Oswaldo Paya and Harold Cepero, and if
confirmed I will continue to support such calls and encourage other
U.N. delegations to do the same. Additionally, I understand the
Department of State also called for an independent investigation at the
June 2013 session of the U.N. Human Rights Council.
At both the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) in New York and the U.N.
Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva, civil society representatives
play a crucial part in highlighting human rights issues of concern. In
March 2013, Ms. Paya came before the HRC to call the Council's
attention to her father's tragic and untimely death.
As you know, if I am confirmed as Permanent Representative to the
United Nations, I have agreed to reach out to Rosa Maria Paya to speak
with her directly. I would also reach out to Assistant Secretary
General for Human Rights, Ivan Simonovic, to encourage the Office of
the High Commissioner for Human Rights to conduct a thorough
investigation. I would like to explore any and all appropriate venues
for raising the profile of this case and of the broader human rights
plight of the Cuban people.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to raise
international attention about Cuba's poor human rights record at the
General Assembly?
Answer. As I stated in my opening testimony, the United Nations
must stand up for human rights and human dignity, which are American
and universal values. I also spoke about the need to contest the
crackdown on civil society being carried out in Cuba. If confirmed, I
intend to continue to speak about this issue, including at the U.N.
General Assembly and at any other appropriate venue that we identify.
As it stands now, the United States uses every appropriate opportunity
to highlight Cuba's human rights record in multilateral fora, including
at the U.N. General Assembly. If confirmed, I will redouble these
efforts. This will include diplomacy to strongly make the case to
increase votes against the annual Cuban embargo resolution at the U.N.
General Assembly. It will also include consulting with you, other
interested Members of Congress, and Cuban advocates to come up with
fresh venues and approaches to drawing attention to the dire human
rights conditions inside Cuba.
Question. Has the United States response to events such as the 2009
protests in Iran after the fraudulent election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
or to the revolutions of the Arab Spring been adequate and timely? Have
we capitalized on the opportunity for fundamental change to occur in
these countries that would advance U.S. interests in the long term?
Answer. The uprisings in the Arab Spring grew out of the deep
longings of the people of the region for freedom, dignity, and
opportunity, after decades of oppression and an illusory stability
where citizen aspirations were suppressed but never addressed. Today we
see many countries in the region struggling on the long, very bumpy
road to democracy and stability, and the administration is deploying a
range of diplomatic, economic, and other tools to support the peoples
and governments of the region, as it is in the U.S. interest to see a
more peaceful, democratic Middle East. Through this period the United
States policy has been defined by support for three principles:
nonviolence, respect for universal human rights, and meaningful
political and economic reform on the road to democracy.
As you note, the first match was lit in Tehran in 2009, when
millions rose up to demand democracy and protest Iran's stolen
election. The United States stood with the Iranian people, voicing
strong American support for those seeking to exercise their universal
rights. However, the Iranian regime--terrified of the implications of a
democratic movement within its borders--crushed that inspiring
movement, arresting, beating, and killing peaceful oppositionists,
political activists, and average Iranians who refused to have their
voices ignored. This was an outrage, and the administration said so. On
June 23, the President said, ``The United States and the international
community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings,
and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust
actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every
innocent life that is lost.'' Over the past several years, the
administration has worked in Geneva to establish and support the first-
ever country-specific Special Rapporteur for Human Rights, for Iran; we
have established ever-wider margins for the annual Iran human rights
resolution in the General Assembly; and we continue to impose sanctions
against human rights abusers, including those who use technology to
commit human rights abuse. I would welcome the opportunity to consult
about any additional steps we might take to support human rights in
Iran.
In Libya President Obama mobilized broad international support and
led a coalition to help the Libyan people rid their country of a tyrant
who had made clear his intention to murder all those who opposed him
and stood up for democracy. He was also a dictator who had brought
great harm to American and other innocent families. With Ghadaffi gone,
the Libyan people have the opportunity to chart a new direction for
their country and build their democracy. They face significant
challenges in light both of the evisceration of institutions under
Ghadaffi and the growth of militias and the vast quantities of arms in
Libya. These challenges cannot be overstated. And it will surely take
time--and support from the broader international community--for the
Libyan people to build a peaceful democratic Libya, but U.S. leadership
made it possible for the brave Libyan people to embark upon that
journey. The United States now stands as a partner to Libyans who are
investing their lives in building that future.
Egyptians, too, stand at another crossroads in their journey toward
peace and democracy. There is a tremendous yearning for change and yet
enormous challenges remain for the Egyptian people to move in an
inclusive, rights-respecting fashion toward stability and justice. In
response to the original uprising, President Obama made it clear to the
Egyptian people that he respected their universal rights of protest;
the administration worked behind the scenes through political and
military channels to urge nonviolence against the protesters; and, with
congressional support, the United States stepped in with a variety of
forms of technical, democracy, and other assistance to help support
Egypt as it planned and executed its first democratic elections. In a
country of such strategic importance to the broader region, this
support was important. Unfortunately, while the Muslim Brotherhood won
Egypt's elections, millions of Egyptians had legitimate grievances with
the way the Morsi government was governing, prompting large-scale
popular protests. There was considerable unrest, and the potential for
greater violence. U.S. officials at all levels engaged the Muslim
Brotherhood in an effort to convince them to address the people's
legitimate concerns, make compromises, govern in a more inclusive
manner, respect human rights, and promote minority rights. Today, in
the wake of recent events, it is critical that those attempting to
shepherd the transition back to democracy change that dynamic by
attempting to govern on behalf of all Egyptians, including those with
whom they disagree. This is a message the administration is sending
through all channels, including, most recently, through the very public
comments by Deputy Secretary Burns in Cairo. The administration is
eager to stand with the Egyptian people as they rebuild their economy
and their political system so that it is truly democratic and respects
human rights. Our assistance and longstanding ties with the government,
the military, and the people give us a platform from which to urge them
to promptly and responsibly get back on a path toward an inclusive and
sustainable democracy.
Syria is the most complex and tragic of the issues confronting us,
our allies and the entire Middle East. The President has put in place a
multifaceted approach designed, with our international partners, to
strengthen moderate elements of the opposition and bring about the too-
long-awaited political transition to democracy. In addition to imposing
crippling sanctions against the Assad regime, we have contributed
nearly a billion dollars' worth of humanitarian aid, and critical
nonlethal assistance to strengthen opposition capabilities and
institutions. In addition, the President announced recently that--in
response to Assad's chemical weapons use--we would provide additional
forms of support to vetted units in the opposition military. We have
encouraged the opposition, which has been woefully fractured, to unite
so the people in Syria view them as a viable alternative. This is very
much a work in progress, and nobody is satisfied with the state of
events on the ground, especially as more than 100,000 Syrians have been
killed and the conflict continues to destabilize the broader region.
These are just a few examples of a region in flux and tumult. The
best way for us to capitalize is to continue to be engaged,
understanding that the path will not be smooth nor without setbacks. We
need to work with the governments and groups who represent democratic
values and respect for human rights, and who understand the need to
create jobs and economic opportunity. The President is committed to
seeing that happen, and I am committed to supporting his efforts
throughout the region.
As with all of these issues, if confirmed, I will need to rely on
your thoughts and advice. As I said in my meetings and at my hearing, I
cannot do this job without you.
Question. The administration has been criticized for not speaking
out frequently and forcefully enough in support of democratic movements
and freedom fighters over the last 5 years. How do you judge the
administration's record in this area? If confirmed, how would you use
your platform at the United Nations to highlight the plight of those
oppressed by their governments?
Answer. Support for democracy and human rights defenders is a core
American value, and the Obama administration has not shied away from
speaking out for those who are seeking their universal fundamental
freedoms. As I said in my opening statement, if confirmed, standing up
for human rights and human dignity will be one of my priorities as
Ambassador to the United Nations. I believe peoples suffering human
rights violations look to the United States for leadership. And often
in our history the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. has raised a loud voice
on behalf of American values and fundamental freedoms.
In his first address to the U.N. General Assembly in 2009,
President Obama stated, ``there are basic principles that are
universal; there are certain truths which are self evident. And the
United States of America will never waver in our efforts to stand up
for the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny.''
President Obama firmly supported the international effort to ensure
the emergence of an independent South Sudan. Likewise, U.S. leadership
was key in building an international coalition to prevent a massacre of
civilians in eastern Libya, and to support the Libyan people to
overthrow the Qadhafi regime and begin a transition to democracy after
four decades of brutal dictatorship. More broadly, in response to the
Arab Spring, the United States has spoken out strongly for political
change that gives citizens a greater voice in their government, for the
rights of
free speech and peaceful protest, and for the political participation
of women and minorities.
Obviously, when fewer than half the countries in the United Nations
are fully free, we cannot be satisfied. When men, women, and children
are being slaughtered in Syria we cannot be satisfied. When individuals
are routinely jailed, harassed, and abused for advocating for their
freedoms, and when governments are cracking down on civil society
around the world, we have to find fresh ways to influence governments
and support freedom and those who struggle to promote it. I would
welcome any further ideas you have to achieve our shared ends.
As a means to highlight their struggles and improve their
situations, the United States joined more than 60 other countries in
2011 to cosponsor a resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Council
renewing the mandate for the Special Rapporteur on the situation of
human rights defenders. Additionally, in March 2012, the U.S.
cosponsored a resolution on the promotion and protection of human
rights in the context of peaceful protests.
Question. If confirmed, as a member of the Principals Committee,
what unexplored options for influencing the outcome in Syria and
achieving the fall of Assad would you advocate?
Answer. I agree with the premise of your question, which is that
the administration should leave no stone unturned and no option
unexplored. The administration has said repeatedly that the President
continues to review all options for addressing the crisis in Syria, as
the situation changes on the ground. If confirmed, it will be my
responsibility to contribute to that constant assessment and review of
the situation and potential options for U.S. policy, given the truly
outrageous situation on the ground in Syria. If confirmed, I will work
with my colleagues to explore, evaluate, and reevaluate every means we
might use to bring about the day when the Syrian people can be rid of
Assad's tyranny, and begin to rebuild their country with a government
that respects their rights and gives them the opportunity for a better
future. I would also like to consult very closely with Members of the
Congress who care deeply about this issue, to be sure that we are
considering all variables and all options that could help influence
outcomes in Syria in a manner that advances our national security
interests.
Question. In an essay titled ``Full Force'' published by the New
Republic on March 2003 you recommended ``a historical reckoning with
crimes committed, sponsored, or permitted by the United States.'' These
views strike me as outside the mainstream American view of our Nation's
role in the world, and I would like to give you an opportunity to
clarify them.
Which crimes do you believe have been committed by the
United States that need reckoning?
Which crimes do you believe have been sponsored by the
United States that need reckoning?
Which crimes do you believe have been permitted by the
United States that need reckoning?
Answer. Thank you for the opportunity to expand on my response to
your question regarding language in the 2003 New Republic article. The
passage you cite does not accurately reflect my view of the United
States. If I had it to do over, I would have used very different
language, especially because the article itself is an extended and
passionate call for America's moral leadership in the world. Promoting
American values as a pillar of our foreign policy has been the
objective of everything I have written about American foreign policy.
There have been times when we have failed to live up to our high
standards and when American leaders of both parties have acknowledged
error and changed course, often after vigorous domestic policy
disagreements and sometimes at the behest of Congress. This ability of
the United States to honestly explore areas of policy disagreement and
move forward is a hallmark of our strength. In my testimony I cited
President Clinton's discussion of his feelings about the genocide in
Rwanda. I might also have cited President Reagan, who in 1988 in
signing the Civil Liberties Act memorably said, ``We must recognize
that the internment of Japanese-Americans was just that: a mistake.''
Such statements help set us apart from those countries that tolerate no
criticism, trample on checks and balances, and deny their people the
fundamental freedoms that Americans enjoy.
If I have the privilege of representing this country at the United
Nations, I will work tirelessly to protect the interests and values of
the American people.
I will defend America because I am proud of America.
______
Responses of Samantha Power to Questions Submitted
by Senator Christopher A. Coons
Question. Mali.--The events in both Mali and Libya show how
instability in one country can destabilize an entire region, and create
attractive targets for extremist groups intent on harming local and
American interests.
In the case of Mali, do you think it is important for the
international community to deploy U.N. peacekeepers to the
north in an effort to secure the gains made by the French
earlier this year?
What effect do you think greater stability in northern Mali
will have on the
region as a whole?
Answer. The United States believes it is vitally important for the
international community to deploy U.N. peacekeepers to consolidate the
gains achieved by French forces earlier this year and to make progress
in addressing the underlying causes of instability in northern Mali.
Bert Koenders, Special Representative of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
and Head of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated
Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA), said: ``The establishment of
MINUSMA is the result of a unanimous decision of the United Nations
Security Council and has reaffirmed the engagement of the international
community to accompany the people of Mali in their quest for stability,
peace, and prosperity.''
MINUSMA has a comprehensive mandate to stabilize key northern
population centers, support the political process, and contribute to
strengthening Mali's institutions, which are crucial to ensuring that
northern Mali is no longer hospitable to extremist and terrorist
forces, whose protracted entrenchment contributed to state collapse in
Bamako last March. The United Nations envisions that MINUSMA will
maintain a relatively light presence in Bamako, while deploying to key
northern cities, including Gao, Timbuktu, Kidal, Tessalit, and
Douentza.
Greater stability in northern Mali is critical to international
peace and security, and particularly, the stability of the Sahel
region, which faces complex and interrelated security and governance
challenges, including from al-Qaeda. If confirmed, I will work with
colleagues in the United States Government, as well as the United
Nations and our allies and partners, to support and implement an
integrated strategy for peace and security in the Sahel.
Question. Mali.--With more than 12,600 uniformed personnel deployed
to a vast and extremely difficult operating environment, it will be
critical for MINUSMA to possess the resources and equipment necessary
to be effective. Because of the timing of the crisis, this mission was
not included in the administration's budget request.
How would a lack of adequate U.S. funding affect MINUSMA's
ability to operate and carry out its mandate?
Answer. It is essential that all U.N. peacekeeping operations have
the resources they need to fulfill their mandates, which are critical
to the maintenance of international peace and security.
Insufficient funding may lead to personnel and capability
shortfalls in U.N. peacekeeping operations that negatively impact their
ability to fulfill their mandates, undermining the effectiveness of
peacekeepers and threatening the lives of both the peacekeepers and the
civilians they are mandated to protect.
In the case of Mali in particular, the consequences of insufficient
funding to the U.N. Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission
in Mali (MINUSMA) could undermine the recent progress and fragile peace
and endanger stability in the region, which would directly damage our
own national security interests.
The administration will continue to explore all available options
to meet President Obama's commitment to pay our dues on time and in
full, consulting closely with Congress on the appropriate way forward.
Question. Peacekeeping operations are now being termed
``stabilization operations'' in DRC and Mali, and being asked to use
force and undertake roles and responsibilities that far outstrip
existing U.N. military doctrine, training, capacity (e.g., intelligence
and command and control), not to mention civilian capacity. The United
States authorized these mandates.
How will you ensure that new iterations of peace operations
do not make the United Nations more vulnerable to belligerent
threats or increase risks to civilians that peacekeepers are
mandated to protect?
How do you view this new mandate, and the supply of unmanned
aerial vehicles, impacting the situation in the DRC
specifically?
Answer. The world is more dangerous, and the challenges and threats
to peacekeepers more acute than they were 30 or 40 years ago. While the
fundamentals of U.N. peacekeeping remain unchanged--such as the use of
force only in self-defense or in defense of the mandate--the
circumstances in which peacekeepers are needed today are often far more
complex and challenging than traditional operations implementing a
peace agreement between two warring states. Instead, they are often
needed to help protect civilians and build peace in fragile states
facing armed groups and other spoilers to the peace, as in Mali and
Congo. Al-Qaeda and its affiliates have also targeted U.N. personnel on
numerous occasions. To operate in such challenging environments, U.N.
personnel require a wide range of military, police, and civilian skills
and capacity, as well as adequate security.
The United States helps to build this capacity by actively
supporting the U.N.'s development of modern doctrine, guidance, and
training, and by providing training and equipment. This includes the
new infantry battalion manual the United Nations recently released, and
the development of similar manuals currently being drafted for other
peacekeeping units, as well as work on issues such as command and
control, protection of civilians, gender, and child protection. State
and Defense offices work in very close cooperation on these issues,
including through the Global Peace Operations Initiative which helps
troop-contributing countries prepare their contingents to serve in U.N.
missions, including through the provision of personal protective
equipment.
The administration has been very engaged for several years in
reforms to the U.N.'s process for recruiting, hiring, and retention of
staff with the necessary skills, including addressing the incentives
and working conditions necessary to keep good people in the field. The
United States commissioned a study on the reasons for the shortage of
helicopter assets, which is a key step toward finding solutions. The
administration is actively encouraging and supporting the
implementation of recommendations from that study. The administration
is also a lead proponent of contingency planning for crises, including
support to the U.N.'s new Operations and Crisis Center and mission-
specific plans, in particular related to protection of civilians.
As for the U.N. mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, it
has long had the authority to use force to protect civilians from the
predations of armed groups. Security Council Resolution 2098 of March
2013 did not change that authority or the mission; it only made it more
explicit, by adding a brigade that is trained, organized, and equipped
to deal with armed groups and other threats to civilians. We will
encourage the troop contributors to enforce the critical mandate.
Similarly, the introduction of unarmed, unmanned aerial systems in
Congo will permit the U.N. mission to detect and react more rapidly to
threats to the civilian population and to the mission itself.
Question. President Obama announced the creation of an interagency
Atrocities Prevention Board (APB) during a speech last year at the U.S.
Holocaust Memorial Museum. The Atrocities Prevention Board, previously
under your leadership, has been tasked with creating new tools to
prevent wide-scale violence against civilians, in addition to
identifying countries at risk of such crimes. Over the past year, the
APB has sparked preventive action in places like Burma and Kenya, in
addition to crafting important bureaucratic reforms to mainstream
atrocities prevention training and early warning. However, the United
States has yet to meaningfully engage diplomatically with other
countries' on strengthening their own atrocities prevention capacities.
In your new role at the United Nations, should you be
confirmed, how will you engage with U.N. members states on
atrocities prevention and challenge them to create structures
similar to the APB?
Answer. As President Obama said in his August 2011 Directive on
Mass Atrocities, ``preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core
national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the
United States.'' In the same directive, the President also sent a
strong signal on the importance of sharing that responsibility with
other countries. Just as the United States is committed to
strengthening our own capabilities to focus on preventing and
responding to mass atrocities, this administration is committed to
working with a wide range of partners to ensure that the international
community is well-positioned to be effective in this regard.
While many of our partners already have strong commitments to
civilian protection and conflict prevention, the administration
believes that the process we have undertaken in formulating our
comprehensive atrocity prevention strategy and standing up the
Atrocities Prevention Board has generated new and useful insights into
how governments can do more to position themselves to prevent and
respond to the worst crimes known to humankind. For more than a year,
we have sought opportunities to share our experience and insights with
our partners in a range of settings.
For example, the administration regularly discusses our efforts on
atrocity prevention with those who join the U.N. Security Council in
order to see how we can learn from each other, develop stronger tools,
and enhance cooperation.
Given the important role of regional organizations, the United
States has held technical discussions at the regional level on
strengthening our joint capabilities for conflict prevention, which can
help protect civilian populations vulnerable to the threat of violence
and atrocities.
A significant part of the administration's effort is its
partnership with the United Nations. The United States is working to
build the capacity of the United Nations for atrocity prevention by
advocating for better coordinated crisis planning and response across
U.N. bodies; deepening our partnership with the Office of the Special
Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide; urging all U.N. field missions
to enhance their early warning capacity; and contributing voluntary
funding to U.N. preventive diplomacy.
To bolster the administration's diplomatic engagement with
countries on atrocity prevention matters, the United States has also
joined with other member states in fora dedicated to the discussion of
atrocity prevention and to promoting the use of mediation as a tool for
conflict prevention.
If confirmed, I will work to deepen this cooperation, look for new
ways to share the lessons the administration has learned, and foster
new and enhanced partnerships that will advance our efforts to prevent
atrocities.
Question. Great Lakes.--Despite the passage of a U.N. resolution,
the creation of a multilateral Peace, Security and Cooperation
Framework for negotiations, and the appointment of an envoy to the
Great Lakes, the crisis in eastern Congo continues.
If you are confirmed, what steps will you take up in New
York to support implementation of the Framework and cessation
of external support to militias, which has been documented by
the United Nations, that continue to destabilize the DRC and
create human misery.
Answer. The administration's overarching goal is to help stop the
cycle of violence that has plagued eastern DRC for nearly two decades
and to allow political stability and economic development to take root.
The United States welcomed the signing of the Peace, Security, and
Cooperation Framework for the DRC and the Region. The administration is
also encouraged by the appointment of former Irish President Mary
Robinson as the U.N. Special Envoy to the region and supports her
mandate to lead the implementation of the Framework. If confirmed, I
will work with U.N. Special Envoy Robinson, as well as U.S. Special
Envoy Feingold, and partners on the Security Council, to encourage the
Framework's signatories to fully and quickly implement their
commitments, including prioritizing the regional commitments to not
support armed groups and to respect the territorial integrity of
neighboring states. As the President recently said, all the parties
concerned need to follow through on their commitments in order to bring
about a lasting solution in the DRC and Great Lakes Region. There is no
question that civilians in this region have suffered far too long, and
we must find a way collectively to forge a path that better secures
their physical security and human rights.
The administration believes that its diplomatic engagement over the
past 6 months has had an impact. However, the United States is deeply
concerned by recent reports that external support to armed groups
within the DRC--while limited--continues. There are also reports of
collusion between state forces and armed groups. All such support, as
well as any government collusion, must end.
The administration will continue to closely monitor the role of the
U.N. peacekeeping mission, MONUSCO, which must be a critical part of
the effort to stabilize the DRC and needs to help provide political and
security conditions space for a lasting settlement under the PSC
Framework. In March, the Security Council approved an Intervention
Brigade (IB) within MONUSCO tasked with neutralizing and disarming
armed groups. The United States strongly supports the IB and the larger
mission, but we recognize that we and other Security Council countries
who supported this deployment must stay vigilant about the mission and
the broader security challenges, seeking to ensure that it makes a
meaningful difference on the ground.
Question. The United Nations plays a significant role in South
Sudan. Since its independence, there have been a number of worrisome
developments that indicate the country may be moving in the wrong
direction. In fact, earlier this month the U.N. Representative to the
Secretary General noted that ``[t]he deterioration in the security
situation in parts of South Sudan has been accompanied by human rights
violations by both armed groups and national security institutions.
What steps will you take, if confirmed, to help address the
challenges in South Sudan and what aspects of the U.N. system
do you think will be most useful to such an effort?
Answer. I am deeply disturbed by mounting reports of abuse of
civilians, including ongoing killings, beatings, and looting and
destruction of homes and humanitarian facilities in Jonglei State. I am
extremely concerned about the detrimental impact that these ongoing
clashes have on the physical security and humanitarian situation of
tens of thousands of affected South Sudanese. The rainy season,
currently in progress, makes travel difficult or impossible across vast
swathes of South Sudan, and this--combined with SPLA restrictions on
U.N. movement into active conflict areas--greatly complicates
international efforts to gather firsthand information about the extent
of the conflicts, deliver humanitarian assistance, or to respond to the
violence that the United States believes to be underway.
The administration continues to strongly advocate for the U.N.
Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), U.N. humanitarian agencies, and NGOs
to have full, unfettered access to all areas in order to protect
civilians. This access would allow UNMISS to conduct timely patrols and
air reconnaissance and by permit humanitarian workers and U.N.
representatives to provide assistance and protection to all affected
populations. The United States has also called on the Government of
South Sudan to meet its obligations to ensure the safety and security
of all civilians regardless of their background or ethnicity. The
United States has reiterated that the Government is responsible for
preventing SPLA attacks on UNMISS or humanitarian staff and assets.
If confirmed, I will also continue to press the Government to hold
accountable those individuals who are responsible for the violence and
who have committed abuses--including members of the security forces--
through transparent judicial processes that respect the rule of law. I
am also keenly aware of the mobility issues facing UNMISS, particularly
restrictions affecting the use of helicopters, and will work vigorously
with the United Nations and other stakeholders to fill these gaps. I am
also interested in obtaining the views of Congress and advocates with
long histories of working on South Sudan as we think through what
additional steps may be taken.
______
Responses of Samantha Power to Questions Submitted
by Senator Jeff Flake
Question. Over the past several years, the Palestinian Authority
has successfully sought end-runs around direct negotiations with Israel
by getting votes in various U.N. bodies to upgrade its status. Such
attempts undermine the long-held belief that peace between Israel and
the Palestinian Authority can only come about as a direct result of
direct negotiations.
What is your plan to stop initiatives like this from even
coming before U.N. entities, or the General Assembly, for a
vote?
How will you address future attempts by the Palestinian
Authority to achieve statehood through the United Nations?
Will you support current U.S. law that requires the
cessation of U.S. assistance to U.N. entities which recognize
Palestinian statehood?
Answer. There are no shortcuts to Palestinian statehood, and I and
other U.S. officials have long made that clear. As I said in my
testimony on July 17, the administration has been absolutely clear that
it will continue to oppose firmly any and all unilateral actions in
international bodies or treaties that circumvent or prejudge the very
outcomes that can only be negotiated, including Palestinian statehood.
As President Obama's U.N. adviser, I helped coordinate and lead the
delivery of this message. If confirmed, I will strongly support this
effort, and I will work tirelessly to contest any effort that seeks to
delegitimize Israel or undermine its security.
The administration will continue to stress, both with the parties
and with international partners, that the only path for the
Palestinians to realize their aspiration of statehood is through direct
negotiations, and that Palestinian efforts to pursue endorsements of
statehood claims through the U.N. system outside of a negotiated
settlement are counterproductive. The administration remains vigilant
on this matter and works in close coordination with the Israeli
Government and our other international partners to firmly oppose one-
sided action in international fora and to reinforce the importance of
resumed direct negotiations between the parties as the only way to
address their differences and achieve lasting peace. There is simply no
substitute for the difficult give-and-take of direct negotiations.
The administration has requested a waiver to allow the President to
continue to provide contributions to U.N. specialized agencies when he
determines it is in the national interest. The waiver would allow the
United States to maintain our vote and influence within the United
Nations and its specialized agencies, and to remove from the
Palestinians or their allies any ability to force a contribution cutoff
and diminish our influence within these agencies.
Without a national interest waiver the administration's ability to
conduct multilateral diplomacy and pursue U.S. objectives will be
eroded, and the United States standing and position in critical U.N.
agencies will be harmed. As a result, the United States ability to
defend Israel from unfair and biased attacks in the United Nations will
also be greatly damaged.
Congress has passed legislation that provides the United States
with additional tools that are better suited for the purposes of
deterrence than the contribution cutoff mechanism. Legislation passed
in the aftermath of the Palestinians' successful UNESCO bid, if
triggered, would place limits on U.S. economic support to the
Palestinian Authority and would require the closure of the
Palestinians' Washington, DC, office if they obtain membership as a
state in a U.N. specialized agency going forward. These requirements
are, appropriately, directed at the Palestinians in the event they
engage in conduct that we are seeking to discourage. By contrast, the
implications of the contribution cutoff will be most felt by the United
States and the partners whose interests we defend across the spectrum
of the U.N. system.
The proposed waiver, if enacted, will not diminish the
administration's commitment to supporting Israel and defending our
interests at the United Nations. It will not alter the administration's
conviction that Palestinian status issues can be appropriately resolved
only on a bilateral basis in direct negotiations with the Israeli
Government, and that seeking to do otherwise undermines prospects for
securing long-term peace. We prove our commitment and our conviction
day in and day out, as we have over the past 4 years at the U.N. The
waiver will allow the administration to continue to wage that fight
more intelligently and more successfully, and at the same time better
protect U.S. interests across multilateral organizations--including
halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, defending intellectual
property rights, and preventing and tracking potential pandemics.
Question. Elections in Zimbabwe are slated to occur on July 31,
even though it is widely believed that that date is far too soon to
accommodate free, fair, and credible elections.
Many believe that the election results have already been
determined due to a large-scale effort to intimidate voters in
Zimbabwe which began with elections in 2008 and has gone on
since. If this is the case, and Mugabe pulls out a reelection,
what role do you see the United Nations playing in the wake of
those elections? What sort of cooperation--or opposition--would
the United States have in the Security Council?
Regardless of the elections, there will come a point when
there is a transition to democratic governance in Zimbabwe.
What role do you see the United Nations playing in Zimbabwe as
that transition takes place?
Answer. The July 31 Presidential election is a critical moment for
the people of Zimbabwe that will build on progress since the Global
Political Agreement was agreed in 2008. Zimbabwe's economy has begun to
recover from devastating economic mismanagement and hyperinflation, and
the people of Zimbabwe peacefully approved a new constitution in March.
Nevertheless, the administration remains deeply concerned about the
lack of transparency in preparations for the upcoming Presidential
elections, as well as continued partisan behavior by state security
institutions and the technical and the logistical issues hampering the
administration of a credible and transparent election. The
administration is troubled by reports of targeted harassment against
civil society groups and other individuals in the weeks leading up to
the elections and has stressed that civil society organizations,
independent media, political parties, and regular citizens in Zimbabwe
must be afforded the right to operate without harassment, detention,
and intimidation.
To date, the United Nations has implemented humanitarian aid
programs for children and women, economic growth and empowerment
projects, and social service expansion programming. While these efforts
must be commended, it is worthwhile for the United Nations to explore
and encourage opportunities to expand their programmatic footprint in
Zimbabwe.
At present, the United Nations supports the continued efforts by
the South African Development Community (SADC) to encourage all parties
in Zimbabwe to work together in completing the critical reforms
outlined in the Global Political Agreement (GPA), SADC electoral
roadmap, and Zimbabwe's new constitution, including media, security
sector, and other reforms. Regardless of the outcome of the elections,
the U.N. Country Team in Zimbabwe must continue to provide the high
level of humanitarian and development aid assistance that it offers
despite operating in a difficult environment.
As it has shown through critical ongoing support to democratic
transitions from authoritarian regimes in countries such as Tunisia,
Yemen, Libya and Iraq, the United Nations could play a constructive
role in supporting a democratic transition in Zimbabwe. Depending on
the particular circumstances and dynamics of such a transition, the
United Nations has an array of expertise that it could provide to a
transition in Zimbabwe, including electoral assistance, mediation among
stakeholders as well as support for national reconciliation and
transitional justice processes, strengthening human rights, and
providing humanitarian aid. The U.N. could also provide political
support to the efforts of Zimbabweans, the Southern African Development
Community, and other international partners to promote long-term peace
and development. I would strongly advocate for the U.N. to utilize all
its tools and capabilities, as appropriate, to support a peaceful
democratic transition for the people of Zimbabwe.
______
Responses of Samantha Power to Questions Submitted
by Senator Tom Udall
Question. I have been increasingly concerned by the
administration's attempts to circumvent the Congress and arm Syrian
rebels, whom we know little about. I am especially concerned about
plans to arm rebels with heavier weapons. From what we know, the
motivation of rebels is diverse, ranging from individuals who truly
want a free and secular society, to those who are intent on
establishing an intolerant theocracy and who are allied or sympathetic
with al-Qaeda. Some of these elements were reportedly active in Iraq
attacking U.S. and coalition forces.
I believe that until we know more about the rebels, until we can
trust the Syrian opposition to control their weapons, the Congress
should not allow the President to have the authority to transfer heavy
weapons. There is too high of a chance that those weapons could be used
against the United States or our friends and allies.
At the United Nations, will you actively work to pursue a
diplomatic solution to the conflict or will you pursue arming
of Syrian rebels?
You supported air strikes in Libya. The situation, and the
players in Syria are much different, do you or the President
plan on advocating for an international military response to
the situation in Syria as some on this committee have called
for?
Answer. Thank you for your question. I share the concern expressed
by the administration and by so many members of this committee
regarding the ongoing crisis in Syria, and the brutal atrocities
committed by Bashar al-Assad's forces against the Syrian people in a
conflict that has left more than 100,000 Syrians dead and has
destabilized the broader region. As I said in my testimony, Syria is
one of the most critical issues facing us today, and one of the most
devastating cases of mass atrocity that I have ever seen. I also share
your assessment of the rebels and agree that the presence of those
allied or sympathetic with al-Qaeda has further complicated a complex
situation that has brought such horrible suffering to the Syrian
people.
The President has put in place a multifaceted approach designed,
with our international partners, to strengthen moderate elements of the
opposition and bring about the too-long-awaited political transition to
democracy. In addition to imposing crippling sanctions against the
Assad regime, we have contributed nearly a billion dollars' worth of
humanitarian aid, and critical nonlethal assistance to strengthen
opposition capabilities and institutions. In addition, as you mention,
the administration announced recently that--in response to Assad's
chemical weapons use--we would provide additional forms of support to
vetted units in the opposition military. We have encouraged the
opposition, which has been woefully fractured, to unite so the people
in Syria view them as a viable alternative. Nobody in the
administration is satisfied with the conditions on the ground in Syria,
To your question, our priority remains achieving a political
settlement that achieves Assad's departure and that leads to a
transitional governing body with full Executive power. If confirmed, I
will work with other members of the administration to continue to
explore the prospects of convening, under the U.N.'s auspices and
working with our partners as well as Russia, diplomatic negotiations to
achieve this political transition. The administration and I agree that
it is a top priority to prevent the emergence of terrorist safe havens
in Syria that al-Qaeda and other extremists could exploit to threaten
the United States and our interests.
As you know, the U.N. Security Council should be supporting these
efforts at achieving a political solution. But Russia's obstruction has
consistently prevented the Council from taking appropriate action to
address the Syria crisis. This is a disgrace that history will judge
harshly. The administration has worked through other parts of the U.N.
system to galvanize international support for political transition. The
United States has backed resolutions in the U.N. General Assembly that
have highlighted the regime's overwhelming political isolation; for the
most recent resolution in May, Syria could only muster 11 other
countries in opposition. The administration also has worked through the
U.N. Human Rights Council to promote accountability for the atrocities
the regime has committed, establishing a commission of inquiry to
investigate and document these violations. And the administration has
supported and provided information to the U.N.'s chemical weapons
investigation team as they work to gain access to the sites where we
and others believe Assad has used chemical weapons against the Syrian
people.
Separate from the actions of these U.N. bodies comprised of member
states, U.N. officials have also shown important leadership during this
crisis. U.N. Secretary General Ban and other senior U.N. officials have
been vocal and consistent in demanding an end to atrocities and attacks
on civilians. And in the field, U.N. humanitarian workers put their own
lives at risk every day to bring assistance to more than 1.8 million
Syrian refugees, and nearly 7 million more Syrians displaced within the
country. The United States remains by far the largest donor to the
U.N.'s humanitarian appeal for Syria.
Recognizing your very legitimate concerns about some of those who
comprise the opposition, the administration's view is that the
political solution we all seek does not appear to be immediately within
reach. In providing direct assistance to the Syrian Military Council
the administration is working with General Idris and the SMC to channel
U.S. assistance to moderate, vetted recipients. The assistance is
designed to strengthen the effectiveness of the opposition, as it
resists continued vicious assaults from the regime, and to help
coordinate the provision of assistance from U.S. partners and allies,
from where we would seek to reduce the risk that materiel the
opposition is receiving from others falls into the wrong hands. The
administration has encouraged moderate opposition partners to distance
themselves from extremists who are also fighting against the Assad
regime, and minimized the risk of U.S. assistance being diverted. The
administration also has sanctioned the anti-Assad extremist group and
al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front, both under U.S. domestic sanctions
and through our support for the sanctions the U.N. Security Council
adopted in June.
The administration has said repeatedly that the President continues
to review all options for addressing the crisis in Syria, as the
situation changes on the ground. If confirmed, it will be my
responsibility to contribute to that constant assessment and review of
the situation and potential options for U.S. policy, given the truly
outrageous situation on the ground in Syria. If confirmed, I will work
with my colleagues to explore, evaluate, and reevaluate every means we
might use to bring about the day when the Syrian people can be rid of
Assad's tyranny, and begin to rebuild their country with a government
that respects their rights and gives them the opportunity for a better
future.
Question. New Mexico and other Western States have begun to
experience the impact of climate change. NASA, the United Nations, our
national labs, and the overwhelming majority of scientists have noted .
. . our climate is changing. And in some areas, such as the arid West,
this is contributing to record temperatures, a drought that is
crippling agriculture, and catastrophic wildfires. While climate change
is a global problem, it is also a local problem that is hitting the
Western United States hard.
Will we have your commitment to continue to address the
issue of climate change in the United Nations, and how do you
intend to use your office to pursue the climate goals of the
administration and to work with other nations ahead of the
COP20 summit which will be held next December in Peru?
Would you agree that much more can be done internationally
to address climate change prevention and mitigation?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue the strong commitment of the
Obama administration to engage on climate change. Addressing climate
change at home and abroad is a priority for President Obama and for
Secretary Kerry, and the administration is working actively across the
U.N. system and through complementary initiatives to address this
global challenge. This includes continued active engagement in the U.N.
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to reduce emissions.
The administration is already working closely with the hosts of UNFCCC
COP19 (Poland), COP20 (Peru), and COP21 (France) to ensure that those
meetings are successful and continue to move the issue forward.
This is a global challenge that requires a global solution. In
addition taking leadership at home to reduce our own greenhouse gas
pollution, the United States has been working internationally to craft
an approach in which all countries reduce emissions. This includes not
only negotiations around the UNFCCC but also work to reduce emissions
in concrete and ambitious ways through the Major Economies Forum and
the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, and greater bilateral cooperation
with countries critical to solving this challenge. We have made great
strides, but I agree that much work remains.
Question. This week the Panamanian Government held a ship bound
from Cuba to North Korea due to the discovery of missiles and missile
components hidden inside a sugar shipment. While many of us are still
waiting for a full briefing on this seizure, I am first, grateful to
the Panamanian authorities who made the seizure, and concerned about
other attempts to circumspect U.N. Security Council resolutions and
sanctions which prohibit countries from providing North Korea with
advanced weaponry.
I would like to know what your thoughts are regarding how
the United States should address this situation, and what in
your opinion, can be done to ensure that future shipments are
not actually attempts to arm the North Koreans?
Answer. The administration has commended Panama for the recent
actions it has taken to implement relevant U.N. Security Council
resolutions with regard to the North Korean ship Chong Chon Gang. The
United States will work closely with the Government of Panama, which
has requested our assistance and the administration intends to provide
assistance as best it can.
North Korea's nuclear, ballistic missile, and proliferation-related
activities constitute a serious threat to international peace and
security and undermine the global nonproliferation regime. Shipments of
arms or related material to or from North Korea, and services related
to such items, would violate U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1718 and
1874, as reaffirmed this year in Resolutions 2087 and 2094. These
Security Council resolutions generally provide that all states shall
prevent the direct or indirect transfer of weapons from their territory
or by their nationals to North Korea and shall prohibit procurement of
such weapons from North Korea.
Panama has informed the U.N. Security Council DPRK Sanctions
Committee of the incident and has invited the Panel of Experts, which
assists the United Nations Security Council North Korea Sanctions
Committee, to conduct an investigation.
Panama's actions regarding the Sanctions Committee as well as
requesting the involvement of the Panel of Experts will help clarify
the involvement of the Government of Cuba with this issue. The
administration hopes that the Sanctions Committee, with the support of
the Panel of Experts, will investigate this case thoroughly, identify
parties responsible and recommend actions to be taken in response. The
administration notes that the Sanctions Committee has the ability to
impose targeted sanctions (asset freeze/travel ban) on individuals and
entities found to have contributed to prohibited activities or to
evasion of the sanctions.
The administration will look at all possibilities regarding
appropriate actions once the Committee and Panel complete their work.
The administration will keep you and your staff informed of progress
and would welcome your recommendations on next steps.
The United States will continue to work closely with all U.N.
member states to ensure the full and transparent implementation of U.N.
Security Council resolutions concerning North Korea. This will make it
harder for North Korea to acquire the technology, know-how, and funds
to develop its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, which the
international community has repeatedly condemned. The administration
will likewise continue to exercise our national authorities, where and
when appropriate, to impede Pyongyang's nuclear, ballistic missile, and
proliferation-related activities.
Question. I was greatly disappointed that the Senate did not ratify
the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as well
as the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. I believe that both of
these treaties advance U.S. interests and ideals, and also work to
create a more just and equitable world.
In light of our failure to ratify these important treaties,
how will you work to ensure that U.S. interests are represented
in these bodies?
Answer. The administration continues to work with a bipartisan
Senate coalition, disability groups, veterans groups, and others in
pursuit of ratification of the Disabilities Convention. The
administration understands that some Senators have concerns about the
treaty, and we are working with Democratic and Republican Senate
sponsors to address those concerns, so that the United States is in a
position to join the over 130 countries that are party to the
Disabilities Treaty. We are eager to establish a foundation for more
impactful leadership on these issues--leadership designed to ensure
that protections for persons with disabilities does not end at the
Nation's shores.
In advance of progress on the treaty, U.S. diplomats continue to
encourage governments to eliminate discrimination on the basis of
disability and to develop and enforce laws and policies to protect the
rights of persons with disabilities. Ratification of the Disabilities
Treaty will ultimately make a difference to the millions of disabled
Americans, including our wounded warriors, who often face severe
challenges and indignities when abroad.
Accession to the Law of the Sea Convention also remains a priority
for this administration. As a non-Party, the United States must rely on
customary international law for the navigational rights and freedoms
reflected in the convention.
U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Convention will protect and
advance a broad range of U.S economic and national security interests,
will secure as treaty law highly favorable provisions that guarantee
our military and commercial vessels worldwide navigational rights, and
will accord to the United States the ability to assert expansive
sovereign rights over offshore resources, including oil and gas on the
Continental Shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from shore.
______
Responses of Samantha Power to Questions Submitted
by Senator Rand Paul
Question. As you know, I have been an outspoken critic of the
administration's perceived unwillingness to leverage our aid to
Pakistan for the release of Dr. Shakil Afridi. During the July 16,
2013, meeting in my office, you stated that it was your assumption that
the administration was working behind the scenes to secure his release.
What do you think is holding up the release of Shakil
Afridi? In your estimation, will his continued incarceration
have a chilling effect on our ability to access human
intelligence around the world? If confirmed, will you work with
me to advocate for the freedom of Dr. Afridi?
Answer. Dr. Afridi remains in prison awaiting a hearing on his
appeal. The administration continues to raise Dr. Afridi's case with
the Government of Pakistan and have repeatedly said he should be
released. If confirmed as Ambassador to the United Nations, I will
eagerly join these efforts. The administration believes that the impact
of Dr. Afridi's case on intelligence activities is unclear. The
administration has also made clear to Pakistan that Dr. Afridi's
prosecution and conviction sends the wrong message about the importance
of our shared interests and the value of our cooperation.
Question. As you may know, I have been a critic of the United
Nations, both because I feel it jeopardizes our sovereignty, but also
because it is an organization rife with corruption. If confirmed,
please outline specific steps you will take to improve the performance
of the United Nations.
Answer. The United Nations is a valuable partner for advancing U.S.
interests, but as I said in my testimony, there is much we need to do
to improve its effectiveness and performance and to hold Secretariat
staff accountable. Therefore, the United States has been actively
working to make the U.N. a more effective and accountable organization
that is capable of addressing complex global challenges. If confirmed,
I will continue the administration's push for strong management, sound
budgeting, increased accountability, and greater transparency.
As a result of intense U.S. engagement and leadership across
administrations the U.N. has adopted reforms to promote accountability,
including: the establishment of the Office of Internal Oversight
Services, the U.N. Independent Audit Advisory Committee, and the U.N.
Ethics Office; advancement in U.N. transparency by making the Office of
Internal Oversight Services' internal audit reports publicly available;
reforms to the current U.N. air travel policy that put in place common
sense restrictions on use of business class travel and abolishment of
several unnecessary and costly reimbursement practices; and
improvements to U.N. human resources policies, including a pay freeze
and right-sizing exercise pending the outcome of comprehensive reviews
of staff needs and compensation and enhancements to performance
management and management accountability.
In addition, the State Department's U.N. Transparency and
Accountability Initiative (UNTAI) allows the United States to verify
that concrete improvements in management and accountability are being
made in the U.N. system.
If confirmed, I will continue to work diligently across the U.N.
system with other likeminded member states to ensure that U.S. tax
dollars are well spent and that the U.N. lives up to both its ideals
and potential. As I said in my testimony, improving the U.N.'s
effectiveness and efficiency is a priority. ``In these difficult budget
times, when the American people are facing tough cuts and scrutinizing
every expense, the United Nations must do the same. This means
eliminating waste and improving accounting and internal management.
This means strengthening whistleblower protections and ending any
tolerance for corruption. It means getting other countries to pay their
fair share. And it means closing down those missions and programs that
no longer make sense. As both the U.N.'s principal founding member and
its largest contributor, the United States has the right and the duty
to insist on reform. I will aggressively pursue this cause.''
On peacekeeping, we must continue to closely review mandates to
ensure that the missions have the means to accomplish their assigned
tasks. Peacekeeping is not immune from the need to do more with less,
and when a mission has outlived its usefulness it should close. To
drive down the cost of peacekeeping, we should continue to eliminate
redundant back-office operations, continue moving to longer 12-month
deployments, and strengthen oversight of peacekeeping operations to
prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.
If confirmed, I will continue to work with the United Nations and
member states to strengthen the U.N.'s response to sexual exploitation
and abuse. I view pressing for ending impunity for U.N. personnel as
particularly important, as well as taking the steps needed to ensure
that the U.N.'s database can effectively prevent previous offenders
from serving again in the U.N. system, in any capacity.
The United States remains concerned that countries with poor human
rights records continue to be elected to seats on the Human Rights
Council. The United States actively seeks to positively influence the
elections both by encouraging countries with strong human rights
records to seek seats and by encouraging competitive elections for the
HRC. The United States has also worked behind the scenes with other
countries to oppose the election of some of the worst human rights
violators to the Human Rights Council and other important global bodies
and will continue to do so. A relentless diplomatic campaign by the
United States helped keep Syria, Iran, and Sudan from becoming members
in the recent past. We agree it should not take this kind of effort to
keep countries in regional blocs from voting for bad actors. But we
pledge to fight aggressively such disturbing campaigns which undermine
the Council and the broader human rights agenda.
______
Responses of Samantha Power to Questions Submitted
by Senator John Barrasso
Question. During your testimony before the committee, you expressed
your support for transparency of U.S. funding to the United Nations.
What is the total annual U.S. contribution to the United
Nations from all U.S. agencies, including in kind support?
Answer. The total amount of U.S. assessed and voluntary
contributions to the United Nations System in 2012 were approximately
$6.7 billion. These funds support a wide array of activities such as
U.N. peacekeeping and special political missions, nonproliferation
activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency, heath programs
provided by the World Health Organization, food aid provided by the
World Food Programme, and humanitarian assistance provided by the U.N.
Offices of the High Commissioner for Refugees and the Coordinator for
Humanitarian Affairs. Many of these programs and activities are
described in detail in the Department's annual congressional budget
justifications.
Question. What percentage of the U.N. budget is directed to the
day-to-day administrative and personnel costs?
Answer. The United States and other major contributors to the
United Nations have been working very hard to limit growth in the U.N.
regular budget. The administration has been successful in keeping the
2012-2013 budget level below the level of the 2010-2011 budget, marking
only the second time in 50 years that the U.N. regular budget decreased
from the previous biennium.
Approximately 75 percent of the U.N. regular budget goes to
personnel costs, including salaries and benefits. The United Nations
employs a wide array of personnel that work in the areas of peace and
security, human rights, humanitarian assistance, development, the
environment, and drug control and crime prevention. However, as the
United Nations becomes a target and continues to operate in countries
such as Afghanistan and Iraq, security costs must also be considered.
Rising U.N. personnel costs are a significant concern. The United
States and other member states have been striving to rein in these
costs, including through a 6-month pay freeze that the United States
was instrumental in achieving last fall.
Question. How much has the budget of the United Nations grown over
the past 10 years?
Answer. The U.N. regular budget has grown from $3 billion in 2002-
2003 to $5.4 billion in 2012-2013. The primary drivers of the growth
are increased personnel costs and the costs of new and expanded special
political missions, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq. The United
States and other major contributors to the United Nations have been
working very hard to limit growth in the U.N. regular budget, and have
been successful thus far in keeping the 2012-2013 budget below the
level of the 2010-2011 budget.
The limitation in growth up to this point was only possible because
of U.S. efforts to ensure that the initial approved budget for 2012-
2013 was $5.15 billion, marking only the second time in 50 years that
the U.N. regular budget decreased significantly from the previous
biennium. The annual U.N. peacekeeping budgets has grown from $2.6
billion in 2003-2004 to approximately $7.3 billion for the U.N.
peacekeeping fiscal year 2012-2013, with the number of U.N.
peacekeepers deployed nearly tripling over that period. Many of the
peacekeeping missions that the U.N. Security Council has authorized
over the past decade have been larger and deployed to more dangerous
and logistically demanding environments than before, as new missions
were established in the Congo, Darfur, South Sudan, and Mali, and
al-Qaeda has made no secret of its aim of targeting the U.N.,
successfully killing U.N. humanitarian workers and personnel in places
like Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, and elsewhere.
With this budget the United Nations is able to field more than
100,000 troops, police, and civilians in some of the most austere,
dangerous, and demanding places on earth. If confirmed, I will continue
to further U.S. efforts to improve the performance, efficiency, and
accountability of U.N. operations through initiatives such as the
Global Field Support Strategy and the reforms proposed by the Senior
Advisory Group on peacekeeping issues, which have already yielded
significant savings of $560 million in the peacekeeping budget that
help keep peacekeeping costs down.
Question. Do you support Congress and the American people receiving
an annual report from the Office of Management and Budget listing the
total U.S. contributions to the United Nations from the State
Department as well as all other U.S. departments and agencies?
Answer. Yes.
Question. I would like to follow up on my questions regarding the
United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. You testified that you do not support
a United Nations gun registry that includes law abiding U.S. citizens.
There has been speculation that President Obama will sign onto the U.N.
Arms Trade Treaty in the near future.
As you familiarize yourself with the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty
over the weekend, can you please describe in detail how the
United States will comply with Articles 12 and 13?
Answer. The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) addresses international trade
in conventional arms. It does not require or impose controls on
domestic transfers of conventional arms, or the rights of U.S. citizens
to possess firearms. Nothing in the treaty violates or is inconsistent
with the rights of U.S. citizens including those conferred by the
second amendment. In fact, the treaty includes an explicit
reaffirmation of ``the sovereign right of any State to regulate and
control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to
its own legal or constitutional system.'' The ATT does not require or
in any way reference the creation of a gun registry of any kind, U.N.
or domestic.
As Secretary Kerry said on June 3 when the treaty was opened for
signature, the United States fully supports the ATT and looks forward
to signing it as soon as the remaining translation issues have been
satisfactorily resolved. The United States looks forward to all
countries having and implementing effective national systems to control
the international transfer of conventional arms, as the United States
does already. Progress in other countries in raising their standards
nearer to the level we already set would advance U.S. and global
security by curbing illicit arms transfers and potentially reducing the
access of wrong-doers to the arms that they employ to commit gross
violations of human rights.
U.S. recordkeeping practices with respect to international
transfers of conventional arms are already consistent with Article 12
of the treaty. Article 13 requires States Parties to report on measures
undertaken to implement their obligations under the treaty as well as
an annual report concerning the authorized or actual exports and
imports of conventional arms covered under the treaty. The
administration notes that the reporting requirement does not address
purely domestic transactions in any way.
If the United States were to become a Party to the treaty, the
first reporting requirement could be fulfilled by providing a summary
of existing U.S. export and import controls, along with references to
existing U.S. law and regulations, such as the Arms Export Control Act.
For the annual report, the United States already reports much of this
information to the U.N. Register of Conventional Arms, the Wassenaar
Arrangement, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE), and to Congress.
Question. What is your evaluation of the effectiveness of the U.N.
Security Council in addressing the situations in Iran and Syria?
Answer. On Iran, the United States led a global coalition to create
the toughest, most comprehensive international sanctions on the Iranian
regime, and effective multilateral diplomacy at the U.N. Security
Council has been critical to this effort. U.S. diplomacy led to the
adoption of four rounds of U.N. Security Council sanctions on Iran
since 2006, underscoring international consensus against its
acquisition of a nuclear weapon and demanding Iran address
international concerns over the nature of its nuclear program. U.N.
Security Council sanctions on Iran have impeded Iran's ability to
procure items necessary to expand its nuclear program, and have
provided the international community with the basis to counter Iran's
illicit activities, including restricting its access to technology and
funding for its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. As the
President has said repeatedly, the administration is committed to
preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and we will continue
working with all of our partners at the United Nations and more broadly
to demand that Iran fulfill its international obligations. Because Iran
has not halted its pursuit of a nuclear weapon, we cannot be satisfied,
and, if confirmed, we will look for additional ways to increase the
pressure on Iran to halt its activities in violation of UNSC
resolutions.
Russia's obstruction has consistently prevented the Council from
taking appropriate action to address the Syria crisis. This is a
disgrace that history will judge harshly. The administration has worked
through other parts of the U.N. system to galvanize international
support for a political solution to the crisis in Syria. The United
States has backed resolutions in the U.N. General Assembly that have
highlighted the regime's overwhelming political isolation; for the most
recent resolution in May, Syria could only muster 11 other countries in
opposition. The administration also has worked through the U.N. Human
Rights Council to promote accountability for the atrocities the regime
has committed, establishing a commission of inquiry to investigate and
document these violations. And the administration has supported and
provided information to the U.N.'s chemical weapons investigation team
as they work to gain access to the sites where we and others believe
Assad has used chemical weapons against the Syrian people.
Separate from the actions of these U.N. bodies comprised of member
states, U.N. officials have also shown important leadership during this
crisis. U.N. Secretary General Ban and other senior U.N. officials have
been vocal and consistent in demanding an end to atrocities and attacks
on civilians. And in the field, U.N. humanitarian workers put their own
lives at risk every day to bring assistance to more than 1.8 million
Syrian refugees, and nearly 7 million Syrians more displaced within the
country. The United States remains by far the largest donor to the
U.N.'s humanitarian appeal for Syria.
Question. What type of cooperation does the United States currently
expect from Russia at the U.N. Security Council?
Answer. Both at the U.N. Security Council and more broadly, the
administration has cooperated with Russia where we can advance our
mutual interests, engaged Russia in a frank discussion of our policy
differences, and firmly stood by our principles, our partners, and our
allies. The United States has worked with Russia and other members of
the Security Council on several issues of paramount concern to the
United States, including imposing strong sanctions on both Iran and
North Korea, building robust peacekeeping missions in the Sahel and
Central Africa, and helping strengthen fragile states from Afghanistan
to Somalia.
However, as I stated in my testimony, we need to be clear-eyed
about the prospects for cooperation with Russia on Syria. The
administration believes that Russia and the United States should share
an interest in preventing the further growth of extremism in Syria. The
administration believes that Russia and the United States should share
an interest in preventing chemical weapons use. And we believe Russia
should share the desire to achieve a political settlement so that state
institutions can be preserved and state failure prevented. However, the
three vetoes Russia has cast on draft resolutions aimed at addressing
the crisis in Syria does not bode well for Russia's willingness to use
the Security Council to maintain international peace and security in
Syria and the broader region.
Question. How do you plan on addressing Russia's continued
insistence on supplying arms to the Assad regime?
Answer. The administration has made it absolutely clear that we
oppose Russian arms transfers to the regime. We have also sought to
enlist other countries in delivering this message. Russia's continued
support to the Assad regime--military and otherwise--is prolonging the
conflict and the suffering of the Syrian people. Since the conflict in
Syria began, the administration has advocated publicly and privately
against Russian support to the Syrian regime, including arms transfers,
and ongoing Russian obstruction of Security Council action.
At the same time, the administration recognizes that it is in
everyone's interest that Russia uses its influence to help bring the
regime to the negotiating table in a serious manner. Despite grave
differences with Russia concerning this conflict, the administration
continues to stress to the Russians that the transition to a post-Assad
future is inevitable, and that the United States and Russia share an
interest in a stable and inclusive Syria that neither harbors
extremists and terrorists nor uses or proliferates chemical weapons.
Question. I am very concerned that the Obama administration's
budget request provides $77.8 million for the U.N. Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Last year, the United
States terminated its funding for UNESCO as a result of the Palestinian
Liberation Organization (PLO) being admitted as a full member. The
administration's budget proposal shows the Palestinians that the United
States is not serious about our concerns with their disregard for the
peace process and unilaterally seeking a change in status through the
United Nations. The United States needs to continue to send the message
that we will not fund international institutions that make these types
of decisions.
Do you unequivocally oppose the Palestinians' efforts to
circumvent the peace process and seek state recognition and
membership in the United Nations?
Answer. There are no short cuts to Palestinian statehood, and I and
other U.S. officials have long made that clear. As I said in my
testimony on July 17, the administration has been absolutely clear that
it will continue to oppose firmly any and all unilateral actions in
international bodies or treaties that circumvent or prejudge the very
outcomes that can only be negotiated, including Palestinian statehood.
If confirmed, I will strongly support this effort, and I will continue
to stand up to any effort that seeks to delegitimize Israel or
undermine its security.
The administration will continue to stress, both with the parties
and with international partners, that the only path for the
Palestinians to realize their aspiration of statehood is through direct
negotiations, and that Palestinian efforts to pursue endorsements of
statehood claims through the U.N. system outside of a negotiated
settlement are counterproductive. The administration remains vigilant
on this matter and works in close coordination with the Israeli
Government and our other international partners to firmly oppose one-
sided action in international fora and to reinforce the importance of
resumed direct negotiations between the parties as the only way to
address their differences and achieve lasting peace. There is simply no
substitute for the difficult give and take of direct negotiations.
Congress has passed legislation that provides the United States
with additional tools that are better suited for the purposes of
deterrence than the contribution cutoff mechanism. Legislation passed
in the aftermath of the Palestinians' successful UNESCO bid, if
triggered, would place limits on U.S. economic support to the
Palestinian Authority and would require the closure of the
Palestinians' Washington, DC, office if they obtain membership as a
state in a U.N. specialized agency in the future. These requirements
are, appropriately, directed at the Palestinians in the event they
engage in conduct that we are seeking to discourage. By contrast, the
implications of the contribution cutoff will be most felt by the United
States and the partners whose interests we defend across the spectrum
of the U.N. system.
Question. How would restoring funding to UNESCO send that message
to the Palestinians?
Answer. We agree with the critical importance of sending the
message to the Palestinians that there are no shortcuts to statehood
and that we will contest any effort to delegitimize Israel in the
international system. The administration has requested a waiver to
allow the President to continue to provide contributions to U.N.
specialized agencies when he determines it is in the national interest.
The waiver would allow the United States to maintain our vote and
influence within the United Nations and its specialized agencies. This
would, remove from the Palestinians or their allies any ability to
force a contribution cutoff and diminish our influence within these
agencies, which, given our vocal leadership would present spoilers with
a double victory.
Without a national interest waiver the administration's ability to
conduct multilateral diplomacy and pursue U.S. objectives will be
eroded, and the United States standing and position in critical U.N.
agencies will be harmed. As a result, the United States ability to
defend Israel from unfair and biased attacks in the United Nations will
also be greatly damaged.
Congress has passed legislation that provides the United States
with additional tools that are better suited for the purposes of
deterrence than the contribution cutoff mechanism. Legislation passed
in the aftermath of the Palestinians' successful UNESCO bid, if
triggered, would place limits on U.S. economic support to the
Palestinian Authority and would require the closure of the
Palestinians' Washington, DC, office if they obtain membership as a
state in a U.N. specialized agency in the future. These requirements
are, appropriately, directed at the Palestinians in the event they
engage in conduct that we are seeking to discourage. By contrast, the
implications of the contribution cutoff will be most felt by the United
States and the partners whose interests we defend across the spectrum
of the U.N. system.
The proposed waiver, if enacted, will not diminish the
administration's commitment to supporting Israel and defending our
interests at the United Nations. It will not alter the administration's
conviction that Palestinian status issues can be appropriately resolved
only on a bilateral basis in direct negotiations with the Israeli
Government, and that seeking to do otherwise undermines prospects for
securing long-term peace. We prove our commitment and our conviction
day in and day out, as we have over the past 4 years at the United
Nations. The waiver will allow the administration to continue to wage
that fight more intelligently and more successfully, and at the same
time better protect U.S. interests across multilateral organizations--
including halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, defending
intellectual property rights, and preventing and tracking potential
pandemics.
Question. The Palestinians continue to unilaterally circumvent the
peace process by attempting to seek statehood recognition at the United
Nations. In November, the United Nations General Assembly voted to
allow the Palestinians to change their status. The best path to peace
is through direct negotiations between the Israelis and the
Palestinians--not through manipulations at the United Nations.
What additional efforts do you recommend the United States
take in order to persuade the Palestinians to cease their
efforts to upgrade their status within the U.N. system?
How can the United States build opposition among member
states to these types of efforts?
Answer. If confirmed, just as I did as President Obama's U.N.
adviser, I would take every opportunity to make clear the
administration's position that one-sided actions in international fora
will not advance the aspirations of the Palestinian people. The only
path for the Palestinians to realize their aspiration of statehood is
through direct negotiations, and Palestinian efforts to pursue
endorsements of statehood claims through the U.N. system outside of a
negotiated settlement are counterproductive. We make the costs of
unilateral action clear to the Palestinians and
to those who have supported counterproductive unilateral action in the
United Nations.
If confirmed, I will work tirelessly to oppose firmly unilateral
actions in international bodies or treaties that circumvent or prejudge
the very outcomes that can only be negotiated, including Palestinian
statehood. If confirmed, I will also continue to stand up to every
effort that seeks to delegitimize Israel or undermine its security. I
will also build on this administration's extensive coordination with
Israel and our outreach efforts to combat any further action by the
Palestinians.
Congress has passed legislation that provides the United States
with additional tools that are better suited for the purposes of
deterrence than the contribution cutoff mechanism. Legislation passed
in the aftermath of the Palestinians' successful UNESCO bid, if
triggered, would place limits on U.S. economic support to the
Palestinian Authority and would require the closure of the
Palestinians' Washington, DC, office if they obtain membership as a
state in a U.N. specialized agency in the future. These requirements
are, appropriately, directed at the Palestinians in the event they
engage in conduct that we are seeking to discourage. By contrast, the
implications of the contribution cutoff will be most felt by the United
States and the partners whose interests we defend across the spectrum
of the U.N. system.
The message from the United States to the Palestinians and in
capitals around the world is consistent. The only way to establish a
Palestinian state and resolve all permanent-status issues is through
the crucial work of direct negotiations between the parties. There is
simply no substitute for the difficult give and take of direct
negotiations.
NOMINATION OF CATHERINE M. RUSSELL
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
Catherine M. Russell, of the District of Columbia, to be
Ambassador at Large for Global Women's Issues
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:28 p.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer
presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Kaine, and Paul.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Good afternoon. Today, we meet to consider
the nomination of Catherine Russell to be the United States
Ambassador at Large for Global Women's Issues.
I want to welcome Ms. Russell, and congratulations on your
nomination.
If confirmed, Ms. Russell will play an important role as
our country's second Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women's
Issues. This position and the office created by President Obama
in 2009 is strongly supported by Hillary Clinton, our former
Secretary of State, has elevated the status of women's issues
in U.S. foreign policy, and has helped ensure that the United
States stands as a powerful advocate for the rights and
empowerment of women and girls all over the world.
But as we know, despite the tremendous efforts of Secretary
Clinton and our first Ambassador at Large, Melanne Verveer,
much work remains to be done. This important work ranges from
ending the devastating scourge of violence against women and
girls to ensuring that young girls have the opportunity to
avoid child marriage and, instead, receive an education, to
providing women and girls the opportunity to own and inherit
property, to hold elected office, and to start small
businesses.
Ms. Russell's distinguished resume indicates that she is up
to the task. Most recently, she served as chief of staff to the
second lady of the United States, Dr. Jill Biden, another
tireless advocate for women's empowerment. Prior to her time in
the White House, Ms. Russell served as senior advisor on
international women's issues to our former chairman and current
Vice President, Joe Biden.
Ms. Russell also served as an Associate Deputy Attorney
General at the Department of Justice and as the staff director
for the Senate Judiciary Committee. She attended Boston
College, where she received her B.A. in philosophy, and George
Washington University Law School, where she received her juris
doctorate.
And I am so pleased that Senator Leahy is here. You could
not have a finer Senator to introduce you. He is so respected
and well loved here.
And Senator Leahy, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK LEAHY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM VERMONT
Senator Leahy. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I apologize for bursting in at the last moment. We have
been doing hearings on the Voting Rights Act with----
Senator Boxer. Good.
Senator Leahy [continuing]. Congressman Lewis and
Congressman Sensenbrenner, a bipartisan panel.
But I really wanted to be here to introduce Cathy Russell,
and you talked about all of the amazing things that she has
done. I cannot think of anybody better for the President to
pick to be U.S. Ambassador at Large for Women's Issues.
If I could just on a personal note, I do not want to take
from something she is going to say, but she has a note from her
two children here saying the fact that, ``Mommy, we love you.''
So I knew when both those children were born because we have
known Cathy and her husband, Tom, for so many years, known them
for more than 25 years.
And I went back over the compilation like that, and I said
this had to be the first 10-year-old we ever hired in here----
[Laughter.]
Senator Leahy [continuing]. When she served as senior
counsel on the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology and
the Law. Brilliant mind. Uncanny ability, though, to take the
most complex issues, get them down to where even a Senator like
myself and others could understand it, but to make sure that
Senators on both sides of the aisle knew that what she gave
them was the best knowledge possible.
She wanted to serve as staff director to the full Senate
Judiciary Committee several years later. Again, the women's
issues in the Judiciary Committee, she worked on the bedrock of
her qualifications for this role.
Then she became senior advisor to the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. She specialized in international women's
issues. She helped draft the International Violence Against
Women Act of 2007. And I know, Madam Chair, how hard you worked
on the Violence Against Women Act here in the Senate and the
House, and Cathy Russell worked to expand that worldwide.
I know that Dr. Biden, Jill Biden, has found Cathy to have
been an invaluable chief of staff over the past 4 years. She
assisted both Dr. Biden and the first lady to support women in
military families through the Joining Forces Program.
She oversaw a governmental interagency process to develop
the first United States strategy to prevent and respond to
gender-based violence globally. I mean, I could go on and on
with all of these things about her.
If I could just close with this. She is able to handle the
most complex issues and seeking the truth and being totally
honest in it. But I have known her as a lawyer, as a person, as
a mother, spouse of one of my best friends. And throughout all
that time, I have been constantly impressed with her, thinking
here is a person any one of us could rely on on any issue she
took and know that she would be totally honest, totally loyal
to this country.
And I think that it is wonderful she is willing to take
this position.
Senator Boxer. Senator Leahy, let me say your words mean a
lot to us. We are so pleased, and I am sure Ms. Russell is
eternally pleased and grateful to you for this, all that you
have to do. And we thank you for coming over here. We know you
have a lot to do. So thank you so much.
And I have a hunch it is going to be smooth sailing. I do
not see a lot of people here, which is an indication of that.
We have a vote coming up soon. So we are going to hear from Ms.
Russell, and if things go the way I plan, you will be out of
here in time to take your wonderful husband for a celebratory
cup of coffee. [Laughter.]
And I know that Tom Donilon is here. We are so grateful to
you, sir, for your amazing contribution to this country.
And are there any other members of your family you wish to
introduce?
Ms. Russell. Senator, I think my brother-in-law, Mike
Donilon, is here, and my cousin, Susie Saraf, is here.
Senator Boxer. Welcome.
Ms. Russell. My children are not here today. One is at
camp, and one is in school. So neither one of them is here
today.
Senator Boxer. Well, that makes a lot of sense. So here is
the deal. We would love you to synthesize your remarks to 5
minutes.
Ms. Russell. OK.
Senator Boxer. I have some questions. If no one else shows
up, that will be it.
Ms. Russell. OK. Great.
Senator Boxer. This might go well. Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF CATHERINE M. RUSSELL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
TO BE AMBASSADOR AT LARGE FOR GLOBAL WOMEN'S ISSUES
Ms. Russell. Senator Boxer, members of the committee, it is
a privilege to appear before you today.
I would like to thank Senator Leahy so very much for coming
here to speak on my behalf.
I am grateful to the President and to Secretary Kerry for
asking me to serve as the next Ambassador at Large for Global
Women's Issues. I am humbled by their trust and by the prospect
of following in the footsteps of Melanne Verveer, who served in
this position so extraordinarily during the President's first
term.
Finally, I am grateful to share this day with my husband
and my children, at least in spirit, Sarah and Teddy.
As Senator Leahy mentioned, I started my career in the
Senate, first as a lawyer on the Judiciary subcommittee he
chaired and then as staff director of the full committee when
Senator Biden was the chairman. I saw firsthand not only the
vital work of the Senate, but also the expertise and careful
deliberation that Senators and their staffs bring to the issues
before them.
During my tenure as staff director of the committee, in
1994, Congress came together to pass the Violence Against Women
Act. That legislation was important for many reasons, not least
of which it made clear to all Americans that domestic violence
was not a private family member--private family matter, but a
crime. I am proud that landmark law has, indeed, made a
difference in the lives of so many women in this country.
When I joined the Foreign Relations Committee staff more
than a decade later, we sought to apply some of the same
principles of the Violence Against Women Act to our global
efforts against gender-based violence. We drafted the first
International Violence Against Women Act legislation, which
then-Senator Biden introduced in 2007.
My work on that legislation was informed in part by my
experience with Women for Women International, an organization
that helps women survivors of conflict rebuild their lives. I
realize that while women are often targets in conflicts, they
also have tremendous capacity not only to survive, but to
thrive, to make better lives for themselves and their families,
and to rebuild their communities and their countries.
While chief of staff to Dr. Jill Biden, I spearheaded an
administration-wide effort to develop the U.S. strategy to
prevent and respond to gender-based violence globally. It is my
hope that this strategy and accompanying Executive order from
President Obama will make a significant difference in efforts
to ensure that all persons can live free from violence.
America's leadership in advancing the rights of women is
vital not just to women themselves, but to our national
security and economic stability. None of the world's most
pressing economic, social, and political problems can be solved
without the full participation of women.
As Secretary Kerry has said, gender equality is critical to
our shared goals of prosperity, stability, and peace, and
investing in women and girls worldwide is critical to advancing
U.S. foreign policy.
Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Verveer made unprecedented
progress not only in promoting gender equality and advancing
the status of women and girls abroad, but also in elevating
women's issues in our foreign policy. They worked to integrate
these issues into high-profile multilateral forums and
bilateral dialogues and into the duties of our foreign and
civil service.
If you grant me the privilege, I will work with Secretary
Kerry to build upon this progress. I will continue to advocate
at home and abroad that investing in women, advancing and
protecting their rights, is not just the right thing to do
morally, it is the smart thing to do economically and
strategically.
I will focus my energies in six main areas. First, I will
carry on with the critical work of moving the State Department
to implement fully the Department's gender guidance, which
requires that gender issues be incorporated into all aspects of
diplomacy. I will ensure that the Secretary's Office of Global
Women's Issues remains a resource for the diplomats who will be
advancing this work at our posts abroad.
Second, I will support efforts to expand women's
entrepreneurship and economic participation. We know that
women's potential to help grow economies is vast, yet still
largely untapped. I will continue the Department's leadership
in supporting women entrepreneurs in every region.
Next, I will provide strong leadership in implementing the
United States first-ever National Action Plan on Women, Peace,
and Security. Today, with conflicts and transitions affecting
millions, women must not only be protected from violence, but
also be empowered to shape the futures of their countries.
I will work with global partners to expand women's
political participation, ensuring that their voices are heard
everywhere, especially in emerging democracies.
Next, the United States must be at the forefront of global
efforts to address gender-based violence. The continuing
reports of horrific violence against women and girls are simply
unacceptable. I will work to help more women live in greater
safety and gain access to health care, protection, and justice.
Finally, investing in women and girls is one of the most
powerful forces for international development. We have seen
that when a girl has a chance to go to school, has access to
health care, and is kept free from violence, she will marry
later, have healthier children, and earn income that she will
invest back into her family and community, breaking the cycle
of poverty.
I look forward to working with colleagues at USAID and
PEPFAR to ensure strong investments in women and girls' health
and education, in agriculture, child survival, nutrition, and
preventing child marriage.
I am humbled by the task ahead, but eager to get to work.
If confirmed, I am looking forward to the privilege of working
with talented foreign and civil service members throughout the
State Department to promote gender equality and advance the
status of women around the world.
Most of all, I hope to work with each of you to advance our
shared goals of global peace, prosperity, and security.
Thank you very much. I look forward to answering your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Russell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Catherine M. Russell
Madame Chairwoman, Senator Paul, members of the committee, it is a
privilege to appear before you today. I would like to thank Senator
Leahy for coming here to speak on my behalf.
I am grateful to the President and to Secretary Kerry for asking me
to serve as the next Ambassador at Large for Global Women's Issues. I
am humbled by their trust and by the prospect of following in the
footsteps of Melanne Verveer, who served in this position so
extraordinarily during the President's first term.
Finally, I am very grateful to share this day with my husband, Tom,
and our children, Sarah and Teddy.
As Senator Leahy mentioned, I started my career in the Senate,
first as a lawyer on the Judiciary Subcommittee he chaired and then as
the staff director for the full committee when Senator Biden was the
chairman. I saw firsthand not only the vital work of the Senate, but
also the expertise and careful deliberation Senators and their staffs
bring to the issues before them.
During my tenure as staff director of the committee in 1994,
Congress came together to pass the Violence Against Women Act. That
legislation was important for many reasons, not least of which it made
clear to all Americans that domestic violence was not a private family
matter, but a crime. I am proud that landmark law has indeed made a
difference in the lives of so many women in this country.
When I joined the Foreign Relations Committee staff more than a
decade later, we sought to apply some of the same principles of the
Violence Against Women Act to our global efforts against gender-based
violence. We drafted the first International Violence Against Women Act
legislation, which then-Senator Biden introduced in 2007.
My work on that legislation was informed, in part, by my experience
with Women for Women International, an organization that helps women
survivors of conflict rebuild their lives. I realized that while women
are often targets in conflicts, they also have tremendous capacity not
only to survive but to thrive, to make better lives for themselves and
their families, and to build their communities and countries.
While chief of staff to Dr. Jill Biden, I spearheaded an
administration-wide effort to develop the U.S. Strategy to Prevent and
Respond to Gender-Based Violence Globally.It is my hope that this
strategy, and accompanying Executive order from President Obama, will
make a significant difference in efforts to ensure that all persons can
live free from violence.
America's leadership in advancing the rights of women is vital not
just to women themselves, but to our national security and economic
stability. None of the world's most pressing economic, social, and
political problems can be solved without the full participation of
women. As Secretary Kerry has said, ``Gender equality is critical to
our shared goals of prosperity, stability, and peace, and investing in
women and girls worldwide is critical to advancing U.S. foreign
policy.''
Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Verveer made unprecedented
progress not only in promoting gender equality and advancing the status
of women and girls abroad, but also in elevating women's issues in our
foreign policy. They worked to integrate these issues into high-profile
multilateral forums and bilateral dialogues and into the duties of our
foreign and civil service.
If you grant me the privilege, I will work with Secretary Kerry to
build upon this progress. I will continue to advocate at home and
abroad that investing in women--advancing and protecting their rights--
is not just the right thing to do morally; it is the smart thing to do
economically and strategically.
I will focus my energies on six main areas.
First, I will carry on with the critical work of moving the State
Department to implement fully the Department's gender guidance, which
requires that gender issues be incorporated into all aspects of
diplomacy. I will ensure the Secretary's Office of Global Women's
Issues remains a resource for the diplomats who will be advancing this
work at our posts abroad.
Second, I will support efforts to expand women's entrepreneurship
and economic participation. We know that women's potential to help grow
economies is vast, yet still largely untapped. I will continue the
Department's leadership in supporting women entrepreneurs in every
region.
Next, I will provide strong leadership in implementing the United
States first-ever National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security.
Today, with conflicts and transitions affecting millions, women must
not only be protected from violence, but also be empowered to shape the
futures of their countries.
I will work with global partners to expand women's political
participation, ensuring that their voices are heard everywhere,
especially in emerging democracies.
Next, the United States must be at the forefront of global efforts
to address gender-based violence. The continuing reports of horrific
violence against young women and girls are simply unacceptable. I will
work to help more women live in greater safety, and gain access to
health care, protection, and justice.
Finally, investing in women and girls is one of the most powerful
forces for international development. We've seen that when a girl has
the chance to go to school, has access to health care, and is kept safe
from violence, she will marry later, have healthier children, and earn
an income that she will invest back into her family and community--
breaking the cycle of poverty. I look forward to working with
colleagues at USAID and PEPFAR to ensure strong investments in women
and girls' health and education, in agriculture, child survival,
nutrition, and preventing child marriage.
I am humbled by the task ahead, but eager to get to work. If
confirmed, I am looking forward to the privilege of working with
talented foreign and civil service members throughout the State
Department to promote gender equality and advance the status of women
around the world. Most of all, I hope to work with each of you to
advance our shared goals of global peace, prosperity, and security.
Thank you very much. I look forward to answering your questions.
Senator Boxer. Well, I must say that everything you said
resonates mightily with me and just speaks to why this office
is so important. And why, when I went to then-Chairman Kerry
and asked that we have our first-ever subcommittee looking at
the status of women throughout the world and he said yes, I
knew it was a real breakthrough.
And there are many people out there in the audience who
supported that, and I think it is critical. And I have to say
the most conservative-thinking historians have said that the
reason so much of the world is lagging is because they do not
give women a fair chance. So, as you point out, it is a huge
economic issue.
And of course, the tragedy of violence against women, we
see it all over, in our own military, I might say.
Ms. Russell. I know.
Senator Boxer. And we have to keep on pushing because if we
do not, it is going to continue.
And I have to say we have a heroine in the world named
Malala Yousafzai. And I introduced a bill earlier this year
with Senator Landrieu, and we all know that incredible story.
Shot in the head by the Taliban because she spoke out bravely
for girls' education in Pakistan and around the world.
So the fact that she survived this is definitely God-given
blessing to the world, and she is continuing her crusade. So,
as you know, she spoke before the United Nations. I was just
riveted listening to her words, but more than her words, her
passion, and her power.
And so, this bill pays tribute to Malala's vision for her
country by reinforcing the U.S. commitment to girls' education
in Pakistan. It is a very simple bill. It expands an existing
USAID program. So we are not adding more money.
It awards university scholarships to economically
disadvantaged Pakistani students. It requires that new
scholarships be awarded to women because, to date, only 25
percent of the scholarships awarded through the program have
been for women. The women are the ones who need it. For them to
be getting just 25 percent is just wrong on its face.
So I know we are going to take up this bill, and I know the
State Department does not have an official position. So I am
not asking you that. But I am asking if you would work with me,
as we move forward, because I think you could be a great
resource to me in just getting the facts out. Would you work
with me to get the facts out surrounding this legislation?
Ms. Russell. Well, Senator, first let me say that I think--
I completely agree with you that girls' education is a critical
issue for us to be working on. I think that the case of Malala
was so horrifying for so many reasons. But first of all, it was
such a cowardly act for them to go after her, and I think that
the reason that they are so threatened by a young girl going to
school is precisely why we need to be so supportive of girls'
education.
It is a horrifying thing to imagine that girls on their way
to a class are such a threat that they are going to shoot a
young woman in the head. And I think it just reinforces the
importance for us of really coming back and saying this is
absolutely unacceptable, and we need to do everything we can to
make sure that these girls can get an education to make their
lives better, to make their children's lives better.
Because I think one thing we know for sure, that girls
getting an education is really one of the most--I mean, I think
there are so many things that we need to do for women's
empowerment. Education is one of them. Health care. Making sure
legal protections are in place. But I think one of the first
and most important is certainly education.
And I think we need to do everything we can to make sure
that these girls have that opportunity, and so, yes, I will
certainly work with you. I commend you for your leadership on
that. I just think it is sort of first, one of the first
principles, that girls' education is critically important.
Senator Boxer. Well, clearly, what the terrorists do, they
rule by fear. And they know if people have confidence in
themselves and they are educated and they can stand up for
themselves, that is a threat to them.
Ms. Russell. Exactly.
Senator Boxer. So, you know, they go after the women and
terrorize. But I think what we saw with Malala's speech at the
United Nations is if they thought they were going to stop the
conversation, they certainly have another think coming.
Ms. Russell. Yes.
Senator Boxer. And in this committee, we are going to work
together, and we are going to see that the girls have that
opportunity.
Ms. Russell. That opportunity.
Senator Boxer. I see I have been joined by my ranking
member. Senator Kaine, do you have time to just wait for his
opening statement? All right, we will call on Senator Paul.
Senator Paul. Actually, I am fine. I do not have an opening
statement.
Senator Boxer. You are OK? OK. We will call on Senator
Kaine.
Senator Paul. That will be fine.
Senator Boxer. And then we will go back to you for
questions. Go ahead.
Senator Paul. Sure.
Senator Kaine. Great. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Congratulations.
Ms. Russell. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Kaine. I cannot think of somebody more qualified to
do this important job.
Just in terms of--I have two questions, really. One about
partnership and one about the U.N. convention and the current
status of it not being ratified in the United States.
Partnership. A lot of the success, I think, of the office
is the partnership that you create with other entities within
State that have a human rights portfolio, as well as
partnerships beyond State. And I would like you to just talk
about your sort of philosophy about such partnerships,
partnerships that are already working between the office and
other entities within or around State. I would love to hear
that.
Ms. Russell. OK. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
It is interesting. When I worked on the strategy on
violence against women globally, one of the things that became
very clear to me was that there are lots of entities around the
Government who are working on different pieces of the violence
portfolio.
We brought all of these pieces, all of the organizations
together, many of them in State, AID, and then across the
Government--Justice Department folks, people from Labor, people
from CDC, OPIC. I mean, lots of people had a lot of interest in
this.
I think that everybody was looking. I think sort of one of
the things that happen anywhere across the Government is there
is a lot of stove-piping that goes on. But everybody is looking
for opportunities to work together, and I think that it is
important--this is a fairly small office, but I think that what
we can do is really--we have the opportunity to look for people
who are interested in working on these issues and really look
for partnerships and ways to kind of bring people together in a
way that will benefit all of us.
I mean, everybody has some interest in gender, right?
Because women sort of cross lots of different portfolios here.
But I think what we are looking for are places where we can be
particularly effective in using kind of the bully pulpit and
also making sure that with the limited resources we have in the
Government that we are all doing things that are the most
effective way to help women kind of across portfolios.
And everybody--you know, obviously, I am not in the job.
So----
Senator Kaine. Right.
Ms. Russell. But everybody has been very interested in sort
of reaching out to me and looking for opportunities, saying if
you are confirmed, we would be interested in working together.
So I think it is going to be a very effective way to do
business.
Senator Kaine. What is your sense of--one worry I would
have is that issues dealing with women's empowerment could be
kind of an add-on issue rather than a central issue in
bilateral foreign policy, whether it is bilateral or
multilateral. What are your thoughts about the ways to take
women's empowerment issues and not make them an add-on, but
make them really central to the daily work of diplomacy that
the Nation does?
Ms. Russell. I think that was one of the things that
Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Verveer were very good about.
And I think it is the purpose of the gender integration that is
going on at the State Department, where Secretary Clinton
issued a policy saying you need to make sure that gender is
integrated in the work of the Department.
It is an ongoing process, frankly. But I think that there
are places where there are efforts underway now, but I think,
obviously, we would need to continue to look for places to do
that. There are probably places where it makes more sense than
others to focus. But I do think that that is an ongoing
process.
Senator Kaine. Finally, I just would like to get your
thoughts about the convention. I am really struck and
discouraged by the fact that we are a signator but haven't
ratified the U.N. Convention on Elimination of Discrimination
Against Women.
And do you know whether the administration has plans to
promote that issue before this Congress? And I would just like
to have your sense of the convention and what it requires and
its validity.
Ms. Russell. Well, the administration supports the
ratification certainly, and I would support it as well. What I
understand is that certainly in the United States, we kind of
have the gold standard in terms of nondiscrimination laws. And
so, it really, I think, is more of an issue when we are
overseas.
And my understanding is that what diplomats have expressed
is that it would be very helpful as kind of a tool in our
arsenal to say to countries where they are not abiding by
nondiscrimination laws, where their laws and their practices
are not favorable toward women--where ours are, but where
countries are not as favorable--to say--and they are
signatories to CEDAW, to say that--you know, to try to get them
to abide by their obligations under CEDAW.
I understand that there are people in this country and in
this Congress who have concerns about it. I know that those are
not people who believe in discrimination against women. So I
would like to think that there may be a way forward here, and
certainly if I could be helpful doing that, I would be
interested in doing that. Because I have to think that there is
a way we can do this.
Because I am sure that it is not, as I say, that folks who
have concerns about it, I have to believe that there is a way
we can----
Senator Kaine. Their concern is probably more the
sovereignty concern than the discrimination concern.
Ms. Russell. Yes. And just given that it would be such an
effective tool for us to use overseas, and I think as it is
now, we are kind of lumped in with Sudan and Somalia and Iran
as people who are not signatories to this treaty, it does put
us in a bad place. And again, it is not really as much an issue
in the United States. We do have great laws here.
But in other places, it would be very helpful for us to be
able to say we, too, are signatories. And now they use it and
say, well, the United States cannot even sign onto this. So why
do we need to worry about whether we abide by our obligations
under it? And that is kind of an unfortunate place for us to be
at this point.
Senator Kaine. Well, I would love to be involved in an
effort to get the United States Senate to ratify, and your
advice about how it might be perceived and how it might help us
internationally could be very valuable. I think the
nonratification of that convention and the one on the rights of
citizens with disabilities are just out of character with who
we are.
Ms. Russell. Yes.
Senator Kaine. I think we--in both the antidiscrimination
areas and in the areas of treatment of citizens with
disabilities, while every day we can wake up and we can and
should do more, I think we have a lot of examples to offer the
world about the things that we have done. And I think the
absence of ratification of both of these conventions gets in
the way of us presenting the best case that we can.
And I would look forward to you helping us maybe figuring
out a way to make that happen.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Russell. Thanks.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Paul.
Senator Paul. Congratulations on your nomination, and
thanks for coming.
There is a Pakistani poet by the name of Parveen Shakir,
and she has a poem that makes me think of Malala. It says,
``The children of our age have grown clever. They insist on
examining the firefly in the daylight.''
I remember seeing the speeches of Malala before she was
injured. Her speech is still incredible, even with the massive
injury that she sustained. But what I would say is that there
is such a mixture in so many of these worlds of allowing women
to advance. I mean, there have been Prime Ministers of
Pakistan. I have met the Ambassador from Pakistan, who is a
woman.
But then there are strains, and not insignificant strains,
I think maybe as much as a third of the population of Pakistan,
maybe half, said they would vote for bin Laden, which basically
means they are voting for the Taliban, voting for a repressive
culture that would shoot a little girl. I mean, I think we
should speak out on these things, and we should condemn these
things.
I think there has been too much hesitancy sometimes in our
society that we are going to offend all of Islam. I do think
there need to be more voices within Islam saying this is not
and does not represent Islam, and it is harder for a Christian
because it looks as if I am just criticizing another religion.
But someone should speak out, and our country, I think, should
not be shy about speaking out about this.
Among the great human rights abuses I think is putting
people to death for their speech. In Pakistan, there is a
woman, and I do not know if this is a women's rights issue. But
she is a woman, and she is in prison on death row, basically
for speaking out. Well, she thinks, actually, for drinking out
of the same glass as Muslim workers is why she thinks she is on
death row.
She is officially charged with blasphemy and saying
something about the prophet. She denies this. And in our
country, gossip like that or any kind of accusation of
religious speech would not be considered to be any kind of
crime.
But I think it is important as we speak out that we not try
to be so politically correct that we excuse behavior because we
say, oh, we are afraid of offending an entire religion. I do
think it would be easier if it were someone who were from the
same religion saying this doesn't represent it. But at the very
least, I think we need to not be afraid to speak out on issues
where people are misusing religion, but it really is a human
rights abuse and, in this case, the abuse of a woman.
I would appreciate your comments.
Ms. Russell. Well, Senator, you raise a critical issue. I
am not familiar with that specific case, but I do think that
that is certainly a really important----
Senator Paul. Her name is Asia Bibi, if you want to have
your staff look into it.
Ms. Russell. OK.
Senator Paul. She has been, I think, in prison for 2 years
or more. They say it may take another 2 years for her trial to
come up, if it comes up. They say she may be pardoned
ultimately. But for goodness sakes, to spend 5 years in prison,
even if that is all. But she is under the threat of the death
penalty the entire time.
And it is the blasphemy laws. But almost every country
through the Middle East has these laws. They do not always
enforce them. But having them on the books is a great human
rights abuse.
Ms. Russell. Yes. No, I appreciate you raising that, and I
will have somebody take a look at it, and I will look at it.
And I appreciate your raising it, and then if I am confirmed in
this position, I would be interested in continuing
conversations with you about that. I appreciate that.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Anything else, Rand?
Senator Paul. No, thank you.
Senator Boxer. I have just one more question. I was deeply
disappointed by recent attempts by the Government of Bangladesh
to fundamentally alter the future of Bangladesh's Nobel Prize-
winning Grameen Bank, which was founded by Muhammad Yunus.
As you know, Grameen Bank provides lifesaving microfinanced
loans to its shareholders, and the majority of them are very
poor women. And what makes the bank unique is it is owned by
the very women who borrow from it.
I had the privilege of speaking with Muhammad Yunus, and
what an amazing man he is. And this idea, just getting a few
hundred dollars, sometimes even less, and how that grows. So I
have joined a number of my colleagues, including every female
member of the Senate on both sides of the aisle, in urging
Bangladesh to allow Grameen Bank to continue to operate with
autonomy and without government influence.
Most recently, I joined Senator Durbin in an op-ed in which
we wrote, ``Any effort to restructure the bank is the wrong
decision and one that threatens the most vulnerable and the
tremendous strides the country has made toward poverty
reduction and growing civil society.''
Could you speak to this issue of the bank, and if
confirmed, would you commit to working for the protection of
this vitally important institution?
Ms. Russell. Yes, Senator. I am not familiar specifically
with what the Bangladeshi Government is doing, but I am
certainly familiar with the Grameen Bank and with microfinance
programs in general.
Senator Boxer. Well, they have basically taken it away,
taken it over.
Ms. Russell. Yes, which is a terrible thing. The
microfinance programs are especially important for women
because they provide such small loans that are often critically
important for women to get started in business.
I saw a great program in Bosnia where the women were
borrowing small bits of money, starting sewing businesses, milk
businesses. It was amazing to see. And the women came together
and made decisions about who in the community would get the
loans. They all backed each other in the loans.
I mean, it was an amazing process, and it was interesting
especially because the women finally had the kind of say in the
family about what was happening with the money because it was
they, rather than the husbands, who were earning the money. And
it changed the dynamic.
And initially, it was interesting because there were some
kind of flareups of violence where the husbands resented the
fact that the women were making decisions about the money. But
ultimately, the men kind of got the hang of it. Sometimes the
women were then employing their husbands in their businesses.
And so, it changed kind of the family dynamic.
So I am a big believer in microfinance, and I cannot
imagine why the--well, I actually can imagine why they would,
but certainly I can see that this is a problem, and I would----
Senator Boxer. Well, we can work together on it.
Ms. Russell. We definitely can work together on that, yes.
Senator Boxer. OK.
Ms. Russell. And thank you for raising that. I appreciate
your question.
Senator Boxer. Senator Kaine, have any more questions? Any
more questions from----
Well, I told you this would be easy.
Ms. Russell. You did. I did not believe you, but you did
tell me that.
Senator Boxer. Well, we are all very happy that you are
willing to do this. You will have to fill very giant shoes, but
I know that you are up to it.
And we thank you, and we stand adjourned.
Ms. Russell. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.
[Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record
Responses of Catherine Russell to Questions Submitted
by Senator Robert Menendez
Question. The Office of Global Women's Issues is a critically
important tool in
advancing the rights of women around the world. Our values, and U.S.
policy, call for preserving and advancing the role women have in
society, improving access to health and education, and alleviating the
impact violence has on women. These measures are necessary, not only
for promoting essential rights for women, but for economic growth and
global security.
What advances have been made with regard to women's health
and education since the office's installment in 2009? How can
we improve access in conflict-ridden areas like Afghanistan?
Answer. Investing in women and girls is one of the most powerful
forces for international development. Improving the health and
education of women and girls also enhances their productivity and
social and economic participation, and acts as a positive multiplier,
benefiting the development and health of future generations.
Since 2009, the United States and partners around the world have
made remarkable progress in advancing women's health--including in
reducing maternal mortality, increasing access to contraception, and
increasing access to HIV prevention, care, and treatment services. In
2010, for example, the U.N. Secretary General launched his ``Every
Woman Every Child'' strategy, an initiative to reduce maternal and
child mortality worldwide.
President Obama's Global Health Initiative (GHI), launched in 2009,
recognizes that the health and rights of women and girls have a
significant impact on the success--or failure--of our global health
programs. In 2011, the Secretary's Office of Global Women's Issues (S/
GWI) led an interagency working group to develop ``Supplemental
Guidance on Women, Girls and Gender Equality'' to help countries
integrate gender issues and priorities into their health strategies.
Today, every country-level global health initiative strategy has
incorporated this gender guidance.
The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) promotes
the integration of gender throughout its prevention, care, and
treatment programs. Furthermore, S/GWI and PEPFAR jointly support
approximately $3 million in small grants to grassroots organizations in
over 25 countries working to prevent and respond to gender-based
violence, with a link to HIV prevention, treatment, and care.
The world has also seen significant progress in girls' access to
education; and in many countries across the developing world gender
parity in primary school enrollment has been reached. In FY 2012,
around 9.5 million girls were enrolled in primary and secondary schools
(or equivalent non-school-based settings) with USG support. USAID,
which directs the United States global education investments in
developing countries, focuses on the following three goals: (1)
improving reading skills for primary school children; (2) improving
workforce training programs; and (3) increasing equitable access to
education in conflict and crisis environments. Efforts to promote
gender equality within USAID's education activities include: creating
safe spaces for women and girls pursuing education in fragile
environments; ensuring teacher training and education materials reflect
equitable gender norms; engaging communities to ensure girls have equal
access to education. USAID also supports programs that target girls'
access to education in countries such as Ethiopia, Liberia, South
Sudan, and Tanzania. The recently concluded Ambassador Girls
Scholarship Program provided more than 500,000 scholarships to girls in
40 African countries between 2004 and 2011.
In 2012, S/GWI brought USAID and PEPFAR together to support
``Empowering Adolescent Girls to Lead through Education (EAGLE),'' a 5-
year, $15 million program to ensure that more adolescent girls in the
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) make successful transitions to
secondary school. Just 11 percent of Congolese women over age 25 have
completed secondary education, and studies show that keeping girls in
school dramatically reduces their vulnerability to HIV and improves
overall health outcomes. EAGLE seeks to raise this rate by tackling
many of the barriers keeping girls from continuing their post-primary
educations--including cost and school safety.
The State Department also seeks to support girls' education through
its exchange programs. Beginning in 2013, all teachers who come to the
United States under the auspices of Department-sponsored Teaching
Excellence and Achievement and International Leaders in Education
exchange programs will take courses on addressing the unique challenges
girls face in the classroom. Hundreds of teachers per year come to the
United States through these programs, most from the developing world,
where a lack of such training and awareness is considered a serious
barrier to girls' success in school.
The United States also recognizes the critical importance of
ensuring women's and girls' access to health care and education in
conflict and post-conflict areas.
For example, U.S. efforts in Afghanistan to increase and improve
primary health care, increase safe childbirth, support healthier
adolescent girls and women, and build training and job opportunities in
health for women have all contributed to the improved status of women.
Maternal mortality has fallen from 1,600 per 100,000 births to 327.
Life expectancy for women has risen from 44 years in 2001 to 64 years
today. USAID will continue to help address urgent problems by providing
basic health and essential hospital services to women in 13 provinces
and supporting midwifery training programs.
Additionally, USAID's education programs in Afghanistan--whether
focused on basic or higher education or on technical and vocational
education and training (TVET)--have had a significant impact over the
last 10 years. Today, 37 percent of the 8 million Afghan students in
primary school are girls. Since 2001, more than 120,000 Afghan women
have finished secondary school and 40,000 are working on university
degrees. Earlier this week, USAID launched a new initiative, Promoting
Gender Equality in National Priority Programs (PROMOTE), which will
invest in opportunities to enable educated women to enter and advance
into decisionmaking positions in Afghanistan's public, private, and
civil society sectors. USAID will further our commitment to Afghan
women in education by providing an international scholarship program
for Afghan women pursuing careers in highly technical professions and
through the establishment of an Institute for Gender and Development
Studies at an Afghan university.
If confirmed, I will seek to strengthen all these efforts and
continue to be a strong voice for increased access to health care and
education for women and girls worldwide.
Question. What efforts are being made to encourage women's
participation in the political process in nascent democracies?
Answer. The U.S. Government supports the aspirations of women
around the world, especially those in nascent democracies, who seek to
participate fully in the political lives of their nations. U.S.
officials regularly convey to foreign officials and civil society
representatives that security, stability, and economic prosperity
cannot be achieved without the participation of women.
U.S. officials regularly meet with women's rights activists to
support their efforts. They also encourage governments, political
parties, police and security forces, religious leaders and other civil
society groups to include more women in their organizations, and to
listen to and act on the concerns of women's rights advocates.
Around the world, the United States is actively supporting women's
political empowerment. For example, the Middle East Partnership
Initiative (MEPI) funds initiatives to support emerging women leaders,
including the Arab Women's Leadership Institute (AWLI). AWLI trains
female elected officials and women leaders to support their efforts to
lead constituent-driven reforms. AWLI trainees have gone on to win
public office and play active roles in developing advocacy efforts. The
Women in Public Service Project, an initiative launched by the State
Department and several leading women's colleges, identifies, trains,
and mentors young women leaders from countries in transition.
The United States and Tunisia cohosted the ninth Forum for the
Future in 2012, which brought together government officials from 21
Middle East and North African countries (including Tunisia, Egypt,
Libya, and Yemen) and G8 countries, and civil society and private
sector representatives. Ministers agreed by consensus to the Tunis
Declaration, recognizing that the full and equal participation of all
people regardless of race, sex, or religion, is critical for political
and economic development. Ministers, in particular, publicly recognized
the critical role women play in the transformations underway in the
Broader Middle East and North Africa (BMENA) region, and underscored
the importance of making progress on longstanding BMENA objectives
related to gender equality, with a view to achieving women's full
political, social, and economic empowerment.
In Egypt, the President, the Secretary of State, and other senior
officials have made clear to Egyptian leadership the need for a
transparent, inclusive, democratic government in Egypt that respects
universal human rights, including the political rights of women. Along
with USAID, the State Department has programs on the ground that work
in partnership with local civil society organizations to reinforce
these values.
I understand the U.S. Government is watching closely how the
Egyptian Government drafts and implements the new constitution. Human
rights activists have raised concerns about provisions in the
constitution that could limit women's rights. If confirmed, I will
continue to highlight the importance of equal protection under the law
and urge the Egyptian Government to include women in the ongoing
transition process. The interim President of Egypt recently swore in
three women ministers in his new Cabinet.
In Syria, U.S. officials continue to reiterate that no transition
can be considered inclusive and democratic if it does not include the
concerns and participation of Syrian women.
In the Balkans, the Office of Global Women's Issues is working with
our Embassy and mission in Pristina and the Government of Kosovo to
implement an ongoing initiative to highlight the work and build the
capacity of women leaders in government, politics, and civil society in
fighting corruption and to advance key elements of the rule of law in
their societies.
In Afghanistan, the United States provides extensive support to
bolster women's participation in the political process and support
advocacy efforts through equal voter registration outreach, assistance
to women candidates, gender equality in political parties, and support
of female Parliamentarians and diplomats.
NOMINATIONS OF MORRELL JOHN BERRY, DANIEL CLUNE, AND JOSEPH YUN
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 23, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
Hon. Morrell John Berry, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to
Australia
Daniel Clune, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to Laos
Joseph Yun, of Oregon, to be Ambassador to Malaysia
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., in room
SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin L.
Cardin, presiding.
Present: Senators Cardin, Kaine, and Rubio.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. As I was explaining to our distinguished
panel of nominees, there is a Senate Foreign Relations
Committee meeting at 10:15 this morning. So we are going to
start on time.
I know that Congressman Hoyer will be here, and we will
interrupt when my colleague arrives. He has indicated he is
probably about 5 to 10 minutes out. So I expect he may be here
before I finish my opening comments.
I want to acknowledge Ambassador Beasley, the Ambassador
from Australia to the United States. It is a real pleasure to
have you in our committee room, and thank you very much for
your representation of a close friend and ally of the United
States.
Let me also first acknowledge that Senator Corker, I
expect, will be by sometime during the hearing.
And I thank Chairman Menendez for allowing me to chair
today's hearing. As the subcommittee chair for East Asia and
Pacific, I am particularly pleased with the three nominees that
are present today: John Berry, the nominee to be Ambassador to
Australia; Dan Clune, to be Ambassador to Laos; and Joseph Yun,
to be Ambassador to Malaysia, all three critically important
countries to the United States.
I deeply respect all three of you, but two of you have the
distinct good sense to be Marylanders, and I thank the two
Marylanders that are here. Nothing against Oregon, but we do
take care of our own State's people first. So the order of
presentation, we will have Mr. Yun go third. [Laughter.]
Let me also just point out that all three of these
countries are very important to our rebalance to Asia,
President Obama's commitment to focus on the importance of Asia
to the United States.
John Berry brings a wealth of experience, OPM leadership,
in an extremely challenging time, and we thank you for the work
that you have done there, a Deputy Assistant Secretary at
Treasury, your environmental record, which is particularly
important for Australia and United States, having been involved
in the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and National Zoo
director and extraordinary work that you did there, and then
surviving working for Congressman Hoyer. If you can survive
Congressman Hoyer, you should do very well in Australia. So we
welcome you, a personal friend, and I thank you for your
continued commitment to public service.
Dan Clune. The good news about Dan, his wife is a Terp.
Congressman Hoyer will appreciate that very much. And I am very
happy that your son and daughter-in-law are alumni of the
University of Maryland Law School. So that also shows good
judgment. A career diplomat, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for the Bureau of Oceans and Environment and
Scientific Affairs, served in the Embassies of Nassau, Lima,
Jakarta, and Canberra. So you certainly bring a great
experience to this post.
And Joseph Yun, who has been an advisor to me as chair of
the Subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific, helped me
prepare for my first visit to that region, testified before our
subcommittee on two previous occasions. We are going to miss
you tomorrow at the hearing. A career diplomat, acting
Assistant Secretary for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, has
served in the Embassies of Bangkok, Thailand, Seoul, Paris, and
Hong Kong. We are not going to ask you which one you enjoyed
the most out of all those assignments. But you bring a wealth
of experience.
I particularly want to thank not just the nominees for your
willingness to continue in public service but your families. I
said it privately, but let me just put it on the record. It is
an incredible sacrifice that the families share in the public
service that you all have undertaken, and we very much
appreciate that and want to acknowledge that. And we welcome
the family participation in the responsibilities of your
office.
Each of these countries are very important to the
rebalanced Asia. Asia is very important to the United States
for many reasons: for military reasons, for strategic issues,
economic issues, environmental issues. Australia is a strategic
ally of the United States. We rely on Australia's cooperation
with us on military issues since World War I. A key TPP
negotiator, and one of our key environmental partners.
Laos is a member of the ASEAN group, is very important on
environmental issues, particularly the Lower Mekong Initiative.
We still have the problems of healing the problems of the war.
I am particularly concerned about demining unexploded
ordnances. It is my understanding about 100 casualties a year,
many of whom are children. That should be of great interest to
our relationship with Laos. It presents real challenges on
human rights, the human trafficking issues, the freedom of
expression. So it is a challenging post and a very important
post.
Malaysia is a moderate Muslim majority democratic nation, a
key partner in ASEAN. It recently entered into with Maryland's
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in helping to build
Malaysia's first fully integrated private medical school. That
is certainly a connection that we want to encourage. It is a
TPP aspirant, but has challenges, challenges in the rights of
its opposition, the freedom of expression, the freedom of the
press. These are issues that we will certainly want to hear
from the nominees as to how you will represent the United
States in advancing all of these goals.
So, again, welcome to the hearing. Your full statements
will be made part of the record. You may proceed as you see
fit. As soon as Senator Corker or Congressman Hoyer arrives--
look at that. Right on cue. I am telling you, he has been
waiting outside for this moment. [Laughter.]
But it is always a pleasure to have my friend come over to
the Senate side of the Congress and acknowledge that there is
the United States Senate and that we do work----
[Laughter.]
Senator Cardin [continuing]. And that there is a relevancy
to the United States Senate. But we very much admire and
appreciate Congressman Hoyer's incredible role in not only
leadership in our State of Maryland but his national
leadership. We are very proud of the bridges that he has built
to move forward on issues and bring this Nation and make it
stronger. As I have already indicated before, it is an honor
for him to be here to introduce to our committee his friend and
former staff person, John Berry.
Congressman Hoyer.
STATEMENT OF HON. STENY HOYER,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MARYLAND
Mr. Hoyer. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. It is
always a privilege to visit with my dear friend. For those who
are in audience, I am not objective. Ben Cardin and I went to
the General Assembly together in 1966 before many of you were
born, and we have served together for all those years in
government. Ben Cardin, I think, is one of the finest
legislators and human beings with whom I have had the
opportunity to work ever. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Senator Kaine, good to be with you, sir, as well.
Mr. Chairman, we do not have a ranking member here right
now, but Senator Kaine, members of the committee, I want to
thank you for this opportunity to voice my strong support for
John Berry to serve as our next Ambassador to Australia.
I have known John Berry since 1986 when a former staffer of
mine called me up and said do you have a vacancy on your staff.
And I said, well, not right now. He said, well, you need to
fire somebody. [Laughter.]
I said, what do you mean? He said, you need to hire John
Berry. He is one of the most extraordinarily talented human
beings you are ever going to meet.
Well, it just so happens that somebody you know, Senator
Cardin, John Moag, decided to leave just a month later, and I
had the opportunity of asking John Berry to come on my staff
and he worked from 1985 to 1994.
Throughout that time, John was instrumental in helping me
serve the people of Maryland and the people of our country.
After leaving my staff, John served in senior executive roles
in the Treasury Department, the Smithsonian Institution, the
Department of the Interior in the Clinton administration, and
served in every one of those positions, as he did with me, with
great distinction.
In 2000, he became the director of the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation where he worked diligently, which is an
understatement when you refer to John Berry's work ethic, to
improve conservation through innovation, public/private
partnerships.
His commitment to our Nation's natural wildlife and habitat
preservation was recognized further when John was appointed to
serve as director of the National Zoo, and how he loved that
job and the employees for every institution for whom he has
worked, including my office, loved him. He was so successful at
turning around the institution that had been faltering, that
the zoo named a lion cub after him. I am not sure exactly what
the significance of that is. [Laughter.]
But it is a recognition of the affection and respect with
which he is held by everybody who has worked with him.
In 2009, President Obama selected John as director of the
Office of Personnel Management. He got right to work making
improvements in the way we recruit and retain a top notch
Federal workforce, something that is important, of course, to
all of us but important to every American. As OPM Director,
John became one of our Nation's fiercest defenders of public
service and the role Federal employees play in keeping our
Nation safe and our economy strong. Even in the face of COLA
freezes and cuts to the retirement benefits, John made a strong
case for Federal employees to be recognized for their hard work
with a pay comparable to the private sector. And he has made it
a hallmark of his career to make sure that employees no longer
face discrimination in the workplace based upon age, race,
gender, religion, or sexual orientation. No one with whom I
have worked has a greater commitment to individual liberty and
fairness and justice than John Berry.
In every position in which he has served, he has elevated
that office through his thoughtful approach to management, his
natural ability to lead, and his commitment to achieving
results.
Senator Kaine, I may have told this to Ben Cardin, but I
called up the Secretary of the Interior. There was a vacancy in
the Assistant Secretary for Planning, Management, and Budget.
And I told him that he needed to hire John Berry, sort of like
the guy who called me. I said, and if you hire him, you are
going to find him to be the most capable, able, focused, and
upbeat person you have ever worked with. And the Secretary said
OK, well, yes. I have to touch base with the White House. He
was not too enthusiastic, just another Congressman calling him
to beat on him about something.
About a year later, he had hired John Berry, and a year
later, I saw him in the airport. He came up to me. He said,
Steny, you know that guy you talked to me about, John Berry? I
said, of course. You undersold him. [Laughter.]
I could not have been more generous in describing John
Berry, and I undersold him according to the Secretary. He was
right.
In every position in which he has served, he has elevated
that office through his thoughtful approach to management. I
already said that. John is someone who leads by example, which
is an enormously important quality in someone who will be
representing our Nation abroad.
In John Berry, the Australians will see the best of America
because they will see a man committed to promoting our values
of justice, quality, and opportunity. They will also come to
know him as someone dedicated to preserving the earth's natural
resources and wildlife, an issue, of course, that like so many
Americans, Australians hold dear.
As the administration continues its strategic pivot toward
Asia and the Pacific, Australia continues to be an instrumental
partner to the United States in both security and trade.
Australia remains one of America's closest and most important
strategic allies, and our ties are based not only on common
interests but on a shared heritage and a history of fighting
side by side to defend democracy in two world wars.
I congratulate the Obama administration, for in that
context, they have elected to send someone to Australia who the
Australians will see as the perfect example of the good
American, of the positive American, of the American who shares
their values and respects them as a sovereign nation and dear
friend. I am confident that John will continue to work to bring
our countries even closer as Americans and Australians pursue
our shared goals of peace, stability, and economic prosperity.
It says here I am going to urge you to support. I have no
doubt that you are going to support John Berry. But I want all
of you to know how fortunate America is that we have somebody
of John Berry's skill and judgment and personality who has
dedicated so much of his life to public service.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to appear on
his behalf.
Senator Cardin. Well, Congressman Hoyer, thank you for
coming over and sharing those thoughts on John Berry.
On OPM, I had the opportunity to sit there and introduce
him to the committee. So your observations about my support is
very accurate.
You are absolutely right about the upbeat nature. Sometimes
it is just not fair.
Mr. Hoyer. It drives you crazy, does it not?
Senator Cardin. It does. [Laughter.]
Mr. Hoyer. John, things are bad. Do you not understand?
Things are bad. [Laughter.]
Senator Cardin. Well, I cannot think of a more appropriate
ambassadorship than Australia where he will, I think, create
the type of relationship between two friends who are leaders on
economic and environmental and military issues that will help
us in the rebalance to Asia.
So thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with us
today. I appreciate it.
Now, Mr. Berry, if you dare, you can now try to follow Mr.
Hoyer. [Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF HON. MORRELL JOHN BERRY, OF MARYLAND, TO BE
AMBASSADOR TO AUSTRALIA
Mr. Berry. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much, and again,
thanks to Mr. Hoyer. It is always extremely humbling for his
generosity. I never realized, when I started working for him in
the 1980s, in the mid-1980s, was that I was also getting a
second father, and he has been an amazing force in my life. And
I am eternally grateful for his participation in my life.
Mr. Chairman, I am also extremely honored. As you
mentioned, Ambassador Beasley is with us today from Australia.
Ambassador Beasley is one of the most distinguished statesmen
from Australia. I think in American history, you would have to
go all the way back to Ben Franklin to find someone of such
stature. And I am very honored and humbled that he would be
here today.
My brother, Joseph, his wife, Jodi, and their son, Thomas,
are here. Both my nephews, James Ramo and Kate London, are
here. And my partner of 17 years, Curtis Yee, is here as well,
and I am very grateful for the committee's allowing them to
join us.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, America is a Pacific nation, and
if confirmed, I will be the second generation of Berry's to
serve our country in the Pacific. My father served in the First
Marine Division at Guadalanal. He then moved on to fight in
Papua New Guinea at Cape Gloucester, and then served aboard the
USS Bon Homme Richard toward the end of World War II. I am
named for my uncle, his younger brother, who was a Marine
fighter pilot who was shot down and killed in action over
Mindanao in the Philippines.
My partner, Curtis Yee, is a fourth generation Chinese
American from Hawaii, and his uncle, Hiram Fong, was Hawaii's
first United States Senator and America's first Chinese
American Senator. And as a result, the President's nomination,
for which I am extremely grateful and humbled to serve as a
U.S. Ambassador in the Asia-Pacific region, has deep and
personal meaning both to my family and to me.
If the Senate confirms me, my overarching goal as
Ambassador to Australia will be threefold.
First, I will work to strengthen our alliance with
Australia, which has served as an anchor of peace and stability
in the Asia-Pacific region for more than 60 years.
America could not ask for a better friend, partner, and
ally than Australia. Our relationship is built on a solid
foundation of trust. It has been proven under fire and it is
steeled by deeply held values. From World War I to the present
day, America has not entered any major battle without
Australians at our side. Thousands of Australians have made the
ultimate sacrifice of laying down their lives.
America is profoundly grateful for Australia's sacrifices
in pursuit of our common purposes. But our country is
especially grateful that after 9/11 Australia stepped forward
to help us counter terrorism in Afghanistan, and we honor the
contribution of their nation and most deeply the 40 proud
Australians who have given their lives in combat there. And I
would ask, Mr. Chairman, if I could, as part of the record to
include the 40 names of those Australians.
Senator Cardin. Without objection, they will be included in
the record.
Mr. Berry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Second, if confirmed, I will endeavor to increase our
mutual trade and investment.
The United States has $136 billion in direct investment in
Australia, more than any other country in the Asia-Pacific and
twice the value of our investments in China. Our bilateral free
trade agreement has already resulted in impressive returns,
increasing our trade by 98 percent since 2004 and last year
topping $64 billion. And we are working today on trying to
conclude a successful Trans-Pacific Partnership which will open
up huge opportunities.
Finally, if confirmed, I will strive to further deepen our
cultural, scientific, and conservation cooperation.
The United States and Australia share common objectives, a
world that respects human rights and the rule of law, that
benefits from transparent, free, fair, and open trade, and that
settles our differences peacefully. We share a deep and abiding
love of liberty and freedom, and we draw strength from our rich
diversity and pride ourselves on providing opportunity or, as
Australians say, a ``fair go'' for all. Our bonds with
Australia are truly unbreakable.
At the Australian Parliament House in 2011, President Obama
delivered his clarion message on the Asia-Pacific region and
the United States commitment there. He stressed that the United
States and Australia ``alliance continues to be indispensable
to our future,'' and that, ``in the Asia-Pacific in the 21st
century, the United States of America is all in.''
Mr. Chairman, I am honored for the opportunity to appear
before you today and happy to answer any questions that you
might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Berry follows:]
Prepared Statement of Morrell John Berry
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you today, it is a great honor. I
am deeply grateful to President Obama for his confidence in nominating
me to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to Australia. If confirmed, I
promise that I will work tirelessly in service to our country.
For the past 4 years, I have had the distinct privilege of serving
as the President's Chief People Person as head of the Office of
Personnel Management. OPM is a relatively small agency, but it has a
broad reach and a tremendously important mission--to recruit, retain,
and honor a world-class workforce. In my role at OPM, I traveled
throughout the country meeting with students and universities,
veterans, employee groups, tribal communities, Fortune 500 companies,
affinity groups, and civil servants. Every day, across our government
and private sector, I witnessed remarkable innovations and
accomplishments. I saw first-hand the dedication and hard work of men
and women committed to making our Nation and our world a better place.
Along the way, I was reminded again and again of the tremendous
diversity of our great country, building lasting relationships with
fellow Americans from all backgrounds as we worked together to address
shared challenges. If confirmed, I will carry with me these many voices
of America, along with a profound commitment to strengthening the
shared values that lie at the heart of our strategic relationship with
Australia.
America is a Pacific nation, and, if confirmed, I would be the
second generation of Berrys to serve our country in the Pacific. My
father, Morrell Berry, fought in the First Marine Division at
Guadalcanal, at Cape Gloucester in Papua New Guinea, and as a Marine
gunnery sergeant aboard the USS Bon Homme Richard. My uncle Jack, for
whom I am named, served as a U.S. Marine fighter pilot during World War
II and was killed in action over the Philippines. My partner, Curtis
Yee, is a fourth generation Chinese American from Hawaii, and his uncle
Hiram Fong was Hawaii's first U.S. Senator and the first Chinese
American Senator. As a result, the nomination to serve as a U.S.
Ambassador in the Asia-Pacific region has deep meaning to my family and
to me.
As proud as America's past has been in the Pacific, our future
promises only to be brighter. President Obama and both Secretaries
Clinton and Kerry have made clear that America will remain fully
engaged in the Asia-Pacific region in the 21st century, using our
alliances for mutual good. Without question, one of the United States
greatest alliances is with Australia.
If confirmed, my overarching goals as Ambassador to Australia are
threefold.
First, I will work to strengthen our strategic alliance with
Australia, which has served as an anchor of peace and stability in the
Asia-Pacific region and the world for more than 60 years.
America could not ask for a better friend, partner, and ally than
Australia. Our relationship is built on a solid foundation of trust,
proven under fire, and steeled by deeply held shared values. From World
War I to the present day, America has never entered a major battle
without Australians firmly by our side. Thousands of Australians have
made the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their lives alongside our own
brave service men and women in pursuit of freedom and a better world.
America is profoundly grateful for Australia's sacrifices in
pursuit of our common purposes. We are especially appreciative that
after 9/11, Australia stepped forward to help us counter terrorism in
Afghanistan, and we honor the 40 proud Australians who have fallen in
combat there. I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that I be allowed to enter the
names of those brave soldiers in the official record of this hearing.
The U.S.-Australia defense and security relationship is rock solid.
Right now in northern Australia, more than 30,000 U.S. and Australian
service members are taking to the sea, land, and sky as part of
Exercise TALISMAN SABER 2013--a biennial combined training activity
designed to improve the combat readiness and interoperability of our
forces.
As part of the force posture initiatives announced by President
Obama in November 2011, U.S. Marines are also conducting exercises and
training on a rotational basis with the Australian Defence Force in
Darwin and Northern Australia, which will enable both countries to join
with other partners to respond in a timely and effective manner to a
range of contingencies in the Asia-Pacific, including humanitarian
assistance and disaster relief in the region. The President summed it
up succinctly: ``The United States is a Pacific power, and we are here
to stay.''
If confirmed, I pledge to do everything in my power to strengthen
our strategic alliance and to ensure that we are fully prepared to work
together to respond to the challenges of tomorrow, whether they are on
land or at sea, in space or in cyberspace.
Second, if confirmed, I will endeavor to increase our mutual trade
and investment.
The United States has $136 billion in direct investments in
Australia, more than in any other country in the Asia-Pacific and more
than twice the value of our investments in China. Our bilateral Free
Trade Agreement has resulted in impressive returns benefiting both
countries--bilateral trade in goods and services has increased by
nearly 98 percent since 2004, topping $64 billion in 2012. Australia is
a key center of operations for many U.S. companies, and their work
there brings technology and capital into Australia, and creates jobs
and enhances our exports sector here at home.
Today, we are also working with Australia to conclude the Trans-
Pacific Partnership, the ambitious, next-generation, trade agreement
that reflects our shared economic priorities and values and whose
members span the Asia-Pacific.
If confirmed, I will work to strengthen our economic relationship
with Australia and the Asia-Pacific region.
Finally, if confirmed, I will strive to further deepen our
cultural, scientific, and conservation cooperation.
The United States and Australia share strong people-to-people ties,
with some 400,000 Americans visiting Australia and around 1 million
Australians visiting the United States last year alone. Academic
exchanges are a critical part of our relationship with Australia. From
food security and linguistics to oncology and renewable energy,
students and scholars are bringing our countries ever closer together
through cooperative innovations in the service of all humankind.
The United States and Australia share common objectives--a world
that respects human rights and the rule of law; benefits from
transparent, free, fair and open trade; and settles differences
peacefully. We share a deep and abiding love of liberty and freedom. We
both draw strength from our rich diversity and pride ourselves on
providing opportunity or a ``fair go'' for all. Our bonds with
Australia are truly unbreakable.
At the Australian Parliament House in 2011, President Obama
delivered his clarion message on the Asia-Pacific region and the United
States commitments there. He stressed that the U.S.-Australia
``alliance continues to be indispensable to our future,'' and that,
``[i]n the Asia Pacific in the 21st century, the United States of
America is all in.''
To conclude, I am deeply honored to be nominated for the position
of U.S. Ambassador to Australia, and welcome the opportunity to lend my
experience, passion, and dedication to enhancing our relationship with
one of our strongest allies and partners, and to cementing the United
States commitment to the Asia Pacific.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today and stand ready to answer any questions that you and other
members may have.
Senator Cardin. Thank you very much, Mr. Berry.
We have been joined by Senator Rubio who is the ranking
Republican on the East Asia and Pacific Subcommittee. He is
willing to defer an opening statement due to the time issues
that I mentioned at the beginning of this hearing. Thank you,
Senator Rubio. I appreciate your cooperation.
Of course, Senator Kaine has been here. I appreciate both
my colleagues being here.
Mr. Clune.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL CLUNE, OF MARYLAND,
TO BE AMBASSADOR TO LAOS
Mr. Clune. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank
you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today.
And thank you, Senator Cardin, for your kind introduction.
With your permission, I would like to briefly highlight
five priorities outlined in the statement that has already been
included in the record.
But, first, I would like to introduce the members of my
family who are here today who have shared the adventures and
the hardships of a 28-year career in the Foreign Service with
me: my wife, Judy, and two of our daughters, Sarah and Katie.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I would focus on five broad
priorities.
First, the issues arising from the war in Vietnam, that is,
the accounting for U.S. personnel missing in action and the
removal of unexploded ordnance, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman.
And I welcome the cooperation of the Lao Government in both of
these efforts. We have made great progress in accounting for
missing personnel, locating and returning the remains of 266
missing to their loved ones, and will continue to search for
the 309 still missing.
We have also made good progress in clearing unexploded
ordnance, educating affected communities, and assisting the
victims. Last year, casualties were reduced to 56, down from an
annual average of 300, and we have increased annual funding for
the program from $5 million to $9 million.
Another high priority for me will be promotion of human
rights and the rule of law, a central pillar of the
administration's foreign policy. If confirmed, I will continue
our efforts to help Laos reform its legal and regulatory
systems and to speak forthrightly about incidents such as the
recent disappearance of Lao civil society leader, Sombath
Somphone, and the return of nine young asylum seekers to North
Korea.
Continued cooperation in the areas of health,
counternarcotics, and the environment will also be a priority
for me, including existing efforts to control infectious
diseases, new efforts to address very high rates of child and
maternal mortality, and support of Laos and other countries in
the region on plans to construct dams on the main stem of the
Mekong River. The Mekong underpins the livelihood of nearly 70
million people, and if confirmed, I will encourage cooperation
between U.S. and Lao experts to minimize the impact of dams on
local populations, habitat, and wildlife.
I will also work to strengthen people-to-people ties. With
70 percent of the Lao population under the age of 30, I intend
to focus on building ties with students, young professionals,
and government officials.
Finally, increasing U.S. trade and investment will also be
a priority for me. The United States ranks 13th on the list of
foreign investors in Laos and accounts for just 1 percent of
its foreign trade. Laos joined the World Trade Organization
earlier this year, and we are helping it to implement the
reforms necessary to meet its WTO obligations. And I will work
to acquaint U.S. businesses with the new opportunities this
offers and encourage them to do more business in Laos.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, if confirmed, I
look forward to working with the committee and other interested
Members of Congress to advance U.S. interests in Laos.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today, and I am pleased to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Clune follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dan Clune
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before the committee today. I am deeply honored
to have been nominated by President Obama to be the U.S. Ambassador to
the Lao People's Democratic Republic. I am grateful for the President's
confidence and to Secretary Kerry for his support of my nomination. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with the committee and other
interested members of Congress to advance U.S. interests in Laos.
I have served our country as a Foreign Service officer since 1985
and have led large interagency teams at two embassies and here in
Washington. In my most recent position I served as the Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Oceans and International
Environmental and Scientific Affairs. Previously, I was Deputy Chief of
Mission and Charge d'Affaires at the U.S Embassy in Australia. I have
served previously in Southeast Asia, as the Finance and Development
Officer at our Embassy in Jakarta.
If confirmed, I would be greatly honored to move our foreign policy
goals forward as Ambassador to Laos. Among my priorities would be
promotion of human rights, removal of Vietnam war era unexploded
ordnance, accounting for U.S. personnel missing in Laos from the
Vietnam war, and continued improvement of people-to-people ties.
With the resumption of full diplomatic relations in 1992, U.S.-Lao
cooperation has improved significantly, but there have been ups and
downs along the way. Former Secretary Clinton, during her historic
visit in July 2012, became the first U.S. Secretary of State to set
foot in the country since John Foster Dulles in 1955. Her visit
reaffirmed the United States commitment to working with the Lao people
to promote sustainable economic development and redoubling our efforts
to remove unexploded ordnance, also known as UXO.
The cornerstone of our bilateral cooperation with Laos since 1985
has been the close cooperation in accounting for U.S. servicemen and
civilians still missing in Laos from the Vietnam war. I am committed to
returning these patriots to their loved ones. I see this mission as a
humanitarian one and welcome the Government of Laos' cooperation.
Continued cooperation between Laos and the United States in UXO
removal has helped to reduce the number of unexploded ordnance
casualties in 2012 to 56, down from an annual average of 300. If
confirmed, I will continue to advance our efforts to not only clear the
unexploded ordnance, but also to educate the affected communities on
the dangers of UXO and assist the victims.
Earlier this year, Laos officially joined the World Trade
Organization, which opened new avenues to integrate the country into
the regional and global economies. The Department of State and USAID
played an integral role in helping Laos reform its legal and regulatory
infrastructure to be able to comply with WTO rules. A follow-on project
will help them implement these reforms and move toward integration in
the ASEAN Economic Community.
We will also continue our longstanding work with Laos to counter
illicit drug cultivation, trafficking and addiction. Our assistance
helped contribute to a sharp drop in illicit opium poppy cultivation
from 1998 to 2007, and we are currently working to build support for
science-based drug addiction treatment in Laos. Along with
international partners, we are assisting the Lao Government in
implementing its Legal Sector Master Plan framework for justice sector
reform.
We have worked closely with Laos and other countries in the region
to support improved decision making on plans to construct dams on the
mainstream of the Mekong River. Managed poorly, dams can displace local
inhabitants, irreparably alter the natural habitat, and threaten
fragile aquatic life. The Mekong River underpins the livelihoods and
food security for nearly 70 million people. If confirmed, I will
encourage cooperation between U.S. and Lao experts on smart hydropower
development to sustainably develop energy resources and reduce negative
impacts to local populations, habitat, and wildlife.
The United States and Laos have cooperated very closely on health-
related issues like the control of infectious diseases. If confirmed, I
hope to devote more attention and resources to the issues of
undernutrition and the high rates of infant, child, and maternal
mortality. Malnutrition is the single largest cause of child mortality
in Laos with 59 percent of all child deaths related to nutritional
deficiencies.
This problem will affect Laos' social and economic development in
the future and urgently needs to be addressed.
Despite the progress in our relationship, recent incidents have
raised serious questions regarding the Lao Government's adherence to
its international human rights obligations. The December 15, 2012,
disappearance of Lao civil society leader, Sombath Somphone, from a
police post in downtown Vientiane continues to have a chilling effect
on civil society. The failure of Lao authorities to conduct a
transparent investigation and account for Mr. Sombath's disappearance
calls into question the government's commitment to uphold human rights
and the rule of law. I am also concerned about the Lao Government's
decision on May 27 to return nine young North Korean asylum seekers to
North Korea. I hope this action does not signal a trend of sending
future asylum seekers back to their home country against their will.
The increasing openness of the economy, growing access to the
Internet, and the recognition by the Lao Government of the importance
of English language skills presents an opportunity to engage the Lao
public through cultural and educational exchanges. With 70 percent of
the Lao population under the age of 30, I intend to redouble mission
efforts to build ties with students, young professionals, and young
government officials.
The U.S. mission in Laos is small but growing; with approximately
36 direct hire Americans and 230 local staff. I am pleased to inform
the committee that construction of the New Embassy Compound should be
completed in September 2014. The new facility will provide a safe
working environment for the dedicated and highly capable American and
Lao staff members of the U.S. mission. I look forward to the mission
moving to this new facility, and if confirmed, to advancing the goals
of the American people. Of course, I would also welcome visits by you
or members of your staff.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this
opportunity to appear before you today. I am pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
Senator Cardin. Well, thank you very much for your
testimony.
Mr. Yun.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH YUN, OF OREGON,
TO BE AMBASSADOR TO MALAYSIA
Mr. Yun. Mr. Chairman, Senator Rubio, and Senator Kaine, it
is an honor for me to appear before you today as President
Obama's nominee to be the next Ambassador to Malaysia.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to take
this opportunity to introduce to you and the committee my wife
of 35 years, Melanie, who has been with me in all our foreign
and domestic assignments. Our son, Matthew, could not be here
today because he is working in Oregon. He grew up as a Foreign
Service brat, moving from country to country, school to school.
Melanie and Matt really do exemplify our Foreign Service
families. We ask a lot from them, and I cannot thank them
enough.
Mr. Chairman, this nomination is very meaningful to me. As
a career member of the Foreign Service, I have devoted 27 years
of service to promoting American interests abroad. My main
motivations for joining the Foreign Service in 1985 were
twofold.
The first was the example of my father, who was a medical
doctor devoting most of his professional life in Africa,
working for the World Health Organization, establishing
hospitals and clinics. He exemplified for me the concept of
public service, and I wanted to follow in his footsteps.
The second was the searing impression left on me by the
1979-1980 Iran Embassy hostage crisis, especially the courage
shown by men and women of our Embassy in Tehran. I wanted to
belong to such a community that exemplifies honor and loyalty.
If confirmed, I will have an opportunity to lead such a
community, and I cannot think of a higher honor. The men and
women who work in our missions overseas, whether they are
Americans or locally engaged staff, whether they are from the
State Department or from other USG agencies, are our greatest
assets. If confirmed, I pledge to maintain high ethical and
managerial standards. I will insist on the best possible
security for our personnel, property, and national security
information. I will also insist on full, clear, and transparent
communications between the Embassy and Washington, including
with you, members and staff of this committee.
Mr. Chairman, over the past 4 years, I have worked as
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary, and the last 6 months as Acting Assistant Secretary
for the East Asian and Pacific Bureau. In that capacity, I have
testified in front of your committee, as you mentioned, on
several occasions, and I have discussed various aspects of the
administration's Asia policy with you and committee staff on
many occasions.
Much of our discussions have focused on the
administration's strategic commitment to rebalance our policy
toward the Asia-Pacific. I want to take this opportunity to
thank you and members of the committee and staff for your
support and counsel, which I have greatly valued.
The administration's policy in Malaysia is very much
consistent, indeed, a part of our Asia rebalance policy. This
policy is founded upon expanding trust and understanding,
growing mutual prosperity, and ensuring peace and security in
the broader region. Malaysia has become an important supporter
of the U.S. rebalance to Asia-Pacific. If confirmed, I will
work to make the United States-Malaysia relationship stronger
still because I firmly believe that we have much to gain
through expanded trade and investment, people-to-people
exchanges, and deeper cooperation on issues such as climate
change, energy security, counterterrorism, and
nonproliferation.
Mr. Chairman, on the political side, while we were very
pleased--I think you did mention in your opening statement
about the election--to see a very large turnout in a very hotly
contested election earlier this year. However, we did note with
concern allegations of voter fraud and arrest of opposition
members.
Mr. Chairman, advocacy for democratic freedoms is an
essential pillar of what we do abroad. Throughout my 27-year
career, I have worked toward this end, most recently as the
point man for the State Department for reforms in Burma. If
confirmed, I will strongly uphold this objective in Malaysia.
Malaysia is an important partner for the United States, and
if confirmed, I look forward to representing the United States
as our Ambassador, leading our Embassy and enhancing our
relationship with Malaysia.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today, and I
welcome any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Yun follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joseph Yun
Chairman Cardin, Senator Rubio, and distinguished members of the
committee, it is an honor to appear before you today as President
Obama's nominee to be the next Ambassador to Malaysia. I am deeply
grateful to President Obama and to Secretary Kerry for placing their
confidence in me with this nomination to serve the United States of
America.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this
opportunity to introduce to you and the committee my wife of 35 years,
Melanie, who has stood by me in all our foreign and domestic
assignments. Our son, Matthew, could not be here today, because he is
gainfully employed in Oregon; he grew up as a ``foreign service brat,''
moving from country to country, school to school. Melanie and Matt
exemplify our foreign service families--we ask a lot from them--and I
cannot thank them enough.
Mr. Chairman, this nomination is very meaningful for me because, as
a career member of the Foreign Service, I have devoted 27 years of
service to promoting American interests abroad, mostly in Asia. My main
motivations for joining the Foreign Service in 1985 were two. First was
the example of my father, who was a medical doctor, devoting most of
his professional life in Africa, working for the World Health
Organization, establishing hospitals and clinics; he exemplified public
service, and I wanted to follow in his footsteps. Second was the
searing impression made on me by the 1979-80 Iran Embassy hostage
crisis, especially the courage shown by the men and women of our
Embassy Tehran--I wanted to belong to such a community that exemplifies
honor and loyalty.
If confirmed, I will have an opportunity to lead such a community;
I cannot think of a higher honor. The men and women who work in our
missions overseas--whether they are American or locally engaged staff,
whether they are from the State Department or other USG agencies--are
our greatest assets. If confirmed, I pledge to maintain high ethical
and managerial standards. I will insist on the best possible security
for our personnel, property, and national security information. I will
also insist on full, clear, and transparent communications between the
Embassy and Washington, including with you, members and staff of this
committee.
Mr. Chairman, over the past 4 years, I have worked as Deputy
Assistant Secretary and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary--and last
6 months as Acting Assistant Secretary--for the East Asia and Pacific
Bureau. In that capacity, I have testified in front of your committee
on several occasions and I have discussed various aspects of the
administration's Asia policy with you and committee staff on many
occasions.
Much of our discussions have focused on the administration's
strategic commitment to rebalance our policy toward the Asia-Pacific. I
want to take this opportunity to thank you and members of committee and
staff for your support and counsel, which I have greatly valued.
The administration's policy in Malaysia is very much consistent,
indeed an integral part, of our Asia rebalance policy. This policy is
founded upon expanding trust and understanding, growing mutual
prosperity, and ensuring peace and security in the broader region. I
know Malaysia has become an important supporter of the U.S. rebalance
to Asia-Pacific; if confirmed, I will work to make the U.S.-Malaysia
relationship stronger still, because I firmly believe that we have much
to gain through expanded trade and investment, people-to-people
exchanges, and deeper cooperation in issues such as climate change,
energy security, counterterrorism, and nonproliferation.
The United States has extensive bilateral and multilateral
cooperative agenda with Malaysia. We are working together to increase
the security of our populations and the safety of our borders. Our law
enforcement cooperation has increased in recent years, as we have
jointly fought terrorism, proliferation, trafficking in persons and
narcotics, and other serious crimes. We are continuing to improve an
already strong military relationship through exercises, security
dialogues, ship visits, military education, and joint training.
Malaysia is also an important commercial and economic partner for
us. Our bilateral trade totals over $39 billion. This year we look
forward to concluding our first free trade agreement with Malaysia,
through the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). We are engaging all our
TPP partners, including Malaysia, to secure commitments to achieve a
high-standard agreement that expands market access and establishes
common rules for a level playing field. We also are thrilled with
Malaysia's hosting of the fourth Global Entrepreneurship summit in
October. This important presidential initiative will energize, empower,
and connect entrepreneurs from around the region and around the world.
Our growing people-to-people connections reflect the overall growth
of the bilateral relationship. Most significantly, the Fulbright
English Teaching Assistant program--our third-largest program of its
kind--Malaysia currently hosts 75 English Teaching Assistants who are
placed in Malaysian communities, and that number is set to increase to
100 next year.
Travel to the United States by the Malaysian people is also on the
upswing. Since fiscal year 2010, there has been a 23-percent increase
in the number of Malaysians applying for visas (tourist, student, and
work) to visit the United States temporarily, and this increase cuts
across all major ethnic groups in the country.
On the political side, while we were extremely pleased to see large
voter turnout in a hotly contested election earlier this year, we noted
with concern allegations of voter fraud and arrest of opposition
members.
Advocacy for democratic freedoms is a central pillar of what we do
abroad. Throughout my 27-year career I have worked toward this end;
most recently as the point man in the Department for reforms in Burma.
If confirmed, I will strongly uphold this objective in Malaysia.
Another area in which we can work together with Malaysia is on
human trafficking. Malaysia just entered its 4th consecutive year on
the Tier Two Watch List for human trafficking. If confirmed, I will
prioritize working with the Malaysian Government and civil society to
help improve its trafficking victim protection regime.
Malaysia is an important partner for the United States. If
confirmed, I look forward to representing the United States as our
Ambassador, leading our Embassy, and enhancing our relationship with
Malaysia.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today, and I
welcome any questions you may have.
Senator Cardin. Well, thank you, Mr. Yun. I appreciate your
testimony and your service.
When you and I first met, we talked about good governance.
We talked about human rights issues, and we talked about the
challenges we have in the Pacific because we have countries
that are some of the greatest democracies in the world and we
have some of the most repressive governments in the world.
My question is going to be to all three of you on how we
are going to advance good governance and human rights, and I
particularly want to acknowledge that Senator Rubio, the
ranking Republican on the subcommittee, and I have worked
together on this agenda in this Congress, that we are going to
put a spotlight on human rights issues. Our first hearing was
on good governance and human rights. In my visit to the region,
it was one of the primary focuses that I did in all three
countries that I visited.
The Foreign Minister of Australia, Foreign Minister Carr,
stated in a March 2013 statement that he wants to work with the
United States on promoting human rights and development of
democracy and good governance through the Asia-Pacific region.
So let me start with Mr. Berry, if I might. Australia
shares our values, one of the great democracies in the world.
How can the United States and Australia work together to
promote good governance in a region where there are many
countries that are very challenged in that direction?
Mr. Berry. Mr. Chairman, I think it is an incredibly
important pillar in our relationship and one that Australia has
stepped forward in a significant way. Most recently, they
increased their willingness to accept political refugees to a
number, almost doubling their commitment, which makes them
second only to the United States in their willingness to step
forward to help people who are seeking political asylum,
according to the U.N. convention standards.
The Australians are also heavily involved with us on so
many issues of human rights. Human trafficking, as we know, is
a major issue throughout the Asia-Pacific, and Australia is
working closely with our professionals at the Department of
State and our law enforcement folks throughout the region to,
hopefully, beat back an issue that we know has a human toll
that is reprehensible. It is modern day slavery, and that is
something that we all must commit to ending. And we have a
great partner in Australia in that regard.
Otherwise, we are involved in almost every front through
the United Nations, Mr. Chairman. You know, Australia will take
over the seat on the Security Council this coming fall, and in
that capacity, they have advanced this as one of the most
significant issues of their concern and their leadership in
that body. And so we will look forward to working
diplomatically on all of these issues, which I know that you
and the ranking member and Senator Kaine care so deeply and
passionately about. Thank you for your leadership.
Senator Cardin. Mr. Clune, Mr. Berry mentioned trafficking.
In Laos, the reports are not favorable at all as to the current
situation on human trafficking in Laos. The freedom of
expression is very much not respected in the country. How will
you, if confirmed as the Ambassador, help advance our goals for
good governance and respect for rights in Laos?
Mr. Clune. Thank you, Senator.
Human rights is one area where we do have differences with
the Government of Laos. If confirmed, I would work in three
areas. One, as I mentioned, is to speak very forthrightly about
incidents which involve violations of human rights, and I
mentioned the arrest of the NGO leader Sombath Somphone and the
return of the nine very young asylum seekers to North Korea.
But I also think it is important to help build
institutions, and we do have some small programs to help Laos
institute reforms in its legal and regulatory systems. One is a
USAID-funded project designed to help them implement their WTO
obligations, and our International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Bureau has a program to strengthen the judicial
sector and provide training to judges and police. I think the
more we can strengthen those institutions, the better chance
there will be for the government to respect human rights.
And third--and I think in a way this may be the most
important of all, and that is to really work on people-to-
people ties because the one thing I think we can offer to the
Lao people is our experience as a free and democratic society,
and as we reach out to especially the younger members of the
Lao population, I think we can persuade them that respect for
human rights is really essential to their prosperity and
security in the future.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Mr. Yun, Malaysia is a democratic state, and yet the way
that it deals with its political opposition, the way that it
tightens on freedom of expression is a major concern. How do
you balance that, if confirmed as the Ambassador, to continue
to promote democracy but point out our concerns about--I think
universal concerns about the freedom of expression?
Mr. Yun. Mr. Chairman, of course, those are difficult
issues.
I think one tool we should use more is multilateral forums
and multilateral diplomacy. We have a great example, for
example, in OSCE. You, yourself, are chairman of the U.S.
Helsinki Commission and some of the countries in Asia have
recently become dialogue partners in OSCE.
Another tool is, of course, the ASEAN, and there is a human
rights dialogue that goes on there.
And so my experience especially dealing with tough
domestic, political, freedom issues is also to do more
multilaterally, whether it is in the ASEAN setting and others.
But in the end, Mr. Chairman, I do believe we do have to
speak our mind. We do have to speak very clearly not just to
the government but to others. And in that sense, also the
growth of civil society throughout the region is an important
tool. And I do believe that in many of these debates, there is
beginning to be more--the gap is now narrowing. We have
witnessed that, you know, for example, in Indonesia over the
last 10 years and certainly in Burma over the last few years.
And so I think there is generally a good trend and generally
emerging consensus.
Thank you.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Senator Rubio.
Senator Rubio. Thank you all for your service to our
country and for being willing to step up and be nominated to
these posts.
Let me begin with you, Mr. Clune, and Laos, and I have a
couple of questions. Let me just go right to the issue of the
nine North Korean defectors. My understanding is that these
were orphans between the ages of 15 and 23, were traveling
through Laos to reach South Korea. They were detained by
authorities and they were forcibly repatriated to North Korea.
We do not know their fate. Previously, of course, Laos had been
a safe haven for defectors and had assisted many in finding
safety to South Korea. Is this a policy change on behalf of the
government? Are we seeing a change on the ground there? What is
behind that? And by the way, what did we do or what do we know
about that case moving forward?
Mr. Clune. Senator, I fully share your concerns about that
incident. Following the detention of the nine young orphans, we
and the South Koreans and various members of the European Union
made repeated representations to the Lao Government about that
case and insisted that they fulfill their international
obligations and not return these asylum seekers to a place
where they obviously would be in danger.
Following that incident and following our representations,
there was another group of asylum seekers, 20 individuals from
North Korea, who were allowed to travel on to South Korea. So
we hope this signals a return to their previous policy, but in
any case, we will very closely monitor that situation, along
with our friends in South Korea and Europe, and consult with
this committee about the situation going forward.
Senator Rubio. Let me pivot to another concern which I have
as well about Malaysia. And it is about the increasing
encroachment on religious liberties, which I think is an
essential human right.
In Laos--and maybe you could comment on this, but the
government continues to impose legal restrictions on the
freedom to fully worship. For example, we have seen multiple
news reports that it is common practice for local village
leaders to expel and harass Christians with little fear of
repercussion from the government for that.
What is the state of that and what are our efforts to speak
out loudly about how that is unacceptable behavior?
Mr. Yun. We do, as you know, have an annual freedom of
religion report, and that report really does take a
considerable amount of resources and we do it fairly actively.
And I would say religious freedom in Malaysia, as it is in the
region, is becoming much more serious, especially the
polarization between the Muslim and Christian community, and
Christians are, of course, in the distinct minority.
Senator Rubio, like many issues, I do believe that this is
a factor of what is happening, for example, in the Middle East
and elsewhere. And Secretary Kerry was out there in Brunei
about a month ago. I accompanied Secretary Kerry. On that
occasion, he did talk a lot about what he is doing in terms of
Middle East peace. And really what the leaders of this region
want to see is less polarization, and we need to help them.
Senator Rubio. And Malaysia is important. It is a
democratic country. And I am going to have some specific
examples here in a second.
But just in general on the issue of Laos, what is the
situation there? This is still one of the world's remaining
Communist countries. So it is not surprising. But how would you
describe--I guess we all agree that religious liberty is not
really existent for Christians in particular in Laos. And is
that going to be part of our relationship with them to be a
voice on behalf of those who are being persecuted in these
official and unofficial ways?
Mr. Clune. Definitely, Senator Rubio. Laos, of course, is a
one-party authoritarian state, and as I mentioned, we do have
very significant differences with them on human rights issues.
On the question of religious freedom, I think looking back
over many years, there has been some progress in Laos, and
there is a law that has been passed which is intended to
guarantee religious freedom. There is a section of the central
government that is charged with that, but the enforcement on
the ground is uneven at best. And I think the religious freedom
report mentioned that there are cases where the provincial and
local leaders are not following the law that has been passed by
the central government. And if confirmed, I will closely
monitor that situation and certainly bring the government's
attention to those kind of cases.
Senator Rubio. Our hope is, if you are confirmed, you will
not just monitor and bring attention but that you will be a
forceful advocate on behalf of those who are being oppressed. I
think it is important for the United States that our
representative there be someone who speaks clearly on these
issues.
Malaysia is a different challenge. I want to briefly
describe, in the time that I have left, kind of the situation
there on the ground. The ruling party--and if I mispronounce
this--Barisan Nasional--they ran a campaign where they put up a
bunch of billboards carrying pictures of churches during the
election campaign which asked the people in the Malay language,
do we want to see our children and grandchildren pray in this
Allah's house? If we allow the use of the word ``Allah'' in
churches, we will sell our religion, race, and nation. Vote
Barisan Nasional because they can protect your religion, race,
and nation.
As a followup to that, one of the first efforts from the
ruling government was to try to pass a law which, I understand,
has been withdrawn at this time. But what the law basically
said was that if just one of the two parents consent that a
child could be forced to convert to Islam. And this is a
country--correct me if I am wrong--where being a Muslim grants
you special rights and privileges under the law that other
religious minority--or other religious groups do not have. Of
course, this is very concerning because there have been cases,
particularly of men, fathers, who will try to force their
children to convert in an effort to access these benefits. So
we are concerned about that.
And then just a couple of days ago, we get this report from
the AFP that basically says that several Islamic groups on
Friday are demanding the recall of the Vatican's first envoy to
Malaysia describing him as an enemy of the state after he
supported the use of the word ``Allah'' by non-Muslims. Dozens
of protesters gathered outside the Vatican's mission in Kuala
Lumpur after prayers on Friday urging the government to expel
Archbishop Joseph Marino.
He, by the way, has apologized for using those terms. I am
not sure why, but it was not enough for some Muslim
organizations. They consider him an enemy of the state. His
actions have strained race relations in this country.
What is the state of this with regard to the government,
and what are your plans, if confirmed, to be a forceful voice
on behalf of religious liberty in a so-called democracy?
Mr. Yun. Thank you, Senator Rubio.
I do believe that we have to partner with the Government of
Malaysia. They are the moderating voice. In fact, the Prime
Minister of Malaysia has started a movement called Global
Movement of Moderates, GMM, and it is very important we support
these elements in society who are forwarding moderation. If
confirmed, we will work effectively with these partners so that
voice of moderation and there is less polarization. And I think
that ought to be the message of the United States.
Senator Rubio. I just have one final question. I am sorry.
I am over my allotted time.
But if you are confirmed and cases like this arise and we
bring them to your attention, will you be a forceful voice on
behalf of those, particularly religious minorities, in Malaysia
who are being persecuted on an ongoing basis?
Mr. Yun. Absolutely, sir.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Senator Cardin. Let me just add my total support for
Senator Rubio's questioning. The two of us have talked about
religious rights in the East Asia and Pacific. I was very
disappointed and surprised in my visit to China to see how
widespread religious persecution has gone. The Subcommittee on
the East Asia and Pacific is going to put a spotlight on this.
Senator Rubio and I have talked about it. So we expect that in
Malaysia and Laos, among other countries, that we get regular
updates on the progress being made and that our Embassy is
promoting the universal values of religious protections
particularly for minorities.
Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And to the nominees, congratulations. I do not particularly
have questions, but I wanted to come this morning just to thank
you and all who are here to support you for your service to the
country. I recently returned from a CODEL to the Middle East
and Afghanistan that was led by Senator Cornyn and had an
opportunity to meet with some of the best of the best American
Foreign Service professionals in Turkey, Jordan, the UAE, and
Afghanistan. And I just was struck, as I am always struck
because there are so many Foreign Service professionals that
live in Virginia, but I am just struck by the professionalism,
the challenge, and also the incredible sacrifice of family
members. And I am so glad your life partners, spouses,
children, nieces and nephews, and friends are here today. It is
a huge sacrifice. I think we often think more about the
sacrifice made by those in military service for a reason, and
yet the careers you have had, while they have had some
wonderful opportunities, I am sure that moving to so many
places is not easy on families. I have been in public life for
20 years, and I have lived at two locations, one public
housing, the Governor's mansion. But they were 3 miles apart
from one another. That is the only move I have had to do in 20
years in public life. And yet, the kinds of things you had to
do in the Foreign Service as families is significant.
Now, Mr. Berry, this will be your maiden venture in the
Foreign Service but not into Government service. You sacrificed
along the way. And I want to add to what Congressman Hoyer
said. The Federal workforce has not had a better champion than
you, and the Federal workforce, whether it is the State
Department, USAID, or EPA, or any other agency, needs some
champions. And you have been a great champion. Senator Cardin
has been a great champion. We have got a lot of Federal
employees that live in Maryland and Virginia, and I think it
has become common to try to knock the Federal workforce around
and use them as a punching bag or a scapegoat. But I am just
impressed again and again by the dedication of folks, not that
we do not have problems, not that we do not have agencies that
do things wrong. We are a Government by, of, and for the
people, and people are imperfect. So that means Government is
imperfect. But again and again, we have got wonderful people
just like you who are doing jobs known in public or unknown and
unrecognized all over this country. And I just want to thank
you all for being such good examples, being such good examples
of what our Federal employees can do. And I have no doubt that
in each of your different responsibilities, you will represent
us well.
The other thing I just wanted to mention to Mr. Berry is
apropos of your comments on this CODEL in the Middle East and
Afghanistan. We finished with a stop at Landstuhl Regional
Medical Center in Germany where the wounded warriors from
Afghanistan go as soon as they are able to be medevaced out of
Afghanistan. And I met a very chipper, under 30-year-old
Australian who was recovering at the hospital with his wife.
And when I inquired about him, in a very comical way he just
said, you know, I just should not have accepted that fifth
deployment, putting a smile and a joke on a very serious
reality. But the points you made about Australians being with
us anytime we needed to act and protect not only our own
interests, but important global interests, Australians have
been right there with us. That is an important thing that was
made very plain to me recently.
So thanks to all of you and my congratulations.
Senator Cardin. I mentioned in my opening statement the
challenges we have on environment. So I am not going to ask
specific questions although in Laos, the Lower Mekong
Initiative is an incredible opportunity to make advancements on
the economic front. We have the TPP and two of the countries
here are very much involved in that.
I do want to ask one question, Mr. Yun, in regards to the
military aspects. The President has indicated that he is
looking for closer defense cooperation with countries in the
Asia-Pacific region such as Malaysia. How do you see that
developing and what role can you play to advance our mutual
defense interests?
Mr. Yun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We do have actually very strong military and security ties
with Malaysians at the moment. We have had a number of ship
visits, mostly those from our Pacific Command, and we do some
joint exercise together, search and rescue mission exercise
together.
Mr. Chairman, as we look at rebalance to Asia or pivot to
Asia, the military element is a big part of that, you know,
diplomatic, of course, economic, of course, so is the military
if we are to protect freedom of navigation, maritime
boundaries, and especially our lawful exploitation of resources
there. We also need military presence, and in that sense, I do
believe Malaysia will be a good partner, as is their neighbor
just south there, Singapore, and is the Philippines, for
example. So we will increasingly rely, work together, as we
have done for the past several decades. Despite ups and downs
in the diplomatic relationship, I am happy to say the military-
to-military relationship has been quite steady.
Senator Cardin. Well, thank you.
Mr. Clune, you mentioned in your opening statement--I
mentioned in my statement--the legacies from the Vietnam war.
We strongly support your statement about accountability of
those missing in action and that we get full accounts of all of
our service men. Both you and I mentioned the concerns on the
unexploded ordnances that are still there.
I just want you to know that in this committee you have an
ally. As you look and assess the circumstances, please keep us
informed as to the way that the United States can strengthen
its partnership to accomplish both of those objectives on the
legacy from the Vietnam war. Sometimes the politics of
appropriations, et cetera, can become challenging. So please
feel comfortable to keep us informed as to how progress is
being made on both of those fronts and the tools that you need
in order to achieve we hope a more rapid resolution of these
issues.
Mr. Clune. Thank you, Senator. I really appreciate that
offer of assistance and I promise I will take you up on that
and get back to after I have got a better understanding of
these issues, if I am confirmed and go to Laos.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Senator Rubio.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
And before I pivot to Australia, I wanted to close the loop
again on Laos and Malaysia. Here is one more example, another
article about a young woman who has had a 3.8 GPA and her
foundation here at the University of--her application to pursue
a medical course was rejected. According to her father, his
daughter's application was rejected because her name sounded
foreign and Christian. So just one more example again of a news
report of that sort of oppression.
I raise these points because I think sometimes in the past
being on the right side and issuing a communique or statement
is not enough. In many of these countries where religious
minorities are being persecuted, the U.S. mission is perhaps
the only entity on the ground that could be their voice and
speak for them. And so my hope, moving forward, is that--and I
have full confidence that you will do that based on your
testimony today--that both in Laos and Malaysia, as the
situation there continues to unfold, not only will we be
communicating with government leaders about the importance of
religious liberties and the respect for religious minorities,
how important that is to our bilateral relationships, but also
to be a forceful voice condemning instances in which that is
violated and condemning instances in which that is being
ignored and, in particular, these atrocities and terrible cases
like the ones we outlined a little earlier and are existing in
other parts of the world. So my hope is that, in fact, that our
missions will not just be on the right side but will be
forcefully speaking out on the right side of these issues.
Now, to a relationship that has probably been a little bit
easier to manage in that regard is Australia. I do have a
couple questions.
One, Mr. Berry, can you describe for us briefly how your
experience as a Federal administrator you believe has prepared
you now to assume a diplomatic post and in particular
furthering the bilateral relationships we have with Australia?
Mr. Berry. Thank you, Senator. Let me also personally thank
you for your leadership and your forceful voice for religious
liberty. As a grateful American, thank you.
I have been honored to serve in many capacities in the
Government, and one thing I can tell you is that, as Senator
Kaine mentioned, the men and women of the State Department are
amongst the best and brightest I have encountered. I think when
one is proposed to be considered for one of these important
posts, it is important that one be a good leader. And the first
test of leadership is appreciating the talents of your team,
and I know I am going to have a very strong team to rely upon,
if I am confirmed into this position.
But also in previous appointments, I have had the privilege
to be involved in international activities, especially focused
around conservation. When I headed the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation, I got to be involved in tiger conservation
throughout Asia and as director of the National Zoo was
directly involved with the Chinese in conserving giant panda
habitat in China. We had a significant success story there to
tell.
And then finally, when I was Assistant Secretary at the
Department of the Interior, one of the responsibilities at the
time--there was not an Assistant Secretary for the Pacific
territories and the trust territories of the United States.
That was part of my portfolio in that responsibility.
And so I have been involved in the Pacific throughout my
career and in Asia in many of these topics. And if I am
confirmed, it would be my high honor to work my heart out to
continue.
Senator Rubio. Thank you. And just as an irony, from time
to time, folks back home describe the capital as the National
Zoo. [Laughter.]
So I think you are at home here. [Laughter.]
I do have a question, and you may have addressed it in your
opening statement. I apologize for being a few minutes late.
What information do you have for us on the progress on the
Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations? I know that the
administration had hoped to finalize the agreement by October
2013. What is the status of that? What can you tell us today
about whether we are going to meet that deadline or that date
that we had hoped to?
Mr. Berry. Senator Rubio, I know the President has placed
high importance on successful conclusion of this treaty this
year, and I know in briefings at the U.S. Trade Representative
that they are pulling out all stops. Australia is actually
working closely with us to help us secure the passage of this
treaty. As you know, we already enjoy a free trade agreement
with Australia, but if we can expand the boundaries of free
trade throughout the Asia-Pacific region, it opens up 40
percent of the world's gross domestic product for U.S. trade
and exports, which will be a huge opportunity both for us and
for Australia.
So I can promise you, if confirmed, it will be one of my
highest priorities to work with the committee, with the Trade
Representative, and the President to see if we can meet the
deadline of securing the passage of that treaty and presenting
that to the Senate this year.
Senator Rubio. And my final question is--I view Australia--
you probably do as well. I am sure the chairman does--as a
critical component of the U.S.'s enduring presence in the
Pacific region as a Pacific power. I would not call it a
concern, but an observation that I have is that China continues
to be Australia's biggest trade partner mainly due to its
strong demand for Australia's minerals and energy resources.
And just recently there was a report of a shale oil deposit
above 223 billion barrels that an energy company in Australia
discovered. This essentially puts Australia ahead of places
like Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, Canada in terms of energy reserves.
So with this new availability of energy in Australia and
that existing mineral relationship between China and Australia,
how will that impact that relationship moving forward? And in
particular, I am curious with regards to how that impacts our
ongoing defense posture with the Australians that have been
welcoming. I think there is a Marine presence now in Australia
with joint exercises. The Chinese, obviously, sometimes view
that both publicly and privately as an effort to contain them.
And so, in essence, can you foresee a situation where this
increased reliance on exports to China, combined with this
increased energy supply that is now available to them, could
potentially strengthen those economic bonds, which may or may
not be a bad thing, but could undermine our efforts to work in
a military cooperation with the Australians? How do we balance
that? Are we concerned about balancing that? What are your
thoughts?
Mr. Berry. Senator, thank you. First and foremost, there is
nothing more important than our strategic alliance with
Australia, and that will be and remain one of my highest
priorities if I am confirmed into this position.
The Australians have worked closely with us, with the
Marines in Darwin, and not only with the rotation of those
Marines that are there, but right now there is an operation
going on that involves tens of thousands of both Australian and
U.S. forces called Talisman Saber that is looking at crisis
response throughout the Asia-Pacific.
And our partnership with Australia is critical in terms of
the breadth of that response. We together share the concern of
maintaining open and free commerce and free trade on the seas.
We both share a concern for proliferation in the region and
work together tirelessly to combat that. We both need to be
ready to respond to human and natural disasters, and we need to
look at conflict in the region, for example, in North Korea.
And Australia is a great partner with us there.
Turning to the trade portion of your question, sir, the
United States is a major--we are the largest investment partner
for Australia, and our investment in Australia exceeds that of
our investment in China from the United States. Our economic
relationship has increased 98 percent since we began our free
trade agreement, last year topping $65 billion. Much of that
energy development that you are talking about is joint with
U.S. companies. Chevron is very involved, along with other
United States oil and gas companies. And I suspect with this
new discovery that you referenced this week, the United States
will be very competitive in terms of helping Australia develop
those resources for the world.
Finally in closing, I would say the Australian LNG gas
development that has been historic in terms of the speed with
which they have been able to bring on line is one of the ways
that, as you know, the United States--we have helped to reduce
our carbon footprint in the world with our own LNG gas
development. Australia contributing to that is going to help us
and help the world in terms of those overall carbon targets in
reducing the impact of that carbon footprint.
Obviously, China is going to remain an active trading
partner with Australia. That is one of the opportunities that
we can use to help China continue its forward momentum but do
so in a peaceful basis.
So, Senator, thank you, and if I am confirmed, I promise
you I will stay in close touch with you and members of the
committee on these issues as we move forward.
Senator Cardin. Well, let me thank all three of our
nominees for their presence here and again their willingness to
serve.
I just want to underscore one of the security issues that
you have mentioned. That is maritime security. We talked about
that before the hearing started. The maritime security issues
are of a great concern to us because the maintaining of free
shipping lanes is critically important, the resources that are
in that region under water which are currently being looked at
for development and the territorial integrity. The United
States has a very strong position that these issues must be
resolved peacefully with direct negotiations among the parties.
And we will expect again that you will keep us informed as to
issues that may be developing in regards to maritime security
matters.
If there is no further questioning, we will bring the
hearing to a conclusion and thank you all again for your
cooperation.
[Whereupon, at 10:08 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material and Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record
Names of 40 Australian Servicemen Who Died in Afghanistan as Part of
Coalition Activities Submitted By John Berry
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Prepared Statement of Senator Barbara A. Mikulski in Support of the
Nomination of John Berry as U.S. Ambassador to Australia
Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr.
John Berry on his nomination to be the next U.S. Ambassador to
Australia. Hailing from Maryland and a proud alumnus of the University
of Maryland, I am pleased that John has been nominated for this new and
important challenge.
John began his career in public service as an intern with the
Montgomery County, MD, government and later served as a legislative
aide in the Maryland General Assembly. We were lucky to have him as a
member of ``Team Maryland'' here on Capitol Hill when he joined the
staff of Congressman Steny Hoyer as Legislative Director.
In 2009, we came together to confirm John as Director of the Office
of Personnel Management. At OPM, he worked to reform and streamline
federal hiring practices, boost veteran hiring in the Federal
Government, and eliminate security clearance backlogs. I am confident
we can come together to support his nomination once more.
John's career has included leadership roles at the Department of
Interior, where he served as both CFO and COO. During this time, John
demonstrated his commitment to serving those that he worked with. He
focused on improving educational opportunities and employees' work-life
balance in addition to holding townhall meetings with employees to
improve working conditions. While serving at the Department of the
Treasury, he oversaw essential security personnel that keep our Nation
safe.
John has also been honored to serve in his dream job as Director of
the National Zoo. I was impressed to find out that he even has a lion
cub there named in his honor!
Australia has long been a close friend and ally of the United
States. The genuine affinity and affection between our people is
enhanced by our strategic interests. While I am sorry to see Ambassador
Jeffrey Bleich leave his post after four productive years, I am pleased
to know that John will take on the role with the same devotion. I know
that he will excel in this new role. I call on my colleagues to join me
in supporting his nomination as U.S. Ambassador to Australia.
______
Responses of Joseph Yun to Questions Submitted by Senator Bob Corker
Question. What role does Malaysia play in the administration's
rebalancing strategy? Specifically, are there areas in which the United
States and Malaysia could potentially enhance security cooperation?
Answer. Malaysia has welcomed the renewed U.S. focus on the Asia-
Pacific and is an important partner for the United States. Over the
last few years, there has been a significant increase in political
dialogue, including bilateral meetings between the two leaders,
Cabinet-level visits, and engagement by Members of Congress with senior
Malaysian officials, all of which play an important part in raising the
level of our bilateral relationship. The United States has a
longstanding military relationship with Malaysia, but our political,
economic, and people-to-people ties are growing as well. Malaysia is
also a founding member of ASEAN. It will have the ASEAN chair in 2015.
The United States has a strong military partnership with Malaysia.
In October we had our first aircraft carrier visit to East Malaysia in
Kota Kinabalu, and we recently completed a Cooperation Afloat Readiness
and Training (CARAT) exercise. Malaysia has participated in CARAT since
1996. Malaysia also benefits from our international military education
and training (IMET) programs, which have been hugely successful and
well received. The U.S. Army has also reinvigorated partnerships with
the Malaysian Army, with joint training and exercises. Defense
procurement is another area where we are working to expand cooperation.
The Embassy is prioritizing the U.S. exports and jobs created by these
important sales, which I would focus on if confirmed. I will work
closely with the Government of Malaysia to continue to foster
confidence and trust between our Armed Forces.
Question. Malaysia is a significant U.S. trading partner and site
of U.S. investment. How will the United States and Malaysia
specifically benefit from the successful conclusion of TPP
negotiations?
Answer. The United States is Malaysia's fourth-largest trading
partner, a change from when the United States was the top partner 10
years ago. U.S. goods exports to Malaysia fell to $12.8 billion in
2012, from $14.2 billion in 2011. U.S. goods imports from Malaysia
increased slightly to $25.9 billion in 2012 from $25.7 billion in 2011.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) will provide significantly expanded
market access for goods and services between the United States and
Malaysia. With its high-standard rules and disciplines, the TPP will
reduce barriers and help promote increased trade and investment between
our two countries and with their other 10 TPP partners. The current
negotiating round in Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, is progressing well, and
we expect to be closer to completion of the TPP once the round is
finished on July 25. The United States has not previously concluded a
free trade agreement with Malaysia.
If confirmed, I will work closely with Malaysian officials to
promote the successful completion of TPP as well as to ensure its full
implementation.
______
Responses of John Berry to Questions Submitted by Senator Bob Corker
Question. The United States and Australia enjoy a close alliance
partnership. And as part of the administration's rebalancing strategy
the United States has sought to strengthen the alliance, particularly
our robust security cooperation. What areas of security cooperation are
ripe for further engagement between Washington and Canberra?
Answer. Over the past six decades, the U.S.-Australia treaty
alliance has served as an anchor of stability, security, and prosperity
in the world. Australia has stood beside us in every major
international conflict in the last century. Our bilateral defense
cooperation reached new heights with the force posture initiatives
announced by President Obama and then-Prime Minister Gillard in 2011,
and the recent entry into force of our Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty
with Australia, which will help enhance the interoperability of our
Armed Forces. In January, the United States warmly welcomed Australia
to its 2-year term on the U.N. Security Council, where it has focused
heavily on counterterrorism and nonproliferation. Its presence on the
UNSC has provided even greater opportunities for coordination on Iran,
Syria, the DPRK, and other critical issues.
If confirmed, I will work diligently to further deepen our
bilateral security relationship to ensure we are prepared to meet the
challenges of tomorrow. Our governments both recognize the value of
close collaboration with allies and like-minded nations on cyber
issues, and are working together closely to address mutual threats
emerging in and from cyberspace. Space is also vital to protecting the
economic prosperity and national security interests of the United
States, its allies, and partners, and we should expand our partnership
with Australia on space situational awareness and jointly pursue
transparency and confidence building measures to strengthen stability
in space.
As one of the largest non-NATO troop contributors to ISAF and a
major contributor of development and security assistance, Australia has
been a steadfast partner in Afghanistan. If confirmed, I will work to
ensure continued coordination with Australia in support of the Afghan
people, so that Afghanistan will never again become a safe haven for
terrorists.
Most importantly, if confirmed I will work with colleagues from the
U.S. Department of Defense and our Australian partners to fully
implement our force posture initiatives. The rotational presence of
U.S. Marines in Darwin affords an unprecedented combined training
opportunity with our Australian allies in world-class training areas.
The proximity of Australia's Northern Territory to Southeast Asia and
South Asia will enable our Marines to more effectively exercise and
operate with Australia and other partners across the region and to
respond more rapidly to a range of contingencies, deliver humanitarian
assistance, and provide disaster relief. With our second rotation of
250 Marines to Darwin currently underway, our initiatives are off to a
very strong start, however more work remains. If confirmed, I will do
my best to ensure full implementation of our remaining initiatives as
quickly as possible.
Question. Australia plays a key role in Southeast Asia and the
Pacific. If confirmed, will you commit to pursue opportunities to
enhance cooperative engagement with Australia in Southeast Asia and the
Pacific, particularly in the areas of democracy promotion, good
governance and rule of law?
Answer. If confirmed, I will pursue opportunities to enhance
cooperative engagement with Australia in Southeast Asia and the
Pacific, including on democracy promotion, good governance, and the
rule of law.
Standing up for human dignity abroad is directly linked to the
national interests of the United States. Democracy and respect for
human rights are increasingly part of the fabric of the Asia-Pacific,
but many challenges remain. As part of our rebalance, the United States
must continue to promote universal values, including transparency, rule
of law, human rights, and good governance. We do this not only because
it is the right thing to do, but also because now more than ever human
rights and governance failings in countries around the world have
consequences for U.S. interests--from economic and monetary policy, to
climate change and national security. Across the Asia-Pacific region,
the United States seeks sustained adherence to democratic practices and
improved governance, as well as quality health care and education,
strengthened disaster preparedness and emergency response, and
increased natural resource management. These efforts will contribute to
greater human security, stability, and prosperity, as well as stronger
U.S. ties to the region.
Given our history of shared values, Australia is one of our closest
global partners in promoting democratic reform, good governance, and
the rule of law. The United States and Australia are working together
to encourage Fiji to honor its commitment to make serious, sustained,
inclusive, and transparent preparations for national elections by 2014
and we have reiterated our call for Fiji to protect human rights,
including freedoms of expression, association, and religion. Our
international aid agencies cooperate to combat disease in Southeast
Asia and to promote the empowerment of women in the Pacific Islands.
The United States and Australia both participate in the Voluntary
Principles on Security and Human Rights Initiative and the
International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers,
multistakeholder initiatives that guide extractive companies and
private security companies on providing security in a manner that
respects human rights. The United States and Australia jointly provide
technical assistance to support ASEAN economic integration and APEC
trade and structural reform. These are but a few examples of the
efforts Australia and the United States have already undertaken
cooperatively.
As exceptional as our collaboration with Australia has been to
date, I believe there is even more that we can accomplish together. If
confirmed, I pledge to continue supporting the strong bilateral work we
are already doing, while seeking out new and different opportunities
for us to collaboratively promote our shared core values in Southeast
Asia and the Pacific.
______
Responses of Daniel Clune to Questions Submitted by Senator Bob Corker
Question. The recent repatriation of several young North Korean
orphans from Laos to North Korea has cast a harsh spotlight on the
plight of North Korean refugees. If confirmed, what steps will you
undertake to encourage the Laotian Government to refrain from forcibly
repatriating North Korean refugees? If confirmed, will you commit to
working with the Special Envoy for North Korea Human Rights and other
State Department officials to develop a coherent strategy to ensure the
USG will proactively implement the North Korean Child Welfare Act of
2012? What initial elements would you propose for such a strategy?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to work closely with the
Republic of Korea (ROK), the United Nations, and other countries that
share our concerns about North Korean refugees and asylum seekers to
encourage the Government of Laos to fulfill its international
obligations and not return refugees and asylum seekers to North Korea.
The human rights situation in North Korea is deplorable and returnees
and their families routinely face harsh punishments. For this reason,
the United States has consistently called on all countries in the
region to protect North Koreans. I have met with Special Envoy for
North Korean Human Rights Issues, Robert R. King, to discuss the North
Korean refugees issues, and I will work closely with him and other
State Department officials, including the Bureau of Population,
Refugees, and Migration and the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and
Labor, to ensure the development of an effective strategy to meet the
goals of the North Korean Child Welfare Act of 2012. I will urge the
Government of Laos to cooperate in the protection of North Korean
refugees and asylum seekers and will work with the Special Envoy for
North Korean Human Rights Issues to do everything that can be done to
ensure the safety and welfare of refugees and asylum seekers from North
Korea and give them opportunities for a better future.
Question. As one of the largest investors in Laos, China maintains
significant leverage over Vientiane's diplomatic and political
decisions. As Vientiane grows increasingly dependent upon Beijing, it
has become gradually more challenging for the United States to balance
its relatively small foreign assistance while simultaneously
articulating U.S. values and support for basic human rights, including
religious minorities. If confirmed, what steps will you propose the
United States undertake to more effectively leverage our assistance to
encourage Laos to pursue genuine reforms and adhere to international
human rights obligations?
Answer. If confirmed, I will look for ways to leverage most
effectively existing programs to encourage Laos to pursue genuine
reforms, strengthen its judicial system, and adhere to its
international human rights obligations. The State Department's Bureau
of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs is providing
$300,000 annually for legal education, prosecutor training, and police
prosecutor cooperation in support of the Lao Government's ``Master Plan
on the Development of the Rule of Law in the Lao PDR toward the Year
2020.'' The State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and
Labor funds a $500,000 program to increase the capacity of civil
society organizations, a program which was recently extended, and has
included Laos in regional programs addressing disability rights and
religious freedom. In addition, the USAID LUNA-Lao project provides
technical assistance to ministries, the National Assembly, and the
judiciary to modernize laws and policies, judicial procedures, and
institutional capacities in keeping with international best practice.
In supporting the implementation of far-reaching trade agreements, the
project not only helps stimulate economic growth but also advances the
rule of law and improves governance. If confirmed, I will analyze each
of these programs and seek additional funding in those areas which
would most effectively promote genuine reforms and adherence to human
rights obligations.
NOMINATIONS OF LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD, JAMES ENTWISTLE, PATRICIA
HASLACH, REUBEN BRIGETY II, STEPHANIE SANDERS SULLIVAN, PATRICK GASPARD
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
Hon. Linda Thomas-Greenfield, of Louisiana, to be Assistant
Secretary of State for African Affairs
Hon. James F. Entwistle, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the
Federal Republic of Nigeria
Hon. Patricia Marie Haslach, of Oregon, to be Ambassador the
the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Reuben Earl Brigety II, of Florida, to be Representative of the
United States of America to the African Union, with the
rank and status of Ambassador
Stephanie Sanders Sullivan, of New York, to be Ambassador to
the Republic of Congo
Patrick Hubert Gaspard, of New York, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of South Africa
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:08 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Christopher
A. Coons presiding.
Present: Senators Coons, Kaine, Murphy, and Flake.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER A. COONS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE
Senator Coons. Good morning. I call this hearing of the
African Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee to order. I am very pleased to chair this nomination
hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations' Committee Subcommittee
on African Affairs for Linda Thomas-Greenfield to be Assistant
Secretary of State for African Affairs; James Entwistle to be
Ambassador to Nigeria; Patricia Haslach to be Ambassador to
Ethiopia; Reuben Brigety to be the U.S. Representative to the
African Union with the rank of Ambassador; Stephanie Sanders
Sullivan to be Ambassador to the Republic of Congo; and Patrick
Gaspard to be Ambassador to South Africa.
I welcome each of the nominees and their family members who
are here to support them. I also welcome and thank my Africa
Subcommittee ranking member and colleague, Senator Flake, for
his diligence in working and making possible this full agenda
of nominees for today.
We are considering nominees today for different diplomatic
assignments, each with its own unique characteristics,
challenges, and opportunities. Each nominee will also work
through many common cross-cutting challenges and opportunities
that face the United States in Africa, including vast economic
potential, a rapidly growing middle class, challenged
democratic institutions, poverty, terrorism, and many more.
The choices made by African leaders, our government, and
international partners will chart not only the future course of
many African countries, but the role and influence of the
United States. At a time when we have impending elections in
Mali and Zimbabwe and an upcoming AGOA ministerial, there is so
much for us to talk about this morning.
I will dispense with much of my usual opening statement and
simply say I am convinced we must deepen, broaden, and sustain
United States engagement with the leaders and people of Africa.
President Obama's recent trip was a positive demonstration of
U.S. commitment and the President's initiatives on trade,
energy, young African leaders, and wildlife trafficking have, I
think, significant potential that I hope we will soon explore
further. But our relationships have to extend broadly, beyond a
single Presidential trip, and as the United States works to
sustain and broaden our relationships each of you will play a
central role in sustaining that.
The nominees before us bring a wealth of foreign policy and
public service experience and have served in some of the most
challenging diplomatic posts around the world. I am interested
in hearing your views on how we can help build strong, enduring
partnerships in Africa in support of democracy, security, and
prosperity.
Linda Thomas-Greenfield has served as Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of African Affairs and as
Ambassador to Liberia, where I first met her, during an
exciting time of transition. Importantly, she has also shown a
strong commitment to supporting the professional development of
the people of the State Department, its most valuable asset.
Ambassador James Entwistle, who I had the pleasure of
meeting when I traveled to Kinshasa earlier this year, is an
able and experienced senior diplomatic who would bring lessons
learned from places as diverse as Thailand, Kenya, and the
Congo to the critically important and challenging task of
managing our relations with Nigeria.
Patricia Haslach has worked to promote development,
stability, and democracy around the world, including in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Nigeria. Her experience with the Feed the
Future program and commitment to women's empowerment would make
important contributions to our diplomacy in Ethiopia.
Reuben Brigety has devoted his career to public service.
His unique blend of experience in the military, academia, civil
society, USAID, and the State Department would in my view be a
valuable asset at our mission to the AU.
Stephanie Sullivan has shown a long commitment to Africa
from her time as a Peace Corps Volunteer in the DRC to several
Foreign Service assignments in the Africa Bureau. She would
bring strong managerial skills and relevant experience to
Brazzaville.
Patrick Gaspard knows the rough and tumble world of labor
relations, community organizing, school reform, and of course
politics. These are all critical to understanding South Africa,
where he also, I would note, had the honor of meeting Nelson
Mandela in 1992 while serving in New York Mayor David Dinkins'
office.
I will dispense with the rest of my comments. I very much
look forward to hearing from each of the nominees and will now
turn to Senator Flake.
Senator Flake. I thank the chairman for making this hearing
possible, to get through a number of nominees all at once. I
enjoyed meeting with each of you in my office in the past
weeks. I am convinced that we have the right people for what
will be a tough job. As Senator Coons said, and I agree, we
ought to broaden and deepen our involvement in Africa. I think
we have the right people to do that and look forward to hearing
your testimony today.
Thanks.
Senator Coons. I would like to now turn to Senator Nelson
to introduce Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. I will also, when he
arrives, be inviting Senator Schumer to say a few words about
our nominee for South Africa. Given the demands of Senator
Schumer's schedule, he is not able to be here for the second
panel. So I would like to invite Senator Nelson, and thank him
for his timely arrival, for an introduction of Linda Thomas-
Greenfield, who is the nominee for Assistant Secretary.
Senator Nelson.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a privilege
for me to return to the committee that I spent six very happy
years here and appreciate the dedication that you and Senator
Flake are bringing to the Africa Subcommittee of this full
committee. It is obvious the devotion that you have, Mr.
Chairman, and I want you to know that I appreciate that.
We have a unique, very competent and very qualified
candidate, nominee, to be the Assistant Secretary of State for
African Affairs, because Ambassador Greenfield has been in the
Foreign Service for her adult life. Right now she leads a team
of 600 folks who work day and night over in the State
Department. She started her career in the Foreign Service back
in 1962, and most of that service has been dedicated to
policymaking with regard to Africa.
She has served in Jamaica, Nigeria, the Gambia, Kenya,
Pakistan, Switzerland, and most recently as U.S. Ambassador to
Liberia. It was there that my wife Grace and I got to meet
Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield, and it was very interesting. In
that country there was a woman President, still is, Ellen
Johnson Sirleaf. The U.S. Ambassador was a woman, and that is
Linda, and the top USAID representative, a woman, Pam White,
who so distinguished herself in USAID that she was asked to be
an Ambassador, first in the Gambia and today--and I will see
her in another week and a half--in Haiti.
So you can imagine the kind of quality representation that
we had there in this struggling little country that is trying
to come out of the chaos that it had in a very tumultuous
former regime as the new President, President Sirleaf, is
trying to straighten out the country.
Well, we were fortunate to have the quality that we had
with Linda. As a result, she has moved up in the State
Department and now is awaiting confirmation for this very
important post. The post is to strengthen the democracy and the
institutions throughout the continent. It fosters economic
growth in the continent and it tries to lessen the effects of
the armed conflicts in the continent.
So what more can I say, Mr. Chairman, but that I am very
privileged to be here to introduce a nominee of such quality,
that when quality is staring you in the face you act on it. I
want to thank you for this committee's consideration and I look
forward to casting my vote on the floor of the Senate when we
confirm her.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Coons. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson. I am
grateful for your time and, being mindful of your schedule,
invite you to leave whenever is convenient for you.
Before I turn to an opening statement by Ambassador Thomas-
Greenfield, I am going to encourage Senator Schumer of New York
to make an introductory statement of Patrick Gaspard, whom we
will consider as part of our second panel, the President's
nominee to serve as Ambassador to South Africa.
Senator Schumer.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES SCHUMER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW YORK
Senator Schumer. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First to Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield and to my colleague
Bill Nelson, I apologize for the interruption. Thank you for
your patience. I will be chairing another committee hearing in
a few minutes, but wanted the opportunity to introduce Patrick
Gaspard, who will be appearing a little later this morning.
Before doing that, I would like to acknowledge Ambassador
Thomas-Greenfield's distinguished diplomatic career serving the
United States around the globe. She is an excellent candidate
for the position of Assistant Secretary for Africa and I join
my colleague and friend Bill Nelson in looking forward to
supporting her nomination when it comes before the full Senate,
the two of us are not privileged to serve on this committee,
where we would cast two votes for you. One in the committee,
one on the floor is what I mean.
Anyway, it is my great privilege to introduce Mr. Patrick
Gaspard, the nominee to be the next Ambassador to South Africa.
Patrick was not born in New York, but, like millions of others
through the years, found his way to New York and found in New
York his hopes, his dreams, and a place to call home.
Mr. Gaspard's long and distinguished career in public
service leaves no doubt he is well qualified to take on this
great task that awaits him if he is confirmed to be Ambassador
to South Africa. Patrick was born in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo to Haitian parents. Returning to the African
Continent will bring Patrick full circle.
His parents--he has an amazing life story. Patrick's
parents moved from what was then Zaire from their native Haiti
following an appeal from Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba for
French-speaking academics of African descent. Patrick then
moved with his parents to New York when he was just 3. He grew
up on New York City's Upper West Side. He lived there until he
was 11, like many Manhattanites migrated to the great, often
forgotten outer boroughs. He moved in a fine, beautiful middle
class neighborhood that I ride my bicycle through frequently,
Saint Alban's in southeast Queens.
He then got into one of New York City's finest public
schools, Brooklyn Tech--Go Engineers--before--it was a lot
better than Stuyvesant's nickname. They are ``The Peg Legs.''
Can you believe a team calls itself ``The Peg Legs''? Only in
New York--before going on to attend another great New York
institution, Columbia University.
Patrick worked his way up in New York City politics. He
played a key role in helping David Dinkins become New York
City's first African American Mayor in what was to become a
historic campaign. And, interestingly and relevantly enough,
one of his signature achievements working for Mayor Dinkins was
spearheading a trip to South Africa for the Mayor's Cabinet
members to meet Nelson Mandela in 1992, who 2 years later would
go on to become South Africa's first democratically elected
President.
He then went on to work for almost a decade as Executive
Vice President for Politics and Legislation for 1199, the SEIU
United Health Care Workers East labor union. That is the
largest local union in America. It is one of the strongest, one
of the best organized, one of the most effective. And I say
this--I think this is not without exaggeration--it was Patrick
and his team that were one of the most effective at building
any union organization that I have been familiar with, and they
now have over 300,000 members.
In 2004 he became National Field Director for America
Coming Together. He overseen a paid staff of 8,000 people
dedicated to getting out the vote. He has shown a remarkable
dedication and involvement in our country's electoral process,
and his efforts to advance the cause of working class families
led him to serve in 2006 as the Political Director for SEIU
during the national union's very successful efforts that year.
Then-Senator Barack Obama recognized Patrick's talents,
tried to lure him away from SEIU to join the campaign. He first
resisted. He did not want to leave his family in New York. But
he eventually caved and became Political Director for the
President's successful 2008 campaign. He was then Director of
Political Affairs, 2008, an office I would say needs some
filling right now. There is no one there who could fill his
shoes. His responsibilities were to provide the President with
an accurate assessment of the political dynamic affecting the
work of his administration.
He is one of the hardest working people I have ever met. I
have worked with him for decades and he just works and works
and drives and drives and gets things done. But he is a good
listener. He is a polite and thoughtful fellow, and he has had
a great career already.
He became the executive director of the DNC under Chairman,
now our colleague, Tim Kaine and Chairman Deborah Wasserman-
Schultz.
So, as you can see by his bio, he has dedicated his entire
career and political life to helping advance the values of
better life and more opportunities for families in America. He
will take advantage and enhance our dynamic relationship with
South Africa, and he will take it to new heights.
As you all know, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, South
Africa is a strategic partner for the United States. Our
countries are currently involved in widespread cooperation in
health, education, food security, trade, investment, energy,
and nonproliferation. There is no one better to help strengthen
these bonds than Patrick Gaspard.
So I wholeheartedly endorse his nomination, and again thank
you, Madam Ambassador, my colleague Bill, and the committee for
their courtesy.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Senator Schumer, for that
introduction. We very much look forward to our second panel of
nominees. Understanding the Senators' schedules and your
impending hearing, I thank you for your testimony here this
morning, your introductions, and I would now like to invite
Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield to make her opening statement and
to introduce any family or friends who may be with you in
support today.
Ambassador.
STATEMENT OF HON. LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD, OF LOUISIANA,
NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AFRICAN
AFFAIRS
Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. Thank you very much, Chairman
Coons. Let me start by thanking Senator Nelson and Senator
Schumer for their very generous and kind introduction.
Chairman Coons, Ranking Member Flake, and members of the
committee, it is an honor for me to appear before you today as
President Obama's nominee to be the Assistant Secretary of
State for African Affairs. I am honored by President Obama's
and Senator Kerry's confidence in me and, if confirmed, I hope
to work closely with the Congress and particularly with this
committee and with you, Senator Coons, and other members to
further our partnership with the African people, to nurture our
shared values, and to advance U.S. interests in the region.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take the opportunity to
introduce my husband, Lafayette, who is sitting behind me, my
daughter Lindsay. My son, Deuce, could not be here today, but I
can tell you that I would not be here today if it were not for
their support over a 31-year career in the Foreign Service, and
I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their
support.
If you will permit me, I will submit a longer version of my
testimony for the record, but I would like to take the
opportunity here to underscore that I have spent the majority
of my career in Africa, as you have heard, working on African
issues, working on humanitarian issues in Africa, and this
nomination is really an honor for me.
I come before the committee at a very propitious moment.
The President just completed a highly successful trip to
Senegal, South Africa, and Tanzania. During that time he
announced critical new initiatives and reinforced our efforts
to expand economic growth in a mutually beneficial manner, to
strengthen democratic institutions, and to invest in the next
generation of African leaders.
If confirmed, I am particularly looking forward to the
Africa Heads of State summit in Washington in 2014, which will
further advance the President's efforts on these critical sets
of issues.
Our partnership with the countries and the people of Africa
has contributed to real progress, made all the more evident by
the strength of our relationships across the continent, from
Ghana to Tanzania, from Liberia, where I served as Ambassador,
to Namibia. We have been especially encouraged by peaceful
transitions between political parties, as we witnessed in
Senegal and Zambia recently, and we are now watching closely as
the people of Mali and the people of Zimbabwe prepare to head
to their polling stations in just a few days for elections that
will be critical to the future of their respective countries,
but particularly to their people.
In the coming years cross the continent, we will have to
prioritize our support for critical democracy and governance
programs that underpin the success of all other efforts.
However, we will also need to continue efforts to encourage
American businesses to actively participate in Africa's
economic renaissance.
Lack of fiscal transparency and corruption significantly
discourage investment. Trade and sustainable economic
development will flow where rules are predictable and
investment is protected. When the playing field is level, I am
confident that American firms can compete successfully with
anyone in the world, including China. But ultimately, African
governments themselves should drive a hard bargain in the deals
that they make with every nation to ensure that they get the
best deals for their people and for their future.
To further support U.S. efforts and U.S. trade with Africa,
I am looking forward to the upcoming Africa Growth and
Opportunity Act trade ministerial in Ethiopia this August and,
if confirmed, I hope to work closely with this committee and
with you in particular, Senator Coons, and other Members of
Congress to pave the way for AGOA's renewal.
As we deepen our partnerships on the continent, our efforts
will also stay true to the fact that human rights is a core
American value. We will continue to speak out, both in public
and in private, when nations stray from their responsibilities
to protect their people. We must also remember that from
eastern Congo to the Sahel, from Liberia and Somalia to the
tensions that are still taking place between Sudan and South
Sudan, too many lives have been lost and too many futures have
been destroyed.
Violent extremist organizations, some of them affiliated
with al-Qaeda, seek to exploit conflicts and weak institutions
to expand their reach. In each of these cases, we will continue
to work with the African Union as well as other regional and
international organizations, allies, and countries themselves
to find solutions.
I understand that the opportunities and the challenges in
Africa require a comprehensive United States policy, one that
takes a holistic approach, is integrative, proactive, and
forward-leaning. If confirmed, I will always balance our long-
term interests with the near-term and urgent imperatives we
face each week.
For far too many years, we have been Africa's partner in
times of adversity. While we will continue to support African
people in moments of crisis, we will also be Africa's partner
in prosperity. Admittedly, this is a big challenge, but I can
say if I am confirmed it is one that I very much look forward
to pursuing with your help and with the Africa Bureau's
enthusiasm and energy.
Before I conclude, I would like to also thank the many
friends that I have sitting in the audience who are here to
support me today, and if confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I look
forward to working with you, members of the committee, and
others on the Hill on the challenges and the opportunities that
we will face on the continent of Africa in the future.
I am pleased to take your questions. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Linda Thomas-Greenfield
Chairman Coons, Ranking Member Flake, and members of the committee,
it is an honor to appear before you today as President Obama's nominee
to be the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. I am
honored by President Obama's and Secretary Kerry's confidence in me
and, if confirmed, I hope to work closely with the Congress and with
this committee and its members, to further our partnership with the
African people and organizations, nurture our shared values, and
advance U.S interests in the region.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take the opportunity to introduce my
husband, Lafayette, and our two children, Lindsay and Deuce. I would
not be here today if it were not for their support and encouragement
over the last 31 years.
My first introduction to Africa occurred in 1964, when I was a mere
12 year old and had the opportunity to meet Peace Corps Volunteers and
their African teachers, who were living in my small community in Baker,
LA, prior to departing for their assignments in Swaziland and Somalia.
From that moment, I knew I wanted to be a Peace Corps Volunteer and I
knew I wanted to go to Africa. Unfortunately, I never became a
volunteer, something I continue to regret today, but did I get a chance
to go to Africa.
I have spent the majority of my career working in Africa and on
African issues, including as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in
the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration responsible for
Africa, as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Africa Bureau
responsible for west Africa, as the Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for African Affairs, and as the U.S. Ambassador to
Liberia. Most recently in my position as Director General of the
Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources I led a team of 600
employees who managed the Department's 70,000-strong workforce.
Ultimately, any organization is only as good as its people. In all my
leadership positions, I have sought to better enable our personnel to
meet our ambitious foreign policy objectives, to promote strong
leadership and accountability, and foster diversity in the workplace.
These will continue to be priorities for me, if confirmed. The Bureau
of African Affairs is home to approximately 1,100 Foreign Service
officers, 76 Civil Servants, and 12,800 locally employed staff who are
spread across 50 posts, as well as here in Washington. Entry-level
officers are often the backbone of our lightly staffed embassies and
many of our desks within the Bureau. If confirmed as Assistant
Secretary of State for African Affairs, I will continue my strong
professional and personal commitment to the welfare and safety of our
people, and to their development through mentorship and my attention to
management issues. I am also committed to keeping our people safe and
facilities secure. To that end, I will work closely with the Bureau of
Diplomatic Security to achieve that goal.
I come before the committee at a very propitious moment. The
President just completed a highly successful trip to Senegal, South
Africa, and Tanzania during which he reinforced our efforts to expand
economic growth in a mutually beneficial manner, to strengthen
democratic institutions, and to invest in African youth as the next
generation of African leaders. If confirmed, I particularly look
forward to the African Heads of State summit in Washington in 2014,
which will further advance the President's efforts on this critical set
of issues. The President's trip also extended U.S. engagement on the
continent through the unveiling of three critical initiatives. Power
Africa aims to increase electricity by at least 20 million new
households and commercial entities with on-grid, mini-grid, and off-
grid solutions by complementing government resources with private
sector commitments. With more than two-thirds of the continent without
electricity, this initiative will address Africa's major constraint to
economic growth and increased private sector investment. In conjunction
with our efforts to expand trade, the President also announced Trade
Africa--an initiative that aims to double intraregional trade in the
East African Community (EAC), which includes increasing exports to the
United States through targeted investments and support to regional
governments and institutions. With one in three Africans between the
ages of 10 and 24 and approximately 60 percent of the population below
the age of 35, the Young African Leaders Initiative helps provide the
next generation of male and female leaders with the training and
mentoring needed for business and entrepreneurship, civic leadership,
and public administration.
Our partnership with the countries and people of Africa has
contributed to real progress, made all the more evident by the strength
of our relationships across the continent--from Ghana to Tanzania and
from Liberia to Namibia. Africa has been too often described as a
continent of ``emerging'' nations. However, given the recent strong
economic growth, it is undeniable that a number of the nations on the
continent have fully ``emerged'' and are well on their way toward
sustained economic growth with visible and strong democratic
institutions. We have been especially encouraged by peaceful
transitions between political parties, as we witnessed in Senegal and
Zambia. As President Obama has said, ``Africa doesn't need strong men,
it needs strong institutions,'' and this shift is the best guarantee
for Africa's future development and stability. This is a trend that the
President has emphasized to great effect across Africa, and it is one
that I intend to work hard to reinforce and expand, if confirmed. We
are watching closely as the people of Mali and Zimbabwe prepare to head
to their polling stations in just a few short days for elections that
will be critical to the future of their respective nations. Holding
credible, democratic elections in Mali is the first step in the
nation's return to constitutional order and the establishment of a
government with the legitimacy to pursue longer term political and
development priorities, including national reconciliation and
peacebuilding efforts. In Zimbabwe, we are concerned that elections are
moving forward in spite of incomplete reforms and insufficient
electoral preparations. Zimbabwe's elections need to be peaceful and
credible, and reflective of the will of the people.
In the coming years, across the continent, we will have to
prioritize our support for the critical democracy and governance
programs that underpin the success of all other efforts--from our
investments in global health, to our assistance in the security sector,
to our work on advancing women's participation. Democracy and
governance have long been--and should remain--a top priority. Without
these efforts, progress in other sectors may ultimately be
unsustainable.
We are beginning to see visible evidence of parallel gains in
economic growth and economic development on the continent. Africa is
booming in nearly every sector, from massive energy developments in
Mozambique, Tanzania, and Ghana; to the growth of Rwanda and Kenya's
information technology sectors; to the thriving auto industry in South
Africa. At the same time, we will need to continue efforts to encourage
American businesses to actively participate in Africa's economic
renaissance. During his address to business leaders in Tanzania,
President Obama noted that strengthening good governance is good
business as well. Lack of fiscal transparency and corruption
significantly discourage investment. The administration is working with
countries across Africa to improve governance, enhance open government,
and uphold the rule of law. Trade and sustainable economic development
will flow where rules are predictable and investment is protected. I
believe that these political and economic trends are self-reinforcing
and will form one of the principal cornerstones of my personal efforts
if confirmed. Our businesses understand the importance of respecting
international norms, and I will strive to ensure that U.S. companies
operating in Africa are treated fairly and are given every opportunity
to compete in the marketplace.
When the playing field is level, I am confident that American firms
can compete successfully with anyone in the world, including nations
such as China. We do not view U.S. and Chinese engagements in zero-sum
terms. Chinese efforts to build infrastructure and enable economic
growth are much needed but we will also continue to encourage China to
play a constructive role through activities that are consistent with
international norms. Ultimately, African governments should drive a
hard bargain in the deals they make with every nation to ensure they
are the best for their people and their futures. U.S. businesses add
value and our partnerships create broad, sustainable, economic
opportunity, making a meaningful difference in people's lives.
To further support U.S.-African trade, we are looking forward to
the upcoming African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) Trade
Ministerial in Ethiopia this August, and if confirmed, I hope to work
closely with Congress to pave the way for AGOA's renewal. Working
together alongside our African partners, we will also have to make
these trade preferences more effective and ensure that more African
goods can compete successfully in the global marketplace. The bulk of
our trade is currently with just three countries, South Africa,
Nigeria, and Angola, and it must be further broadened. We also continue
to support African women entrepreneurs through the African Women
Entrepreneurship Program, which identifies and builds networks of women
entrepreneurs across sub-Saharan Africa. This program has been
instrumental in building the capacity of African women entrepreneurs,
who are often agents of change in their communities.
Another part of the challenge ahead will be to maintain our focus
on the people of Africa, to listen to their voices, and to include
their concerns in our policy deliberations. Our work on HIV/AIDS
through PEPFAR is a great example of the new kinds of partnerships we
are forming. Thirteen countries have now passed the programmatic
``tipping point'' where more people are newly receiving treatment than
are being newly infected with HIV. And countries such as South Africa
and Namibia are increasingly taking on their own epidemics, assuming
greater costs and leadership for treatment.
As we deepen our partnerships on the continent, our efforts will
also stay true to the fact that human rights is a core American value.
Governments that respect human rights, including women's rights, and
democratic norms make stronger and more stable partners for economic
growth, development, peace, and prosperity. We will continue to support
partners who respect these norms, and will continue to speak out, both
in public and in private, when nations stray from their responsibility
to protect their people's rights. We must continue to strengthen local
human rights groups in Africa and engage high-level foreign leaders
when we see laws or actions that impinge on the human rights of their
citizens--whether it is attempts to restrict the free flow of
information or freedom of assembly, obstruct the operations of civil
society and local NGOs, or the ways in which countries confront
insurgencies that may put civilians at risk.
We will continue to work hard to consolidate democratic progress,
economic growth and the security necessary for families to live
``normal'' lives in peace and freedom. Both instability and insecurity
greatly diminish the prospects and aspirations of future generations,
and dampen the hopes of too many citizens. While some countries are
stable and experiencing economic and social vitality, others remain
years and even decades behind owing to conflict. From the eastern Congo
to the Sahel, and from Somalia to the tensions that still exist between
Sudan and South Sudan, too many lives have been lost and too many
others remain under severe threats. Violent extremist organizations,
some of them affiliated with al-Qaeda, seek to exploit conflicts and
weak institutions to expand their reach. Our efforts to promote
stability have also led to the expansion of partnerships focused on
responding to transnational threats such as terrorism, drug
trafficking, wildlife trafficking, and piracy. Meanwhile U.S. support
to critical peacekeeping operations has allowed us to leverage our
resources and work multilaterally to encourage peace. In each of these
cases we are working with the African Union, as well as other regional
and international organizations and the countries themselves to help
find solutions. We will continue both our humanitarian efforts on
behalf of those living with conflict and our efforts to resolve those
conflicts. We also know that for true stability to flourish, we have to
push for the full inclusion of women at every step of the process.
I understand that the opportunities and the challenges in Africa
require a comprehensive U.S. policy, one that takes a holistic view, is
integrative, proactive, and forward-looking. If confirmed, I will
always balance our long-term interests with the near-term and urgent
imperatives we face each week. I will work to build on the foundation
of successes set during President Obama's first term, and clearly
articulated in the June 2012 Presidential Policy Directive on sub-
Saharan Africa. This will mean working closely with our African
partners to strengthen democratic institutions beyond just the need for
free, fair and transparent elections. If confirmed, I will strive to
also establish environments where new entrepreneurship ecosystems can
flourish, economic opportunities can grow, and comprehensive
development frameworks can take root, not only to encourage more trade,
investment, and economic growth, but to help reform and create the
conditions under which they can thrive. Equally important will be
finding sustainable ways to advance peace, security, and stability
throughout the region as prerequisites for meeting the aspirations of
Africans and Americans alike. I do not mean to sound immodest by
raising our expectations and setting very high goals, but for far too
many years we have been Africa's partner in times of adversity. While
we will continue to support the African people in moments of crisis, we
will now also be Africa's partner in times of prosperity. Admittedly
this is a big challenge, but, if confirmed, it is one that I very much
look forward to pursuing with your help and with the Africa Bureau's
enthusiasm and energy.
I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
Senator Coons. Well, thank you, Madam Ambassador. We will
now begin a round of 7 minutes for questions if we could.
Ambassador, I love the way you concluded your testimony by
stating that the United States has long been friends of the
people of Africa in adversity, at times of crisis, and we now
need to sort of refocus our energies and efforts on how to be
good partners and friends in the times that they move toward
prosperity as well.
I believe we can and should do much more to promote direct
investment and trade with Africa. A number of the initiatives
announced by the President have to do with that. What steps can
the State Department and our embassies take to strengthen that
and do you have the tools and skills amongst the embassies that
you need, and if not what more could we do to support that
work?
Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. Senator, thank you very, very
much for that question. We are working--and I can talk from the
vantage point of having just completed my assignment as
Director General of the Foreign Service. We have been working
to build the economic capacity through econ statecraft in the
State Department over the past year. My colleagues and I in HR
have worked with the EB Bureau to look at how we can better
train and better prepare our economic officers to deal with the
investment and commercial climate that they will face in our
embassies overseas. I think we have had quite a bit of success
in doing that.
But it also requires other entities within the U.S.
Government structure to help with that. You and I met earlier
and we talked about the lack of presence of commercial
officers, and I would like to see more presence of our
commercial officers overseas. I think that we have to look
broadly at all of our activities, the activities that relate to
Treasury, the activities that relate to governance, to help
build the capacity of African countries to take advantage of
investments, so that they are prepared also to deal with
prosperity and not just adversity.
So we still have a lot of work to do, and any help that you
can provide in supporting our efforts would be most
appreciated.
Senator Coons. I know I and others are eager to work with
you on AGOA specifically, but more broadly on how we get an
``all of the above'' strategy for the Federal Government and
its facilitation of the private sector's engagement with
Africa. We have got lots of folks, Exim, OPIC, TDA, Commerce
among many others, to get in the mix, and USAID is a vital
partner as well.
You referenced also the importance of democracy and
governance in the portfolio of activities funded by the United
States and delivered through State. On the eve of elections in
Mali and Zimbabwe, and given the fragility or the tensions
within some of our key allies--Uganda, Ethiopia, Nigeria--how
will you advance democratic values? How will our embassies
advance democratic values, and how do we manage the tension
with our competitors, the Chinese and others, who offer an
alternative source of partnership, both diplomatic and
economic, that does not raise difficult issues of human rights,
of democracy, of press freedom, and others across the
continent?
Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. Again, thank you. Thank you
for that question. I think it is clear to us that democracy and
governance does not end with elections, that we have to be
there to continue to support African countries in building the
institutions that they need to prosper and succeed in the
future.
As the Ambassador to Liberia, I worked very, very closely
with the Government of Liberia to help them prepare for not
just the election, but prepare for moving their democracy
forward to the next level. Our USAID programs that support
institutions such as the press, support NGOs, support local
college students who are looking to go into politics, helping
to build the capacity of them to understand how politics work
and how they can succeed in being successful politicians, these
are all programs that we have to continue to work on, and the
Presidents Initiative on African Leaders I think will
contribute to that significantly.
The tensions with China. I think we have a good story to
tell. When you talk to African leaders across the board, they
appreciate the support that they get from us, even when that
support comes with criticism, because they know that our
criticism is constructive. And they know that in the final
analysis, that what we offer in terms of our own values on
human rights is so much better than what they are getting from
outside of the United States.
So again, I think I do not see us as competing. I do not
even see the Chinese as being an alternative. As I said,
African leaders have to strike the best deal that they can
strike for their people, and I think they get it. So we just
have to do more to help build their capacity, so that they can
negotiate in a stronger position with countries that are not
raising issues of human rights, as we do on a regular basis.
Senator Coons. I appreciate the sentiment. I do at times
think we are in competition, but I do think a primary focus on
calling upon African leaders to serve their people, their
government, their agenda, I respect and agree with.
As my last question of this round: If you would focus on
the President's recent trip, there is a whole series of
initiatives. You mentioned the upcoming summit of heads of
state. There is also the Young African Leaders initiative,
initiatives on energy, on trade, on wildlife trafficking. How
do we turn these into broader, more effective, more sustained
initiatives, particularly given the many other priorities that
various ambassadors will face? How do we make these make a
lasting difference?
Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. I think the important key to
making these lasting is to get buy-in from the African
countries who will benefit from these initiatives. I think we
have gone a long way in getting that buy-in. The summit to take
place next year will also give us an opportunity to ensure that
we have their support and that we move the agenda forward on
these issues.
If confirmed, I will work very, very quickly within the
Africa Bureau and within the building, because it is not just
an Africa Bureau responsibility to ensure that we have the
resources in place to address the initiatives that the
President announced when he was in Africa.
Senator Coons. Well, sadly, there are several buildings
that are relevant here. One of them is here, and I look forward
to working with you to ensure support in this building as well
as in that building.
I will turn to Senator Flake. Senator Flake.
Senator Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your testimony. There is obviously a lot to
do across the continent and you have the benefit or detriment,
I guess, to have to answer questions about all of Africa. But
with regard to trade for a minute, if you look at the overall
trade between the United States and Africa and China and
Africa, there is not much difference right now. We are about
$70 billion a year. But Chinese trade has increased
substantially over the past decade and we have not.
What can we do, aside from AGOA? And I agree we will work
hard to get that reauthorized and go forward. But what
specifically can we do aside from AGOA to change that
direction?
Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. I think there are two things
that we can do. First, on the continent of Africa we need to
advocate for American companies and American businesses. We
need to push for a level playing field with African countries
so American companies can feel comfortable bidding on projects
in Africa and investing in Africa.
But the second part of that is also to work with American
companies here in the United States to make sure that they are
aware of the opportunities in Africa to invest, aware of the
opportunities to make profits on the continent of Africa.
Africa is booming and we need to make sure that American
companies are prepared and knowledgeable about what is
available there for them.
I think that AGOA is one part of that. The other part of it
is to ensure that we do the kinds of things that my predecessor
did. He took a trade mission to Africa. I hope to continue with
that kind of initiative in encouraging American companies to
look at Africa.
Senator Flake. There is no doubt that the United States,
because of what we have done particularly with regard to AIDS
across the continent, PEPFAR and what-not, is viewed more
favorably than we would be otherwise, and our humanitarian
assistance, health-related assistance, has been a great boon to
our relationship with many countries. There has been some
criticism, however, that our aid and overall aid to Africa is
tilted too much toward humanitarian or health-related issues
and that it ought to be more toward long-term sustainable
development and trade. What is your assessment there?
Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. Sir, I think we need to do
both. We cannot stop doing humanitarian assistance when people
are dying. We cannot pull back on health programs when there
are no health programs. So those programs have been very, very
important to the success, our success in Africa, and also
helping African countries develop.
At the same time, we have to take a much more long-term
view and again help African countries build the capacity so
that they can deal with their health initiatives and then we
can work with them on building their infrastructure so that
they can encourage investments and push for opportunities for
their people to move into the middle class so that they no
longer need our aid and assistance. That is the ultimate goal.
Senator Flake. With regard to elections in Zimbabwe coming
up here soon, obviously the neighboring countries, SADC, are
involved heavily and a lot of our involvement is through those
countries. What can we do and what are we prepared, and are we
prepared, for whatever eventuality comes after these elections
to move ahead?
Specifically, we have some sanctions that have been
imposed. We have relaxed a bit on some of our loans to the
development bank and what-not. What is your feeling in terms of
our flexibility with regard to sanctions and what can the
Congress do to help State respond in a timely fashion to ensure
the best outcome that is possible?
Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. Thank you for that question.
I look forward to working with you on what is a very, very
difficult and important issue for us. The sanctions that we
have in place have worked. There are sanctions on individuals
and I think we will continue to use those sanctions to ensure
that those who are involved in violence, who are blocking
Zimbabwe's progress on democracy, feel the response of the U.S.
Government, and I think we should continue to use those as we
have used them in the past.
We are working with, as you noted, others in the region,
with SADC, with the EU, with the AU, to ensure to the extent
possible that the election is one that is free and fair. But we
are prepared, as other countries are, to call it as we see it.
Our Ambassador and his team in Zimbabwe have been actively out
in the field and will continue to do that throughout the
election process. It is something that--that election is one
that we are watching very, very closely and we are preparing
ourselves for the responses that will be required should the
election not be one that we can accept. From everything we have
seen in recent days, we are not convinced that it will be.
Senator Flake. Well, thank you. Please come to us if you
need more flexibility in that regard to respond appropriately
and you think that it is something that Congress needs to move
on. I am sure that we will be willing to look at it and work
with you on that. So I look forward to that and I look forward
to working with you on this and other issues.
Thanks.
Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. And I thank you.
Senator Coons. Ambassador, I have just a few more
questions, if I might. First, following up on your most recent
role and assignment, the embassies that we have across the
continent range from the very large and very well staffed with
many different functions, such as Nairobi, to those that are
relatively small, lightly staffed, with relatively junior
officers, often in conflict-ridden states. When I saw you in
Liberia, I was struck at how relatively small, compared to the
scale of the challenges, our Embassy was there and how highly
motivated the folks at the Embassy were.
How will you work to ensure that Africa Bureau, and the
Department more broadly, provides the support, the training,
the security, to ensure that our diplomats in Africa are able
to do their jobs, are able to be out, to engage in countries,
able to promote commerce, support democracy, deal with crises
and challenges, yet be safe and supported in doing so?
Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. Thank you very much for that
question. As the Director General of the Foreign Service, I did
get to see up close and very personal the limitations that we
have in terms of staffing. We have this huge, huge bulge of
entry-level officers who are rising very rapidly through the
system, because there is a mid-level gap. What that means is
that in most of our embassies, and particularly in Africa, we
have our ambassadors, our deputy chiefs of mission, and then a
huge group of entry-level officers who need to be mentored and
who need strong leadership.
So the important element of this for me is that we provide
them with the strong leadership so that they can do the jobs
that we have sent them out to do in very, very difficult
locations. I think with the six ambassadors that you will be
looking at confirming today and other ambassadors we have in
the field, we are preparing our ambassadors for those very
intense leadership roles.
At the same time, we have to work to get those new officers
the training they need to do their jobs. We are getting them
the language training. As the Director General, it was rare, if
ever, that I approved a language waiver because I know how
important it is for our people to go in the field with the
language skills that they require. I ensured that people got
the training that they required and that we help build the
training capacity at our Foreign Service Institute so that we
can provide that training to our officers.
That said, it is still going to be very difficult. We are
still going to be struggling for a few years to build that
capacity. But I think we are moving in the right direction.
Senator Coons. One of the things I am most interested in as
it unfolds, working with you on and others, is the Young
African Leadership Initiative the President announced. You also
referenced the upcoming head of state conference here. Several
of the other countries that are principally interested in the
African market have been hosting comparable summits for years,
both in their countries and on the continent. I have had a
number of heads of state comment directly, pointedly, to me
that they feel the absence of an American investment in that
kind of continent-wide convening.
I have also heard comments from both young and mid-career
African leaders of many sectors that they are concerned that
the YALI initiative will simply be a semester abroad experience
in the United States and will not be Africa-centered and
broadly representative of all the different sectors in which
young leaders are emerging.
Any comments on how we might succeed by comparison with
other countries that have invested very heavily in senior
leadership trips to Africa?
Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. I think we do that, sir. We
have our visitors programs, but also if we look at the number
of senior visitors, particularly members of Congress, who visit
Africa on an annual basis, we are not neglecting Africa. We are
very, very focused on that relationship.
It is true that we have not had a large summit and I look
forward to the one that we are going to have. I think that will
advance our agenda quite a bit. But I do not think any African
leader can say that we have neglected them in any way, shape,
or form.
Secretary Clinton made three trips to Africa. She came to
Liberia twice, which is unheard of, during her tenure.
Secretary Kerry has already been to Africa and, if I am
confirmed as the Assistant Secretary for Africa, he will be
going as regularly as I can get him to go, to ensure that there
is an understanding that we are committed to the African
Continent.
On the Young Africa Leaders Initiative, this did not just
start with the President's visit. When I was in Liberia we sent
three young Liberian leaders to a youth program organized by
the White House about 2\1/2\ years ago. Those three individuals
have been actively connecting with other youth in Liberia. They
have held a number of programs. They have communicated with
other youth across Africa. So the initiative did not just start
and it did not stop with that first visit of African leaders.
So I think this is just taking it the next step and we will
continue to take it further steps. Even if these young people
have a semester abroad in the United States, that will impact
them for their entire lives. I meet so many senior African
leaders who spent a semester in the United States. Many of them
I went to college with at the University of Wisconsin, and they
are still actively and politically important in their
countries, but also have great feelings toward the United
States because of those experiences. President Sirleaf is one
of them, having spent just 1 year in the United States at the
University of Wisconsin.
Senator Coons. Well, as you know, even a semester spent
overseas can have a lifetime impact.
Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. Yes.
Senator Coons. My concern simply is that we craft something
that is broad, that is sustainable, and that has mutually
reinforcing opportunities on the continent and here. I look
forward to working with you to ensure a sustained and high
level of enthusiasm and interest.
One of the best things about working on Africa in the
Senate is its bipartisan support. This is a continent of
concern and engagement that enjoys very broad Republican
support as well as Democratic support at a time when we have
difficulty agreeing on lots of things. It is a great area of
shared interest and shared endeavors. So I look forward to
working with you in that.
A last question if I might. I just am personally concerned
about Iran's reach across the continent. The immediate past-
President, Ahmadinejad, made a number of trips. They have tried
with a variety of resources, energy, investment, and so forth,
to build partnerships and bridges. Is this of any concern to
you? Is it something you have noticed and is it an area that
you might follow up on as Assistant Secretary?
Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. Thank you, sir. Yes, it is an
area that we will follow up on. I think the--and again, this is
not my expertise, but, having been in Africa when the President
of Iran visited the AU when I was at the AU in 2006 and he gave
a speech, my personal opinion is that the impact of that was
not particularly rewarding for him. I think African countries
are sensible enough to know where their friends are and they
know that the United States is a friend, and we will continue
to work with them to address those kinds of impacts and
concerns.
I certainly look forward to working with you as well as
other Members of the Senate and on the Hill on addressing those
types of issues.
Senator Coons. Thank you very much, Ambassador. I very much
look forward to working with you as well on assuring a
sustained broad relationship of respect, of trust, of
friendship, of investment, and of a steady movement towards
democracy and prosperity.
Senator Flake, any further questions?
Senator Flake. No.
Senator Coons. Thank you very much, Ambassador.
Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield. Thank you.
Senator Coons. I would like to invite our second panel to
come before us now.
Thank you. I would like to continue with our second panel.
You are seated in a slightly different order than my questions,
so forgive me. I will attempt to follow the order that is in
front of me and introduce you apparently in order of State
Department seniority.
So if I might, I am going to ask you each to make an
opening statement and I invite you to make some comments of
welcome or appreciation to any family or friends who might be
with you. We have got your written statements, but I know we
are both interested in hearing your personal inflection and
delivery of them as well.
I would like to first invite Ambassador James Entwistle,
the nominee to serve in Nigeria. Ambassador Entwistle.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES F. ENTWISTLE, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE
AMBASSADOR TO THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
Ambassador Entwistle. Thank you very much, and apologies
again for that ride in from the Kinshasa Airport, Senator
Coons, earlier this year.
Senator Coons. It was wonderful, memorable, and
instructive.
Ambassador Entwistle. Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee, I am honored today to appear before you as the
President's nominee to be the United States Ambassador to the
Federal Republic of Nigeria. I would like to thank President
Obama and Secretary Kerry for the confidence they have placed
in me, and if confirmed I look forward to working with this
committee and the rest of the Congress to advance our
relationship with Nigeria.
In my 32 years in the U.S. Foreign Service, I have had the
privilege of serving in a number of African posts, currently as
the U.S. Ambassador to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I
have found all of these assignments richly satisfying in that
they presented an opportunity to work on fundamental issues of
war and peace, alleviating human suffering, promoting democracy
and economic growth.
I would also note that my wife and I met and married in
west Africa many years ago and thus on a personal level we are
very excited to be going back.
Mr. Chairman, I believe strongly that the success of our
diplomacy depends on our people and if confirmed my highest
priority will be to ensure the safety, security, and well-being
of our mission employees and the American community in Nigeria.
Nigeria is a dominant economic force and political leader
in west Africa. They have accomplished much in the past 14
years of civilian rule, but prospects are tempered by many
challenges, with good governance, civilian security, and
accountability the keys to realizing Nigeria's enormous
potential.
In 2011 they conducted its most successful and credible
elections since the return to multiparty democracy in 1999. We
are eager to build on this achievement with the 2015 national
elections and we hope to work with our Nigerian friends to make
them even more credible and peaceful. If confirmed, I will
ensure that we will deploy our resources and engagement in
support of an inclusive and transparent electoral process. I
will continue focusing United States efforts on partnering with
Nigeria to more effectively fight corruption and advance
transparent and accountable governance.
Nigeria is the second-largest recipient of American direct
private sector investment in Africa, our largest trading
partner in Africa, and our largest export market for United
States wheat. I am committed to expanding bilateral trade and
promoting U.S. investment.
As one of the most influential members of the Economic
Community of West African States and with more than 6,000
peacekeepers deployed worldwide, Nigeria has played a key role
in helping to resolve major political and security disputes in
west African over the years.
Right now Nigeria faces a very real threat from extremist
groups, in particular Boko Haram, which has killed hundreds of
political and security officials and attacked civilians who
have congregated peacefully in mosques, churches, and places of
business. If confirmed, I will work with the Nigerian
Government to assist security forces to increase public
confidence in its efforts to address violence and terrorism,
while addressing the legitimate economic needs of communities
vulnerable to violent extremism.
United States engagement with the Nigerian Government is
done in the context of partnership and reflects the whole of
government approach that we encourage the Nigerians to pursue.
Our forum for engagement is the U.S.-Nigeria Binational
Commission. If confirmed, I am committed to using that body as
a mechanism to advance our bilateral dialogue. I will be an
active advocate for America as we advance our bilateral
relationship with Nigeria and our partnership with the nations
of the region.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you very
much for this opportunity. I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Entwistle follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. James F. Entwistle
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am honored today to
appear before you as the President's nominee to be the United States
Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. I would like to thank
President Obama and Secretary Kerry for the confidence they have placed
in me and, if confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee
and other Members of Congress to advance our relationship with Nigeria.
In my 32 years in the U.S. Foreign Service, I have had the privilege of
serving in a number of African posts, currently as the U.S. Ambassador
to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I have found all of those
assignments richly satisfying in that they presented an opportunity to
work on fundamental issues of war and peace, alleviating human
suffering, promoting democracy, and economic growth. In my view,
nowhere else in the world does the United States have the opportunity
to make a positive difference than in Africa, and I am deeply honored
to have an opportunity to do just that once again. I would also note
that my wife and I met and married in west Africa many years ago and
thus on a personal level we are very excited about going back.
Mr. Chairman, I believe strongly that the success of our diplomacy
depends on our people, and, if confirmed, I will make it my highest
priority to ensure the safety, security, and well-being of our mission
employees, and the American community in Nigeria. We have a robust and
effective interagency presence in Nigeria, and we are committed to
enhancing our engagement in the critically important and predominantly
Muslim north.
Nigeria is a dominant economic force and political leader in west
Africa. While Nigeria has accomplished much in the past 14 years of
civilian rule, its prospects are tempered by many challenges, with good
governance, civilian security, and accountability the keys to realizing
the country's enormous potential. In 2011, Nigeria conducted its most
successful and credible elections since its return to multiparty
democracy in 1999, and we are eager to build on this achievement with
the 2015 national elections being even more credible and peaceful. If
confirmed, I will ensure that we deploy our resources and engagement in
support of an inclusive and transparent process. In 2011 Nigeria passed
a landmark Freedom of Information Act, allowing citizens to request
information from government offices, and in recent years, Nigeria has
joined and become compliant with the principles of the Extractive
Industry Transparency Initiative, providing greater transparency and
accountability in the management of the country's natural resources. I
will continue focusing U.S. efforts on partnering with Nigeria to
develop measures to more effectively fight corruption and advance
transparent and accountable governance. Nigeria is the second-largest
recipient of American direct private sector investment in Africa, our
largest trading partner in Africa, and our largest export market for
wheat. I am committed to expanding bilateral trade and promoting U.S.
investment in Nigeria as a vehicle for economic growth.
As one of the most influential members of the Economic Community of
West African States and with more than 6,000 peacekeepers deployed
worldwide, Nigeria has played a key role in helping to resolve major
political and security disputes in west Africa from the Liberian and
Sierra Leone crises in the 1990s to the political problems in Guinea,
Niger, Cote d'Ivoire, and Mali. Nigeria faces a real threat from
extremist groups, including Boko Haram, which have killed hundreds of
political and security officials and attacked civilians who have
congregated peacefully in mosques, churches, and places of business. In
order for Nigeria to continue to exercise leadership in the region,
however, it must address the serious problems of development and
security at home, particularly in the north. If confirmed, I will work
with the Nigerian Government to assist security forces to increase
public confidence in its efforts to address violence and terrorism
while addressing the legitimate economic needs of communities
vulnerable to violent extremism.
U.S. engagement with the Nigerian Government is done in the context
of partnership, and reflects the comprehensive, whole-of-government
approach we have asked the Nigerians to pursue. The forum for this
engagement is the U.S.-Nigeria Binational Commission. If confirmed, I
am committed to using this body as a mechanism to advance our bilateral
dialogue. We have a rich agenda with Nigeria, with many challenges and
opportunities. If I am confirmed as U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria, I will
be an active advocate for America as we advance our partnership with
this strategic African country.
Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today, and I welcome your questions.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Ambassador. I appreciate your
service and your willingness to continue your service and to
return to west Africa.
Ambassador Entwistle. Thank you, sir.
Senator Coons. I would now like to invite Ms. Haslach to
make her opening statement, and then we are going to invite
each to do a statement in order and then we will do 7-minute
rounds of questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICIA MARIE HASLACH, OF OREGON, TO BE
AMBASSADOR TO THE FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA
Ambassador Haslach. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Flake, and
distinguished members of the committee, I am deeply honored to
appear before you today to seek confirmation as United States
Ambassador to the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. I
appreciate the confidence that President Obama and Secretary
Kerry have shown in me by this nomination.
I would like to say that my family could join me, but
unfortunately they were not able to attend. My mother lives in
Portland, OR. So I asked my boss, Assistant Secretary Rick
Barton from the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization
Operations, who comes from that other Portland, to come today,
and he is behind me, as well as my colleague, Jerry White,
Deputy Assistant Secretary in our State Department's newest
Bureau.
If confirmed, I look forward to working with the committee,
interested members of Congress, and other Americans to
represent the United States in Ethiopia. Ethiopia is a vital
partner to the United States in the Horn of Africa, sharing our
interest in regional stability and strategic objectives.
Participation in the African Union's counterterrorism efforts,
for example, supports our objectives in the region.
Ethiopia deployed troops in Somalia as well as in Sudan and
has been actively involved in facilitating negotiations between
the leaders of Sudan and South Sudan in two summits. Ethiopia
is also host to refugees in the region.
If confirmed, I intend to build on this partnership. It is
in the interest of the United States to promote sustainable
economic development and liberalization of the economy in
Ethiopia. Prosperity and economic freedom go hand in hand with
good governance, rule of law, and respect for human rights.
Ethiopia ranks among the 10 fastest-growing economies in the
region, averaging 10 percent GDP growth over the past 5 years.
If confirmed, I will work to facilitate economic reforms
that could benefit United States trade and investment while
improving economic freedom and self-sufficiency for Ethiopians.
If confirmed, I will press the Government of Ethiopia to
respect the rights of all its citizens regardless of ethni--I
cannot pronounce that--clan, political views, or religious
affiliation. If confirmed, I will work with the Ethiopian
Government to open up the political space and advance reforms
that promote freedom of expression, association, and rule of
law. America's steadfast commitment to the advancement and
protection of human rights and democratic principles around the
world provides hope for many who seek positive change in
Ethiopia.
Some recent events are encouraging. On June 2 of this year,
for example, 7,000 demonstrators from the Muslim community
marched peacefully throughout the capital without government
interference. This was the first political demonstration the
Ethiopian government officially permitted since 2005.
If confirmed, a major priority will be to ensure that my
talented men and women who work for us in Addis Ababa remain
safe, as well as the American community.
I am proud to have served my country for a number of years,
first with the Foreign Agricultural Service, where Ethiopia was
the first country that I ever had the privilege of working on.
So I am honored to serve my country and if confirmed I will
devote myself to persuading the Ethiopian people and their
government that commitment to human rights and liberalization
of the economy is in our common future.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for
this opportunity to address you. I will leave some time for the
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Haslach follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Patricia M. Haslach
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, and distinguished members of
the committee, I am deeply honored to appear before you today to seek
confirmation as U.S. Ambassador to the Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia. I appreciate the confidence that President Obama and
Secretary Kerry have shown in me by this nomination. If confirmed, I
look forward to working with the committee, interested members of
Congress, and other Americans to represent the United States in
Ethiopia.
Ethiopia is a vital partner to the United States in the Horn of
Africa, sharing our interest in regional stability and strategic
objectives. Participation in the African Union's counterterrorism
efforts, for example, supports U.S. objectives in the region. Ethiopia
deploys troops alongside the Somali National Army and the African Union
Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), and contributes nearly all of the troops
that currently serve as the U.N. Interim Stabilization Force in Abyei
(UNISFA). Ethiopia is also active in the Sudanese peace process, having
facilitated negotiations between the leaders of Sudan and South Sudan
in two summits. If confirmed, I intend to build on this partnership.
It is in the interest of the United States to promote sustainable
economic development and liberalization of the economy in Ethiopia.
Prosperity and economic freedom go hand-in-hand with good governance,
rule of law, and respect for human rights. Ethiopia ranks among the 10
fastest-growing economies in the world, averaging 10 percent GDP growth
over the last 5 years. If confirmed, I will work to facilitate economic
reforms that can benefit U.S. trade and investment, while improving
economic freedom and self-sufficiency for Ethiopians.
If confirmed, I will press the Government of Ethiopia to respect
the rights of all its citizens regardless of ethnicity, clan, political
views, or religious affiliation. Politically motivated trials, ongoing
tensions between some in the Muslim community and the government, and
restrictions on nongovernmental organizations cause serious concern. If
confirmed, I will work with the Ethiopian Government to open political
space, and advance reforms that promote freedom of expression,
association, and rule of law.
If confirmed, I will be committed to promoting our efforts and
policy approach on gender-based violence and discrimination against the
LGBT community. Domestic violence, especially spousal rape and the lack
of legal remedy or support for survivors, are challenging problems of
critical focus. Encouragingly, Ethiopia's national prevalence of HIV/
AIDS declined to 1.4 percent nationally since the President's Emergency
Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) began work with Ethiopia in 2005.
America's steadfast commitment to the advancement and protection of
human rights and democratic principles around the world provides hope
for many who seek positive change in Ethiopia. Although many problems
exist and abuses occur, some recent events are encouraging. On June 2
of this year, for example, several thousand demonstrators calling for
the release of political prisoners, an end to interference in religious
affairs, action on unemployment and corruption, and an end to illegal
evictions marched peacefully through the capital, without government
interference. This was the first such political demonstration the
Ethiopian Government officially permitted since 2005.
If confirmed, a major priority will be to ensure that the talented
men and women working for the U.S. mission in Addis Ababa remain safe
and have every opportunity to succeed as our representatives to
Ethiopia. Of equal importance is the safety of American citizens living
and traveling in Ethiopia.
I am proud to have served my country as a Foreign Service officer
since 1986, first with the Foreign Agricultural Service and then with
the Department of State. I have been honored to serve as U.S.
Ambassador twice, first to the Lao People's Democratic Republic, then
as U.S. Senior Official for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum
(APEC). In my current position in the Bureau of Conflict and
Stabilization Operations, I have become quite familiar with the
challenges the United States faces in the east Africa region. If
confirmed, I will devote myself to persuading the Ethiopian people and
their government that commitment to human rights, liberalization of the
economy, and a transparent, inclusive political process are central to
our common future.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this
opportunity to address you. I am prepared to respond to any questions
you may have.
Senator Coons. Thank you very much.
I would now like to turn to Mr. Reuben Brigety, nominee for
the African Union. Mr. Brigety.
STATEMENT OF REUBEN EARL BRIGETY, II, OF FLORIDA, TO BE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE AFRICAN
UNION, WITH THE RANK AND STATUS OF AMBASSADOR
Mr. Brigety. Chairman Coons, Ranking Member Flake, members
of the committee, good morning. It is a great honor to appear
before you today as President Obama's nominee to be the next
Representative of the United States of America to the African
Union, with the rank of Ambassador. I am deeply grateful for
the confidence that President Obama and Secretary Kerry have
shown in me through this appointment, this nomination.
If I am confirmed by the Senate, my engagement with the
African Union, also known as ``the AU,'' will focus on the four
themes that encompass President Obama's strategy for sub-
Saharan Africa: first, democracy and governance; second,
economic growth, trade, and investment; third, peace and
security; and fourth, promotion of opportunity and development.
If I am confirmed, my tenure will be defined by pursuing and
attaining concrete advancements in these four priority areas,
and I look forward to working closely with this committee on
each.
My earliest exposure to Africa was listening to stories of
my father, Dr. Reuben Brigety Senior, about the time he spent
in Northern Rhodesia, in what is now Zambia, as a volunteer
with Operation Crossroads Africa in 1963. I am pleased that my
father is here in the room with us today alongside my mother,
Dr. Barbara Brigety. I am also happy to be joined today by my
wife, Dr. Leilie Selassie, and our two young sons whom we
adore, Roebel, age eight, and Redda, age five, five and three-
quarters.
Senator Coons. Let the record reflect that a wave was
returned from the chairman to Roebel and Redda.
Mr. Brigety. I am also very pleased to be joined by many
friends in the hearing room today as well.
My duties in the State Department, as well as my
experiences in the U.S. military, the nonprofit sector, and
academia, have given me a diverse skill set that is directly
relevant to leading the U.S. mission to the AU. From November
2011 until June 2013 I served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of
State in the Bureau of African Affairs. My duties there
included supervising the Office of Regional and Security
Affairs, which supports our mission to the African Union. In
this capacity I became familiar with the issues facing the
African Union, the leadership of the AU Commission, and the
complexities involved in leading the U.S. mission to the AU.
In addition, I supervised the Office of Southern African
Affairs and engaged in democracy and trade promotion activities
throughout Africa. In short, I have direct experience in each
of the four themes that I hope to advance at the African Union.
I am excited at the prospect of assuming this responsibility at
such a critical time in the history of the African Union and
indeed of the continent.
At the 50th anniversary AU summit in Addis Ababa earlier
this year, Secretary Kerry quoted the African proverb, ``If you
want to go quickly, go alone; but if you want to go far, go
together.'' If confirmed, I will be dedicated to helping the
United States and the African Union to go far together,
building an Africa that is peaceful, prosperous, and proud.
I look forward to working with this committee and the
Congress on these worthy goals. Thank you very much for your
attention. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brigety follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Reuben E. Brigety II
Chairman Coons, Ranking Member Flake, members of the committee,
good morning. It is a great honor to appear before you today as
President Obama's nominee to be the next Representative of the United
States of America to the African Union, with the rank of Ambassador. I
am deeply grateful for the confidence that President Obama and
Secretary Kerry have shown in me through this nomination.
If I am confirmed by the Senate, my engagement with the African
Union (also known as the AU) will focus on the four themes that
encompass President Obama's strategy for sub-Saharan Africa: (1)
democracy and governance; (2) economic growth, trade, and investment;
(3) peace and security; and (4) promotion of opportunity and
development. If I am confirmed, my tenure will be defined by pursuing
and attaining concrete advancements in these four priority areas, and I
look forward to working closely with this committee on each.
My earliest exposure to Africa was listening to stories of my
father, Dr. Reuben Brigety, Sr., about the time he spent in Northern
Rhodesia (in what is now Zambia) as a volunteer with Operation
Crossroads Africa in 1963. I am pleased that my father is here in the
room with us today, alongside my mother, Dr. Barbara Brigety. I am also
happy to be joined today by my wife, Dr. Leelie Selassie, and our two
young sons whom we adore: Roebel, age 8, and Redda, age 5.
My duties in the State Department, as well as my experiences in the
U.S. military, the nonprofit sector, and academia, have given me a
diverse skill set that is directly relevant to leading the U.S. mission
to the AU. From November 2011 until June 2013, I served as Deputy
Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of African Affairs. My
duties there included supervising the Office of Regional and Security
Affairs, which supports our mission to the African Union. In this
capacity, I became familiar with the issues facing the African Union,
the leadership of the AU Commission, and the complexities involved in
leading the U.S. mission to the AU. In addition, I supervised the
Office of Southern African Affairs and engaged in democracy and trade
promotion activities throughout Africa.
From December 2009 until November 2011, I served as Deputy
Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and
Migration, where I supervised U.S. refugee programs in Africa. This
role led me to humanitarian crises across the continent, from Kenya to
Ethiopia, and from eastern Congo to western Algeria. These travels
showed me in unforgettable detail the human consequences of Africa's
conflicts.
In short, I have direct experience in each of the four themes that
I hope to advance at the African Union. I am excited at the prospect of
assuming this responsibility at such a critical time in the history of
the African Union, and indeed of the continent.
The United States remains committed to partnering with the AU and
deepening our cooperation to advance our goals on the continent. We
continue to work with the AU and support their efforts to resolve
conflicts on the continent including Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, and
Mali. We will work along with the AU on the priorities they have set
for advancing democratic norms, empowering women, and engaging youth. I
will also continue our partnership with the AU in its leadership on
food security issues and our dialogue on promoting trade and investment
across the continent.
At the 50th anniversary AU summit in Addis Ababa earlier this year,
Secretary Kerry quoted the African proverb: ``If you want to go
quickly, go alone. But if you want to go far, go together.'' If
confirmed, I will be dedicated to helping the United States and the
African Union to go far together, building an Africa that is peaceful,
prosperous, and proud. I look forward to working with this committee,
and the Congress, on these worthy goals.
Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your questions.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Brigety.
I would like to invite Stephanie Sanders Sullivan to offer
her opening comments and any welcome of friends or supporters
in the audience.
Ms. Sullivan.
STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE SANDERS SULLIVAN, OF NEW YORK, TO BE
AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF CONGO
Ms. Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Flake, members
of the committee, It is an honor to appear before you today as
the President's nominee to serve as Ambassador to the Republic
of the Congo. I appreciate the confidence the President and
Secretary of State have shown in nominating me for this
position. I am also grateful for the consideration of this
distinguished committee. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with you, other members of Congress and staff, to
protect and advance American interests in the Congo.
I would like to introduce my husband, John, and our sons,
Dan and Scott, who join me here today. John accompanied me to
Cameroon and Ghana, also served in the Peace Corps in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, and our children have happy
memories of our 4 years in Accra.
I have spent nearly half of my 30-year career working on
African issues, starting with my service as a Peace Corps
Volunteer some 50 miles from Brazzaville, across the Congo
River. If confirmed, I look forward to serving in the region
again.
The Congo offers many opportunities for positive United
States engagement. The country has largely recovered from the
1997 civil war and it is now sub-Saharan Africa's fourth-
largest oil exporter. President Sassou Nguesso's development
strategy, ``Congo Vision 2025,'' targets 2025 as the year in
which the Congo will become an emerging economy.
Our bilateral relationship aims to promote three mutually
beneficial goals: first, strengthen democratic institutions;
second, promote economic development; and third, improve
regional security. The first goal is to strengthen democratic
institutions. This includes the promotion of civil and
political rights. The government carried out legislative
elections in 2012 in an atmosphere of relative calm. In the
runup to Congo's Presidential elections in 2016, the United
States is focused on strengthening civil society groups that
advocate government accountability and transparency.
If confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I will encourage the Government
of the Congo to enhance democratic institutions and continue to
implement judicial reforms.
The second goal is to promote economic development. To
achieve debt relief, the Congo committed itself to reforms,
including more rigorous fiscal discipline. This year Congo was
found compliant under the Extractive Industries Transparency
Initiative. However, more remains to be done. If confirmed, I
will vigorously encourage improvements to the business climate
and support U.S. private sector engagement. I know we have
multiple programs for development in the country, including in
the health and environmental sectors.
The third goal is to improve regional security. Last year's
munitions depot explosions highlighted new opportunities for
security cooperation and disaster management. We also aim to
further professionalize the Congolese Armed Forces and improve
maritime security, which is critical to the Congo's offshore
petroleum sector, and antipiracy efforts in the Gulf of Guinea.
I note the U.S. Coast Guard has certified the Congo's deep
water port under the international port security program.
The Republic of the Congo has begun to play a more active
role in facing regional security conflicts, from sending
peacekeepers to the Central African Republic and to assuming
the rotating presidency of the International Conference on the
Great Lakes this fall. These reinforce all of our regional
security objectives.
If confirmed, I would enthusiastically pursue my mandate to
protect United States citizens and interests in the Congo and
enhance our relationship between the two nations and peoples.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear
before you today and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sullivan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephanie Sanders Sullivan
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the committee, it is a
privilege and honor to appear before you this morning as the
President's nominee to serve as United States Ambassador to the
Republic of the Congo. I appreciate the confidence the President and
Secretary of State have shown in nominating me for this position. I am
also grateful for the consideration of this distinguished committee. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with you and other Members of
Congress, and congressional staff, to protect and advance American
interests in the Republic of the Congo.
If I may, I'd like to introduce my husband John and our sons Dan
and Scott, who are here with me today. John accompanied me to both
Cameroon and Ghana. Our children have happy memories of our 4 years in
Accra. I have spent nearly half of my 30-year career working on African
issues, starting with my service as a Peace Corps Volunteer, some 50
miles from Brazzaville, across the river in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo. If confirmed, I look forward to serving in the region again.
The Republic of the Congo offers many opportunities for positive
United States engagement. The country has largely recovered from the
1997 civil war, thanks to rising oil revenues that have funded
reconstruction and infrastructure projects. The Republic of the Congo
is sub-Saharan Africa's fourth-largest oil exporter. President Sassou-
N'Guesso's development strategy known as ``Congo Vision 2025'' targets
2025 as the year that the Republic of the Congo will become an emerging
economy.
Our bilateral relationship with the Republic of the Congo aims to
promote three mutually beneficial goals: to strengthen democratic
institutions; promote economic development; and improve regional
security.
The first goal is to strengthen democratic institutions. This
includes the promotion of civil and political rights. The government
carried out legislative elections in mid-2012, in an atmosphere of
relative calm. In the runup to the Republic of the Congo's Presidential
elections in 2016, the United States is focused on strengthening civil
society groups that advocate government accountability and
transparency. If confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I will encourage the
Government of the Republic of
the Congo to enhance democratic institutions and continue implementing
judicial reforms. We note that recent improvements in the Republic of
the Congo's legal framework have resulted in more effective enforcement
of laws against human trafficking.
The second goal is to promote economic development. To achieve debt
relief, the Government of the Republic of the Congo committed itself to
reforms, including changes in government procurement practices, more
rigorous fiscal discipline, and more effective budget implementation.
This year, the Republic of the Congo was found compliant under the
Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, representing steps
toward transparency in the Republic of the Congo's main revenue source,
petroleum. However, more remains to be done. If confirmed, I will
vigorously encourage improvements to the business climate and support
U.S. private sector engagement.
As a significant contributor to the Global Fund, the United States
is working with the Republic of the Congo and other partners to improve
the health of the Congolese people, half of whom are under the age of
15.
Sound management of the environment is another important area of
partnership. The United States supports several regional environmental
initiatives. Enhanced transparency in forest management has forged
linkages between climate change mitigation, good governance, and
economic development.
The third goal is to improve regional security. The munitions depot
explosions in Brazzaville in 2012, which killed more than 200 people,
highlighted new opportunities for security cooperation with the United
States in disaster management. Our programs aim to further
professionalize the Congolese Armed Forces and improve maritime
security, which is critical to the Republic of the Congo's offshore
petroleum sector and antipiracy efforts in the Gulf of Guinea. Indeed,
in 2011, the U.S. Coast Guard certified the deep-water port of Pointe-
Noire under the International Port Security Program, as maintaining
effective antiterrorism measures.
The Republic of the Congo has begun to play a more active role in a
region that faces chronic regional security conflicts. The Republic of
the Congo has sent peacekeepers to the Central African Republic and
will assume the rotating presidency of the International Conference on
the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR) in the fall of 2013. Talks to resolve
the conflict in the eastern DRC have been held under the auspices of
the ICGLR. Continued U.S. engagement with the Republic of the Congo on
security issues will advance our broader regional goals of promoting
peace and stability, countering terrorist groups, and protecting
civilians from conflicts.
If confirmed, I would enthusiastically pursue my mandate to protect
U.S. citizens and interests in the Republic of the Congo. I would use
all our public diplomacy tools to advance our goals of strengthening
democratic institutions, promoting economic development, and improving
regional security, while enhancing the relationship between our two
nations and peoples.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before you
today. I look forward, if confirmed, to serving the United States in
Brazzaville, the Republic of the Congo. I would be happy to respond to
any questions.
Senator Coons. Thank you very much, Ms. Sullivan.
Last but not least, we would like to turn to Mr. Patrick
Gaspard for his opening statement and welcome of any family and
friends who might be present.
Mr. Gaspard.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK HUBERT GASPARD, OF NEW YORK, TO BE
AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. Gaspard. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Flake,
and members of the committee, I am honored to appear before you
today as the President Obama's nominee to serve as the next
United States Ambassador to the Republic of South Africa. I am
appreciative of the trust placed in me by President Obama and
Secretary of State Kerry.
Please allow me to acknowledge and thank my son and
daughter, Indigo and Cybele, and my wonderful wife, Raina, who
has worked as an educator and who takes to heart our obligation
to provide opportunity for all young people. Let me especially
thank Senator Schumer for his earlier very kind and generous
introduction and for his principled leadership.
South Africa occupies a central place in my political
development. My forays into the early antiapartheid movement as
an activist and the success of that movement in raising the
consciousness of the world gave me an early sense that justice
can be attained by ordinary people who labor with aspirational
urgency.
I was blessed to travel to South Africa shortly after the
release of Nelson Mandela and developed an abiding affection
for its spirited people and culture. Should I be confirmed, it
will be my great fortune to represent this country in our
efforts to partner with the South African government as it
strives to improve the economic conditions of its citizens and
as it helps to lead global efforts to increase security and
prosperity for all.
The President's recent trip to South Africa highlighted
opportunities and ongoing challenges. Most importantly, the
President expressed the reality that Americans have a shared
interest in these outcomes. I am excited to take on this
mission at a moment when South Africa is helping to shape a
region that is finally close to receiving more foreign
investment than foreign aid.
Should this committee recommend my confirmation, my service
in government, politics, and the trade union movement will make
me a successful envoy at this critical juncture when South
Africa is negotiating the relationship between labor and
industry while tackling stubborn income disparities.
South Africans are rightly proud of the progress they have
made in their two decades of post-apartheid governance. They
have tackled innumerable problems with unmatched resolve. The
much-documented crisis in HIV, sustainable housing, and
widespread poverty have galvanized the nation into noteworthy
accomplishments. South Africa is currently administering
antiretroviral treatment to a staggering 1.6 million people and
the government has risen to take responsibility for PEPFAR care
and treatment programs in the next 5 years. Entrenched poverty
is a persistent drag, but the country has developed
institutions that routinely deliver support grants for children
and pensions for millions. There is much that needs
improvement, but there is a foundation for lasting change.
The United States has an ongoing vital role to play in
President Zuma's efforts to improve the quality of and access
to education, the struggle to combat high unemployment, and by
extension the epidemic in crime. Beyond our aid, though, our
technical assistance is a great contribution, but our greater
contribution will be in stimulating private sector investment
and trade. This will be a major priority for my mission if I am
confirmed.
As we move toward negotiations on the renewal of AGOA, we
must work with our South African partners to enact policies
that benefit workers and businesses on both sides of the
Atlantic. South Africa has a leadership influence that extends
throughout the continent, playing a key role in Madagascar, the
DRC, Sudan, South Sudan, and in ensuring that Zimbabwe's
upcoming elections are peaceful and credible. We will continue
to partner with South Africa on these and many other regional
and global issues.
As we take pause collectively and focus on President
Mandela's legacy--and he is in all of our hearts right now--it
is altogether right to take in the vista of progress, but we
must make sure to continue to work closely with South Africa to
attain the summit of achievement.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Flake, committee members,
thank you for this opportunity to address you. If I am
confirmed, I look forward to working with all of you to
strengthen this important bilateral relationship.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gaspard follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patrick H. Gaspard
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am honored and humbled
to appear before you as President Obama's nominee to serve as the next
United States Ambassador to the Republic of South Africa. I am deeply
appreciative of the trust placed in me by President Obama and Secretary
of State Kerry at this critical juncture in our bilateral relationship.
Please allow me a pause to acknowledge and thank my son and daughter,
Indigo and Cybele, and my wife, Raina, who has worked as an educator
and who takes to heart our obligation to provide opportunity for all
young people.
South Africa has long occupied a central place in my political
development. My forays into the antiapartheid movement as a young
activist and the success of that movement in raising the consciousness
of the world gave me an early sense that justice can be attained by
ordinary people who labor with aspirational urgency. I was blessed to
travel to South Africa shortly after the release of Nelson Mandela and
immediately developed an abiding affection for its spirited people and
culture. Should I be confirmed, it will be my great fortune to
represent the United States in our efforts to partner with the South
African Government as it strives to improve the economic conditions of
its citizens and as it helps to lead efforts throughout the continent
to increase security and prosperity for all.
The President's recent trip to South Africa highlighted
opportunities and ongoing challenges. Most importantly, the President
expressed the reality that Americans have a shared interest in these
outcomes. As I consider the arc of the continent of my birth, I'm
excited to take on this mission at a moment when South Africa is
helping to shape a region that is finally close to receiving more
foreign investment than foreign aid. Should this venerable committee
recommend my confirmation, my experiences in government, politics, and
the trade union movement will all make me a successful envoy at this
transformative crossroads. My management experience and leadership in
both grassroots and national politics, my leadership position on the
President's Transition Committee and my years as an officer with the
largest local union in America, have all equipped me with an
appreciation for operational efficacy which is essential for the
principal manager of one of the largest missions in Africa.
Furthermore, my service at the White House and with the health care
workers union allowed me to engage in public policy that had a clear
and discernible impact on the lives of average Americans and
disadvantaged communities. This knowledge would be employed in my
diplomatic career in a country that is negotiating the relationship
between labor and industry while tackling stubborn income disparities.
South Africans are rightly proud of the progress they have made in
their two decades of post-apartheid governance. They have tackled
innumerable problems with unmatched resolve. The much-documented crisis
in HIV care, sustainable housing, and widespread poverty have
galvanized the nation into noteworthy social accomplishments. South
Africa is currently administering antiretroviral treatment to a
staggering 1.6 million people. Delivery capacity has been improved to
the remotest regions of the country. And the government has risen to
take responsibility for PEPFAR care and treatment programs in the next
5 years. On the housing front, the government has built over 3 million
homes to provide shelter for over 13 million people. Entrenched poverty
is a persistent drag, but the country has developed institutions that
routinely deliver support grants for children and pensions for
millions. There is much that needs improvement but there is a
foundation for lasting change.
The United States has an ongoing vital role to play in President
Zuma's efforts to improve the quality and accessibility of education;
the struggle to combat high unemployment and by extension the epidemic
in crime; and the challenge of income inequality. Beyond our aid
assistance and technical expertise, our greatest contribution will be
in stimulating private sector investment and trade. This will be a
major priority for my mission if I am confirmed. I am pleased that more
than 600 American companies are already based in South Africa and I
will work to see that number grow. As we move toward negotiations on
the renewal of the African Growth and Opportunity Act we must work with
our South African partners to enact policies that benefit workers and
businesses on both sides of the Atlantic.
South Africa has a leadership influence that extends throughout the
continent, playing a key role in Madagascar, the DRC, Sudan and South
Sudan and in ensuring that Zimbabwe's upcoming elections are peaceful
and credible. We will continue to partner with South Africa to resolve
conflicts, to enhance our counterterrorism cooperation, to encourage
nonproliferation, to combat wildlife trafficking, and to facilitate
intraregional trade. South Africa's reach is indeed global in scope as
they advance policies at the U.N., AU, G20 and the BRICS. As the world
has collectively focused on Nelson Mandela's legacy, and he is in all
of our hearts right now, it's altogether right to pause to take in the
vista of progress but to then determinedly press on knowing the summit
is attainable. In that spirit, we must work with South Africa to engage
the next generation of leaders as is the focus of President Obama who
of course hosted the Young African Leaders Institute in Johannesburg.
Mr. Chairman, committee members, thank you for this opportunity to
address you today and thank you for your thoughtful consideration of my
nomination. If I am confirmed, I look forward to working with you all
to strengthen this important bilateral relationship. I look forward to
answering your questions.
Senator Coons. Thank you very much, Mr. Gaspard.
I will begin now our rounds, several rounds I suspect, of 7
minutes each of questions in succession to our different
nominees.
First, I would like to just open by thanking all of your
family members, spouses, children, coworkers, colleagues who
are present here. I am very conscious that the careers on which
you have already dedicated decades of service to this country,
often overseas, often in difficult and demanding posts, are
possible only because of the support of your families. So I
just want to start by thanking your families who have come, and
in particular those who are paying rapt attention and behaving
very well, Mr. Brigety, in case you had any concern about that.
[Laughter.]
If I might start, Ambassador Entwistle, you are choosing to
go from one challenging and engaging assignment to another and
I appreciate the seasoning and seniority that you will bring to
our relations in Nigeria. You served in the DRC during a
particularly flawed and difficult Presidential election. As you
commented in your opening statement, Nigeria has recently had
one of its most successful elections ever and moving toward
another round of credible, transparent elections is a vital
part of the steady progress toward a sustainable democracy.
What sorts of lessons do you bring from the experience in
DRC? What can the United States do to ensure steady progress
toward a free and fair electoral system in Nigeria? And how
relevant is this in a country that faces many other more
fundamental security challenges and economic opportunities?
Ambassador Entwistle. Thank you, Senator. Indeed, the
elections in the DRC were not what we hoped for. They were not
what the Congolese people hoped for. Hindsight is always
brilliant. Looking back, I think one of the first lessons would
be that, given the size of the country, the lack of
infrastructure, all of us in the international community were
focused on getting things ready for the voting process itself,
making sure that everyone could vote, put the ballot in the box
in every corner of that vast country. With the benefit of
hindsight, we should have been more focused on the next step:
What happens in the counting centers? Because it is very clear
to me that that is where the process fell down, in the counting
centers.
The other lesson I would learn, and it is not a
particularly original one, is the importance of what we say as
the U.S. Government. Looking back, I think we more or less said
the right things at the right moments, but I remain very
attuned to that. Having the privilege of being the U.S.
Ambassador gives you a pedestal from which to speak on these
issues.
So as we move forward toward elections in Nigeria, if
confirmed, I would take with me a focus on the whole process,
not just day one, and be very judicious and put a lot of time
and energy into when you speak out in public as the U.S.
Ambassador.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Ambassador. I am also mindful of
the importance of what we say. We do occasionally hold
hearings, adopt resolutions, and hope that they are heard in
some way. So I look forward to working with you, the Assistant
Secretary, and obviously the Secretary to ensure that we are
speaking in concert, in harmony rather than in dissonance.
I think in the runup to the election in Zimbabwe, electoral
outcomes in Kenya and in Senegal, the American voice has
mattered quite a bit. In the last Nigerian elections, the
strength of the Electoral Commission was particularly vital and
Senator Isakson and I in meeting with the immediate past chair
of the Electoral Commission were struck at how successfully
they deployed a nationwide network of volunteers to use a text
system on cell phones to validate what was being done at
polling stations and counting centers. I am hopeful that a
comparable system will be in place at this upcoming election.
If I could, I would ask for a comment on that and then one
other topic. As to Boko Haram, one of the most striking
conversations I had was with the archbishop and the imam of the
central mosque in Abuja during a week when there had been a
Boko Haram attack, literally 2 days before we arrived and 3
days after we left. It was that archbishop's cathedral that was
the focus of a really deadly Christmas Eve attack.
How can we work more effectively to achieve some measure of
development and stability in the north and to reduce the
tension, and how can we help support the security forces in
respecting human rights and in being more effective in
combatting Boko Haram?
Ambassador Entwistle. Senator, the United States and
Nigeria have been friends and partners for a long time and that
will continue for a long time. But I think the true test of
friendship and partnership are are you there when things are
not going well. As you know, they face a serious security issue
in the north with Boko Haram.
It seems to me that we need to help them with their
security response to Boko Haram. A key aspect of that will be
having the kinds of conversations that friends and partners
have about appropriate conduct of their operations against Boko
Haram. We have all seen the disturbing reports of heavy-
handedness by the military, and the problem with that and what
I look forward to discussing with them if confirmed is making
sure that their response does not alienate more people in the
north.
So those are the kinds of discussions that we need to have
as friends and partners. You put your finger, I think, on
another key aspect, which is this is happening in a part of the
country that is historically underdeveloped compared to the
rest of the country. In preparing for this I was surprised to
read that northern Nigeria I think has some of the worst health
statistics in all of Africa.
So it is making sure that the security force, which is
entirely appropriate--that response does not make things worse
rather than better. It is helping them to develop the northern
part of their own country. It is helping develop education. It
is helping young girls go to school. It is all sorts of things
that hopefully will lift up northern Nigeria and now allow Boko
Haram and related groups to exploit what is happening in
northern Nigeria right now.
Senator Coons. Thank you. I look forward to your leadership
on this and to working with you. I think Nigeria is a country,
as you mentioned in your opening, of enormous opportunity for
us, our largest export market for wheat in Africa, for example,
a major source of oil and other petroleum products. But I also
think there are real mutual opportunities in manufacturing, in
clean energy and sustainability. So I look forward to working
with you to find ways to further that.
Senator Flake.
Senator Flake. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all. I want to echo what the chairman said about
families. I know it is difficult. I lived about 3 years of my
life in southern Africa before any meaningful Internet. I think
it is a little easier today, but my guess is--Ms. Sullivan,
your family's experience in Accra, when was that?
Ms. Sullivan. We were there from 1997 to 2001, sir.
Senator Flake. A little more difficult then than it would
be now, I assume, with communications and Skype and everything
else with the extended family. It does make it easier, but it
is still difficult. So I appreciate the sacrifice that you make
and your families make. I am glad that they are here, and the
extended family and friends as well. It speaks well for all of
you to have such good support.
With regard to--let us talk about the Gulf of Guinea, Mr.
Entwistle and Ms. Sullivan. Is the United States doing enough
in terms of maritime security? You mentioned that the port
there is certified. Is that something that has to happen every
year? Is that an ongoing effort by governments there, regional
organizations? Is the AU sufficiently concerned?
I just want to make sure that we do not get to a situation
like we did in the Horn of Africa. Is the United States doing
enough? I will speak to those who are representing countries
that border the Gulf.
Mr. Entwistle.
Ambassador Entwistle. Thank you, Senator. I think we are
very involved in this. It has an immediate effect on us
because, as we discussed when I had the privilege of calling on
you, we have U.S. oil companies who have offshore platforms. So
this is not just a theoretical issue. It is a very real issue
for American companies who operate in Nigeria.
We are working with the appropriate Nigerian security
forces to improve their offshore response. We have a good bit
of success with that, but there is a lot more to do, not just
offshore in Nigeria, but throughout the Gulf of Guinea. But my
understanding is we are making good progress.
Senator Flake. Ms. Sullivan.
Ms. Sullivan. We have a very--compared to the size of the
mission in Brazzaville--we have a fairly robust engagement with
AFRICOM, and regular ship visits, joint exercises with the
Congolese navy. I think that the regular visits by the Coast
Guard to recertify--I am not quite sure of the exact frequency
that that occurs, but I can certainly take that question back
and give you a proper answer.
[Ms. Sullivan's written answer to Senator Flake's question
follows:]
Thank you for allowing me to add to the comments I made about
Congo's contribution to maritime security in the Gulf of Guinea at my
July 24 confirmation hearing. The U.S. Maritime Transportation Security
Act of 2002 mandates that the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) evaluate the
effectiveness of antiterrorism measures in foreign ports when ships
from those ports dock in the United States. In October 2011, the USCG
determined Congo was maintaining effective antiterrorism measures in
its ports and was in compliance with the International Ship and Port
Facility Security (ISPS) Code. U.S. legislation, the Maritime
Transportation Security Act, requires the Coast Guard to visit all
countries that trade with the United States on a biennial basis to
assess their compliance with the International Maritime Organization's
ISPS Code. Concerns about Congolese capacity to maintain a high
standard for port security led to follow up visits to the Republic of
the Congo.
These visits determined that the Congo was maintaining effective
antiterrorism measures in its deepwater ports and was in compliance
with the International Ship and Port Security (ISPS) Code. As part of
its compliance with the ISPS Code, the Congo is now required to undergo
a biennial Country Assessment (CA) of its port security. Previously it
was required to undergo an annual CA.
The assessment is only one piece of Coast Guard assistance and
engagement with the Republic of the Congo. The improvements Congo-
Brazzaville has made to its ports are part of a larger strategy to
integrate Congolese maritime operations, to enhance economic
development and competitiveness, to improve its ability to control its
territorial waters, and to combat piracy along with other countries
around the Gulf of Guinea. Congo is an effective regional partner in
regard to port security. The Republic of the Congo hosted, with U.S.
support, a Regional Port Security Workshop in Pointe Noire that was
attended by officials from Gabon, Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of
the Congo and Benin. Earlier this year, the Republic of the Congo also
stood up a maritime operations center in Pointe-Noire. The center is
staffed by personnel from countries along the West African Coast under
the auspices of the Economic Community of Central African States.
In addition, military-to-military cooperation remains an important
point of engagement with the Congolese Government. The Republic of the
Congo is active in the Africa Partnership Station (APS), the
international maritime security cooperation program led by the U.S.
Naval Forces Africa that provides intensive training through
multinational joint exercises and hands-on practical courses. Just this
year, a Congolese littoral interdiction vessel successfully
participated in U.S Africa Command's exercise that brought allied
navies together to train regional forces in coordinating counterpiracy
efforts.
The Republic of the Congo remains proactive and attentive to U.S.
engagement in all areas of security cooperation. If confirmed, I look
forward to working in partnership with the Government of the Republic
of the Congo on maritime security issues.
Senator Flake. Mr. Brigety, is there a role for the AU in
this regard?
Mr. Brigety. Senator, thank you for the question. Indeed
there is. As you well know, maritime security is a major issue
for the continent, not only for the security aspects, but also
for the impact on commercial activity.
With regard to the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea, as you
well know, through a robust international effort in which the
United States participated we have essentially reduced that
piracy level almost to be negligible. Yet, even as that has
happened, the rate of piracy in the Gulf of Guinea has
increased. There have been talks between the AU and a variety
of other partners, principally NATO and others, to see what
more can be done in order to enhance maritime security in the
Gulf of Guinea.
I should also say that on the staff of the U.S. mission to
the AU is a Navy captain, O6, whose sole job is to advice on
maritime security both to the Ambassador and also to the AU. So
this will continue to be a great focus of mine if I am
confirmed.
Senator Flake. Thank you.
Mr. Gaspard, with the Zimbabwe elections coming up, I think
South Africa has played a more useful role this time in the
leadup to the elections in statements that have been made by
the South African Government. What can we do in terms of the
mission in the outcome--you will get there after the Zimbabwean
elections have happened--to ensure that we can help as much as
possible aid that transition to democracy? All of us know that
those countries in the region, particularly South Africa, will
have the biggest impact on where we go in Zimbabwe. What can we
do and how can we help South Africa help Zimbabwe in this
regard?
Mr. Brigety. Thank you for your question, Senator. As
Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield rightly pointed out earlier,
we need to make certain that we are doing all that we can to
increase capacity between election cycles and to be mindful of
transparency issues and democratic capacity issues when
elections are not being litigated.
You are right, Senator, South Africa has played a helpful
and useful role of late. Of course, we should all be encouraged
by the March referendum in Zimbabwe, which was relatively
peaceful and enabled the people of Zimbabwe to go to the polls
to vote for term limits and other electoral reforms. Should
there be challenges in this upcoming election, I am certain
that our Ambassador in Zimbabwe, working with forces there in-
country and then partnering, of course, with us in South
Africa, will do all we can to elevate any crisis that arise
from that outcome and will make absolutely certain that in our
conversations with the South African Government we continue to
put particular emphasis on rule of law issues in Zimbabwe.
I should note that South Africa has its own economic and
political interests in a successful outcome in Zimbabwe. We all
of course are aware of some of the turbulence that has taken
place along the border with the recent refugee crisis in South
Africa. So it is incumbent upon the South African Government to
be particularly mindful of outcomes in Zimbabwe.
Senator Flake. Thank you.
Ms. Haslach, with regard to--you mentioned our interest in
helping the government there increase the political space that
is offered, that people operate under in Ethiopia. How is the
United States viewed when we offer advice in that regard? Is it
positively or negatively, and if it is negatively what can we
do to change that? How are we viewed?
Ambassador Haslach. Senator, thank you for your question. I
think we have a strong relationship with Ethiopia. Coming back
to the question that was asked earlier of Ambassador Linda
Thomas-Greenfield with regard to China, the example that
America sets of our steadfast commitment to the advancement and
the protection of human rights, democratic principles around
the world, we think that this actually provides hope for the
Ethiopian people.
I will certainly raise any issues we have with concern to
human rights and governance regularly if confirmed, like
Ambassador Booth is currently doing. We were very happy to see
that they had a historic peaceful and constitutional transition
with the last turnover of power after the death of Prime
Minister Meles. We will continue to use our private
conversations as well as make public statements when we feel it
is necessary to speak out in support of our principles.
We will also use formal mechanisms. We have a bilateral
formal working group on democracy and governance issues. And we
will use our U.S. assistance programs. Our USAID has a two-
pronged approach. One is trying to bring some of these
principles into our health, education, and business assistance
programs, as well as looking for opportunities with civil
society and communities on the ground.
So it will be a multipronged approach, and I expect
sometimes the Government of Ethiopia may not be pleased with
some of the statements and things that we say. We do not always
agree, but we talk to each other. We have a good dialogue. We
have a strong relationship.
Thank you.
Senator Flake. Thank you. I thank you all, and I appreciate
you coming by my office and I enjoyed the private conversation
and look forward to working with each of you in your new
capacity.
Thank you.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Senator Flake, and thank you for
your investment of time and your thoroughness in preparing for
this hearing today.
Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the
committee.
I will begin also with my congratulations to you for your
nominations and thank you for your service. I had an
opportunity recently to return from a congressional delegation
visit to the Middle East and Afghanistan, where I interacted
with a lot of our ambassadorial State Department, USAID
employees. I am just struck again and again by the challenges
of the work, but even the challenges just of physically moving
so often, at cost to family. I know there are up sides. I know
there are wonderful experiences as well.
But as somebody who has been in public life for 20 years
and always lived within a 2\1/2\ mile radius of other locations
where I have lived, I really honor the incredible sacrifice
that the family members make.
I want to offer a special congratulations to my friend,
Patrick Gaspard, somebody I really admire greatly. I am very
excited to see you on this distinguished panel.
I am not on the Africa Subcommittee of the Foreign
Relations Committee; I do not have the expertise that Chris and
Jeff have. But I have a passion for your work in a slightly
different way. I think it has been an American tradition to
have a foreign policy that moves along an east-west axis. We
had a foreign policy that was largely focused on Europe. That
was then changed to a foreign policy--and even when we were
engaged in Africa or, for example, in Latin America, the Monroe
Doctrine, it was largely a European foreign policy, with the
Southern Hemisphere nations sort of being an afterthought or a
theater of operations when the intellectual concern was really
Europe.
We then moved to a foreign policy in the aftermath of World
War II that was largely focused on the Soviet Union, and again
in Africa and Latin America we were engaged, but those
engagements were essentially side consequences of a focus on an
east-west foreign policy.
We have announced a pivot to Asia that I think is largely a
focus on China, again an east-west focus. It is very important
that we focus east-west, whether it is the Middle East or China
or Europe, but I just have a feeling that the world is going in
such a way that America needs a foreign policy that is every
bit as much about north-south as it is about east-west.
I am passionate about the Americas, but your work in Africa
will involve that same passion of creating a foreign policy in
tandem with our President, Secretary of State, Congress that is
not about Southern Hemisphere countries as afterthoughts or
attachments to an east-west foreign policy, but really respects
them for what they are, who they are, and especially what they
might be.
So I will just start with that observation and stop. If any
of you might have comments on that, I would love to hear it.
But I do think we are entering a new phase of our history where
having a foreign policy that has a north-south axis would be
the right thing for us to do. As people who have devoted a lot
of your time to countries on a north-south axis, I would love
to hear any comments you might have about that.
Ambassador Entwistle. Well, Senator Kaine, thank you. What
I find works well where I have the honor of serving now in the
Congo and everywhere else I have served, and I think it will be
the case in Nigeria as well if confirmed, is that what works
very well is just talking about our own experience, our own
history, talking about what has gone well for us, what has not
gone well, to acknowledge that our own experience of nation-
building has been difficult and taken a long time. I find in
particular that is something that Africans relate to.
As I get ready for Nigeria, I am struck by the similarities
in our history. Both of our nations, as you know, had
devastating civil wars. We are both coping with how do you deal
with extremist groups that threaten us, but in a way that
promotes the rule of law and human rights. We are both looking
at how do you extract energy, but in a way that respects the
people who live in those regions and the environment.
So I think if we tell our own story, allow Africans to draw
the lessons that they wish to from our experience, I think that
is an incredibly beneficial approach and I think it generally
works very well.
Mr. Brigety. Senator, thank you for your comment. If I may
add to Ambassador Entwistle's intervention, we have signed a
historic agreement with the African Union on February 1 of this
year. A memorandum of understanding was signed with the current
chairperson of the African Union, Dr. Dlamini Zuma, and former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on February 1, elevating the
nature of our partnership to that of a strategic partnership
with the African Union that will focus on the four broad areas
that I articulated in my testimony.
The signature of that memorandum of understanding suggests
that we understand as a country the strategic importance of
Africa, the strategic importance of the African Union, and that
we want to be equal partners in building a continent that is
peaceful and prosperous, not only because it is the right thing
to do, but also because it is in our interests.
I should also say that there are a number of enormous
indicators that I think our public needs to be aware of. Six of
the ten fastest growing economies in the world are in Africa.
Some 60 percent of the population of the continent is under the
age of 30. In many ways it really is the continent of the
future, and I think that we are hopeful that a variety of
interventions that our government is making will position us
well to have a very strong partnership with the continent in
the decades to come.
Senator Kaine. Ms. Haslach.
Ambassador Haslach. Senator Kaine, thank you very much.
When I first started working for the Federal Government, I
worked on Ethiopia. It was in the mid-eighties during a very
bad sub-Saharan drought. I was amazed when I went back when I
was working on the Feed the Future Initiative how much progress
had been made in the area of agriculture. A lot of that is due
to our assistance and our providing help in that area.
We share the same goals that Ethiopia has with regard to
development and investment. In fact, in their 5-year
development plan, they hope to meet all of the Millennium
Challenge goals. They hope to become a middle-income country. I
think that is where we really should be focusing a lot of our
efforts and energy, and that is an area where I think we can
share a lot of our experiences in helping them to open up their
economy in so many ways for the prosperity of both Ethiopia as
well as Africa as well as the United States.
Thank you.
Senator Kaine. Mr. Gaspard.
Mr. Gaspard. Senator Kaine, if I can, first thank you for
your incredibly generous comments at the top, and thank you so
much for your continued friendship and your phenomenal
leadership.
I think it is incredible actually, Senator, when you
consider the arc of very recent history. I can remember not
long ago being in Soweto right after President Mandela had been
released and observing all of the incredible disparities that
existed then and the enormous challenges as South Africans
struggled to really have some agency and ownership over their
own direction and over their own democracy. Now today we are
having conversations about the ways in which we need to work
with our partners in South Africa to overcome some of the
disadvantages that American businesses have in trading with
South Africa because of their trade partnership with Europe.
So it is incredible to come from a place where people were
incredibly disempowered to now being in negotiations with them
about increasing access to our markets. So it is an incredible
period of transformation. There are remarkable opportunities
that yet exist and some enormous challenges.
Earlier, Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield noted that it is
terribly important that as we continue to do things to
encourage trade with Africa that we still continue to
appreciate the need for increasing humanitarian capacity. It is
exciting that right now the United States military forces are
engaged in a humanitarian exercise with the South African
military in the eastern Cape right now today to expand South
Africa's capacity to help in neighboring states.
So great opportunities exist, and you are absolutely right
about the sweep of history and where we are today.
Senator Kaine. Ms. Sullivan--with your permission, Mr.
Chair.
Senator Coons. Of course.
Senator Kaine. Thank you.
Ms. Sullivan. If I may, Senator Kaine, thank you for your
interest in the relationship between the United States and
Africa. I agree with the statements of my colleagues. Also,
coming from a perspective of a former Peace Corps Volunteer, I
think we can build on the historical and cultural links that
have traditionally existed at this moment of confluence with
the potential and economic interests that we share with Africa.
I would just like to emphasize that we do have tools at our
disposal for enhancing mutual understanding, and exchanges that
exist in both the government sector and the private sector
really go a long way toward promoting dialogue and partnership
and helping establish those links and further deepen our broad
relationships with our partners in Africa.
Senator Kaine. Great, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Senator Kaine.
Let me, if I could, follow up on something that your
exchange with Mr. Gaspard just sort of highlights. You
mentioned the eastern Cape exercises today. I have met with
Chairperson Dlamini Zuma of the AU. There is a commitment by
the AU to create an African Standby Force by 2015. There is
deployed today for the first time in the eastern DRC a U.N.
mission that has an active mandate--it has been authorized to
take proactive military initiative in a way that was lacking
previously and that largely led to some of the M23 actions in
Goma.
There are, I think, enormous opportunities for us to work
to build regional structures, both through the AU and through
SADC, the East African Community, ECOWAS and others. And we
have seen some success in Somalia, in Cote d'Ivoire, in DRC, in
regional engagement by African nations.
How does the United States do a stronger, a better, a more
sustained job of partnering with the AU and of partnering with
countries like South Africa, countries like Nigeria, countries
like Ethiopia, where we have been supporting training,
deployment, resources, in support of peace, security, and
stability in Somalia, in DRC, in Mali, and in other places? I
think this is literally a question for every member of the
panel, please, because I believe Congo Brazzaville is also
contributing peacekeeping forces for the first time.
Peacekeeping on the continent, by the continent, led by
entities of the continent strikes me as far more desirable than
the model that has dominated over recent decades. In the Mali
conflict, a timely intervention by the former colonial power
may have been necessary, but I hope it is the last time that
such an intervention is necessary. And I am hopeful that the
African Union will, in fact, stand up an African Standby Force,
that South Africa will play a central contributing role, and
that Nigeria will be able to continue to play a central role in
peacekeeping.
I would be interested in each of you in turn just
commenting on how you think the United States can most
appropriately support the fielding of an African Standby Force
or other regional entity.
Mr. Brigety. Senator, thank you for your question. Perhaps
I can start by answering from the perspective of the AU. As you
correctly noted, the African Standby Force is one of the
central pillars of the African peace and security architecture.
There are challenges with fielding it. There are two principal
challenges as I see it. The first is financial and the second
largely has to do with the politics of regional integration on
the continent.
The good news with regard to the financial aspect is I
think that for the first time ever in its history the African
Union actually assessed its own members to help pay for AFISMA,
the African Union-led intervention force in Mali, to the tune
of some $50 million, which is significant in terms of
demonstrating responsibility of African solutions or at least
contributing to it for African peace and security.
Obviously, there will have to be other mechanisms to help
pay for this kind of robust, sustained security environment
over time. But the African Union understands that and I look
forward to working with them in that regard.
Frankly, in my view the issue of regional integration as it
relates to peace and security is a much more challenging
problem. As you well know, there are essentially five regional
standby brigades that are loosely aligned--that are directly
aligned to the five regions of Africa, but that are loosely
aligned in the various regional economic communities.
This is a problem that, frankly, is for the AU and for
Africans to solve. We have something of a role to play both in
terms of how we just engage and talk with our partners at the
AU. As you also know, the current incumbent, our current
Ambassador to the AU, is also duly accredited to the U.N.
Economic Commission of Africa, which has as part of its mandate
supporting regional integration in Africa. If I am confirmed, I
anticipate that Secretary Kerry will also accredit me to the
UNECA, and that I will be working very closely with UNECA to
help support broadly this issue of regional integration, which
not only has implications, frankly, for security, but also for
all the other economic issues that we have been talking about.
We have had successes in terms of our bilateral assistance
in supporting peacekeeping operations through the ACOTA
program, a program which I help supervise in my current
capacity as the Deputy Assistant Secretary. But clearly the
vision, as you correctly noted, that we have and that indeed
Africans have for themselves is to increasingly take
responsibility for their own security, and we are looking
forward to helping them do that.
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Coons. Ambassador Entwistle, as you take that up I
am interested in ACOTA and human rights training in particular
in the context of peacekeeping. Clearly, our training in Mali
perhaps failed to fully reinforce the idea of respect for
civilian control of military forces. But we are not responsible
for everything that happens everywhere in the world.
Ambassador.
Ambassador Entwistle. I agree completely with Ambassador
Brigety's comments. I think to me we need to help this process
happen, and the way we do that is through training. I think one
of the things that we as Americans can be very proud of is the
quality of military training we provide. I think we need to do
that to help build up African capabilities to handle their own
security crises.
In particular, I am thinking of what we call professional
military education, leadership training that involves training
on rule of law and leadership and respect for human rights when
dealing with civilians in conflict situations. I think within
the embrace of our Leahy vetting requirements we need to push
it and do as much as we can to help the Africans do better. I
believe in that very sincerely.
As I noted in my testimony, the Nigerians have a proud
history of working through ECOWAS on various crises in West
Africa. They are deployed around the world in other
peacekeeping operations. I think to the extent that the
situation at home permits them to do that we need to encourage
them to keep up that proud history.
Senator Coons. I agree.
Ms. Haslach, Ethiopia has played a central role in bringing
stability to Somalia. Yet there remain some real challenges,
both internal to Ethiopia and in its region. How do you think
we can work in support of Ethiopia and the AU while still
respecting human rights?
Ambassador Haslach. Senator, thank you very much, and thank
you for noting Ethiopia's role. They currently deploy troops
alongside the Somali National Army and the African Union
mission in Somalia, and they contribute nearly all of the
troops that currently serve as the U.N. Interim Stabilization
Force in Abiye and they were also involved in Darfur.
I echo what my colleague James Entwistle was saying with
regard to the positive impacts of our professional training and
would urge that we continue to fund those types of training.
Ethiopia has well-respected military troops and they have
actually contributed quite positively in these engagements. So
I think continuing to recognize the positive role that our
professional training, training in the areas of human rights,
very critical for our peacekeeping forces, that they be trained
in that, and that we continue to provide our support to that,
and of course working our support to the African Union as it
attempts to set up its own peacekeeping force.
Senator Coons. Ethiopia has been particularly constructive
in the Sudan-South Sudan conflict.
Ambassador Haslach. Yes.
Senator Coons. And regionally, our hope is to continue to
support them.
Ambassador Haslach. Thank you.
Senator Coons. Ms. Sullivan, what makes it possible for the
Republic of Congo to contribute to peacekeeping forces and what
more could we do in the region to help integrate them into a
regional security structure?
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you, Senator, for your interest. I
would note that Congo has a relatively modest-sized military. I
do not expect that they will be enormous contributors in the
future. But I think that there is a growing interest and will
toward contributing positively to the regional security
situation.
There is always the threat of refugee inflows on one side
of the border or another. I will note that as political chief
in Accra, Ghana, we did a lot of military training, and what I
really appreciated about the U.S. training at the time for
peacekeepers across the continent was the doctrine that we were
trying to harmonize for different countries so that they were
not all developing their own ways of doing things and then when
put all together, kind of like an all-star soccer team brought
in for the championship, doing things different ways and not
playing on the same page.
We also trained and equipped for interoperability as well.
We all know the down side of radios with frequencies that are
incompatible. So some of these fundamental things are areas I
think that we can from a broad regional perspective contribute,
as well as working with some of our other like-minded partners
who are also working in the professional development and
capacity-building.
Senator Coons. I agree, Ms. Sullivan. In my last visit, my
visit to Bamako in Mali, I met with a variety of the
international military leaders, Nigerian, Indian, and others,
and was struck by the challenge they faced in assembling the
AFISMA force from seven different nations of different
languages, different military traditions, different skill sets.
Mr. Gaspard, I am most optimistic about the United States-
South Africa relationship. South Africa really can, and should
be, a significant leader on the continent in terms of peace and
security, stability, democracy. Yet there remain tensions in
our relationship that I trace back to our being, some of
America, being on the wrong side of the liberation struggle. I
am very optimistic that your personal experience and your
commitment to strengthening this relationship can help move it,
accelerate its steady movement forward.
How do you view the task of strengthening United States-
South Africa ties and its possibility for taking a real
leadership role in the AU?
Mr. Gaspard. Senator, thank you for the question and for
your insights on this issue. You are right that we should be
encouraged by South Africa's ability to play an incredibly
helpful role in this regard. But we should note that there are
some capacity challenges that exist in the country. While South
Africa may have one of the largest and best prepared militaries
on the continent, of late there has been some shrinkage because
the country has rightly needed to focus resources on education,
health care, and other infrastructure issues.
We should also note that the South African military was
certainly impacted by the high rates of HIV infection in its
ranks. That being said, they continue to be an important
partner on counterterrorism cooperation in the continent and
they have been a true leader in encouraging nonproliferation
and we should all be encouraged by the exercises that I noted
today in the eastern Cape working alongside the U.S.
Government.
I should also note, just to echo some of what some of my
fellow nominees have said on the question of technical support,
in addition to the direct technical support we have extended to
the South African military, our technical support to the South
African policing forces is also essential in giving South
Africa the capacity to extend its reach throughout the
continent.
Regrettably, the South African military has had to really
be flexible in its mission because of a lack of capacity with
internal policing. That is improving, with our help. I am
looking forward to working with our regional security officer
in South Africa and of course with AFRICOM on these issues.
Senator Coons. Thank you. I think this is an area of broad
and sustained interest by members of this committee and by the
leaders both within AFRICOM and within State and USAID, and I
look forward to working with all of you on this in the months
and years ahead.
Senator Flake.
Senator Flake. I am good.
Senator Coons. Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Just very briefly, on South Africa, Mr.
Gaspard, you mentioned nonproliferation. One of the areas where
I think South Africa can play a wonderful leadership role and
would encourage you to work on this in tandem with our own
interests is in the nonproliferation area. I think it is the
case that there have only been three nations who have gone down
the path toward developing nuclear weapons and then decided,
you know what, we do not need nuclear weapons to have the right
kind of future for our nation--Libya, South Africa, and Brazil.
At least those are the ones that are publicly known. There
might have been others who made those decisions privately.
But I think that decision--we were moving toward a nuclear
weapons future, but then we realized for the good of our Nation
we could accomplish the right objectives without nuclear
weapons--in a world where we are really wrestling here with
Iran and with North Korea and potentially others, I think there
is a wonderful leadership opportunity for South Africa to play
in that message. So since you mentioned nonproliferation, I
just thought I would underline that and put an exclamation
point on it.
The second thing I would like to say, and again just sort
of a general question to all of you, is--and many of you
touched on the evolution of thinking about international
development from an aid perspective to promotion of trade. I
think it was President Nixon who took out of USAID the Overseas
Private Investment Corporation. At the time, maybe in the
1960s, aid was what do we grant, what do we give. There was a
realization that, well, maybe we can through entrepreneurship
and the involvement of the private sector promote development
and trade as well. OPIC was split out of USAID, and that was a
prescient move because it seems like that is the way most
international development has gone. Within a generation we have
gone from international development being sort of 80-percent
governmental moneys industry 20-percent companies or NGOs to
the reverse. It is about 80-percent companies and NGO now.
I would just like to have each of your sort of
perspectives. Some of you have addressed it briefly, but your
perspectives in your own role about international development,
broadly defined, and how you would hope to bring the
partnerships of today's international development to bear in
the missions that you will pursue.
Mr. Brigety. Senator, thank you very much for your
question. I will begin if I may. I am convinced that the next
historical phase in Africa's development is private sector-led
economic growth. We in the United States have the most dynamic
private sector in the world. The challenge, frankly, is getting
them to show up in Africa.
OPIC plays clearly a role in that. I can tell you, every
time I go to the continent I am surprised by how eager African
business leaders, African political leaders are for American
companies to show up. If I am confirmed, I will work very
closely with my colleagues in the Department of Commerce, in
OPIC, USTR, USTDA, et cetera, to try to see what more we can do
to use U.S.-AU as a platform to encourage American businesses
to show up and to engage in this important epic of Africa's
growth.
Senator Kaine. Great. Thank you.
Ambassador Entwistle. Senator, I feel that in our
development activities these are things we can be incredibly
proud of, like PEPFAR and things like that.
Senator Kaine. Absolutely.
Ambassador Entwistle. But I feel very strongly that
everything we do, every development activity, has to have a
component of building up the host country's ability to do it
themselves. For example, a health project should contain a
component of building up the health ministry and the health
infrastructure.
So in my current job and if confirmed in Nigeria that is
going to be an issue for me, is looking at everything we are
doing and asking the tough questions to find out, to be blunt,
are we working ourselves out of a job, as we should be, quite
frankly? So thank you.
Ambassador Haslach. I agree with both of my colleagues, but
I would just also add, Senator, I view this sort of as a
multiplier effect, where we plant the seed with Feed the Future
and then there is a private sector component that comes in
behind that and really has the resources and works locally with
local companies to really make this sustainable.
I think the same will go with our new initiative Power
Africa, where we sort of hope to light the fire there a little
bit. But really the focus on Power Africa is on the private
sector and using the tools, OPIC, EXIM, TDA, the ones that were
mentioned prior to that. So I see--there is plenty of room out
there for everybody. But the government, our role is sort of
promoting this, and then the private sector joining us as
partners. I think it works really well and partners with local
business and local communities.
Senator Kaine. Ms. Sullivan.
Ms. Sullivan. I would add that the prospect of U.S.
investment is a real incentive for improving the local business
climate, because the private sector companies are going to vote
with their feet, and if there is opportunity and a level
playing field and money to be made that will help everyone
American companies will come. If not, the opposite would
happen.
Senator Kaine. Mr. Gaspard.
Mr. Gaspard. Senator, I would just add that we should
appreciate that there is mutual benefit in encouraging this
kind of investment. Senator Corker in many instances has
rightly pointed out that we need to find ways in which we can
grow American jobs by investing in increased entrepreneurship
and trade with Africa. Very recently Eximbank moved significant
resources to a company that is building a railroad in South
Africa, and fortunately for us workers in States like Indiana
and Michigan have benefited in that one instance. So we need to
encourage more activity along those lines and recognize our
common interest in those outcomes.
Senator Kaine. Great. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Coons. Thank you.
If I might just follow up on my previous line of
conversation with several of you. There is a longstanding
partnership program between the U.S. National Guard of specific
States and specific countries. I do find in some countries that
it has allowed for a long-term training relationship that has
been effective with a number of countries. It is something I
have advocated for us to broaden and strengthen within the
National Guard Bureau in the countries where I have visited. I
have also had an opportunity to talk to the State adjutant.
One of the differences of having a long-term National Guard
to national military relationship is that, unlike other
commands, they do not rotate every 2 years. You can build a
long-term relationship with a homestate National Guard that
actually is sustained over a decade or more. And the National
Guard typically directly understands the civilian military role
and is often involved in things like disaster recovery, youth
training, and housing issues, that regular armed forces are
not. So just a small point on that.
If I might, Ms. Haslach, just to follow up on the questions
about Ethiopia and development: Feed the Future strikes me as
an initiative of enormous potential and breadth. I was
encouraged to hear that on your return to Ethiopia you were
struck at just how much progress had been made in terms of
resiliency, in terms of the strength of the smallholder farmers
across Ethiopia.
What else do you think we can be doing to help strengthen
the role of the private sector and to help strengthen the
partnership that will sustain this initiative and really bring
to an end the cycles of famine in the Horn?
Ambassador Haslach. I think there are two areas that I was
involved with. One has been working with them on improving the
quality of the seeds. Again, that is where our private sector
is very, very active. I am really pleased that they are also
not following the path of some countries by prohibiting certain
types of seeds to be used. Again, that is one area.
The other is in the area of moving beyond just growing the
food. It is processing the food, working with the private
sector in the next stage of processing and improving the
market, the farm to market access, as well as improving
regional trade between Ethiopia and its countries. That is an
area that I think we can give a little bit more focus and
attention to.
Thank you.
Senator Coons. Thank you for that followup.
If I might, Ms. Sullivan, I just have one other question if
I could about Congo. The President has been a somewhat
autocratic ruler, but the country is relatively stable, and it
has been a constructive player in what has otherwise been a
fairly volatile region. Under the constitution, if I understand
correctly, he is not eligible to run for reelection in 2016.
But we have seen in other countries across the continent--
Senegal might come to mind--a challenge where there is an
effort to amend the constitution to allow another term or to
sort of steer succession.
How do you think you will promote the twin goals of
democracy and stability in this particularly challenging
environment?
Ms. Sullivan. Senator, you have raised one of the key
issues that, if confirmed, I will certainly focus on. I think
that it is not only the external perspectives, but clearly the
internal perspectives. We have talked about country ownership
as it relates to development. The same is true for
democratization.
So one of the things that the Embassy has been doing and I
will continue to work on if confirmed is building up the
capacity of the civil society organizations that are focused on
issues of accountability to the people and transparency in
government operations.
I think that the Congo has a really great opportunity in
2016 to show and start establishing a legacy of smooth
transitions. It is only really come out of the civil war in the
last decade or so and ever since independence in 1960 had a bit
of a turbulent past. I think people are interested in
stability. I think we can continue to work with all of our
partners within the government and the private sector and our
like-minded colleagues in the diplomatic corps as well to help
the Congolese realize what an opportunity they have in 2016 to
start that tradition of a smooth democratic transition.
Thank you.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Ms. Sullivan. I suspect, as
Ambassador Entwistle testified, one of our broader challenges
is being engaged in elections up to and then following on the
day of election. One of the challenges I know the Assistant
Secretary and I will work on is the relative scale of resources
for democracy and governance, which is a very small portion of
our total budget.
We are facing other critical issues. One of them, Mr.
Gaspard, as you well know, is the historic investment by the
United States through PEPFAR in dealing with what is one of the
greatest global pandemics. We have really turned a corner in
terms of our relationship with South Africa and country
ownership for funding and sustainment of PEPFAR. But in a very
vigorous series of discussions I had in South Africa both in
Soweto and in Cape Town with legislators, with advocates, with
providers, and with the Health Minister, the trajectory of the
United States-South African partnership and PEPFAR will require
I think your close attention and will demand some active
engagement.
How do you see the path forward? How will we ensure
successful transition in terms of full ownership of PEPFAR from
the United States to South Africa, and how do we persuade the
South Africans that we are not abandoning this core commitment
of the United States? That we intend to remain a strategic
partner in the fight against HIV-AIDS.
Mr. Gaspard. Senator, thank you for this question about a
core pillar of the South Africa mission going forward. We
should be encouraged by the progress that has been made in
South Africa on the question of country ownership of the PEPFAR
program. We are well on track to be able to meet the goals, the
ambitious goals that were laid out for our 2017 drawdown and
for South Africa's increased investment in this realm.
There continue to be, of course, some very, very real
challenges, particularly as it relates to deficits in personnel
in South Africa. There are some real shortages of social
workers, front-line nurses who can administer these programs,
and there is a need for more technicians as we transfer support
from NGOs directly into the government health sector. In some
of the most remote regions of the country, there are still some
challenges in getting antiretroviral medications to those who
are in need.
So real progress has been made, but there is a real
challenge before us that I know that we will be able to meet.
I should also note that when you consider that 60 percent
of new infections in the country are focused on women and
girls, there is something that we need to do in particular to
make certain that women are receiving not only the aid that
they need, but that they are playing a vital leadership role in
this transition because they are most impacted by the outcomes.
Senator Coons. There are, as you well know, Mr. Gaspard,
there are enormous challenges and opportunities here. I am
particularly excited about the skills and strengths you bring
from your 1199 union years to understanding the delivery of
health care and the development of a whole new cadre of health
care workers.
There is also across the continent, but in particular in
this context, real challenges of gender-based violence as a
mechanism of transmission and real challenges in terms of
cultural sensitivity and our investment in delivering the kind
of rule of law and accountability systems that allow for
respect and protection of women that I think are a critical
next step in the work against HIV-AIDS in South Africa. And I
am eager to work with you and support you in any way I can
because these are quite difficult conversations, but ones that
must be had, investments that we need to make.
A last question for you, if I might, Mr. Gaspard. In my
last trip to South Africa, every conversation with a South
African official began and ended with AGOA. It was the one
thing they wanted to know that we would work steadfastly
toward. Senator Isakson, who is now in the Finance Committee,
is passionate and determined to help this happen. Congresswoman
Karen Bass has been quite engaged in it.
But as we visited several facilities in South Africa, the
sort of core question was, has South Africa outgrown AGOA? The
luxury car market--South Africa takes better and broader use of
AGOA than any other country. My hope would be that we would
seriously consider its scope and whether there are ways that it
can be tweaked or retooled so that it will be as effective as
possible in opening and sustaining a very real and enduring
relationship.
Most of AGOA has really had an impact just in textiles and
apparel. In South Africa it is everything from steel to citrus
to wine to luxury automobiles, and it is literally billions of
dollars a year in trade into the United States market, which I
think is tremendous.
SASOL also recently made a direct investment in Louisiana
in the United States, and I think we are at a critical moment,
as you observed--I had great conversations with the Minister of
Trade about this--that we can really talk about a mutual
relationship.
How do you think AGOA ought to be rebalanced or
reconsidered in light of South Africa's growth and progress and
in light of the opportunities across the continent and in all
the other countries to which there are nominees sitting with
you today?
Mr. Gaspard. Senator, thank you for the question. My
conversations with you about this issue and conversations with
Congresswoman Karen Bass have done much to inform my thinking
on AGOA. I think, as you rightly noted, there are many
questions about whether or not South Africa should continue to
benefit from this program. I think it is important for all of
us to appreciate that South Africa continues to be really two
countries, two dichotomous countries. We have got one South
Africa that of course is an important leader, not only in sub-
Saharan Africa, but as a member of the BRIC's leads in trade on
the continent and is a place that many would like to go to
continue to conduct business.
We should also appreciate that South Africa also right now
has a formal unemployment number of roughly 25 percent of the
population. That number doubles when you consider youth
unemployment, and there are many new university graduates in
South Africa who are seriously challenged to find opportunities
to employ their new skills.
In the decade since AGOA passed, there are roughly 70,000
jobs in South Africa that can be attributed directly to AGOA
trade and countless others that have benefited from collateral
trade. However, there is just so much more that needs to be
done in order to close the income disparities in that country.
I know that in your conversations with the Minister of
Trade in South Africa you noted some of the ways in which
American companies are currently disadvantaged in trade with
South Africa, and I think that as we have the conversation
about AGOA renewal it is tremendously important that we make
clear that there is a need for those on both sides of the
Atlantic to benefit going forward.
Senator Coons. Thank you.
As I have had conversations with United States business
leaders who are investing in South Africa, one just last week.
I have urged them to take the model of skills transfer,
technology transfer, and investment. Not a mercantilist
approach to seeking a market but a mutuality approach that
begins with here are ways that we will invest in and help grow
the future and potential of South Africa.
I have just three more brief observations I will make. Do
you have more questions, Senator Kaine?
Senator Kaine. No, thank you.
Senator Coons. First, generally the Millennium Challenge
Corporation--I have visited projects and sites across a number
of countries--we have not touched on at great length here
today, but I have found to be a compelling vehicle for long-
term engagement, particularly in countries--you mentioned in
Ethiopia--where there is real alignment between development
goals and our objectives. I hope that each of you will find a
way to work, if appropriate, if relevant, with the MCC as
another tool in our toolkit.
When we raised human rights issues, whether it is
journalistic freedom or the transition to democracy, we
sometimes ruffle feathers. Ambassador Entwistle, as you go to
Nigeria I have particular concern for an anti-LGBT bill that
has been taken up and considered in the Parliament and that may
move to the President. I am hopeful that you will be mindful of
a strong commitment to human rights on the part of the United
States and in particular to respect for people of all sexual
orientations.
I had a particularly compelling recent visit with a
Zimbabwean woman who has sought asylum in the United States
after being horribly tortured in Zimbabwe simply for who she
loves. So I think that is an important piece of our human
rights agenda in Africa.
Then last, Mr. Gaspard, just a reflection that I think was
encouraging. In meeting with South African parliamentarians, I
was struck at how many other countries had recently sent
delegations to South Africa as a place from which to learn
about reconciliation. A team of Iraqis from Iraq's national
assembly had just left and were looking to South Africa as a
model for how possibly Kurds, Sunnis, and Shia could learn to
live together in Iraq.
This is a continent of enormous opportunity and enormous
challenges. I am grateful for each of you for your willingness,
for your family's willingness, to continue in your careers in
public service, and I very much look forward to visiting you in
your respective countries in the months and years ahead.
Senator Kaine, any further questions?
Senator Kaine. No, thank you.
Senator Coons. With that, I would like to thank each of the
nominees today. I look forward to voting for your confirmation
both in the committee and on the floor. It is my hope that we
will accomplish this swiftly. I am very conscious of the
pressure on families and the beginning of school years and the
need to make transitions and so forth.
Any members who were not able to attend today I will ask to
submit any questions for the record by the close of business
today so that we can conclude this record in a timely fashion
and move toward a business meeting next week.
With that, with my appreciation to my colleagues who joined
me today, this hearing is hereby adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:11 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record
Response of Hon. Linda Thomas-Greenfield to Question Submitted by
Senator Robert Menendez
Question. The President's recent trip to Africa was well-received
for the new and expanded initiatives he announced, including the new
Power Africa and Trade Africa Initiatives, an expansion of the Young
African Leaders Initiative, and the initiation of an annual summit-
level meeting among the United States and African countries. These
initiatives build on the legacy of prior administrations with the
introduction of PEPFAR, AGOA, the MCC, and other initiatives.
In what ways is Africa strategically important for the
United States, and is the level of our engagement sufficient
relative to its strategic importance? What can the United
States do to improve our engagement with Africa?
Answer. Dramatic changes that have taken place in sub-Saharan
Africa over the past decade make the continent ever more important to
the United States. Some of the fastest-growing economies in the world
are on the continent--a growth that reflects an increasingly vibrant
private sector, improved business climate, and expanded opportunities
for U.S. trade and job creation. There has also been great progress in
governance and democratization, though remaining challenges require our
continued engagement. Africa's security is increasingly linked to
global and U.S. national security. We and the international community
continue to be required to assist Africans in countering terrorism and
drug, human, and wildlife trafficking that grows in ungoverned spaces
on the continent. By the same token, with our and others' help, African
nations have increased their capability to end conflicts and preserve
peace in Africa and beyond with their militaries.
As I indicated in my testimony, our engagement in Africa must
proactively and comprehensively address these opportunities and
challenges. The President's 2012 Presidential Policy Directive and our
many initiatives designed to spur economic growth, combined with the
African Leaders summit announced during the President's recent trip,
certainly reflect a heightened engagement with the continent. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with African nations to use these
initiatives to strengthen democratic institutions and foster sustained
equitable economic growth. Also, if confirmed, I will ensure that the
resources of the Bureau of African Affairs are dedicated to an
enhanced, holistic engagement with Africa.
______
Response of Hon. James F. Entwistle to Question Submitted by
Senator Robert Menendez
Question. Boko Haram is growing increasingly active with a rising
number of attacks against state and civilian targets. Attacks now occur
almost daily in northeast Nigeria and have increased in reach and
lethality beyond this region. The bombing of the U.N. building in Abuja
on August 24, 2011, represented a shift from an exclusively domestic
focus to international targets.
How would you characterize the Nigerian Government's
response to Boko Haram? What approach would you take to help
address the problem and strengthen America's relationship with
Nigeria on security issues?
Answer. As the Secretary of State stated in May, ``We are deeply
concerned by credible allegations that Nigerian security forces are
committing gross human rights violations, which, in turn, only escalate
the violence and fuel extremism. The United States condemns Boko
Haram's campaign of terror in the strongest terms. We urge Nigeria's
security forces to apply disciplined use of force in all operations,
protect civilians in any security response, and respect human rights
and the rule of law.'' As part of this effort, it is vital to protect
civilian populations and respect Nigeria's human rights obligations; to
reestablish public trust with local communities; and to improve the
professionalism of the security services.
If confirmed, I will continue to convey our concerns that a heavy-
handed approach is counterproductive to addressing the threat posed by
Boko Haram, and urge the Nigerian Government to address drivers of
conflict, including poverty, food insecurity, disenfranchisement, lack
of quality government services, and frustration with corruption and
poor governance. The State Department and USAID will continue to assist
these efforts.
______
Response of Hon. Patricia Marie Haslach to Question Submitted by
Senator Robert Menendez
Question. Human Rights groups continue to characterize Ethiopia by
its restrictive environment for political opposition groups, media, and
civil society. Several pieces of legislation, such as the Anti-
Terrorism Proclamation, and the Charities and Societies Proclamation
have institutionalized the government's grip on dissenting views.
Successive U.S. administrations have committed to advancing human
rights and democracy in Ethiopia, yet it's not clear what initiatives
are in place to address these.
How will you deliver the message that an open democratic
environment ultimately promotes stability and prosperity, and
by extension its partnership with the United States?
Answer. Ethiopia is an important partner in the Horn of Africa and
one of the United States priority countries on the continent. Our
partnership allows us to raise democracy and human rights concerns
frankly and honestly. One of the key ways we express concerns,
including on the restrictive environment for political opposition, the
media, and nongovernmental organizations, is through a formal bilateral
dialogue on democracy, governance, and human right messages. Three such
dialogues have occurred since we began the process in 2011. Along with
providing an opportunity to discuss concerns, the dialogue allows us to
identify constructive opportunities to work toward improving the
environment. I will seek to schedule the next dialogue early in my
tenure as Ambassador, if confirmed. Though much of our engagement with
the government is private, we also publicly demonstrate support for
civil society. Our statements in reaction to the verdicts and sentences
in Ethiopia's high-profile terrorism cases involving journalists and
the political opposition are examples of this. Equally important was
our notable presence at the trials. As I did during my previous
ambassadorial appointments and if confirmed, I will deliver the tough
human rights messages both privately and publicly, because, as
Secretary Kerry has stated, ``we believe very deeply that where people
can exercise their rights and where there is an ability to have a
strong democracy, the economy is stronger, the relationship with the
government is stronger, people do better.''
______
Response of Stephanie Sanders Sullivan to Question Submitted by
Senator Robert Menendez
Question. The United States has supported capacity-building
initiatives for the Armed Forces of the Republic of Congo for several
years. The goal is to professionalize the Congolese military, which in
turn contributes troops to regional peacekeeping missions. As we have
seen in Mali and the Democratic Republic of Congo, U.S.-trained forces
do not always have a healthy respect for civilian oversight, or for
human rights of the general population.
Can you explain the types of U.S. assistance to the Armed
Forces of the Republic of Congo, and the regional security
interest that serves? How are we ensuring that the troops we
train will continue to serve in the interests of the Congolese
people?
Answer. Military capacity-building is one of the key points of
engagement between the United States and the Republic of the Congo. The
U.S. Mission in Brazzaville has a strong engagement with AFRICOM,
especially in relation to the Embassy's size. The Republic of the Congo
benefits from approximately $100,000 annually in International Military
Education and Training (IMET), which is managed by the U.S. Office of
Security Cooperation at the U.S. Embassy in Kinshasa with the
assistance of Embassy Brazzaville personnel. A key component of almost
all IMET training is the reinforcement of human rights norms and
civilian control of the armed forces.
Two other programs that directly impact the Congolese people are
the Humanitarian Mine Action (HMA) training as well as the Defense
Institute for Medical Operations (DIMO). HMA is designed to train a
cadre of Congolese officials how to identify and make safe unexploded
ordinance. This training is especially relevant in the wake of the
deadly munitions depot explosion that occurred in Brazzaville on March
4, 2012, resulting in hundreds of deaths and the destruction of
thousands of homes. With a professional unit of Explosive Ordinance
Disposal (EOD) technicians at its disposal, the GOC will be better able
to eradicate any unsafe munitions, as well as better understand how to
store munitions and to avoid further injury to the civilian population.
DIMO is an ongoing project that trains Congolese military officials
in a wide range of medical related topics, from trauma nursing to
disaster response. This training has a direct impact on the citizens of
the ROC because the Congolese military routinely provides a variety of
medical care to the civilian population. The military hospital in
Brazzaville, which is one of two public hospitals in the capital,
provides 24-hour emergency care to civilians. Additionally, the GOC
periodically erects field hospitals throughout the Congo with the
intent of serving the local population. These field hospitals provide
free care and medicine to hundreds of civilians a day in the area to
which they are deployed.
The Republic of the Congo has a modestly sized military of around
8,000, and is currently contributing 350 troops to the peacekeeping
mission in the Central African Republic. The United States sees this
deployment as a positive step in the ROC's efforts to bolster regional
engagement and stability. The Congo is also playing a major role in
regional maritime security in the petroleum-rich region of the Gulf of
Guinea. Earlier this year, the Congo established a maritime operations
center in Pointe-Noire. The center is staffed by personnel from
countries along the West African Coast under the auspices of the
Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS).
In all our military cooperation and assistance activities, we seek
to instill higher professional standards in the forces with whom we
work, so that there is a stronger commitment to serving civil society
and complying with international human rights norms. We also provide
joint training and common standards to strengthen interoperability so
that forces of varying abilities from different countries are able to
function cooperatively.
______
Response of Patrick Hubert Gaspard to Question Submitted by
Senator Robert Menendez
Question. After Zimbabwe's disputed 2008 election, former South
African President Thabo Mbeki, acting through the Southern Africa
Development Community (SADC), was able to secure an agreement between
President Robert Mugabe and Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai. South
Africa subsequently assumed the role of overseeing its implementation.
How would you characterize South Africa's role in overseeing
the Global Political Agreement in Zimbabwe, particularly under
the stewardship of President Zuma?
Answer. President Zuma has played a critical role in pursuing
political reform in Zimbabwe. He and the Southern African Development
Community (SADC) want Zimbabwe's elections to go well. South Africa's
goal has been a stable, peaceful, democratic Zimbabwe that reflects the
will of its people and provides for a prosperous future. South African
mediation helped pull Zimbabwe back from the brink of political and
economic collapse and was instrumental in establishing a government of
national unity. It also helped sustain the long and difficult process
of developing Zimbabwe's new constitution.
South Africa has taken its facilitation role seriously, applying
steady pressure on all parties to implement the roadmap in the face of
political setbacks and protracted delays. While there has been real
progress in Zimbabwe, such as the recent adoption of a new
constitution, there is wide concern that few of the agreed-upon media,
security sector and electoral reforms have been fully implemented. We
are especially concerned that the rush to an election on July 31 may
not have provided sufficient time for voter education and registration
and review of voters' rolls, putting the credibility of the outcome at
risk.
The large team of election observers fielded by SADC will play a
critical role in verifying the credibility of the upcoming election and
its conformance with internationally accepted electoral standards.
Given the exclusion of most other international election observers, the
presence of SADC and African Union observers is doubly important to
deter political intimidation, vote rigging and violence, which would
undermine the credibility of the election and 5 years of work by South
Africa and SADC.
______
Response of Dr. Reuben Earl Brigety II to Question Submitted by
Senator Robert Menendez
Question. In May, the African Union marked 50 years since the
founding of its predecessor, the Organization of African Unity (OAU).
How operationally effective are the main institutions of the AU, in
particular the AU Commission and the Peace and Security Council? What
main institutional challenges does the AU face, and in what ways could
the United States more effectively help the AU build its capacity,
particularly in partnership with other donors?
Answer. The AU's ability to positively shape the African continent
has developed dramatically in the past decade, as evidenced by such
initiatives as the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) and the AU
High-level Implementation Panel's mediation of conflict between Sudan
and South Sudan. However, significant capacity challenges still exist:
the AU sometimes encounters funding shortfalls, and it does not yet
have the capacity to absorb all of the funding it does receive due to
understaffing.
African Union Commission (AUC) Chairperson Dlamini-Zuma has made
strengthening the AUC's capacity and reforming its operations key
priorities. She has welcomed assistance from her home country South
Africa and other AU Member States, and international partners including
the United States in providing staffing, staff funding, and training.
The AU is currently exploring alternative sources of financing,
including possible continental taxes on air travel or on insurance
policies, but in the near future, the AU budget is likely to be
predominantly drawn from Member States' dues and contributions from
international partners.
In FY 2012, the U.S. Government funded seven technical staff
positions in the AU and held three innovative training sessions for
five AUC departments interested in cross-department cooperation on
trade in services. The United States and AU are exploring a number of
areas under which the two sides can cooperate on our mutual goals of
economic development, strengthening governance, and promoting peace and
security on the African Continent, which are outlined in the U.S.-AU
Memorandum of Understanding signed by Former Secretary of State Clinton
and Chairperson Dlamini-Zuma on February 1, 2013.
______
Responses of Hon. James F. Entwistle to Questions Submitted by
Senator Marco Rubio
Question. What is the reason behind the administration's hesitation
to designate Boko Haram a foreign terrorist organization? In addition,
is it not a policy anomaly that the leaders responsible for the
organization's current ethos have been designated terrorists, but the
organization they lead has not?
Answer. The Department does not comment on deliberations related to
Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) designations, but we can provide
you a classified briefing on this issue. As you note, we have
designated a number of Boko Haram's senior commanders as Specially
Designated Global Terrorists, shining a light on their horrific acts
and cutting off their access to the U.S. financial system. The State
Department has also offered Rewards for Justice for select members of
Boko Haram that have ties to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. The
designations of individuals and organizations for terrorism, while
frequently overlapping, are made separately.
Question. Is there a certain threshold of terrorist activities that
Boko Haram must commit before the entire organization is designated?
If, so what is that threshold?
Answer. The Department does not comment on deliberations related to
Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) designations, but we can provide
you a classified briefing on this issue. We are constantly assessing
the nature of Boko Haram and those who claim to be its adherents. There
is an ongoing, active process to review U.S. efforts to counter the
threat posed by Boko Haram, including the appropriateness and
effectiveness of specific terrorism designations. This process includes
regular high-level dialogue with the Nigerian Government about its
strategy toward Boko Haram and specific areas of U.S. assistance.
Question. What work is the administration engaged in regarding the
prevention of child marriage in Nigeria? In particular, how do you plan
to address the issue considering a girl under 18 who is married is
considered an adult?
Answer. A recent vote in the Nigeria's legislature to change the
age at which a Nigerian citizen may renounce his or her citizenship was
erroneously reported as the Nigerian Senate voting to legalize underage
marriage. To date, there are no laws in Nigeria that say girls under
18, if married, are considered adults. Embassy officials regularly meet
National Assembly members, local officials and leaders of
nongovernmental organizations to discuss all human rights matters,
including women and children's rights. If confirmed, I will continue to
work with Nigerian officials to address these important issues.
______
Responses of Hon. Linda Thomas-Greenfield to Questions Submitted by
Senator Richard J. Durbin
Question. Last winter, I authored an amendment to the National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that requires the State Department and
the Treasury Department to impose visa bans and asset freezes on anyone
found to be supporting the M23 rebel group operating in eastern
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). There have been multiple,
public records, including from the U.N. Group of Experts and Human
Rights Watch, that state that the M23 rebels receive support from
officials in the Rwandan Government. A similar statement was issued
from the State Department's spokesperson herself on July 23, 2013, and
the same statement was issued during the fighting in Goma in late 2012.
Who from the names listed in Group of Experts report of
2012, the more recent Group of Experts interim report released
earlier this month, or from any other source has been subject
to a U.S. visa ban?
Answer. Under Executive Order (EO) 13413, the Department of
Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated Bosco
Ntaganda on April 28, 2010; Sultani Makenga on November 13, 2012;
Myamuro Ngaruye Baudoin and Innocent Kaina on December 18, 2012; and
Jean-Marie Runiga and Eric Badege on January 3, 2013. We continually
assess available information regarding individuals who may meet the
criteria in EO 13413. Individuals designated by OFAC under EO 13413 are
also subject to visa restrictions under Presidential Proclamation 8693.
As for any action taken with regard to a visa application for an alien
who has been so designated, the confidentiality provisions of section
222(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act would apply.
Question. My understanding is that as of this month, no individuals
were yet subject to this visa ban (nor have any waivers been invoked)--
at least 6 months since enactment of the bill. If correct, why is that
the case and how does State justify this significant discrepancy?
Answer. More generally, we are continuing to collect information
and assess whether additional individuals should be subject to a U.S.
visa ban or other sanctions. Additionally, consistent with section 1284
of the NDAA for fiscal year 2013, the Department has taken steps to
watch-list individuals involved in or who have provided support to the
M23 rebel group or its predecessor the National Congress for the
Defense of the People (CNDP) in our consular lookout database, Consular
Lookout and Support System (CLASS.) We have taken action to ensure that
individuals designated by OFAC will be identified in visa screening. We
consider the U.N. Group of Experts report along with other available
information when making determinations about watch-listing individuals
who may be involved with the M23. Again, the confidentiality provisions
of section 222(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act would apply to
any individual visa record.
The State Department pursues these efforts as part of its broader
work, in concert with interagency partners, to advance peace and
security in the DRC. The Department has informed your staff that we
will discuss these developments with your office in the near future.
text of amendment
SEC. 1284. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO SUPPORT FOR THE
REBEL GROUP KNOWN AS M23.
(a) Blocking of Assets--
(1) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall,
pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) or Executive Order 13413 (74 Fed. Reg.
64105; relating to blocking property of certain persons
contributing to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo), block and prohibit all transactions in all property and
interests in property of a person described in subsection (c)
if such property and interests in property are in the United
States, come within the United States, or are or come within
the possession or control of a United States person.
(2) Exception.--
(A) In General.--The requirement to block and
prohibit all transactions in all property and interests
in property under paragraph (1) shall not include the
authority to impose sanctions on the importation of
goods.
(B) Good Defined.-- In this paragraph, the term
`good' has the meaning given that term in section 16 of
the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App.
2415) (as continued in effect pursuant to the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.
1701 et seq.)).
(b) Visa Ban.--The Secretary of State shall deny a visa to, and the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall exclude from the United States,
any alien who is a person described in subsection (c).
(c) Persons Described.--A person described in this subsection is a
person that the President determines provides, on or after the date of
the enactment of this Act, significant financial, material, or
technological support to M23.
(d) Waiver.--The President may waive the application of this
section with respect to a person if the President determines and
reports to the appropriate congressional committees that the waiver is
in the national interest of the United States.
(e) Termination of Sanctions.--Sanctions imposed under this section
may terminate 15 days after the date on which the President determines
and reports to the appropriate congressional committees that the person
covered by such determination has terminated the provision of
significant financial, material, and technological support to M23.
(f) Termination of Section.--This section shall terminate on the
date that is 15 days after the date on which the President determines
and reports to the appropriate congressional committees that M23 is no
longer a significant threat to peace and security in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo.
(g) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Appropriate Congressional Committees.--The term
`appropriate congressional committees' means--
(A) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs, the Committee on Armed Services, and the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Financial Services, the
Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on
Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.
(2) M23.--The term `M23' refers to the rebel group known as
M23 operating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo that
derives its name from the March 23, 2009, agreement between the
Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the
National Congress for the Defense of the People (or any
successor group).
(3) United States Person.--The term `United States person'
means--
(A) an individual who is a United States citizen or
an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence to
the United States; or
(B) an entity organized under the laws of the United
States or of any jurisdiction within the United States.
NOMINATIONS OF JAMES COSTOS, DENISE BAUER, JOHN GIFFORD, JOHN EMERSON,
AND DAVID PEARCE
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 25, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
Hon. David D. Pearce, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to Greece
John B. Emerson, of California, to be Ambassador to the Federal
Republic of Germany
John Rufus Gifford, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador to
Denmark
Denise Campbell Bauer, of California, to be Ambassador to
Belgium
James Costos, of California, to be Ambassador to the Kingdom of
Spain and to serve concurrently and without additional
compensation as Ambassador to the Principality of
Andorra
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Christopher
Murphy, presiding.
Present: Senators Murphy, Boxer, Shaheen, Kaine, and
Johnson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER MURPHY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Murphy. Good afternoon. We will call this hearing
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to order.
To begin with, we are going to have very brief opening
statements from myself and Senator Johnson. Then we will
proceed with the introduction of the witnesses, many being made
by my colleagues and possibly at least one to join us. And then
we will proceed to your opening statements, just to get you
ready.
I will start to my left and go down the row, starting with
Mr. Costos for opening statements.
I am pleased to welcome all of our nominees and their
friends and families who have come here to support them today.
We are considering today the nominations of David Pearce to
serve as Ambassador to Greece, John Emerson to be Ambassador to
the Federal Republic of Germany, John Rufus Gifford to be
Ambassador to Denmark, Denise Campbell Bauer to be Ambassador
to Belgium, and James Costos to be United States Ambassador to
Spain and Andorra.
As I said at our last hearing, probably one of the most
overused words in diplomatic circles these days is ``pivot.''
While the United States clearly faces a lot of new and emerging
threats and challenges from Asia, our most important, long-
lasting, and unbreakable alliance is with Europe.
Almost without exception when the United States faces a
crisis, we turn to Europe first. And almost without exception,
Europe responds.
It does not mean we do not have our disagreements, but it
is going to be your job to help strengthen and maintain this
vital security relationship while expanding on our economic
relationship.
All the countries of which we are discussing today are
members of the European Union, amongst the first members of
NATO, and from Syria to Afghanistan, from climate change to
counterterrorism, the nations to which you have been nominated
serve on the front line as partners to the United States.
Each of you are going to play a critical role in success of
the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which
requires the agreement of the European capitals as well as the
European Parliament.
You are going to represent the United States in discussions
urging our friends to keep working to resolve the eurozone
crisis and encourage them to keep up the momentum on necessary
reforms.
And I hope that you will work with our colleagues to
advance the cause of human rights, both on the European
Continent and beyond.
You are also going to hear complaints from our European
friends.
You are going to be charged with explaining the U.S.
interests in global information gathering to prevent attacks on
both the United States and European soil. And you will also
hear criticism that the United States leads too often from
behind on the issue of climate change.
The President has recently clearly and strongly reiterated
his commitment to changing this perception, and I hope that you
will be on the leading edge of a renewed effort to stand side
by side with Europe in combating the disastrous increase in
global temperatures.
We congratulate you all on your nominations. We look
forward to this hearing and hope that the Senate will work to
quickly and positively respond to your confirmations today.
We have got a full panel. So let us get busy with
introductions. And well, actually first, let me recognize
Senator Johnson for his opening statement and then we will do
introductions.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON JOHNSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN
Senator Johnson. I will be quick. First of all, thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
I certainly want to join you in congratulating the nominees
for your nomination. And I also want to thank you for your
willingness to serve. Thank you for your past service as well.
I also want to thank you for stopping by my office, Mr.
Emerson. I am sorry that our schedule kind of conflicted.
I certainly believe America is a phenomenal force for good
in the world. It is your job to represent our interests and,
certainly, hopefully, convey to the countries you are going to
be representing America to about our goodness.
But your job also is then to report back and represent the
countries you are going to be Ambassadors to, to not only this
country, but also this committee. So again, I just want to
thank you for your willingness to serve and wish you the best
to luck.
And with that, I will end my comments.
Senator Murphy. Senator Feinstein, welcome, and I know you
have a busy schedule and cannot stay. So we would love to have
your introduction of our one of our guests first.
STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I am delighted to see my friend and colleague, Senator
Boxer, here.
And if she were speaking, I would say just ``ditto,'' and I
hope she would say the same thing for me, because I think I can
speak for her as well by saying that John Emerson is a friend
of ours. He is the President's nominee to be the next
Ambassador to Germany.
And a little bit about him. He is the son of a Presbyterian
minister, raised in the suburbs of New York City. He attended
Mamaroneck High School outside of New York before earning his
bachelor's degree from Hamilton College in 1975. In 1978 he
received a law degree from the University of Chicago.
Then he moved to Los Angeles to practice with the law firm
Manatt Phelps & Philips, specializing in business and
entertainment litigation and administrative law.
In 1982, he was appointed by the Governor to the California
Law Revision Commission, where he served for 2 years. In 1984,
he became a partner in Manatt Phelps. He left the firm in 1987.
He also served as deputy chief and chief of staff to the
Los Angeles City Attorney, Jim Hahn. He left in 1993 to join
the Clinton White House as a deputy assistant to the President.
In that role, he was the economic conference coordinator for
the Clinton-Gore transition of 1992, was the deputy director of
the President's personnel in 1993. He was the chair of the
Federal Interagency Task Force on the Northridge earthquake.
That recovery was in 1994. He was the coordinator for the GATT
implementing legislation in 1994, and he helped on the renewal
of China's Most Favored Nation status in 1996.
He was the deputy director of intergovernmental relations
for the administration, which was the outreach to governors
throughout America.
He left the Clinton administration to become the President
of the Capital Group, which is one of the world's largest
investment management firms. In 1998, he was named to the Los
Angeles Mayor's blue ribbon committee on public safety
infrastructure. He joined the Pacific Council on International
Policy, and he has been a member of the Council of Foreign
Relations.
From 2008 to 2012, he served as a board member of the Los
Angeles Mayor's Trade Advisory Council. In 2010, he was
appointed by President Obama to serve on his advisory committee
on trade policy and negotiations, and he remains at this time a
member of that committee. He retains his membership in the
California State Bar.
Now, I think both Barbara and I have known John for a long
time. He is a man with amazing followup, drive, and
determination.
I actually think he will be superb Ambassador to Germany. I
understand he speaks the language. He is interested in the
country. As you will see, he is articulate. He is verbal. He is
likable. And he is sort of the total package.
So I am very happy to be here to put in a few words for
him, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Senator Feinstein. I
know you have other events to attend to.
Senator Feinstein. I do.
Senator Murphy. But I thank you for being here with us.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Thank you so much.
Senator Murphy. And with that, I would like to recognize
Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
I am not going to say ditto because----
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer [continuing]. I want to put my remarks in the
record and be clear.
But I certainly am not going to go through John's resume,
because it is exhausting just to listen to it, let alone to
have lived it. [Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. And I just want to say to colleagues here on
both sides of the aisle, I think you have a wonderful panel
before you, and we are lucky to have these folks come forward.
I do want to point out there are two other Californians on
the list today sitting before us: Denise Campbell Bauer to be
Ambassador to Belgium, and James Costos to be the U.S.
Ambassador to Spain.
I want to say to all of you who are sitting here,
congratulations.
And to my Californians, I want to say a special thank you,
because I know in California, we have an optimistic can-do
spirit. And I know you will bring that spirit to your very
important jobs.
Well, I certainly consider myself fortunate, as Dianne
does, to have known John for more than 20 years. And I, too,
have seen him excel in every endeavor, including in the public
and the private sector.
I also know he is a wonderful husband and a wonderful dad.
And I also know that his wife is here
Kimberly, will you stand up?
She is taking pictures now. [Laughter.]
Recording the moment. Welcome.
And what I want to say to all the families who are here,
thank you. I often say you are serving our country, too. You
are. The whole family signs up. When one of your members goes
into Diplomatic Service or into the military, it is a family
deal.
And I want to say that as I look at John and I think about
this assignment, I just think it is so tailor-made for you,
John. Your interest in Germany, the fact that you do speak the
language.
And when I look at all of your experience, I know that your
private sector skills will come to play as you work to
represent our Nation in working with Germany and the whole
European alliance by extension, because they are really a
leader in many of the economic solutions there.
You bring that private sector experience to the fore. And
you will also bring your public sector experience to the fore
when you have to deal with national security matters.
So in closing, let me say, I hope we are going to move
these nominees quickly. We need to have our best and brightest
out there on the ground. It is a world that is changing. It is
a world that deals with all kinds of problems and challenges.
And I just really believe that we have a panel here that is
up to the task. And just knowing John as I have for so long, I
just want to say I can give you clear assurance on that one
because I know and I have watched him.
Thank you very much.
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
And now, for introduction of Mr. Gifford, Senator Kaine.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIM KAINE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, to committee
colleagues and to the panel, congratulations to all of you.
There are a number of friends sitting on this panel, and it
is a treat to be here today on a special day for you.
I had a chance to visit the Middle East and Afghanistan
with six Senators about a month ago, Senator Cornyn led a
delegation, and it was really a powerful one. And as we were in
Turkey, Jordan, the UAE, Afghanistan, we spent a lot of time
with some of the best and brightest in this country, people who
are Ambassadors or working in embassies in those countries.
And it was really a spectacular opportunity to see the best
of America at work, but also to come to understand in a little
bit more dramatic way the challenges and sacrifices to do the
job, hearing about people's careers and certainly they were
exciting places that they had been, but the number of times
they had moved and the challenges and sometimes living in some
tough parts of the world, you really made me proud of folks who
work in these capacities.
And you will have your challenges. But you are going to be
great Ambassadors. You are joining a wonderful, wonderful
collegial fraternity and sorority of American public servants.
I am happy to introduce my friend, Rufus Gifford.
Rufus is from Massachusetts. He spent most of his
professional career in California.
But, John, I guess he did not call Senator Boxer and
Feinstein faster than you did, so he has got a Virginian
introducing him. [Laughter.]
Aside from that, that is probably to his detriment, but it
is to my pleasure because Rufus is a great friend.
I had an opportunity to work very closely with Rufus during
the Obama campaign in 2008, when I was chairman of the
Democratic National Committee and he was the head of our
finance operation. And then, again, in both the campaign in
2012 and in his work in the inaugural.
And I will just say, Mr. Chair, a couple of things about
Rufus.
Consummate professional. Consummate professional with
always a positive attitude. Great leadership skills in all of
the capacities he has had in professional life, from his time
doing film and television production to his work in the
political realm.
He has had to build teams. He has had to lead teams. He has
had to inspire teams. He has had to set ambitious goals and
then leverage the power of relationship-building to achieve
them. Team-building and leveraging the relationships to achieve
goals is a key part of what you'll do in this role.
He will think outside the box, not wedded to old views and
ideas, but willing to be creative. A significant degree of
honesty and integrity. Not afraid of a challenge. You do not
take on a fundraising job if you are afraid of a challenge, and
Rufus has done that and done it well.
But something that I think is really important is--and
there are many friends of Rufus's in this room, and you are
going to know exactly what I mean when I say this. To do the
jobs that he has had to do, he has had to be a real diplomat, a
real diplomat, because, I would like to say that every person
he has dealt with along the way has been incredibly happy. And
I know from experience that that is not always been the case.
And Rufus has been able to be a great problem-solver to deal
with folks whether they are happy or unhappy and make them feel
listened to and make them feel included. And that is something
that I value about him, and I relied on him.
And finally, Rufus is a master of hospitality. He is from
Massachusetts, but I give him an honorary Southerner degree in
hospitality area. And that is part of what an Ambassador does
as well is making American visitors feel welcome, and then
making those of the host country feel that they are also
welcome as friends.
And Denmark is a great ally. Denmark has been with us in so
many national security alliances, as a NATO ally. Denmark has
been a key partner of ours from the very beginning in
Afghanistan. It is a close security relationship. It is a close
economic relationship.
When I was Governor of Virginia, Maersk, A.P. Moller-
Maersk, one of the major Danish firms that has shipping
operations around the world, had a huge Virginia presence. And
so we have very close economic and security ties.
I am happy that we are sending somebody to be Ambassador to
Denmark that the Danish will know is someone that the President
cares very deeply about. And by sending somebody like Rufus to
do that job, it sends a message to folks in Denmark that they
are important and that the relationship is important.
And so, for that, Mr. Chair, I recommend Rufus without
hesitation. He is going to make this country proud in this
role.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Senator Kaine.
It gives me pleasure to introduce three other of our
panelists.
First, from my left to right, let me welcome James Costos,
who is our nominee to serve as Ambassador to Spain. There are
going to be rare people who come before this panel who have
such a deep background with regard to success both in the
private sector, with the diversity of experience that Mr.
Costos has had, and just a commitment to philanthropy,
representing our ideals as you head off to represent us in
Europe.
Mr. Costos is a respected leader with global business
experience. He is currently the vice president of global
licensing and retail at HBO and was previously the president
and CEO of Eight Cylinder Inc., and head of promotions and
consumer products at Revolution Studios.
Earlier in his career, Mr. Costos served in high-level
positions at Hermes and Tod's in New York. A dedicated
philanthropist, he is on the board of directors at the Humane
Society of the United States and is active on human rights
issues.
Mr. Costos obtained a degree in political science from the
University of Massachusetts. He will be serving in a country
that has hit very difficult economic times, has a strained
relationship with Europe, but one that is more interdependent
than ever, a country with strong national security ties to the
United States.
We welcome you here today to the panel.
Let me now introduce Denise Bauer. Actually, I think I
butchered your name at the beginning, because I am confusing
you with one of our previous nominees, Dan Baer, and I do not
think it will be the last time in Europe that Denise Bauer is
confused with Dan Baer, our nominee to the OSCE.
But Denise brings to this position an overwhelming
commitment to community that she has displayed throughout her
life. She began her career in broadcast journalism as a
producer at KCBS News in Los Angeles, and later worked for the
American Red Cross in San Francisco.
She went on to become a leader in her community of
Belvedere, CA, serving in an organizations such as the
Belvedere Parks and Open Space Committee, the Belvedere Women's
Forum, on the board of directors of the Belvedere Community
Foundation, and the list just goes on and on.
More recently, Ms. Bauer found a way to pursue her long-
time interest in politics and public service at a national
level by joining the Obama for America team as finance chair
for women, as the cochair of the Democratic National
Committee's National Issues Conference, and chair of the
Women's Leadership Forum.
As Denise and I got the chance to talk privately, though
our relationship with Belgium, hopefully, will be rather
uncomplicated over the next 4 years, your post is one of the
most important in Europe, because you are at the intersection
of the United States and European politics.
And as we try to negotiate this trade agreement, which
could be transformational for the United States, it will be
Brussels in many ways that will decide whether this agreement
moves forward or does not.
And the fact that you will be sitting as the welcoming
committee for U.S. diplomats and European diplomats during this
challenging time makes your role even more important and
critical.
And last, let me introduce and welcome David Pearce, no
stranger to this committee. He has dedicated his life to
serving the United States and our diplomatic interests abroad.
He is nominated to be the United States Ambassador to
Greece, but he has had a highly distinguished Foreign Service
career, most recently serving as the Deputy Special
Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and before that as
our Ambassador to Algeria.
At the beginning of his time in the Foreign Service, he
served as a Greece country officer, and so this is in part a
full-circle journey for Ambassador Pearce.
He began his career in journalism covering the foreign
desks for such publications as the Associated Press, United
Press International, and Rome Daily American, and the
Washington Post. He has published a book on diplomacy and the
media, received numerous awards, speaks six languages.
I want to also thank your family, Mr. Ambassador, for their
service as well. I know that you have your wife and children
here with them today.
We know that when you commit your life to public service
abroad, you do it as a family, and we welcome them here today.
I know that other members have families here, and I know that
you will introduce them, I hope you will, when your turn for
remarks comes.
So with that, let us get to the testimony of our witnesses.
Let me first introduce James Costos.
STATEMENT OF JAMES COSTOS, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO
THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN AND PRINCIPALITY OF ANDORRA
Mr. Costos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senators.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak before this
distinguished committee as President Obama's nominee to serve
as the United States Ambassador to Spain and Andorra.
But before I begin today, I would just like to take a
moment to express my heartfelt condolences to the family and
friends of the victims of last night's train crash in Santiago
de Compostela in Spain.
The U.S. Embassy in Madrid is working closely with our
Spanish counterparts to provide for U.S. citizens who need
assistance. I know our thoughts and prayers are with all of
them.
I would also like to take this most important moment to
introduce the most important people in my life who are with me
today as they are every day. My parents, first-generation
Greek-Americans who instilled in our middle-class family the
values of hard work, self-reliance, and service, exemplified by
my father's tenure as a U.S. Marine who was stationed at Camp
David under President Truman.
My sister, Maria, a teacher's aide, is here.
And, of course, I am so grateful and proud that my partner,
Michael Smith, of 14 years is also here. I am certain he will
also represent our country very well.
My passion for service and community involvement began at a
very young age, and I have remained politically and
philanthropically active ever since, serving on the board of
the Humane Society, working with the Human Rights Campaign,
dedicating my time and resources to arts and cultural
institutions, and supporting the effort to elect President
Obama.
Today, it would be the greatest honor and privilege of my
life to represent the values and interests of the country I
love in Spain and Andorra.
As an HBO executive responsible for global marketing and
licensing, my leadership must inspire and gain the respect of
employees in a large company. I manage by empowerment, and I
develop my team to make decisions that allow them to take
ownership of their work if they succeed or if they fail.
In the end, all that we do is for the greater good of the
organization and those we serve.
If confirmed, the same will be true of my tenure as
Ambassador. I will work to strengthen America's relations with
Spain and particularly within the NATO alliance. Spain has been
critical in supporting U.S. and NATO operations and Spain's
strategic military bases in Rota and Moron host four Aegis-
equipped U.S. destroyers and a 500-strong special Marine task
force to provide rapid response to threats against America's
interests in the region.
Spain is also a serious and committed partner in
Afghanistan.
If confirmed, I will continue to strengthen our
relationship with Spanish defense officials and make sure the
Spaniards know how much we appreciate their shared commitment
to investing in democracy and freedom around the globe. And I
will encourage Spain to continue with its support of shared
U.S. and NATO efforts.
Above all, I will work every day to ensure the safety and
security of the 170,000 U.S. citizens in Spain and millions of
visiting U.S. tourists reinforcing the cooperation amongst law
enforcement agencies in the United States, Spain, and Andorra.
If confirmed, I look forward to relying on my extensive
business experiences to encourage more commerce between Spain
and the United States. With the Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership negotiations well underway, I will work
with Spain to move these free trade negotiations forward by
meeting and listening to the concerns of government officials
and the Spanish people, traveling the country to raise
awareness about the economic benefits of this agreement, and
using traditional and social media to engage in public
diplomacy on America's behalf.
I will also focus my strict attention on intellectual
property rights issues, engage with the Spanish and Latino
population in the United States and the United States-Spain
Council to help encourage more business opportunities and
investments, and make it a priority to focus on youth
entrepreneurship and engagement using technology, science, the
arts, cultural, educational, and sports exchange programs.
I believe the values I was raised with, my deep commitment
to social and cultural issues, and the business experience I
have gained over the past several decades, have uniquely
prepared me for this role to strengthen our partnership and
champion America's values and interests.
I am deeply committed to the economic and foreign policies
of the country we love. And if confirmed, it would be the
greatest honor to serve America in this official capacity as
the Ambassador to Spain and Andorra.
I thank you for your time, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costos follows:]
Prepared Statement of James Costos
Chairman Murphy, Ranking Member Johnson, members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to speak before this distinguished
committee as President Obama's nominee to serve as the United States
Ambassador to Spain and Andorra. I would also like to thank the most
important people in my life for being with me today, as they are every
day.
My Mom and Dad are second-generation Greek-Americans who instilled
in our middle-class family the values of hard work, self-reliance, and
service, exemplified by my father's tenure as a U.S. Marine who was
stationed at Camp David under President Truman.
My sister, a teacher's aide, is also here; as is my niece, who I'm
proud to say is a recent graduate of nursing school. And of course, I'm
so grateful that my partner, Michael, of 14 years is here, who will be
a great asset to our country. He is equally committed to representing
the very best of American art and culture to Spain, Europe, and
visitors from all over the world.
My passion for service came from my parents, and my community
involvement began at a very young age, when I volunteered with the
local Chamber of Commerce in Lowell, MA, to help revitalize our city. I
have remained politically and philanthropically active ever since,
serving on the board of the Humane Society, working with the Human
Rights Campaign, dedicating my time and resources to several arts and
cultural institutions and supporting the effort to elect President
Obama.
Today, it would be the greatest privilege of my life to represent
the values and interests of the country I love in Spain and Andorra.
Spain is an important historical ally of the United States and if
confirmed, I will add to our more than 200 years of diplomatic history
to further our shared interests. I believe that my experience as an HBO
executive responsible for global marketing and communications should
serve our country well as we tell America's story in Spain and Andorra.
A diplomatic mission, like a company, is comprised of multiple
departments, all of which must be relied upon to move business forward.
At HBO, my leadership had to inspire and gain the respect of employees
in a large company with over 100 external business relationships in
dozens of countries. I managed by empowerment, and developed my team to
make decisions that allowed them to take ownership of their work if
they succeeded or if they failed. In the end, all that we do is for the
greater good of the organization and those we serve.
If confirmed, the same will be true of my tenure as Ambassador. I
will work to strengthen U.S. relations with Spain bilaterally,
multilaterally, and particularly within the NATO alliance. As you know,
Spain's strategic military bases in Moron and Rota host U.S. forces on
both a permanent and rotational basis and have been critical in
supporting U.S. and NATO operations from Iraq to Afghanistan to Libya
for more than a decade. In recognition of the strategic nature of these
bases, the United States sought and was granted authorization to
station four Aegis-equipped U.S. destroyers, along with their crews and
families in Rota, beginning with two ships in 2014. In March of this
year, Spain also authorized the temporary use of Moron to base a 500-
strong Special Marine Air-Ground Task Force to provide rapid response
to threats against U.S. interests in the region, especially in northern
and western Africa. If confirmed, I will continue to strengthen our
relationship with senior Spanish defense officials and make it a
priority to visit these bases and the U.S. service men and women, and
their families, protecting the United States and our allies.
Spain has been a serious and committed partner in Afghanistan for
more than a decade and, as a key NATO member, has been an important
contributor to the international community's peace and security agenda.
I also intend to make sure the Spaniards know how valued they are and
how much we appreciate their shared commitment to investing in
democracy and freedom around the globe. If confirmed, I will encourage
Spain to continue its support of shared U.S. and NATO efforts in
training, advising, and assisting the Afghan National Security Forces
in post 2014 Afghanistan as well as supporting peacekeeping operations
in Africa.
Above all, I will work every day to ensure the safety and security
of the 170,000 U.S. citizens in Spain and millions of tourists--
reinforcing the strong cooperation among law enforcement agencies in
the United States, Spain, and Andorra in combating terrorism, piracy,
and drug trafficking, and working with the Government of Spain to
encourage legitimate business and tourist travel and to prevent
unauthorized travel to the United States.
If confirmed, I look forward to relying on my extensive business
experiences to encourage more commerce between Spain and the United
States. With the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
negotiations just beginning, I will work with Spain to move these free
trade negotiations forward by meeting and listening to the concerns of
government officials and the Spanish people, traveling the country to
raise awareness about the economic benefits of this agreement, and use
traditional and social media to engage in public diplomacy on America's
behalf. I will also pay special attention to working with our Spanish
partners to protect Intellectual Property Rights, to ensure the proper
policies and legal mechanisms are in place to encourage investment and
innovation, and to protect the rights of businesses that trade and
invest transatlantically. I am also focused on engaging with the
Spanish and Latino population in the United States to help encourage
more Spanish-American exchanges, and uncover new business opportunities
and investments. Additionally, I want to focus on youth engagement
using technology, science, arts, cultural, educational and sports
programs.
I am deeply committed to furthering the economic and foreign
policies of the country we love, and it would be the greatest honor to
serve the United States in this official capacity. I believe that the
values I was raised with and the business experience I have gained over
the past several decades have uniquely prepared me for this role. Spain
is a valued partner of the United States on vital issues and we must
continue engaging bilaterally and multilaterally to the benefit of both
countries and the European Union. If confirmed, I will use my time as
Ambassador to strengthen our partnership and champion the United States
values and interests.
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Costos.
Ms. Bauer.
STATEMENT OF DENISE CAMPBELL BAUER, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE
AMBASSADOR TO BELGIUM
Ms. Campbell Bauer. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Chairman and
members of this distinguished committee, it is a great honor to
appear before you today as President Obama's nominee to serve
as the United States Ambassador to the Kingdom of Belgium.
I am deeply grateful to President Obama and Secretary Kerry
for the confidence they have placed in me.
If confirmed, I will look forward to working with this
committee and the Congress as I proudly dedicate myself to
protecting and advancing U.S. interests in Belgium.
Belgium is a valued NATO ally, and the United States and
Belgium have a long history of friendship and close
cooperation. Belgians today still remember the generosity of
ordinary Americans who sent food and medical aid during World
War I, as well as the sacrifices made to liberate Belgium
during the Battle of the Bulge 70 years ago this December.
Since then, our relationship has grown even stronger and
Belgium has taken an important leadership role on the
international stage. The United States has worked with Belgium
on many issues of mutual interest, such as counterterrorism and
countering violent extremism, expansion of trade relations,
NATO missions in Afghanistan and Libya, and peacekeeping
missions in the Middle East and Africa.
Belgium shares our commitment to promoting security,
stability, and human rights around the world.
Belgium is also one of our most important trading partners.
In 2012, the United States exported nearly 30 billion dollars'
worth of goods and services to Belgium. U.S. companies have
substantial investments in the Belgian economy, including in
the chemical, automotive, petroleum, and pharmaceutical
sectors.
The negotiations of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership present an opportunity to further expand this
relationship. As President Obama said, America and Europe have
done extraordinary things together before. And I believe we can
forge an economic alliance as strong as our diplomatic and
security alliances.
If confirmed, I will encourage Belgium to play a positive
role in the trade negotiations and will work to expand American
exports to Belgium and to help create more jobs and greater
prosperity for the American people and Belgians alike.
In his statement before the Senate Committee, Secretary
Kerry said, American foreign policy is defined by food security
and energy security, humanitarian assistance, the fight against
disease and the push for development, as much as it is by any
single counterterrorism initiative. It is defined by leadership
on life-threatening issues like climate change, or fighting to
lift up millions of lives by promoting freedom and democracy.
I believe in this approach to foreign policy. If confirmed,
I will embrace Secretary Kerry's diplomatic vision for
furthering the interests of both the United States and Belgium,
and will proudly lead an accomplished group of American
interagency professionals and locally engaged staff.
As you know, this past Sunday was a historic day for
Belgium. His Majesty King Philippe was sworn in as the seventh
King of the Belgians.
If confirmed, it will be my privilege to work with the
people of Belgium and their new king in opening this important
new chapter in the long history between our nations.
In closing, if I may, I would like to take a moment to
thank my family and friends for their incredible support
through all life's journeys, particularly my husband, Steve,
and our wonderful daughters, Katherine and Natalie. They are
home in California now, but, should I be confirmed, they will
join me in Belgium and will be part of a team effort. They
share my commitment to serving our country and my appreciation
of the vital role diplomacy plays in international peace and
prosperity.
Once again, Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished
committee, thank you very much for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Campbell Bauer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Denise Campbell Bauer
Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished committee, it is a
great honor to appear before you today as President Obama's nominee to
serve as the United States Ambassador to the Kingdom of Belgium. I am
deeply grateful to President Obama and Secretary Kerry for the
confidence they have placed in me.
If confirmed, I will look forward to working with this committee
and the Congress as I proudly dedicate myself to protecting and
advancing U.S. interests in Belgium.
Belgium is a valued NATO ally, and the United States and Belgium
have a long history of friendship and close cooperation. Belgians today
still remember the generosity of ordinary Americans who sent food and
medical aid during World War I, as well as the sacrifices Americans
made to liberate Belgium during the Battle of the Bulge 70 years ago
this December. Since then, our relationship has grown even stronger and
Belgium has taken an important leadership role on the international
stage. The United States has worked with Belgium on many issues of
mutual interest, such as counterterrorism and countering violent
extremism, expansion of trade relations, NATO missions in Afghanistan
and Libya, and peacekeeping missions in the Middle East and Africa.
Belgium shares our commitment to promoting security, stability, and
human rights throughout the world.
Belgium is also one of our most important trading partners. In
2012, the United States exported nearly 30 billion dollars worth of
goods to Belgium. U.S. companies have substantial investments in the
Belgian economy, including in the chemical, automotive, petroleum, and
pharmaceutical sectors. The negotiations of the Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership present an opportunity to further expand this
relationship. As President Obama said, ``America and Europe have done
extraordinary things together before. And I believe we can forge an
economic alliance as strong as our diplomatic and security alliances.''
If confirmed, I will encourage Belgium to play a positive role in
the trade negotiations and will work to expand American exports to
Belgium to help create more jobs and greater prosperity for the
American people and Belgians alike.
In his statement before the Senate Committee, Secretary Kerry said,
``American foreign policy is . . . defined by food security and energy
security, humanitarian
assistance, the fight against disease and the push for development, as
much as it is by any single counterterrorism initiative. It is defined
by leadership on life-threatening issues like climate change, or
fighting to lift up millions of lives by promoting freedom and
democracy.''
I believe in this approach to foreign policy. If confirmed, I will
embrace Secretary Kerry's diplomatic vision for furthering the
interests of both the United States and Belgium, and will proudly lead
an accomplished group of American interagency professionals and Locally
Engaged Staff.
As you know, this past Sunday was a historic day for Belgium. His
Majesty King Philippe was sworn in as the seventh King of the Belgians.
If confirmed, it will be my privilege to work with the people of
Belgium and their new king in opening this important new chapter in the
long history of friendship between our nations.
In closing, if I may, I would like to take a moment to thank my
family and friends for their incredible support through all life's
journeys, particularly my husband Steve, and our wonderful daughters,
Katherine and Natalie. They are home in California now, but, should I
be confirmed, they will join me in Belgium and will be part of a team
effort. They share my commitment to serving our country and my
appreciation of the vital role diplomacy plays in international peace
and prosperity.
Once again, Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished
committee, thank you very much for this opportunity.
I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Ms. Bauer.
Ms. Campbell Bauer I am happy to answer any questions.
Senator Murphy. Thank you.
Mr. Gifford.
STATEMENT OF JOHN RUFUS GIFFORD, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE
AMBASSADOR TO DENMARK
Mr. Gifford. Mr. Chairman, Senator Johnson, and members of
the committee, thank you for permitting me this opportunity to
appear before you as the President's nominee for the position
of United States Ambassador to the Kingdom of Denmark.
It is a tremendous honor to be asked to serve in this post,
and I thank President Obama and Secretary Kerry for their
confidence in me.
I am joined here today by my mom and dad. And while my
partner, Dr. Stephen DeVincent, could not be here, I am honored
to be joined by a number of family and friends.
Throughout my life, whether I was working in the
entertainment industry, self-employed, or in politics, my
success was determined by my ability to build a strong team, to
set and exceed goals, and to establish new and innovative ways
to accomplish the mission.
If confirmed, I hope to bring the professional skills I
have built over the course of my career to the Embassy in
Copenhagen. I believe that leadership means investing in each
and every one of your employees. I believe in pursuing a
specific set of goals that are aggressive yet achievable. And,
in my mind, innovation in all of its forms is vital to success.
Diplomatic relations between the United States and Denmark
began in 1783 when Denmark negotiated a commercial treaty with
our brand new country. Since then, the relationship between the
United States and Denmark has endured and thrived because we
both share common principles and ideals, value our
comprehensive partnership, and are committed to leading by
example throughout the world.
If confirmed, my goals for the mission are as follows: to
maintain and strengthen our country's already strong
relationship. The Danes make outsized contributions across the
board to global peace, security, and development.
Denmark is a country of fewer than 6 million people, but it
is not shy about investing its resources and manpower in
efforts to promote stability around the world. As close NATO
allies, we are committed to each other's security.
Danes stands shoulder to shoulder with U.S. service men and
women in Afghanistan, and Denmark's support of the missions in
Kosovo and Libya has also been critical. Denmark's significant
contributions to peace and security also come in the form of
stabilization and development assistance programs in Africa and
the Middle East.
Two, trade and economic prosperity. We must not just focus
on the bilateral relationship in this ever-changing world but
also the multilateral relationship. The Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership, or TTIP, will be a significant focus of
our work in the coming months. Denmark is a logical partner in
this incredibly bold initiative.
But we cannot center our business relationship around TTIP
alone. The United States is Denmark's third-largest trading
partner. More than 250 Danish companies have subsidiaries in
the United States, employing over 35,000 Americans. We must
continue to build our economic partnership, focusing on
emerging industries such as information technology,
biotechnology, and clean energy.
And three, leading by example with innovation, technology,
and sustainability. The economic partnership between our two
countries is vast. Denmark is a leader in medical research and
technology as well as in wind energy, smart grid technology,
and energy efficiency.
I am passionate about creating new alliances between the
smartest minds in science and medicine in Denmark and here at
home, with the ultimate goal of making the planet safer,
cleaner, and smarter.
In addition, if confirmed, I will reach out to Greenland
and the Faroe Islands. We will continue to strengthen our bonds
with these parts of the Kingdom of Denmark, where innovation,
technology, and sustainability can extend our commercial and
economic ties.
Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, by investing in
teamwork, by setting smart and strategic goals, and by pushing
the edge of the envelope, we can achieve great success and
ensure that this relationship between our two great countries,
230 years old, is even stronger 230 years from now.
Again, thank you for permitting me to be here before you. I
am truly honored by this opportunity.
If confirmed, I will do my very best to represent the
United States, and I would hope to meet with you again in the
future to report on our continuing partnership with Denmark.
Thank you. And I look forward to answering whatever
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gifford follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Rufus Gifford
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, and members of the committee,
thank you for permitting me this opportunity to appear before you as
the President's nominee to be United States Ambassador to the Kingdom
of Denmark. It is a tremendous honor to be asked to serve in this post
and I thank President Obama and Secretary Kerry for their confidence in
me.
When I was 10 years old my parents asked me what I wanted for my
birthday. Expecting the typical answer of games or toys, they were
surprised to hear my answer. All I wanted was a trip, just the three of
us--leaving my brothers and sisters at home--to Washington, DC. I got
my wish. I remember standing wide-eyed watching the Senate in session,
touring the Reagan White House and walking the grounds of the Jefferson
Memorial at night. My fascination with government and politics was
already well established but it was this trip when I knew I just had to
be part of it.
I am joined here today by the two people who took me on this first
trip, my Mom and Dad along with my partner, Dr. Stephen DeVincent, who
is taking a day off from his veterinary practice to be here. My one
regret today is that my paternal grandparents could not be here.
Through their frequent travel to Denmark, my grandparents fell in love
with Copenhagen and the country, and would often regale us as children
with stories of their experiences. To me Denmark seemed too good to be
true, a land of Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tales. Turning the
fantasy into reality, sitting here today, I wish more than anything
that they could be here with us.
I grew up in Manchester, MA, a son of a banker with an eagerness to
pave his own path. After graduating from Brown University in 1996, my
career has taken me to Los Angeles, Washington, DC, and Chicago.
Throughout my career, whether when I was working in the entertainment
industry, I was self-employed or in politics, I have prided myself on
three things:
(1) Teambuilding;
(2) Setting and exceeding goals; and
(3) Establishing new and more innovative ways to accomplish
the mission.
If confirmed, I hope to bring the professional skills I have built
over the course of my career to the Embassy in Copenhagen. I believe
that leadership means investing in each and every one of your
employees; it's about management and creating an atmosphere where
teamwork and collaboration can thrive.
I believe in pursuing a specific set of goals that are aggressive
yet achievable. The status quo is never good enough. Success is not
just about maintaining the status quo, it's about promoting new ideas
and thinking outside the box. In my mind, innovation in all its forms
is vital to success.
Diplomatic relations between in the United States and Denmark began
in 1783 when Denmark negotiated a commercial treaty with our new
country. Since then, the relationship between the United States and the
Kingdom of Denmark has endured and thrived.
Why is that? A large part of the answer can be found in the fact
that we share common principles and ideals, value our comprehensive
partnership both politically and economically, and are committed to
leading by example throughout the world.
If confirmed, my overall goal is to maintain and build upon that
relationship. I believe that, as good as our bilateral relationship is,
there will always be more to do.
My goals for the mission are as follows:
(1) To maintain and strengthen the strong relationship between the
countries, focusing on our partnership to resolve and prevent conflicts
abroad, stabilize regions in conflict, and foster democratic
development, tolerance, and respect for human rights.
One cannot help but be impressed at the outsized contributions the
Danes make across the board to global peace, security, and development.
Denmark is a country of fewer than 6 million people, but it is not shy
about investing its resources and manpower in efforts to promote
stability around the world. As close NATO allies, the United States and
Denmark are committed to each other's security and stand together in
critical crisis areas worldwide. Danish soldiers and civil servants
stand shoulder to shoulder with our service men and women today in
Afghanistan, and Denmark's support of the missions in Kosovo and Libya
has also been critical.
Denmark's significant contributions to international peace and
security also come in the form of stabilization and development
assistance programs in west and east Africa as well as the Middle East.
The Danes are leaders in Scandinavia and in Europe as a whole in
addressing the root causes of extremism and are key partners in
countering the threat of terrorism.
If confirmed, my goal will be to ensure this partnership remains
and is strengthened.
(2) Trade and Economic Prosperity.
We must not just focus on the bilateral relationship in this ever-
changing world but also the multilateral relationship. The
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership--or TTIP--will be a
significant focus of our work in the coming months. President Obama
called TTIP a potential ``groundbreaking partnership'' while creating
``hundreds of thousands of jobs on both sides of the Atlantic.''
While the negotiations are between the United States and the
European Union, the support of EU member states will be crucial as
well. Denmark is a logical partner in this incredibly bold initiative.
The English translation of ``Copenhagen'' is actually ``Merchants'
Harbor.'' Denmark is a country built upon centuries of trade. Like us,
the Danes know that when we break down barriers to trade, we improve
our ability to raise standards and increase prosperity around the
world. I am not naive about the work ahead--it will be an ``all hands
on deck'' endeavor. But considering the strong relationship between the
United States and Denmark, we can help support an initiative that will
lead the way to creating more jobs and growth on both sides of the
Atlantic.
But we cannot center our business relationship on TTIP alone. The
United States is Denmark's third-largest trading partner. More than 250
Danish companies have subsidiaries in the United States employing over
35,000 Americans. We must continue to build our economic partnership,
focusing on emerging industries such as information technology,
biotechnology, and clean energy. Secretary Kerry has called on the
State Department to ``double down'' on economic diplomacy. That means
engaging both the political and economic decisionmakers in Denmark to
advance opportunities for U.S. businesses.
(3) Leading by example with innovation, technology and sustainability.
The partnership here between our two countries is vast. Denmark is
a leader medical research and technology. The Danes are also leaders in
wind energy, in smart grid technology, and energy efficiency. I am
passionate about furthering this relationship, creating alliances
between the smartest minds in science and medicine in Denmark and the
smartest minds here at home with the ultimate goal of making the planet
safer, cleaner, and smarter.
In addition, if confirmed, I will also reach out to Greenland and
the Faroe Islands. We will continue to strengthen our bonds with these
parts of the Kingdom of Denmark, where innovation, technology, and
sustainability can extend our commercial and economic ties.
Mister Chairman and members of the committee, by investing in
teamwork, by setting smart and strategic goals, and by pushing the edge
of the envelope, we can achieve these goals and ensure that the
relationship between our two great countries--230 years old--is even
stronger 230 years from now.
Again, thank you for permitting me to appear before you. I am truly
honored by this opportunity. If confirmed, I will do my very best to
represent the United States--and I would hope to meet with you again in
the future to report on our continuing partnership with Denmark.
I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Gifford.
Mr. Emerson, welcome.
STATEMENT OF JOHN B. EMERSON, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE AMBASSADOR
TO THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
Mr. Emerson. Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, everybody.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Johnson, distinguished Senators,
thank you very much for the privilege of appearing before you
today.
And I would also like to thank my good friends, Senators
Boxer and Feinstein, for their generous and kind words on
behalf of my nomination to be Ambassador to the Federal
Republic of Germany.
I am also deeply grateful to President Obama and Senator
Kerry for their confidence and for this honor.
And if you would permit me, I would like to introduce to
the committee my wife, Kimberly Marteau Emerson. Kimberly
worked at USIA during the Clinton administration and
subsequently has been extremely active in promoting public
diplomacy and human rights and in the cultural and civic life
of our community. And I have no doubt that, if I am confirmed
to serve in Germany, she will be a great asset to our country.
And our three teenage girls, Jackie, Taylor, and Hayley,
are unable to be with us today, but I can guarantee you that
they will be enthusiastically accompanying us.
If confirmed by the Senate, I will have the privilege of
returning to Germany for the fourth time in four separate
decades. Both Kimberly and I share a deep German heritage,
through my paternal and her maternal grandparents.
From my youth, I have had an interest in the culture and
the people of Germany, although I will admit that my decision
at age 12 to begin studying the language probably had more to
do with the fact that my father and grandmother would speak it
when they did not want me to know what they were talking about.
[Laughter.]
I first visited Germany upon graduating from college,
staying with my former German history professor who had moved
to Berlin and who subsequently spent many years working with
this committee--Michael Haltzel.
A decade later, I was selected by the Friedrich Ebert
Stiftung to be one of four Americans from the public sector to
travel the country and participate in meetings with local and
federal German officials. During these visits and subsequent
family travel, I have been struck by the warmth of the German
people, as well as the special relationship that America and
Germany share.
The partnership between our two countries is one of our
most important alliances, as we confront the economic and
security challenges of the present day.
If confirmed, I would work with our German partners to
ensure financial and economic stability in the eurozone, as a
successful European market base allows for increased American
business opportunities and jobs here at home. I would work to
support the TTIP negotiations as appropriate, and if they are
successfully concluded, would focus on promoting trade and
investment with Germany.
While serving in the Clinton White House, I had the
privilege of managing our efforts to secure congressional
approval of the Uruguay round of the GATT, working closely with
then-White House Fellow, Michael Froman. Well, I look forward
to working with now-U.S. Trade Representative, Michael Froman,
on TTIP-related issues.
It is critical that we incorporate economic statecraft at
all levels of our diplomacy. I hope to build on my experience
in business and global investment management to engage in
promoting U.S. business interests, and thereby helping to
create jobs here at home.
Germany is a committed partner in combating terrorism and
promoting our mutual national security. Its support of the
approximately 45,000 American troops currently forward
positioned on German soil remains vital to European security
and our defense initiatives aboard.
As Ambassador, I would encourage Germany to continue its
strong support of NATO, as Germany sends the largest number of
troops to Kosovo, and, with 4,300 troops, is the third-largest
contributor to Afghanistan. Germany has also indicated a
willingness to lead NATO's efforts in northern Afghanistan
post-2014.
Germany has deployed two Patriot surface-to-air missile
batteries in response to Turkey's request for NATO ballistic
missile defense support and is actively engaged in helping us
to secure peace and security and nonproliferation efforts in
Syria and Iran.
Germany and the United States are leaders in energy
transformation, and as such, there is a great opportunity for
bilateral cooperation in emerging energy and environmentally
friendly technologies. And if confirmed, I would work to see
where U.S. companies with expertise in energy and environmental
areas might be able to engage in this exciting market.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Johnson, members of the committee, I
am honored to have been nominated to serve as Ambassador to a
country that is so consequential to our economic and national
security interests as well as a place where I have a strong
personal connection, and if given the opportunity, I pledge I
will serve the American people with dignity and honor, and work
to foster an even stronger alliance between these two important
allies based on our common shared values.
Thank you so much for your consideration.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Emerson follows:]
Prepared Statement of John B. Emerson
Mister Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, and distinguished members
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, thank you for the privilege
of appearing before you today.
I would also like to thank my friends Senator Feinstein and Senator
Boxer for their kind words in support of my nomination to be Ambassador
to the Federal Republic of Germany. I am deeply grateful to President
Obama and Secretary Kerry for this great honor, and for giving me the
opportunity to work yet again as a public servant.
If you would permit me, I would like to introduce to the committee
my wife, Kimberly Marteau Emerson. Kimberly worked at USIA during the
Clinton administration and subsequently she has been active in
promoting public diplomacy and in the civic and cultural life of our
community. I know that if I am confirmed to serve in Germany, she would
be a great asset to our country. Our three teenage girls, Jackie,
Taylor, and Hayley, are unable to be with us today, but they would be
enthusiastically accompanying us as well.
If confirmed by the Senate, I will have the privilege of returning
to Germany for the fourth time in four separate decades. Both Kimberly
and I share a deep German heritage, through my paternal and her
maternal grandparents. From my youth, I have had an interest in the
culture and the people of Germany--although I will admit that my
decision at age 12 to begin studying the German language may have had
more to do with the fact that my father and grandmother would speak it
when they didn't want me to know what they were discussing!
I first visited Germany upon graduating from college, staying with
my former German history professor who had moved to Berlin and who
subsequently spent many years working for this committee--Michael
Haltzel. A decade later, I was selected by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung
to be one of four Americans from the public sector to travel the
country and participate in meetings with local and federal German
officials. During these visits and subsequent family travel, I have
been struck by the warmth of the German people, as well as the special
relationship that America and Germany share. The partnership between
our two countries is one of our most important alliances, as we
confront the economic and security challenges of the present day.
If confirmed, I would work with our German partners to ensure
financial and economic stability in the eurozone, as a successful
European market base allows for increased American business
opportunities. I would work to support Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations as appropriate, and if they
are successfully concluded, would focus on promoting trade and
investment with Germany. While serving in the Clinton White House, I
had the privilege of managing our efforts to secure congressional
approval of the Uruguay Round of the GATT, working closely with then-
White House Fellow, Michael Froman. I look forward to working with now-
U.S. Trade Representative Froman on TTIP-related issues. It is critical
that we incorporate economic statecraft at all levels of our diplomacy.
I hope to build on my experience in business and global investment
management to engage in promoting U.S. business interests, and thereby
help create jobs here at home.
Germany is an important NATO ally and a committed partner in
combating terrorism and promoting our mutual national security. Germany
hosts approximately 45,000 American troops that remain vital to our
shared security interests, including beyond Europe. As Ambassador, I
would encourage Germany to continue its strong support of NATO. Germany
leads the alliance in terms of number of troops deployed to Kosovo, and
it has an important leadership role in Afghanistan, leading efforts in
the north and providing 4,200 troops. Germany has also indicated
willingness to continue to lead NATO efforts in northern Afghanistan
post-2014. Germany has deployed two Patriot surface-to-air missile
batteries in response to Turkey's request for NATO ballistic missile
defense support. Germany also is actively engaged in peace and security
and nonproliferation efforts Syria and Iran. It has cohosted the
Friends of Syrian People working group for economic development and
established, together with the UAE, a Trust Fund for Syria, to support
Syrian reconstruction. It has also pledged 125 million euros for
humanitarian assistance in Syria. Germany shares our commitment to
prevent a nuclear-armed Iran through a dual-track approach of pressure
and engagement. As a member of the P5+1, Germany is actively involved
in efforts to reach a negotiated solution that addresses the
international community's concerns over Iran's nuclear program.
Germany and the United States are leaders in energy transformation
and as such, there is great opportunity for bilateral cooperation in
emerging energy and environmentally friendly technologies. If
confirmed, I would support Germany's efforts to diversify its energy
routes and sources, as well as the role it has and can continue to play
in broader EU efforts to promote regional energy security. Germany has
made impressive progress in developing renewable energy sources
including wind and solar power. If confirmed, I would also work to see
where U.S. companies with expertise in energy and environmental areas
might be able to engage in this exciting market.
Mister Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, and members of the
committee, I am honored to have been nominated to serve as Ambassador
to a country that is so consequential to our economic and national
security interests, as well as a place where I have strong personal
connections. If confirmed, I would be excited to begin work during this
key juncture in United States-German relations, in the approach to
particularly as Germany's federal elections in September approach. If
given the opportunity, I pledge that I will serve the American people
with honor and dignity, and will work to foster an even stronger
alliance between the United States and Germany based on our shared
values.
Thank you for your consideration, and I would be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Emerson.
Welcome, Ambassador Pearce.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID D. PEARCE, OF VIRGINIA,
TO BE AMBASSADOR TO GREECE
Ambassador Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
to the distinguished members of the committee.
It is a great honor to be here today as the President's
nominee to be the next United States Ambassador to the Hellenic
Republic.
Mr. Chairman, given the constraints on time, if you will
allow me, I will present an abbreviated version of my statement
and let the full one be added for the record.
First though, I very much appreciate the opportunity to
introduce my wife, Leyla, who has ably represented the United
States and served with me through more than three decades of
Foreign Service postings in the Middle East, Europe, and North
Africa. And with her are our daughter, Jenny, and our son,
Joey, in the second row.
Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the confidence and trust
President Obama and Secretary Kerry have placed in me, and for
the opportunity to appear before you today.
Since the founding of our Republic, the United States has
looked to Greece, where the very idea of democracy was born,
with special respect and affection. Relations between Greece
and the United States are excellent, and we look forward to
welcoming Prime Minister Samaras to the White House on August
8.
As you know, the bonds between our countries have been
strengthened over the years by millions of Americans who trace
their ancestry to the Hellenic Republic. The Greek-American
diaspora community is always generous with its time, and if
confirmed, I will look forward to working with them and seeking
out their views.
Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, Greece, as you
all know, is experiencing a very critical period in its modern
history as it seeks to emerge from an acute economic crisis
that has now lasted 4 years. We stand in solidarity with the
Greek people, who are making major but essential sacrifices to
achieve the changes that are necessary to return Greece to
economic prosperity.
There are still many challenges, but it is very much in the
U.S. interest that these reforms succeed, given the importance
of Greece to the broader eurozone financial stability.
If confirmed, I will work closely with the Greek Government
to support its reform efforts, which are essential to restoring
Greece's competitiveness and growth, improving market
confidence, and creating a more prosperous future for its
people.
I will also look for ways to expand bilateral trade and
investment, and advocate for U.S. business and investors.
While much focus has justifiably been on Greece's economic
situation, we need to remember it also plays a very important
regional role.
In the first half of 2014, Greece assumes the presidency of
the European Union. It is a longstanding NATO ally and has
supported a variety of allied operations, including in Libya
and Kosovo. Our strong security relationship is reflected in
excellent cooperation at the Naval Support Activity base at
Souda Bay, Crete.
Together, we have worked to combat transnational terrorist
threats. We applaud, of course, the recent efforts by the Greek
and Turkish governments to foster closer ties and build trust.
We support the U.N. effort to settle the long-running
Macedonian name dispute.
And of course, there is the continued division of Cyprus.
We believe a mutually acceptable settlement there is in the
best interest of the people of Cyprus and the region. We look
forward to settlement talks resuming later this year, and we
will support them in any way we can.
Mr. Chairman, these are some of the things I look forward
to working on, if I am confirmed.
I first visited Greece as a classics student from Maine in
the spring of 1971. Since then, I have maintained that
interest, first as a journalist in Southern Europe and the
Middle East, and then as a diplomat in nearby Rome, Jerusalem,
Damascus, Tunis, and Algiers.
I have been in the Foreign Service for 31 years now, and if
confirmed, I would bring that accumulated experience to Embassy
Athens.
So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear
again before you. I pledge to do my best to advance U.S.
interests and our relationship with Greece, a valued friend and
ally in every way possible, if confirmed. I also look forward
to working with this committee, as well as your staff and your
congressional colleagues, in that effort.
And now I would be pleased to answer any questions you may
have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Pearce follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. David D. Pearce
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, distinguished members of
the committee. It is a great honor to be here today as the President's
nominee to be the next United States Ambassador to the Hellenic
Republic.
I appreciate the opportunity to introduce my wife, Leyla, who has
ably represented the United States, and served with me for three
decades of Foreign Service postings in the Middle East, Europe, and
North Africa. With Leyla are my daughter, Jenny, and our son, Joey.
Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the confidence and trust President
Obama and Secretary Kerry have placed in me, and for the opportunity to
appear today before this committee.
Since the founding of our Republic, the United States has looked to
Greece, where the very idea of democracy was born, with special respect
and affection. Relations between Greece and the United States are
excellent, and we look forward to welcoming Prime Minister Samaras to
the White House on August 8. The bonds between our countries have been
strengthened over the years by millions of Americans who trace their
ancestry to the Hellenic Republic. The Greek-American diaspora
community is always generous with its time, and if confirmed, I will
look forward to working with them and seeking out their views.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Greece is experiencing a
critical period in its modern history as it seeks to emerge from an
acute economic crisis that has now lasted 4 years. We stand in
solidarity with the Greek people, who are making major but essential
sacrifices to return Greece to economic prosperity. The Greek
Government has made deep budget cuts to restore fiscal sustainability,
but now needs to make progress on structural reforms that will revive
the country's economic growth, including opening up its markets,
privatizing state assets, reducing the public sector, and improving tax
collection. There are still many challenges, but it is very much in the
U.S. interest that these reforms succeed. If confirmed, I will work
closely with the Greek Government to support its reform efforts--which
are essential to restoring Greece's competitiveness and growth,
improving market confidence, and creating a more prosperous future for
its people. I will also look for ways to expand bilateral trade and
investment and advocate for U.S. business and investors.
While Greece has justifiably been focused on its economic situation
in recent years, it also plays an important role in the wider region:
In the first half of 2014, Greece will assume the Presidency
of the European Union.
As a longstanding NATO ally, Greece has helped us meet
global challenges, from supporting allied operations in Libya
to stabilization efforts in Kosovo. And our strong security
relationship with Greece is exemplified by our excellent
cooperation at the Naval Support Activity base at Souda Bay,
Crete.
We have worked together with Greece not only to investigate
and bring to justice domestic anarchists who have claimed Greek
and U.S. victims, but also to combat transnational terrorist
threats.
We applaud the efforts of the Greek and Turkish Governments
to foster closer ties and build trust--efforts that include a
March meeting between Prime Ministers Samaras and Erdogan in
Istanbul, and the resumption of Greek-Turkish Exploratory Talks
on Aegean issues.
Regrettably, the continued division of Cyprus has not yet
been resolved. A mutually acceptable settlement is in the best
interests of the people of Cyprus, and the region, so we look
forward to settlement talks resuming later this year. The
United States will work closely with the United Nations, both
Cypriot communities, Greece, and Turkey to actively encourage
reconciliation and reunification.
Not least, we support the ongoing U.N. effort to settle the
nearly 20-year-old name dispute between Athens and Skopje. Here
too, a lasting and mutually acceptable solution is manifestly
in the interest of both countries and the wider region.
Mr. Chairman, those are some of the challenges and opportunities I
look forward to working on if I am confirmed. I first visited Greece as
a Classics student in the spring of 1971. In the four decades since, I
have maintained that interest working as a journalist in southern
Europe and the Middle East, and then as a diplomat in nearby Rome,
Jerusalem, Damascus, Tunis, and Algiers. I have been a Chief of Mission
twice, and also an Assistant Chief of Mission, Principal Officer, and
Deputy Chief of Mission. So, if confirmed, I would bring that
accumulated experience to the policy, security, and management
challenges that Embassy Athens faces.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to appear before
you. If confirmed, I pledge to do my best to advance U.S. interests,
and our relationship with Greece, a valued friend and ally, in every
way possible. I look forward to working with this committee, as well as
your staff, and your colleagues, in that effort. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador.
Thank you to all of our nominees. We will now proceed with
a round of 7-minute questions. I will just warn the panel we
have a vote that is imminent, and so that may interrupt our
hearing. We will figure out how to proceed with it once the
vote is called.
Let me start with you, Ambassador Pearce. You know we have
a saying around here that with crisis comes opportunity, and
that is kind of by necessity here because we are constantly in
crisis, so we can only hope that there is opportunity in
crisis. But you remarked that you are going to be coming to
Greece at a moment of ongoing economic crisis, but also at a
time in which there is still hope that there is some resolution
somewhere around the corner with respect to Cyprus and also the
name dispute in Macedonia.
And so, I will ask, I guess, an open-ended question to hear
a little bit more of your thoughts in terms of what role the
United States can play, but ask it through this prism: Does it
become harder or easier to try to solve those two problems as
Greece is looking more constantly inward during this economic
tumult? And what is the appropriate role for the United States
to play in this new round of talks with Turkey and in a just
very meddlesome name change dispute that should be resolved in
the short term, we hope, with respect to Macedonia?
Ambassador Pearce Thanks, Senator. Let us see, that is a
lot to chew on.
I think that, clearly, the economic crisis in Greece is
really tough. I mean, it has been going on for about 4 years
now. And the economy has contracted 25 percent, and it is a lot
of pain for ordinary people. That is very tough politically, of
course, for any government to come to grips with.
Nevertheless, I think that the Greeks have made significant
progress. They have started to close their fiscal gap. They
have recapitalized their banks, and the labor costs are coming
down.
But there is a lot more to do. And I think that the main
chore here is going to be to work with them to help them get
through this very tough period.
I think that you are right that there are opportunities.
And I do think that one opportunity I can think of right off
the bat is that, if Greece is successful with its reform
process, it will mean a better investment climate. It will mean
more business opportunities. And I think that would be good for
U.S. companies and firms in the future.
So I think there is a lot to do in terms of the domestic
and the economic side.
In terms of Cyprus and the name issue, well, I was on the
desk 26 years ago. And, regrettably, Cyprus is still an issue.
I do think though, from what I have seen as I prepared for this
appointment, that there are a couple of things which are
encouraging. One of them is that the quality of relations
between Greece and Turkey is better now, it seems to me, than
it was back when I was working on the desk before.
Another is that there is an expectation that settlement
talks in Cyprus are going to resume in October. That would be
great. If this dispute can finally be moved out of frozen
status, and if the tragic division of the island can end, and
we can reach a comprehensive settlement, and, of course, we
support a bizonal, bicommunal federation, that would be
enormous.
And I think it would be not just for Cyprus, but for
regional stability. And that would be a really great thing. And
if confirmed, I would, of course, do everything that I can do
from my perch in Athens to help in that regard.
The name dispute was not there 26 years ago when I was on
the desk, although it has been running for more than 20 years
now, I guess. This is a very difficult issue, but we hope that
the U.N. special envoy, Matt Nimetz, will be able to make some
progress. We support his efforts. And we do hope that a
solution can be found that can be finally mutually acceptable
to both sides because that, too, would be good for regional
stability and the integration of Euro-Atlantic institutions.
The U.S. role, I think, in the economic crisis, which you
asked specifically about, the U.S. role I believe is to be
there to engage, to monitor, to report, and to make sure that
policymakers back here have the information they need in order
to take the decisions that they need to.
Senator Murphy. We have a NATO summit in 2014. There are a
number of other potential issues for Macedonia to join, but,
clearly, this is at the top of the list. Clearly, that is a
timetable a lot of people are going to look to try to get this
resolved.
Mr. Emerson, let me ask you a specific question. You are
going to be showing up in Germany in the middle of an election,
a hotly contested election in which Germany's relationship with
America is on the table. One of the pending issues that the SPD
is raising is their allegation that Chancellor Merkel has been
too close to the United States with regard to our surveillance
programs and our information-gathering programs.
And you, probably, on the first day you are there, are
going to be asked questions about the extent of this program
and what the future of it is. I know you are not there, but can
you just share with us your perspective on how the next
Ambassador should manage this particular issue, given the fact
that it is going to be, as it already is, an issue in the
German election?
Mr. Emerson. Well, thank you for that, Senator.
Obviously, that is a very, very important issue and
something, clearly, we have given a lot of thought to. I think,
first of all, we need to just step back and take a look at this
in the context of the overall extraordinary relationship and
partnership that the Americans and the Germans have and have
had over the years.
As President Obama has said, Germany is one of our most
important allies in the world. We work together on just about
everything from economic engagement to national security
issues. And as part of that, we share intelligence on security
matters and security threats that could impact all of us.
I am obviously very well aware of the concerns that Germany
has raised. And the administration, as I understand it, has
engaged with Germany and our other European allies and partners
with regard to those concerns.
I think as Ambassador, my principle role is going to be to
listen and to engage on the ground, and to continually reassure
government officials, political leaders, the German people,
that the United States will continue to work hard together with
Germany to combat terrorism to keep our country safe, but to do
so with collective action based upon our shared respect for the
rule of law.
Senator Murphy. I can tell by that answer that you are
going to be an excellent Ambassador. [Laughter.]
I am going to turn the chair over to Senator Johnson. I am
going to go vote. Then we will swap out, so we can keep this
hearing running.
So, Senator Johnson. And I will return.
Senator Johnson [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am
not exactly sure what you meant by that, but I think I know.
[Laughter.]
So we can kind of spread out the questions, what I would
like to do is just go down the panel, starting here on the
left-hand side, since Senator started on the right.
And I would just like to ask each one of the future
Ambassadors or the nominees what is the No. 1 diplomatic issue
between the United States and the country that you are going to
be representing?
Mr. Costos. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the question.
As we know, Spain is in the middle of an economic crisis.
At this point, unemployment is almost above 30 percent. And for
youth in Spain under the age of 25, it is rapidly approaching
over 50 percent.
President Rajoy has put many reforms in place and has been
doing a very good job about trying to normalize that particular
issue in Spain. As a matter of fact, he has just put 22 new
initiatives in place in April to help promote business and
increase employment and jobs in Spain.
What I would like to do using my experience and involved
with the TTIP is basically to use my international and global
experience to build businesses and develop an opportunity to
bring my skills to the Spanish people and grow our
international businesses on both sides of the Atlantic.
So my focus will be purely on economics at this point and
using TTIP as the tool to do that.
I plan on using public diplomacy to help promote that when
I am in Spain. At HBO, one of my major initiatives is in charge
of global communications, and I am responsible for promoting
the best of what America has to offer. And I will do the same
on both sides. And I hope that with my relations that I have
with the business community here and working as well with the
U.S. Spanish Council, I will be able to increase our relations
and our business relationships, including investment in trade
in Spain.
Senator Johnson. Thank you.
Ms. Campbell Bauer.
Ms. Campbell Bauer Thank you, Senator.
I am happy to say we have an excellent relationship with
Belgium. They are some of our strongest partners on many
issues. So a primary focus for me will be just continuing to
build on that.
We also have an excellent team in place in Brussels with
whom I will be working. I really view my role in that as being
additive, because they are wonderful professionals. And I hope
to bring a fresh perspective, some leadership skills, and a
strong network in business to that effort.
And then we will work to promote key values that we share.
Also to focus on TTIP, which everyone has mentioned, and is, of
course, incredibly important, but also to focus more broadly on
how to expand the business relationship between the United
States and Belgium.
One of the things that I consider--and I need to explore
this more, of course, with your committee and also with the
people in Belgium--is really focusing on tourism and expanding
that as an opportunity for economic growth, but also for public
diplomacy, so it will be a very efficient use of our time to
focus on both those things.
And, of course, I will be focusing on security, both for
U.S. citizens in Belgium and also strengthening our
international partnerships to assure security throughout the
world.
Senator Johnson. Thank you.
Ms. Campbell Bauer Thank you, sir.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Gifford.
Mr. Gifford. Thank you, Senator. Thank you very much for
the question. And, if you will allow me, I would like to get in
two, if possible.
The first one, and at the risk of sounding redundant, is
economic statecraft. Frankly, Denmark has vocally supported
TTIP, and the TTIP negotiations that have just begun. They are
a nation built on trade.
As I have said to some of my friends, the translation of
Copenhagen, literally, is ``merchant's harbor.'' They produce
phenomenal products. They are an export-driven nation, and they
do need to import raw materials in order to produce the
products that they do have.
So TTIP is actually critically important for them. And we
will be working together, over the course of the next several
months, to ensure that we do get a deal there.
In addition to that, we just cannot overlook the military
coordination between Denmark and the United States. They have
been a stalwart ally. They have fought alongside U.S. troops in
Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Kosovo. They are currently
off the Horn of Africa fighting piracy.
And the continued coordination from a military standpoint
will be a significant issue for me as well.
Senator Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Emerson.
Mr. Emerson. Thanks, Senator.
I would have to agree with my cohorts here that getting the
eurozone on a stable economic footing for the long term will be
an absolute top priority not only for the United States, but
for Germany. The U.S.-EU relationship is the largest economic
relationship in the world. Germany is our fifth-largest trading
partner. Germany companies employ over half a million U.S.
workers.
And not only is it critical to the United States but also
to Germany that we get the EU on a stable growth trajectory--I
mean, I am sorry, the eurozone on a stable growth trajectory.
And I know that they will be a very important ally and partner
to us in that effort.
Senator Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Pearce.
Ambassador Pearce Thank you, Senator.
The economic crisis in Greece, its effort to get on the
path to recovery and reform. And I would add, too, that defense
cooperation is very important.
Senator Johnson. OK. So we all mentioned economic
cooperation. That actually sets up my next question, starting
left to right.
In terms of trade talks, what is going to be the most
difficult issue between the United States and the country that
you are going to be representing?
Mr. Costos. Senator, thank you for the question. In my
knowledge at this point, we have not had any difficulties that
we have heard from Spain at this point. I have been briefed on
several different aspects of the TTIP and the Spanish
relationship with the EU And there has not been anything that
particularly has come up, except for geographical issues, and
there is something that we had talked about in your office at
one point, related to Serrano ham and cheese from Spain.
So talking about those particular names could be a
potential issue. However, nothing else at this point has
actually come to my attention that could be problematic with
the TTIP negotiations in Spain, sir.
Senator Johnson. Let us hope it stays that way.
Mr. Costos. Thank you very much.
Senator Johnson. Ms. Campbell Bauer.
Ms. Campbell Bauer Thank you, Senator. I think we are going
to have a good relationship with Belgium. It is a continuing
dialogue and a negotiation. So Belgium stands to benefit
significantly with the trade agreement through TTIP. As a
gateway to Europe, it is particularly important to them, and
the amount of trade we do is significant.
At this point, I think it is the beginning of a dialogue,
so I will work to encourage them to cooperate and work
progressively, and consult back with Washington as often as
possible, should I be confirmed.
Senator Johnson. OK. Mr. Gifford.
Mr. Gifford. Thank you, Senator. Similar to my colleagues
here, we have not yet seen any real stumbling blocks with the
Danes. I believe that my role, if confirmed as Ambassador,
would be to try to get a sense of what is going on, on the
ground, and if there are issues that do arise in the coming
months, to report back to this committee and the folks at USTR
the issues that may be percolating. But, as of right now, we do
not see any.
Senator Johnson. Well, it sounds pretty good so far.
Mr. Emerson.
Mr. Emerson. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Johnson. Smooth sailing, this seems to be a slam-
dunk.
Mr. Emerson. I think the good news about Germany is that it
has been a huge proponent of TTIP, actually, for a number of
years now. And I think my challenge and our challenge will be
much more in working with Germany to help work through some
issues that may come up from other places in the course of the
negotiations through the EU process. And I know Germany will be
a strong ally in that regard.
Senator Johnson. OK. Great.
Mr. Pearce.
Ambassador Pearce Senator, I am not aware of a specific
issue with regard to Greece. I do know that they--or at least I
understand, that they hope it will help them strengthen their
exports and also their overall economic recovery effort.
Senator Johnson. Well, I really wish you all the success in
the world, trying to really solidify those economic
relationships. And with that, I will turn the hearing over to
the capable hands of Senator Kaine.
Thank you.
Senator Kaine [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Johnson, and
forgive us all, you see what we are doing. The bells ring and
we have to go vote. So forgive me if I ask a question that was
asked while I stepped out.
But just to educate myself on some of the issues that you
will be wrestling with in your countries, this is a question
that is really kind of directed toward Ms. Bauer and Mr.
Gifford.
And, Denise, it is so good to be here with you today and
see you as well.
You know, one of the issues we are always wrestling with in
this country is the wonderful diversity issues that we have and
how to put this Nation, the 300-plus million, together and show
an example to the world and at the same time manage diverse
populations.
And Belgium and Denmark have each had some interesting and
challenging diversity issues. Belgium, the language
differential between, I guess the Dutch language is Flemish and
the French speakers, Dutch-based language Flemish and French
speakers, and sort of the division of the country politically
has been a consistent issue and seems to have become more
challenging.
And so kind of interested in your thoughts on that and
especially how the new King and the new government there may
help deal with those issues.
And then, Rufus, for you, one of the issues that we in this
country have read about in Denmark, is the issue of the
treatment of Muslims in the country and some of the tensions
there over religious issues in Denmark. And as people who are
proud champions of diversity American style, I just would love
some insights about both Belgium and Denmark in the way they
are wrestling with their own diversity issues.
Ms. Campbell Bauer Thank you, Senator. It is an honor to be
before you today.
So Belgium is a strong democracy. With that comes some
differences, and there is a linguistic social and economic
divide that is one of the greatest challenges that they face
internally in domestic policy.
Voters will have a chance to address this next year in
their elections. And more recently, the new king, King
Philippe, had spoken out not in broad terms, but just to note
that diversity is really one of their strengths, much as in the
United States. Diversity is our strength. And I think they are
addressing that and working through it.
Thank you.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Denise.
Mr. Gifford. Thank you, Senator, for the question very
much. Embassy Copenhagen was sort of a pilot within a pilot for
a new State Department program which focused on countering
violent extremism.
And if she is still here, I would like to acknowledge
Ambassador Fulton, who really took it upon herself to invest in
this program. She is my predecessor.
Essentially, what this program is, Denmark has certainly
acknowledged the fact that there are communities coming in to
the country that had not historically been coming in. That has
posed a range of issues.
This program, this countering violent extremism program,
was a mechanism for the Embassy, for the U.S. Embassy, to go
and engage these communities directly to preach what it means
to be an American, to explain to the communities out there the
sort of Western ideals, including things like freedom of
speech, freedom of religion, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
I am passionate about continuing these programs, if I am
confirmed, at post and look forward to even potentially taking
it to the next level.
Senator Kaine. Excellent.
Mr. Gifford. Thank you, sir.
Senator Kaine. Thank you.
Ambassador Pearce, it is a treat to have you here. I know
you call Virginia home when you are not traveling so many
different places, and I appreciate your service.
I am on the Budget Committee, and we spend a lot of time on
the Budget Committee wrestling with, essentially, Keynesian
economics--I am not saying that with any source of pride--but
Keynesian economics versus sort of austerity economics. And we
often hear discussions about Greece and is it an example that
we can learn from, is it an aberration that does not really
offer any lessons for us.
Less on the economic side but sort of the popular feeling
right now, what is happening, sort of on the economics front in
Greece, and what is the current attitude both of the government
and the populace around sort of austerity? And what is the path
toward turning the economy around from a shrinking economy back
to a growing one?
Ambassador Pearce Thanks, that is a great question.
Well, I think the popular attitude is people are very tired
of all the economic pain that they have gone through in the
last few years. Unemployment is very high, something like 27
percent, I think, generally, and over 50 percent for young
people.
Their people have had a tough time. The government for its
part has taken some very tough measures. As I said before, it
is not easy. But they have made a lot of difficult cuts.
The problem that the government has and that I think people
generally see--and they are quite realistic about it, as I
understand it--is that they are not done. There is more to do.
There is more to do, particularly in the area of structural
changes, and that is a lot of lifting.
And it is also tax administration, which is as you know is
a tough thing to get a grip on.
They have got to do more in terms of their privatization
effort. This is something they have discussed with the European
Union.
So this is quite a difficult agenda, but my sense reading
it is, although it is hard, people do understand that more is
needed. And I think that the hope is that they will be able to
get on a path where they are able to do the reforms that are
necessary and that that will lead to a better future for the
country once they get through it.
I think what gives people pause is not knowing how long it
is going to take.
So I think that is the main challenge is the uncertainty.
And therefore, I think that our engagement is really important.
I think it is really important that Treasury Secretary Lew
stopped this past weekend in Athens after the G20 and had
meetings with Greek leaders. I think it is very important that
the Prime Minister is coming here on August 8.
These things count for a lot, particularly when people are
going through a tough period.
Senator Kaine. Thank you. Mr. Emerson, we often read here
the kind of bookend phenomenon. We will read stories about
Germany and Greece, as we read stories about the eurozone.
And I know you are going to do a very good job because of
your background. But it kind of seems to an outside observer,
and I am not a Europeanist, I am more of a Western hemisphere
person, an American, Americas person.
But it seems like the challenge for Germany is, from an
economic standpoint, that they need to do what is necessary to
keep the EU together, but they sort of need to do the minimum
necessary to keep the eurozone together because it is
politically difficult internal for the German Government to do
things that are perceived by their own population as sort of
bailouts of other countries.
That is for them to decide, not us. But I am kind of
interested in your take now on the sort of German governmental
philosophy about, over the course of the next few years, what
will they be doing to maintain, improve, reform the eurozone?
Mr. Emerson. Well, thank you, Senator. You are right, that
has received a fair amount of attention in the press, and
obviously, we have got an election coming on the 22nd, so it is
a little hard to predict what they will be doing in the future.
I would just say this, I think the German approach is
actually quite straightforward. No. 1, as largely export-driven
economy, it is crucial to Germany that the rest of the
eurozone, the eurozone entirely, be on a path toward stability
and sustained growth.
And then No. 2, I think there is a belief that has been
articulated and acted upon that economic assistance to
countries that are in crisis ought to be coupled with
commitment to structural reform, and that without that
structural reform, a long, sustained period of economic growth
would be very, very difficult to attain.
Senator Kaine. Thank you.
And, Mr. Costos, just one quick question for you. As I
think about the Spanish challenges, one of the things that I
have been troubled by is the youth unemployment rate. You have
been in a line of work where you probably think a lot about
young people and about communicating with young people, and I
just am curious about that issue of the current Spanish
economy, and do you have any insights about how the Spanish
Government is trying to tackle that?
Mr. Costos. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the question.
It is a very important one.
I had mentioned while you were out of the room that youth
unemployment for under the age of 25 is over 50 percent and
probably more at this point in Spain. And it is a very
important issue. And Spain has put together some new
initiatives to help focus on youth.
And as I mentioned in my opening statement, it is one of
the pillars of what I would like to accomplish, if I am
confirmed, when I do get to Spain.
I know Embassy Madrid is working very closely with youth at
this point, and the Spanish Government has many initiatives on
the ground already to help do exchanges and help to inspire
entrepreneurship with youth. And this will be one of my pillars
as well, if confirmed.
Senator Kaine. Thank you.
Mr. Costos. Thank you, sir.
Senator Kaine. Thank you to the panel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Murphy [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Kaine.
We will have a second round that I will at least take
advantage of. Let me start with Mr. Gifford.
The Danes have a very aggressive commitment to renewable
energy. In fact, I think they are looking at 100 percent
renewable energy by 2050. And clearly, with Greenland in their
portfolio, they have a greater interest than many others in
Europe in trying to see the United States help lead us out of
this crisis regarding climate change.
Can you just talk a little bit about the opportunity for
you as the next Ambassador to work with the Danes on what I
hope is a communal commitment to the issue of climate change?
And in particular, how can we learn from some of their very
aggressive approaches to grow their economy based on a
commitment to renewable energy?
This is a high-tech economy, an economy, that in some ways
parts of the United States, want to aspire to, and they clearly
have figured out a way to link leadership on the issue of
renewable energy to the development of a robust, high-tech,
green energy economy.
Mr. Gifford. Yes. Well, thank you so much for the question,
Senator. And I love the question for exactly what you said. And
it is a way that we can do what is right for the world while at
the same time investing in things like economic statecraft and
investing in trade and investing in new ideas, which is exactly
the types of things that I am passionate about, if confirmed.
So the Danes have been a stalwart ally on this issue, as
you know. They are leaders internationally. There is a variety
of different international treaties. Denmark joined the U.S.-
led clean air initiative in 2012, and Secretary Clinton
launched the Green Partners for Growth with the Prime Minister
of Denmark as well. So I think that there is certainly pieces
that we can do from a political standpoint between the two
countries in order to address the issues.
But I think what is incredibly exciting is what you said
toward the end of your question, which is the economic
opportunity. Denmark is the only exporter of energy in Europe.
And I think, frankly, most countries around the world have a
little to learn about that.
I am excited about the relationship between the smartest
minds, as you say, the smartest minds in Denmark that are
investing in this sort of technology and this type of research,
the next generation of research, and the smartest minds here in
Silicon Valley or wherever to try to forge partnerships that
can actually, in the end, increase trade between the two
countries as well.
And, of course, we do have to think about Greenland within
this framework, because the changing Arctic certainly does open
up an interesting can of worms as it relates to both the
economic issues and opportunities, potentially, as well as
security issues and opportunities.
So I am incredibly passionate about focusing on these
issues, were I to be confirmed.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Gifford.
I sort of ask the same question to both Ms. Bauer and Mr.
Costos. We are going to undergo a very difficult conversation
about the future of NATO over the course of the next several
years. There is, first of all, a conversation as to whether
this remains a truly values-based alliance or whether it is
just going to become an operational alliance in which we get
together when we all align with regard to our security
interests.
And of course, we have to have a different conversation
about NATO because the world has changed and the reason for its
existence to a certain extent no longer exists. But part of the
reason we have to have the conversation is because today the
United States is picking up about 75 percent of the tab. Some
of that is due to the operations in Afghanistan, but some of
that is due to the fact the defense budgets of European
countries are declining.
And the Belgians and the Spaniards are poster children for
this issue, I think. Today, the Spaniards are spending about
0.8 percent of their GDP on defense. Belgians are talking about
massive cuts to defense.
And of course, we are asking all of our allies there to be
spending at least 2 percent of their GDP. I think all but two
or three countries fall below that mark, so they are not in
rare company. But it clearly is going to be an issue that will
come to a head as we have a bigger discussion about how we
reformulate NATO.
I will start with you, Mr. Costos, because we have a very
strong military partnership with Spain, access to their naval
bases. But this is a tough conversation we have to have with
them.
And I will pose the same question to you, Ms. Bauer, about
how we encourage the Belgians to not balance their budget on
the backs of a military budget that we rely on for our
operations in NATO.
Mr. Costos. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the question.
I would like to start off by sort of talking about Spain in
terms of its support already, in terms of its military
presence. As you mentioned, Rota in Spain have opened up their
bases to American troops. We have 500 marines in Moron and Rota
has allowed us to have four Aegis destroyers who will be
stationed off the coast in 2014 to protect American interests
in the region.
In Afghanistan, Spain has also been supportive since 2002.
They have spent roughly $263 million in support. They committed
1,500 troops at the beginning of 2002 and have been still at
this point have about 500 there that are committed until after
2014, in terms of a commitment and investment, as well as
troops who will remain for reconstruction and peacekeeping.
I know, at this point, they are not living up to the 2
percent of GDP. They are at, I believe, 0.7 percent at this
point. They are having very difficult economic times. That is
no excuse for them not committing to and carrying the burden
share of what other members of NATO are doing.
If I am confirmed, it is a very difficult conversation
issue, as you said, to have, but it must be had. And I will
have that conversation with our Spanish partners, at the same
as thanking them for their support. We need to keep them and
get them up to speed to engage at the limit that we have set,
which is, as you have said, at 2 percent.
So if confirmed, I will do my best to have those
conversations, and I will continue to urge Spain to contribute
and share the burden with the rest of NATO.
Thank you.
Ms. Campbell Bauer Thank you, Senator. That is a very
important question, and I appreciate being asked.
This is something that I would intend, should I be
confirmed, to continue to work on and encourage Belgians to do
more.
They are contributing about 1.1 percent of GDP at this
point. They are also, I think it is worth nothing, just
stalwart partners for us on everything we do, including
Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Mali. They currently have 302 troops
still in Afghanistan. And they host NATO as well.
So there are some other intangible things that they bring
to the relationship that I think are very, very important. But
it is something that I will continue to urge them to do more,
as they can. It is tough economic times for everyone, and I
will certainly stay in touch with this committee and work hard
to encourage that.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, to both of you.
Senator Kaine, any further questions?
Senator Kaine. Just one other thought for Rufus.
One of the things that interests me about Denmark, having
done a little bit of economic development work there when I was
a Governor, because of this Maersk connection, was that they
seemed to be a little bit of an outlier in European countries
on some labor policies. There are some European nations that,
for example, very difficult for employees to be fired or
something like that.
Denmark has kind of had a different attitude, which is it
is a much more fluid labor market. But when people lose jobs,
there are intensive job retraining programs for them and there
may be some retraining and workforce development ideas that I
found intriguing in a brief visit there, and we are clearly
grappling with that here.
I think we often talk about training as if it is not a
college degree, it does not count. But I think more and more,
we are waking up to the notion that post-secondary educational
programs do not just have to be college, that apprenticeship or
other kinds of programs can be very strong.
And I think in all of these countries, I mean, Germany has
really been a tremendous country, in terms of apprenticeship
programs. And that may be the case in all of your countries,
bringing us back some good ideas in that space, because I think
we need to make a little bit of a transition from it is all
about the college degree to it is all about post-secondary
education or training of one kind or another. And I think many
of the countries that you'll represent would have some good
ideas for us there.
So I just would encourage you to bring good ideas back in
that area.
And that is all that I have, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Murphy. Well, thank you very much, Senator Kaine.
Thank you all for your testimony today. You performed ably.
Our hope is to bring votes before the committee next week.
We are going to keep the record open for questions until
Friday at noon. To the extent that you do get posed with
additional questions, if you could act with alacrity in turning
those around back to the committee, that would be much
appreciated.
With that, the hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:53 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
NOMINATIONS OF STEVE LINICK, MATTHEW BARZUN, LILIANA AYALDE, DAVID
HALE, EVAN RYAN, KIRK WAGAR, DANIEL SEPULVEDA, TERENCE McCULLEY, JAMES
SWAN, JOHN PHILLIPS, KENNETH HACKETT, AND ALEXA WESNER
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 30, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
Hon. Steve A. Linick, of Virginia, to be Inspector General,
Department of State
Hon. Matthew Winthrop Barzun, of Kentucky, to be Ambassador to
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland
Hon. David Hale, of New Jersey, to be Ambassador to the
Republic of Lebanon
Hon. Liliana Ayalde, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to the
Federative Republic of Brazil
Evan Ryan, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of State for
Educational and Cultural Affairs
Kirk W.B. Wagar, of Florida, to be Ambassador to the Republic
of Singapore
Daniel A. Sepulveda, of Florida, for the rank of Ambassador
during his tenure of Service as Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for International Communications and
Information Policy in the Bureau of Economic, Energy,
and Business Affairs and U.S. Coordinator for
International Communications and Information Policy
Hon. Terence Patrick McCulley, of Washington, to be Ambassador
to the Republic of Cote d'Ivoire
James C. Swan, of California, to be Ambassador to the
Democratic Republic of the Congo
John R. Phillips, of the District of Columbia, to be Ambassador
to the Italian Republic, and to serve concurrently and
without additional compensation as Ambassador to the
Republic of San Marino
Hon. Kenneth Francis Hackett, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to
the Holy See
Alexa Lange Wesner, of Texas, to be Ambassador to the Republic
of Austria
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert
Menendez (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy,
Kaine, Markey, Corker, Risch, and Flake.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
The Chairman. Moving to the nomination hearing, thank you
all for joining us on the business meeting today.
Today, as we approach the August recess, we have a plethora
of well-qualified nominees for the committee's consideration
before us. We welcome them to the Senate, as well as their
family members who are joining us today to offer their support.
We recognize that an obligation that is taken on by one of our
ambassadors, really is an obligation by family, and we
understand the sacrifices involved and we appreciate and
applaud all of our nominees and their families who are willing
to serve their country.
Before we begin, let me say I hope we can expedite the
process which too often can be long and fraught with delay, as
you well know. I would urge my colleagues on the committee to
submit any additional questions for our nominees to the
committee by this evening, and I urge our nominees to return
their answers in writing as quickly as possible.
I want to thank Senators Kaine and Markey who will be
taking the gavel for panels 3 and 4, and I want to thank
Senator Corker again and his staff for working on this process
so diligently with me, including reviewing files, meeting with
nominees, and making the time to hold this hearing during a
very busy week. But I believe our efforts are crucial to
filling critical posts in a timely manner.
Before I introduce the first of two panels, let me turn to
Senator Corker for his comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Corker. I look forward to this process continuing
today. Again, I know much of the paperwork has just come in
recently, and I know in this particular case, it has been 2,022
days since we have had an inspector general nomination. So I am
glad that you are here. I look forward to your testimony and I
want to thank all the members of this committee for
participating in this especially today so we can hopefully move
many of these out by week's end, if there are no objections.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Corker.
We will start with our first panel. I and others have been
deeply concerned that the Department of State has been
operating without a permanent inspector general since 2008.
Inspectors general plays a crucial role in identifying
ineffective programs, process weaknesses, wasteful spending
that undermine public confidence in Government. A permanent
State IG is essential for the proper functioning of the
Department.
I am, therefore, pleased that the administration has
nominated Steven Linick as the inspector general for the
Department of State. He is a highly qualified nominee who can
function independently and objectively. He is currently the IG
for the Federal Housing Finance Agency. He has previously
served as an Assistant United States Attorney and as the Deputy
Chief of the Fraud Section of the Department of Justice's
Criminal Division. In other words, just the sort of
qualifications that one wants from the State Department
inspector general.
With that, Senator Corker.
Senator Corker. Yes. This is a critically important post,
something that both of us have been pushing for, and I am glad
the State Department finally has made this nomination.
Obviously, the safety of our Foreign Service officers is
something that has become of even greater focus to all of us
with recent events, and I know that one of the roles that you
all have is to ensure that there is integrity in what we are
doing in that regard.
So I thank you for being here. I think it is incredibly
important, with all the moving parts that we have at the State
Department, to have a functioning and strong inspector general,
and I look forward to your testimony.
The Chairman. Thank you.
With that, Mr. Linick, we will ask you to make your
statement. We would ask you to synthesize your statement in
about 5 minutes or so. Your full statement will be entered into
the record, without objection. And the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE A. LINICK, OF VIRGINIA,
TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Linick. Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, and
members of this committee, thank you for this opportunity to
appear before you today.
I am honored to be President Obama's nominee for Inspector
General of the U.S. Department of State. This is the second
time President Obama has nominated me to serve the Nation, as I
was confirmed by the Senate in late 2010 to serve as the first
inspector general of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, FHFA,
the agency responsible for overseeing Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,
and the Federal Home Loan Banks.
Before I begin my official testimony, I would like to
introduce my wife, Mary; my son, Zackary; my daughter, Sarah;
my mother, Madeleine; and family friend, Robert King, who are
here supporting me today.
By way of background, most of my professional life has been
devoted to public service. Shortly after graduating from the
Georgetown University Law Center, I joined the Philadelphia
District Attorney's Office as an assistant district attorney.
In 1994, I became a Federal prosecutor and, over the next 16
years, worked with various components of the U.S. Department of
Justice, including two U.S. attorney's offices. Since October
of 2010, I have served as the inspector general of FHFA.
I believe my professional experiences make me well suited
to serve as the Inspector General of Department of State. As a
former Federal prosecutor, I have a strong and successful
background in combating fraud, waste, and abuse in Government
programs at home and abroad. Notably, while at the Department
of Justice, I served for 4 years as the Executive Director of
the National Procurement Fraud Task Force. During that time, I
supervised the investigation and prosecution of individuals and
companies for contract fraud and corruption related to the wars
and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. I worked
closely with officials from the Special Inspectors General for
Iraq and Afghanistan Reconstruction, plus the offices of the
inspectors general from the Department of State, the Department
of Defense, and the U.S. Agency for International Development.
In addition, my service as the FHFA inspector general
demonstrates that I have the skill, judgment, and experience
necessary to manage a large Office of Inspector General, an
independently overseen agency with significant program
responsibilities and financial resources. In this role, I have
gained a deep appreciation for the critical mission of
inspectors general within Federal Government agencies, as well
as the importance of conducting vigorous, independent,
objective oversight.
As FHFA's first inspector general, I was responsible for
building an organization from the ground up, including hiring
approximately 140 professionals. My Office's oversight
responsibilities for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which have
received approximately $187 billion to keep them solvent--this
is taxpayer money. From the outset of the Office's formation, I
employed innovative strategies to maximize results, including
collaborating with inspectors general to leverage resources and
benefit from best practices.
To date, my team has published approximately 50 reports and
numerous management alerts on critical topics affecting the
U.S. housing crisis. We have made recommendations that are
expected to produce at least $2 billion in added recoveries.
Additionally, we have initiated or participated in many
criminal and civil investigations relating to mortgage fraud
that have resulted in significant indictments and convictions.
It has been an honor to serve as the inspector general of
FHFA, and I am very proud of my Office's accomplishments.
If confirmed, I commit to bring the same leadership,
energy, vision, and independence to the Office of Inspector
General for the State Department. From a strategic and
leadership perspective, I understand that the responsibilities
of the position to which I have been confirmed are great. If
confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of State Office of
Inspector General is an independent, objective organization
that provides robust oversight, transparency, and
accountability to the programs and operations of the Department
of State.
I will maintain close relationships with Congress,
including this committee and other committees of jurisdiction.
I will develop effective working relationships with State
Department management.
I am honored to be considered for this important position,
and I look forward to answering your questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Linick follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Steve A. Linick
Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, and members of the
committee, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today. I
am honored to be President Obama's nominee for Inspector General of the
U.S. Department of State. This is the second time President Obama has
nominated me to serve the Nation, as I was confirmed by the Senate in
late 2010 to serve as the first Inspector General of the Federal
Housing Finance Agency, the agency responsible for overseeing Fannie
Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks.
Before I begin my official testimony, I would like to introduce my
wife, Mary, my son, Zackary, and my daughter, Sarah, who are here with
me today.
Most of my professional life has been devoted to public service.
Soon after graduating from Georgetown University, I spent about 8
months in Burkina Faso working on international development issues for
Africare, a nongovernmental organization. Shortly after graduating from
Georgetown University Law Center, I worked in the Philadelphia District
Attorney's Office. I then became a federal prosecutor and, for the next
16 years, worked within various components of the Department of
Justice, including two United States Attorney's Offices (in Los
Angeles, CA, and in Alexandria, VA) and here in Washington (in the
Criminal Division, Fraud Section).
I believe my professional experiences make me well suited to serve
as Inspector General of the Department of State. As a former federal
prosecutor, I have a strong and successful background in combating
fraud, waste, and abuse in both U.S. domestic and overseas programs.
Furthermore, I have the skill, judgment, and experience necessary to
manage a large office of inspector general and independently oversee an
agency with significant program responsibilities and financial
resources.
Having served as the FHFA Inspector General for more than 2\1/2\
years, I gained a deep appreciation for the critical role played by
inspectors general within federal government agencies. It has also
highlighted for me the importance of conducting vigorous, independent,
and objective oversight.
As FHFA's first Inspector General, I was responsible for designing
and building an organization from the ground up. I recruited and hired
seasoned professionals with backgrounds in housing, finance,
investigations, and auditing to staff critical operational offices,
including an Office of Administration, Office of Audits, Office of
Investigations, Office of Evaluations, and an Office of General
Counsel.
From the outset of the Office's formation, I employed innovative
strategies to maximize results, including collaborating with inspectors
general and law enforcement agencies that have shared interests and
goals to leverage resources and benefit from best practices. For
example, I staffed the Office of Investigations with highly experienced
former prosecutors to investigate and prosecute FHFA-OIG cases in U.S.
Attorney's Offices across the Nation. I also spearheaded an initiative
among the federal inspectors general with oversight of housing programs
to address collaboratively housing crisis issues.
To date, my Office has published approximately 50 reports and
numerous management alerts on critical topics affecting many aspects of
the U.S. housing crisis. We have made recommendations that are expected
to produce at least $2 billion in added recoveries, and potentially
more. Additionally, we initiated or participated in multiple criminal
and civil investigations relating to mortgage fraud that have resulted
in many indictments and convictions.
If confirmed as Inspector General of the Department of State, I
commit to bringing the same energy, vision, innovation, independence
and leadership to that Office.
Additionally, as a former federal prosecutor with substantial
white-collar and government fraud experience, I managed and coordinated
complex grand jury investigations and prosecutions involving a variety
of criminal cases, including procurement fraud and public corruption in
Iraq and Afghanistan. I also participated as an instructor in overseas
programs sponsored by the Department of Justice and other agencies in
Uganda, Mozambique, United Arab Emirates, and Mali, where I taught
topics such as money laundering, public corruption, contract fraud, and
financial crimes.
Notably, I served for four years as the Executive Director of the
National Procurement Fraud Task Force. That group was led by the
Department of Justice and included inspectors general from numerous
federal agencies. Under my watch, the Task Force investigated and
prosecuted individuals and companies for corruption and fraud related
to contracts and grants, with a special emphasis on overseas programs
focused on the conflicts and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and
Afghanistan. In that regard, I worked very closely with officials from
the Special Inspectors General for Iraq (SIGIR) and Afghanistan
Reconstruction (SIGAR), plus the Offices of Inspectors General from the
Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Agency for
International Development.
From a strategic and leadership perspective, I understand that the
responsibilities of the position to which I have been nominated are
great. Based on the significant issues facing the Department of State,
it is clear to me that assuming the leadership role of Inspector
General will be challenging and rewarding. I look forward to this task,
if confirmed.
If confirmed, I pledge to:
Ensure that the Department of State Office of Inspector
General (OIG) is an independent and objective organization that
provides timely, robust, fact-based oversight, transparency,
and accountability to the programs and operations of the
Department of State;
Consult stakeholders regularly (including the Government
Accountability Office and affected communities);
Efficiently and effectively deploy OIG resources to those
areas that present the highest risk to the Department of State;
Collaborate with other inspectors general who have
potentially overlapping interests, jurisdiction, and programs;
Ensure whistleblowers have a safe forum to voice grievances
and are protected from retaliation; and
Aggressively protect taxpayer funds against fraud, waste,
and abuse.
I am honored to be considered for this important position and look
forward to answering your questions. Thank you.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much for your testimony.
Let me start off with this position has been vacant since
January 2008, the longest unfilled position among the
inspectors general across the Federal Departments. Based on
your experience as a confirmed inspector general in your
present position, what effect do you think that a vacancy of
that length may have created at the Department of State?
And I heard your commitment to independence. How will you
assure the independence of State OIG, if confirmed, upon
assuming the position?
Mr. Linick. Senator, thank you for that question.
I recognize there has been a longstanding vacancy. Clearly,
it is one of the challenges that I face at the State
Department. I do not know what impact that has had on the OIG,
and one of my first goals would be to roll up my sleeves, go
into the office, if confirmed, and find out where there are
gaps in oversight or problems in the Office and look for
solutions.
In terms of independence, I have been very independent at
the FHFA OIG, and I would certainly employ the same strategy at
the Department of State Office of Inspector General. For me,
this means telling the truth, even if it is unpleasant;
promoting transparency; resisting any interference; pursuing
investigations wherever the facts may lead; protecting
whistleblowers to make sure they have a safe forum for
expressing grievances; and ensuring there are high standards
for audits, investigations, and inspections.
The Chairman. Let me ask you, if you are confirmed, what is
your thinking on how you will work--inevitably your audits will
produce some understanding, some recommendations, some
legitimate concerns about the operations of the Department
within the context of your purview of your work. How will you
work with the Secretary of State and other senior Department
officials to ensure that recommendations made by you are
implemented?
Mr. Linick. There is a process that I employ at FHFA OIG.
It is a process that all inspectors general employ, starting
with making the recommendations; informing Congress about those
recommendations; following up on those recommendations; doing
additional reports to ensure compliance with those
recommendations. If I had a problem with implementation of
recommendations, I would certainly not hesitate to take it up
with the Secretary and also discuss it with Congress.
The Chairman. Can we get your commitment to that as part of
that process, since this is the committee of oversight and
jurisdiction, that you will bring to our attention those issues
that you are having a problem getting implemented?
Mr. Linick. You have my commitment. I am very close with
the Senate Banking Committee and other committees of
jurisdiction at FHFA OIG and routinely debrief both Senate and
House bipartisan on events and activities at the OIG and at the
agency.
The Chairman. And then finally, under the Foreign Affairs
Act of 1980, each State Department post or mission is supposed
to be inspected by the OIG at least once every 5 years. There
are about 85 posts and bureaus that have not been inspected in
the past 5 years, and Congress has had to grant the Department
a waiver to this requirement. What do you believe, upon your
confirmation, can be done to remedy the situation?
Mr. Linick. I am aware of the statutory requirement for
inspections. One of my first tasks will be to look at the
resources allocated to inspections, audits, investigations and
determine where OIG priorities are. I am very interested in
working with this committee, if confirmed, to understand the
committee's perspectives on the need for inspections of various
embassies.
The Chairman. I am going to turn to Senator Corker.
Senator Corker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I know you are aware of the challenges that GAO has laid
out regarding the lack of using appropriate accounting
standards, if you will, at the State Department. And I guess
you understand that there may be some personnel changes or
other kind of practices that need to be changed. I do not know
anything specifically in that regard, but are you willing to do
whatever is necessary to bring the State Department into using
appropriate accounting standards there as they are dealing with
these issues?
Mr. Linick. I absolutely am. I believe that those standards
are important for the integrity of the Office of Inspector
General for its credibility, and one of my first tasks, if
confirmed, is to take a look at the GAO issues, the
independence issues. It is concerning to me. I have not formed
a conclusion yet. It is something I would certainly want to
understand better, consult with staff, and view the terrain.
Senator Corker. One of the other issues that has occurred
within the Office of Inspector General is there has been a
tremendous amount of turnover. So there is a lack of what you
might call institutional knowledge and the ability to really
have the background to delve into issues in an appropriate way.
I assume that you would address that issue also if confirmed.
Mr. Linick. Yes. That is something else I would address.
Senator Corker. And I guess there is an opportunity to make
better use of contracting within the State Department. That has
been definitely pointed out. Obviously, that will be a major
responsibility of yours, and I assume, if confirmed, you will
do everything you can to demonstrate to the State Department
better ways of contracting and getting value for taxpayers and
what they are doing.
Mr. Linick. I certainly will, Senator.
Senator Corker. And I assume the same thing relating to--I
guess you have a background that I guess equips you to help
with all acquisition activities there, and I assume that you
will use that background that you talked about earlier to help
the State Department in all of its acquisition activities.
Mr. Linick. Yes. My background has prepared me for that.
Senator Corker. I appreciate the in-depth meeting you had
with our staff. I appreciate your willingness to serve in this
way, and I look forward to your confirmation.
Mr. Linick. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Corker. I very much appreciate both of your attention to
getting the appointment of an inspector general for the
Department of State. As you both pointed out, it has been a
very long time, and so we are very pleased, Mr. Linick, that
you have been willing to take on this task. Obviously, the
challenge is tremendous. And I think as the American taxpayers'
eyes and ears inside Federal agencies, that inspectors general
provide really important oversight that is of benefit not only
to Congress and the administration but also to the agencies
themselves. So thank you for your willingness to serve.
As you know, one of the challenges that all of Government
is facing right now at the Federal level are the impacts from
sequestration, those automatic cuts that have gone into effect.
I wonder if you can talk about how this factors into the job,
if you are confirmed, and how it will affect your priorities as
you go into State.
Mr. Linick. Certainly sequestration will impact the role of
the OIG. I am not there yet so I do not know exactly what the
resources look like, but if confirmed, that would be my first
task is to explore the various management challenges and how
resources are allocated to those management challenges.
At the end of the day, it is all about prioritization, as
you said, and it is about strategic planning and planning
audits and evaluations in a way which targets the highest risk
areas. And that is what I do at FHFA OIG. We have a very
rigorous strategic planning process, and we try to do our best
to maximize, to leverage our resources without expending too
much money.
Senator Shaheen. And can you talk about who is involved in
that planning process? So as you think about putting together
that kind of plan at State, who should be involved in those
discussions?
Mr. Linick. At OIG at the State Department, if confirmed, I
would talk with all stakeholders, the State Department itself.
Hopefully this committee would be willing to talk as well and
to provide perspectives. GAO and other stakeholders and, of
course, consulting with OIG staff about this.
At the OIG at FHFA, we have a working group that is
comprised of various division representatives from audits and
evaluations and other offices, and we get together and take all
the information that we have culled from the various
stakeholders and inventory everything. And then what we do is
we categorize them into buckets based on their risk factor, and
then we come down with a list of, you know, ``must to-do's.''
And that is how we do it, and I would employ the same approach
at the State Department OIG if confirmed.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. And I hope you will commit to
continuing to work with this committee as you are going through
that process and reporting to us so that we will have some
sense of what you are doing as well.
Mr. Linick. I would look forward to that.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
The Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction
reported on July 26 that the State Department has provided
inadequate oversight of a $50 million rule-of-law training
contract being implemented in Afghanistan by an Italian NGO.
I wonder, as Senator Corker raised, contract management and
oversight continues to be an issue, not just within State but
throughout the Federal Government. If confirmed, what more can
you do to ensure that contracts are prepared with effective
oversight requirements and conditions that ensure they are more
successful as they are being implemented and more cost
effective?
Mr. Linick. This is clearly an area that has been
identified as a management challenge. The State Department,
from what I can tell, is spending a lot of money on
contracting. This is an area with which I am familiar having
worked as the director of the National Procurement Fraud Task
Force. Contingency contracting especially is very risky. In my
experience, oversight is an afterthought because everybody
wants to get the money out the door, and we all know that--and
the story that we have heard from the SIGAR is an old story,
unfortunately, as far back as I can remember. I have heard
similar stories with lack of oversight.
If confirmed, I would certainly bring my experience to bear
and look very closely at the controls that the State Department
has to oversee these contracts.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
One of the other issues that has been in the news recently
is an IG audit report that the Bureau of International
Information Programs has spent about $630,000 on two campaigns
to raise the number of fans that it has on its Facebook page.
And the critics have suggested that this is not a good use of
funds, and while I understand that the IIP has since agreed
with some of the State IG recommendations--can you talk about
how your role as IG, if you are confirmed, could be employed in
helping agencies not to get into this kind of situation where
money is being spent on issues that are not necessarily the
direct mission for those agencies and where they should be
focusing funds?
Mr. Linick. That is a fundamental role for an inspector
general to protect taxpayers against fraud, waste, and abuse,
and that is something that we do at FHFA OIG through trying to
employ cost savings, provide recommendations to the agency, to
suggest ways to minimize costs.
I am familiar with this particular incident. I understand
public diplomacy is one of the management challenges identified
by the inspector general, and this is something that I would
focus on if confirmed as well.
Senator Shaheen. I guess I am asking a little bit different
question and that is how do you look at the mission of an
agency within the Department and determine--or do you see that
as being part of your role as you are looking how money is
spent?
Mr. Linick. I do. If there are articulated standards or
articulated policies that consist of the mission and those
policies are not being met, it is within the IG's mandate to
review how the implementation of that mission, whether or not
the end result complies with that mission. So that would be
part of the OIG role.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Murphy.
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Linick, thank you very much for your willingness to
serve in this position and coming before the committee today.
With the expected closure of the Special Inspector General
for Iraq Reconstruction, your office is going to now have new
responsibilities. You are obviously going to continue to do
oversight on State Department operations there, but you are
also going to be taking over oversight for our civilian
assistance programs. And I understand the budget calls for some
additional new positions to cover that responsibility, I think
about five people.
But can you talk a little bit about how you are going to
split your time and your Office's time between overseeing what
is still an enormous State Department presence there, along
with the civilian assistance programming that was previously
overseen by SIGIR?
Mr. Linick. That is something that I would explore once I
am there, if I am confirmed. I am not able to tell you what the
allocation would be from this vantage point because I am
outside of it. So prioritization and making sure resources are
allocated would be first priority.
But I think the issue of Iraq and the transition coming in
Afghanistan are obviously going to put enormous
responsibilities on the State Department in Iraq that it
already has in supporting the civilian presence. There is more
spending on housing and medical and all these other things that
are attendant to supporting the civilian presence. It has been
identified as a management challenge, at least the transition
in Afghanistan, and this is something that I would take a close
look at and work closely with the SIGAR and the SIGIR as they
both sunset. I know that the SIGIR is about to sunset and the
SIGAR will at some point in the future. But I would commit to
working closely with both of them.
Senator Murphy. Well, and I hope you will also commit to
coming back to us to tell us whether five people is enough to
cover what is an enormous new responsibility there.
One other related question. Maybe, again, you have not had
the opportunity to really think about this or take a look at
it. But during my one trip to Iraq, we were there for the
specific purpose to oversee some of the contracting programs,
and even with, at the time, tens of thousands of American
troops there, we could not get anywhere. We were not allowed to
essentially go and see 80 percent of the contracting programs
because they were not in areas that were safe for us to travel.
And this will be a problem not only in Iraq with your new
responsibilities, but in Afghanistan as we draw down our
military presence and certainly, as it is today, in Pakistan.
So to the extent that you have thought about this, one of
the challenges that are presented to you in terms of mobility--
you are going to need to go and see things in these countries,
and yet today in Iraq, and within a year or so in Afghanistan,
there just is not going to be the military presence to give
your operations cover. This could be problematic if there is
not proper security to allow you to go and do the job where you
want to do it.
Mr. Linick. Based on my experience, I know that this is a
very difficult issue for oversight because if you cannot do
site visits and you cannot get out, if you do not have
protection if you are an auditor, for example, you cannot do
your job. This is something that I would have to look at. I am
not in a position to tell you right now how to solve that
problem, but I am aware of the problem. And it costs money,
obviously, to protect folks to go out and do oversight of
projects and so forth.
Senator Murphy. Well, you are asking for protection from
the very group that you are auditing. Sometimes it obviously
presents an obvious conflict, again as you experience perhaps
those inherent tensions in asking for major security resources
from an organization that you might be in the end critiquing. I
hope that you would report back to us as well on those
challenges.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Linick, thank you for your service and congratulations
on your nomination.
Just a couple of items. You might have talked a bit about
this but I wanted to delve into a bit more. In your work on the
National Procurement Fraud Task Force, to what extent did that
involve international procurement issues?
Mr. Linick. A significant amount of international
procurement issues were involved. Part of my job was to
coordinate all the war zone prosecutions for the Department of
Justice, and I worked very closely with the ICCTF, which is the
International Contract Corruption Task Force. It included the
State Department IG, the Department of Defense, SIGIR, SIGAR,
and I was integrally involved in----
Senator Kaine. USAID?
Mr. Linick. USAID as well. Sorry for that. USAID as well,
FBI. I was very involved in working those cases. I was also the
deputy chief of the Fraud Section at that time, and many of
those cases were provided to folks in my section. So I
supervised a lot of the prosecutions involved in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and they involved corruption, bribery, all sorts
of contract fraud. So I am very familiar with that.
Senator Kaine. Good.
Mr. Linick. And I have been to Kabul and Bagram.
Senator Kaine. In that work.
Mr. Linick. Yes.
Senator Kaine. In late March, the State Department's OIG
notified the Department that it was going to start a special
review of the accountability review board process in order to
determine, I think, the effectiveness of the whole ARB process,
but it also specifically mentioned recommendations regarding
the ARB convened in the aftermath of Benghazi. I would love to
hear you talk about either how that work is progressing or--you
are not there yet--what would be your hope in terms of
continuing that work and looking at the accountability review
boards and how they can be made most helpful to the Department,
also to Congress and the public.
Mr. Linick. I really have no knowledge of that review. I
have not been involved in it. I have not studied the underlying
facts. I plan, if confirmed, on taking a hard look at all
pending matters. Of course, that is one of the pending matters.
I have formed no conclusions or judgment yet. Obviously, once I
am able to look at facts and review documents, then I will be
in a better position to make an independent determination as to
next steps.
Senator Kaine. I have no further questions, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Well, thank you all. Seeing no other members
of the committee--again, I remind members that we will have
questions open until the close of business today. And if you do
get any questions, I would urge you to answer them
expeditiously. It would be the chair's desire, working with the
ranking member, to have your name up for a business meeting
vote on Thursday, but that will depend upon making sure we have
answers to any questions that are posed.
With that and with the thanks of the committee, you are
excused.
Mr. Linick. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Let me call up our next panel. And as we have them come
forward, I am going to introduce them in the interest of time
here.
I am pleased to welcome Matthew Barzun as we consider his
nomination to be our next Ambassador to the Court of St. James
or, if you prefer, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom is one of our closest
allies, and the job of representing the United States in London
was first held by John Adams and a succession of remarkable
Americans. Matthew Barzun is no stranger to the world of
diplomacy, having served successfully as our Ambassador to
Sweden in 2009 and 2011, and I am sure that he will represent
us well. We welcome you to the committee.
You can all come up.
Mr. David Hale. I welcome David to the committee. He is
from the great State of New Jersey. So that gets you past first
base here as we consider his nomination to be our next
Ambassador to the Republic of Lebanon. While many countries in
the Middle East have experienced significant difficulties from
Syria's civil war, Lebanon has certainly taken the brunt of the
fallout. Currently there are over 600,000 Syrian refugees in
Lebanon and the number is expected to surpass 1 million by the
end of the year. Mr. Hale is no stranger to Lebanon, having
served there twice before, most recently from 1998 to 2001 as
the Deputy Chief of Mission and having also served as our
Ambassador to Jordan from 2005 to 2008. The chair is confident
he is up to the challenge.
Let me welcome Evan Ryan to the committee today who has
been nominated to serve as the Assistant Secretary of State for
Educational and Cultural Affairs. This is a Bureau that plays
an essential role in U.S. public diplomacy by promoting better
understanding between the United States and other countries
through a variety of partnerships and professional exchanges.
Ms. Ryan is qualified for this particular role and has the
experience to prove it. She previously served as Assistant to
the Vice President, Special Assistant to the President for
Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement, and prior to
that, she worked as a consultant for the Educational
Partnership for Children of Conflict and served as the Deputy
Chair for Governance for the Clinton Global Initiative. So we
believe that she will make an excellent Assistant Secretary of
State in this regard, and I look forward to working with her in
the coming years.
And I understand that Ms. Ayalde is stuck in security. So
we will hopefully liberate her so that she can be at the
hearing here shortly.
With that in the order in which I introduced you,
Ambassador Barzun, we will start with you. If you would
synthesize your statement in about 5 minutes for each of you,
your full statements will all be included in the record,
without objection. And we will start with you, Ambassador
Barzun.
I see you have been liberated from security. Let me welcome
as well Liliana Ayalde, who has been nominated to be our next
Ambassador to Brazil. This is an incredibly important bilateral
relationship, as well as the role that Brazil increasingly
plays in a regional as well as an international context, so
much so that President Obama will host President Rousseff for
an official visit this coming October. Ms. Ayalde has strong
experience in the hemisphere as the Deputy Assistant Secretary
of State for the Western Hemisphere, as well as having served
in an ambassadorial post in that regard. So we welcome you as
well.
Ambassador Barzun, you can start off.
STATEMENT OF HON. MATTHEW WINTHROP BARZUN, OF KENTUCKY, TO BE
AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN
IRELAND
Ambassador Barzun. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of
this committee, it is an honor to appear before you today as
the President's nominee to be the next United States Ambassador
to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I
would like to thank President Obama and Secretary Kerry for
placing their confidence in me with this nomination, and I
thank you for considering it. If confirmed, I will work every
day to nurture and deepen this special relationship.
It is a relationship that has been meaningful to me for as
long as I can remember and comes from my own family's
connection to England. My 10 times great grandfather was John
Winthrop, a Founding Governor of my home State of
Massachusetts. His statue is right over there in Statuary Hall.
Back in 1630, John Winthrop left his comfortable life in
Suffolk to lead a group of 700 across the Atlantic to New
England to build a new life in a place he named Boston. In the
middle of that journey, he gave a sermon. Echoing the Sermon on
the Mount, he said, ``We must consider that we shall be as a
city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us.'' Those
words quoted by Presidents Kennedy and Reagan and so many
others have become part of the American DNA.
But it is also fitting that the sermon was delivered
between England and America because those words also described
the hopes and the expectations shared by so many around the
globe for the United States-United Kingdom relationship. As the
President and Prime Minister Cameron have said, the United
States and the United Kingdom count on each other, and the
world counts on our alliance.
That is why we stand with our U.K. ally to advance our
common agenda: ensuring our security, delivering economic
growth, and safeguarding our shared values. That is the work
our two governments are engaged on right now on all topics at
all levels. I know there are far too many to list now with my
allotted time, but I would like to highlight just three.
First, our work together in Afghanistan where, after us,
the United Kingdom is the largest troop contributor to the NATO
mission.
Second, our work together on the Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership, which the United Kingdom strongly
supports.
And third, our work together on every security challenge of
our times, whether it is securing a lasting peace in the Middle
East, providing humanitarian assistance to Syrian refugees, or
calling for Iranian compliance with nonproliferation standards.
Progress in these areas and others is only possible if we
continue our long history of cooperation.
As we saw in the Boston Marathon and the solidarity shown
with Boston at the start of the London Marathon just a week
later, it is the nature of our friendship that we always keep
moving forward together.
Mr. Chairman, 4 years ago, this committee gave me the
opportunity and the honor of serving my country as U.S.
Ambassador to Sweden. My wife, Brooke, who is my partner in
diplomacy and life, and our three wonderful children are ready,
if I am confirmed, to serve again.
Mr. Chairman, members of this distinguished committee, if
confirmed, I will serve with deference to this body, to your
colleagues in Congress, and to the administration that has
nominated me. I will serve with the utmost respect for the
time-tested bonds shared by our great nations. I will serve
with purpose and with optimism, knowing that the eyes of all
people are indeed upon us.
I thank you for your time, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Barzun follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Matthew Winthrop Barzun
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, it is an honor to appear before you today as the
President's nominee to be the next United States Ambassador to the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I would like to
thank President Obama and Secretary Kerry for placing their confidence
in me with this nomination, and I thank you for considering it. If
confirmed, I will work every day to nurture and deepen this special
relationship and important NATO ally. As the President and Prime
Minister Cameron have said, the United States and United Kingdom count
on each other, and the world counts on our alliance.
It is an intimate connection as we saw last week when so many
Americans shared Britain's excitement about the new prince. And it's a
relationship that has been meaningful to me for as long as I can
remember.
Part of that meaning stems from my own family's connection to
England. My ten-times Great Grandfather was John Winthrop, the first
Governor of my home State of Massachusetts (his statue is right over
there in Statuary Hall). In 1630, John Winthrop left behind his life in
Suffolk county, England, to lead 700 men and women across the Atlantic
to New England so they could build a new life in a city he named
Boston.
In the midst of that journey he delivered a sermon whose words have
inspired Americans ever since. Echoing the Sermon on the Mount, he
said, ``We must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill, the
eyes of all people are upon us.'' Quoted by Presidents Kennedy, Reagan,
and countless others, these words express an ideal that has become part
of America's DNA. But it is fitting that the sermon was delivered while
traveling between England and America, because these words also
describe the hopes and expectations held by so many around the world
for the United States-United Kingdom relationship: ``The eyes of all
people are upon us.''
With this in mind, I come before you today with a tremendous sense
of purpose and optimism. This optimism is not based on nostalgia, but
on a history of continuing our common purpose, adapted for the times in
which we live. I am confident that, working together, our two countries
will not only preserve this critical relationship, but will continue to
adapt it to a quickly changing world.
I began my professional life in 1993 when I left Boston to join a
four-person Internet startup in San Francisco called CNET. The company
grew quickly, our success a result of realizing early that the web was
different. What didn't work was trying to just ``build an audience''
the way publishers and producers did. What did work was directly
engaging with our users--to build a community.
I met my amazing wife, Brooke, in California. She has since become
my partner in diplomacy and in life and we now have three wonderful
children. At the height of the Internet boom, we decided to move to her
hometown of Louisville, KY, where the daily practice of building a
community is as old as the frontier generations. I embraced the city
and it embraced me. Even when I am not there, I always try to channel
Louisville's spirit of generosity, hospitality, and warmth.
I brought this spirit to Sweden when I served as the U.S.
Ambassador there at an important time. During my years there, Sweden
held the presidency of the EU, and Wikileaks posed unforeseen
challenges to the diplomatic community. Together with our Swedish
counterparts, our embassy team built stronger relations on behalf of
trade, security and human rights, earning a medal for exemplary
diplomatic service in the process.
I look forward to building on this diplomatic success if confirmed
as Ambassador to the United Kingdom.
We live in a complex world, and the challenges we face today not
only demand strategies that can evolve with the speed of change, but
also wisdom and perspective. Standing with our U.K. ally, we must
continue to advance our common agenda of ensuring our security,
delivering economic growth, and safeguarding our shared values.
That's the work our two governments are engaged on right now--on
all topics and at all levels. To list them all would fill my allotted
time, but you know them well: (i) our work together in Afghanistan
where, after us, the U.K. is the largest troop contributor to the NATO
mission; (ii) our work together on the transatlantic trade and
investment partnership, which the U.K. strongly supports, (iii) our
work together to on every security challenge of our times--whether it
is securing a lasting peace in the Middle East, providing humanitarian
assistance to Syrian refugees, or calling for Iranian compliance with
nonproliferation standards. Together, the United States and the United
Kingdom support democracy and freedom across the globe.
Progress in these areas and others is only possible if we continue
our long history of cooperation. As we saw in the Boston marathon and
the solidarity shown with Boston at the start of the London marathon a
week later, it is the nature of our friendship that we always keep
moving forward. Together.
What Britain means to us can be summed up in so many ways, but
here's one I like that came up in a conversation with our youngest son.
When talking about the possibility of moving to London, I mentioned the
fabled ``special relationship.'' He asked me what that meant. My first
attempts were long and failed. Words like ``allies'' didn't work.
``Historic bilateral bonds'' was met with a blank stare. I thought for
a while and then said, ``We're best friends.'' That worked.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, if confirmed, I will
serve with deference to this body, to your colleagues in Congress, and
to the administration that has nominated me to be the next steward of
this key post. I will serve with the utmost respect for the time-tested
bonds shared by our great nations. I will serve with purpose and
optimism, knowing that the eyes of all people are upon us.
I thank you for your time and look forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Secretary Ayalde.
STATEMENT OF HON. LILIANA AYALDE, OF MARYLAND, TO BE AMBASSADOR
TO THE FEDERATIVE REPUBLIC OF BRAZIL
Ambassador Ayalde. Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear
before you.
I am extremely honored to be here today as the President's
nominee to be the United States Ambassador to the Federative
Republic of Brazil. Please allow me to express my deep
gratitude to the President and the Secretary of State for the
trust and confidence in me as shown through this nomination.
Also, please allow me to express my sincere appreciation to the
committee as it undertakes its vitally important constitutional
role of advice and consent.
With the chairman's permission, I wish to recognize my
family and friends and colleagues who have supported me over
the years--many of whom are here today. I especially would like
to acknowledge my parents, Jaime and Mercedes; my nieces,
Bianca, Karina, and Alexa; and my lovely daughters, Stefanie
and Natalia. Each knows the joys and sacrifices of public life,
and I am grateful for their love and their steady support.
I come before you today as a career member of the United
States Foreign Service. I have served my country for 30 years
in diplomacy and development, mostly in the Western Hemisphere.
As a preteen, I had the privilege of spending 3 years of my
life living and learning in Brazil. The impact this vibrant and
ambitious country had on me has never really faded. I was
impressed by the openness and the spirit of the people and the
deep pride Brazilians have in their national heritage.
If confirmed, I would give the highest priority to ensuring
the well-being and safety of our mission and that of the
American citizens who live and travel in Brazil. In 2012 alone,
Brazil received nearly 600,000 tourists from the United States.
As the host to the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Summer Olympics,
Brazil will receive even more visitors and attention in the
coming years, providing the opportunity to showcase to the
world its dynamism and its diversity.
The relationship between the United States and Brazil is
strong. We share important values, including a commitment to
democracy, the rule of law, human rights, environmental
protection, and multilateralism. In recent years, we have made
great progress in expanding this relationship, not just on the
political and economic levels, but also in the people-to-people
exchanges aimed at expanding learning opportunities and
promoting innovation.
If confirmed, I will work to consolidate these important
gains and allow our relationship to grow by promoting the
following three themes.
One, the shared leadership to address global challenges. It
is in our interest to work with Brazil to address common
challenges such as food security, environmental stewardship,
nonproliferation, public health, and the collective defense of
democracy and human rights, and the trafficking of drugs,
weapons and people. We welcome Brazil's commitment to be a full
partner in tackling this global agenda.
Second, partnering to realize our trade and investment
potential. Boosting and sustaining economic growth is a key
priority for the United States and Brazil. Strengthening the
middle classes and expanding interest in a diversified cross-
border trade and investment are important shared priorities. If
confirmed, I would work to promote mutually beneficial
investments between our private sectors to spur innovation,
support growth, and create jobs in both of our countries.
And third, building our people-to-people capacity. Our
public diplomacy efforts are of vital importance. If confirmed,
I would focus on education, tourism, and English language
training to increase the Brazilians' exposure to the United
States and understanding of United States policies and goals in
the region. Brazil's Scientific Mobility program--a fully
funded initiative that will send 101,000 Brazilian students to
study science--will connect us with Brazil's next generation of
entrepreneurial leaders and complements President Obama's
100,000 Strong in the Americas initiative.
Brazil's history has shown that it is not necessary to
choose between democracy and economic development. A commitment
to democratic institutions and free markets can allow a country
to peacefully transform itself into a middle-class society and
a global leader. In the process, Brazil has created the
opportunity for us to re-imagine our relationship and open the
possibility for both countries to construct a new kind of
strategic partnership.
If confirmed by the Senate, I look forward to working with
the distinguished members of the committee, Congress, and your
staff, to achieve the goals of United States policy and foster
a relationship with Brazil that is worthy of both our great
nations.
Let me once again thank you for inviting me to testify
today and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Ayalde follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Liliana Ayalde
Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, thank you very much for
this opportunity to appear before you.
I am extremely honored to be here today, as the President's nominee
to be the U.S. Ambassador to the Federative Republic of Brazil. Please
allow me to express my deep gratitude to the President and the
Secretary of State for the trust and confidence in me as shown through
this nomination. Also, please allow me to express my gratitude to the
committee as it undertakes its vitally important constitutional role of
advice and consent.
With the chairman's permission, I wish to recognize my family,
friends, mentors, and colleagues who have supported me over the years--
many of whom are here today. I especially would like to acknowledge my
parents and my daughters. Each knows the joys and sacrifices of public
life, and I am grateful for their love and steady support.
I come before you today as a career member of the United States
Foreign Service. I have served my country for 30 years in diplomacy and
development, mostly in the Western Hemisphere. As a teenager, I had the
privilege of spending 3 years of my life living and learning in Brazil.
The impact this vibrant and ambitious country had on me has never
faded. I was impressed by the openness and spirit of the people, and
the deep pride Brazilians have in their national heritage. I recognized
in Brazil's racially and ethnically diverse society strong similarities
with the United States.
If confirmed, I would give the highest priority to ensuring the
well-being and safety of our mission and that of American citizens who
live and travel in Brazil. In 2012 alone, Brazil received nearly
600,000 tourists from the United States. As host to the 2014 World Cup
and the 2016 Summer Olympics, Brazil will receive even more visitors
and attention in the coming years, providing the opportunity to
showcase to the world its dynamism and diversity. If confirmed, I will
work closely with the Brazilian Government to support its efforts to
ensure safe and successful major events.
The relationship between the United States and Brazil is strong. We
share important values, including a commitment to democracy, rule of
law, human rights, environmental protection, and sustainable
development; the desire to see peaceful resolution of disputes between
nations; and a commitment to multilateralism. In recent years, we have
made great progress in expanding the relationship, not just on
the political, economic, energy, and defense levels, but also in
people-to-people exchanges aimed at expanding learning opportunities
and promoting innovation. Dozens of bilateral dialogues, memoranda of
understanding, agreements, working groups, and people-to-people
exchanges underpin our broad-based relationship.
If confirmed, I will work to consolidate these important gains and
allow our relationship to grow by promoting the following themes:
Shared leadership to address global challenges. Brazil has
committed itself to global leadership. The May 2013 selection of
Brazilian Ambassador Roberto Azevedo as the World Trade Organization's
next director general and Paulo Vannuchi to the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights further illustrates Brazil's growing
influence. It is in our interest to work with Brazil to address common
challenges, such as food security, environmental stewardship, arable
land and fresh water management, nonproliferation, advancement of women
and girls, public health, the collective defense of democracy and human
rights, and the trafficking of drugs, weapons, and people. Our
engagement includes a growing number of innovative trilateral
initiatives, and we welcome Brazil's commitment to be full partners in
tackling this global agenda. A perfect example of our increased
cooperation is the upcoming Global Partnership Dialogue, led by the
Secretary of State and his Brazilian counterpart, which deepens our
interactions with Brazil on priority strategic challenges.
Partnering to realize our trade and investment potential. Boosting
and sustaining economic growth is a key priority for the United States
and Brazil. Both of our societies look to their policymakers to advance
policies that lead to greater prosperity, equity, and opportunity.
Strengthening our middle classes and expanding diversified cross-border
trade and investment are important shared priorities. If confirmed, I
would work to promote mutually beneficial investment between our
private sectors to spur innovation, support growth, and create jobs in
both of our countries.
Building our people-to-people capacity. Our public diplomacy
efforts are of vital importance. If confirmed, I would focus on
education, tourism, and English language training to increase
Brazilians' exposure to the United States and understanding of U.S.
policies and goals in the region. Brazil's Scientific Mobility
program--a fully funded initiative that will send 101,000 Brazilian
students to study science, technology, engineering, and math at foreign
universities--will connect us with Brazil's next generation of science,
technology, and entrepreneurial leaders, provide a huge boost to U.S.
colleges and universities, and complements President Obama's 100,000
Strong in the Americas initative.
If confirmed, I would encourage outreach to Brazil's vibrant
community by engaging civil society and strengthening outreach to youth
and future leaders in universities, political parties, and business. I
will strive to expand our relationship by reaching out to people and
regions across Brazil we might not have reached in the past and
acquaint Brazilians from all backgrounds with the United States.
Brazil's history has shown that it is not necessary to choose
between democracy and economic development. A commitment to democratic
institutions and free markets can allow a country to peacefully
transform itself into a middle class society and global leader. In the
process, Brazil has created the opportunity for us to re-imagine our
relationship and opened the possibility for both countries to construct
a new kind of strategic partnership. This is not to say that Brazil
does not have challenges, or that we do not have differences. But we
have the mechanisms in place to address these issues constructively,
and the points of converging interests far outweigh our differences.
The potential for the relationship between Brazil and the United States
is as great as our willingness to embrace the opportunities before us,
and our goal is to show that we can best achieve our mutual interests
through collaboration and cooperation.
If confirmed by the Senate, I look forward to working with the
distinguished members of this committee, Congress, and your staffs to
achieve the goals of U.S. policy and foster a relationship with Brazil
that is worthy of both our great nations.
Let me once again thank you for inviting me to testify today and I
look forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ambassador Hale.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID HALE, OF NEW JERSEY, TO BE AMBASSADOR
TO THE REPUBLIC OF LEBANON
Ambassador Hale. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
I am deeply honored and humbled by the privilege to appear
before you today, and by the trust that President Obama and
Secretary Kerry have bestowed upon me. If I am confirmed, I
look forward to working with the Senate on how best to advance
United States interests in Lebanon.
I have had the honor and privilege of serving my country in
the Foreign Service since 1984. I have devoted my career to
advancing U.S. interests in the Middle East. Lebanon and its
people have been a part of my life for decades. I was first
assigned to Beirut just after the civil war ended and Lebanon
lay in ruins. Years later, I returned as the Deputy Chief of
Mission in a brighter time as the country rebuilt.
I learned a lot from the Lebanese people, particularly from
their unflagging aspirations and endurance. I was proud to help
build partnerships between America and Lebanon as we supported
Lebanese efforts to regain true independence, sovereignty, and
unity, to restore stability and security throughout the
country, to revitalize their economy, and to build strong state
institutions accountable to all Lebanese citizens.
This work is incomplete, but furthering that partnership
remains a priority for the Obama administration because it is
in the U.S. national interest. If confirmed, I will devote
myself to working with the Lebanese to advance these common
goals.
If confirmed, I will have no higher priority than the
safety and security of American personnel, information, and
facilities in Lebanon, as well as that of all American citizens
there. My overseas career since 1990, including as Ambassador
to Jordan, has been at high-threat posts in the Middle East.
That experience has taught me to guard against complacency, to
minimize risk, and to ensure that we have the resources and
practices we need to advance America's business as safely and
securely as possible.
The Syria crisis is having a profound effect on Lebanon.
The spillover threatens to disrupt Lebanon's progress toward
democracy, independence, and prosperity. There are those who
would drag Lebanon into the Syrian conflict. Hezbollah is
putting its own interests and those of its foreign backers
above those of the Lebanese people. Hezbollah's active military
support for the Syrian regime contradicts the Baabda
Declaration, violates Lebanon's disassociation policy, and
risks Lebanon's stability. My mission, if confirmed, will be to
do everything possible to support the Lebanese in their policy
of disassociation from the Syrian conflict, help them maintain
their sovereignty, and ensure that America is helping to meet
the humanitarian challenge posed by refugee flows into Lebanon.
Violence is already spilling over. The work of the Lebanese
Armed Forces and the Internal Security Forces to protect
Lebanon from these consequences reminds us that U.S. security
assistance is a pillar of our bilateral relations and clearly
in the U.S. national interest. We have worked with these two
institutions to fight common terrorist threats. We have a
strong commitment to support the Lebanese as they build up
these institutions so they can project state authority to all
corners of Lebanon. Only with such institutions can Lebanon
ever attain stability, sovereignty, and security.
There are over 700,000 refugees from the Syrian conflict in
Lebanon, a nation of only 4 million. The strain is great. Our
humanitarian aid helps the refugee population, as well as
Lebanese host communities, many disadvantaged themselves, with
food, shelter, health care, and schooling. If confirmed, I will
seek new ways to support Lebanese protection and assistance for
those fleeing the terrible violence next door.
Lebanon's banking sector is the backbone of its economy.
For the financial sector to continue to attract capital, it
must meet international standards on countering money
laundering and terrorist financing. If confirmed, I will work
with the Lebanese banking community to ensure that it remains a
stabilizing force for the economy.
It is now more important than ever to promote Lebanon's
democratic traditions. The decision to forgo elections and to
extend the current Parliament for nearly 2 years undermines
Lebanon's democratic practices. We recognize this is a Lebanese
process, but Lebanese political leaders should respect the
electoral process and the constitution, crucial bulwarks for
Lebanon's democracy.
Finally, Lebanese-American relations are more than a
bilateral tie between governments. There is a strong, proud,
energetic community of Lebanese Americans who have contributed
much to our country. Many of these Americans are committed to
the development of their land of origin as well. And I am proud
of my ties to a community that has done so much for the United
States and for Lebanon.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I thank you again
for the opportunity to be here. If I am confirmed, I hope to
see you and your staffs soon in Beirut, and I look forward to
your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Hale follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. David Hale
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am deeply honored and
humbled by the privilege to appear before you today and by the trust
that President Obama and Secretary Kerry have bestowed upon me. If I am
confirmed, I look forward to working with the Senate on how best to
advance U.S. interests in Lebanon.
I have had the honor and privilege of serving my country in the
Foreign Service since 1984. I have devoted my career to advancing U.S.
interests in the Middle East. Lebanon and its people have been a part
of my life for decades. I was first assigned to Beirut just after the
civil war ended and Lebanon lay in ruins. Years later, I returned as
the Deputy Chief of Mission in a brighter time, as the country rebuilt.
I learned a lot from the Lebanese people, particularly from their
unflagging endurance and aspirations. I was proud to help build
partnerships between America and Lebanon, as we supported Lebanese
efforts to regain true independence, sovereignty, and unity, to restore
stability and security throughout the country, to revitalize their
economy, and to build strong state institutions accountable to all
Lebanese citizens. This work is ongoing, and furthering that
partnership remains a priority for the Obama administration, because it
is in the U.S. national interest. If confirmed, I will devote myself to
working with the Lebanese to advance these common goals.
If confirmed, I will have no higher priority than the safety and
security of American personnel, information, and facilities in Lebanon,
as well as that of all Americans there. My overseas career since 1990,
including as Ambassador to Jordan, has been at high-threat posts in the
Middle East. That experience has taught me to guard against
complacency, to minimize risk, and to ensure that we have the resources
and practices needed to conduct America's business as safely and
securely as possible.
The Syria crisis is having a profound effect on Lebanon. The
spillover threatens to disrupt Lebanon's progress toward democracy,
independence, and prosperity. There are those who would drag Lebanon
into the Syrian conflict. Hezbollah is putting its own interests and
those of its foreign backers above those of the Lebanese people.
Hezbollah's active military support for the Syrian regime contradicts
the Baabda Declaration, violates Lebanon's disassociation policy, and
risk Lebanon's stability. My mission, if confirmed, will be to do
everything possible to support the Lebanese in their policy of
disassociation from the Syrian conflict, help them maintain their
sovereignty, and ensure that America is helping to meet the
humanitarian and economic challenge posed by refugee flows into
Lebanon.
Violence is already spilling over. The work of the Lebanese Armed
Forces and Internal Security Forces to protect Lebanon from these
consequences reminds us that U.S. security assistance is a pillar of
our bilateral relations and serves U.S. interests. We work with these
two institutions to fight common terrorist threats. We have a strong
commitment to support the Lebanese as they build up these institutions
so they can project state authority to all corners of Lebanon. Only
with such institutions can Lebanon ever attain stability, sovereignty,
and security.
There are over 700,000 refugees from the Syrian conflict in
Lebanon, a nation of 4 million. The strain is great. Our humanitarian
aid helps the refugee population as well as Lebanese host communities,
many disadvantaged themselves, with food, shelter, health care, and
schooling. If confirmed, I will seek new ways to support Lebanese
protection and assistance for those fleeing the terrible violence next
door.
Lebanon's banking sector is the backbone of its economy. For the
financial sector to continue to attract capital, it must meet
international standards on countering money laundering and terror
financing. If confirmed, I will work with the Lebanese banking
community to ensure that it remains a stabilizing force for the
economy.
It is now more important than ever to promote Lebanon's democratic
traditions. The decision to forgo elections and extend the current
Parliament for nearly 2 years undermines Lebanon's democratic practices
and stability. We recognize that this is a Lebanese process. But,
Lebanese political leaders should respect the electoral process and the
constitution, crucial bulwarks for Lebanon's democracy. These
institutions are cherished by the Lebanese people.
Lebanese-American relations are more than a bilateral tie between
governments. There is a strong, proud, energetic community of Lebanese-
Americans who have contributed much to our country. Many of these
Americans are committed to the development of their land of origin as
well. I am proud of my ties to a community that has done so much for
both the United States and Lebanon.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you again for the
opportunity to be here. If I am confirmed, I hope to see you and your
staff soon in Beirut. I look forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Ryan.
STATEMENT OF EVAN RYAN, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF STATE FOR EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, for the opportunity to appear before you today.
I will like to thank my parents, Donna and Tony Ryan; my
husband, Tony Blinken, for joining me here. I am deeply
grateful for their support.
The Chairman. Let me interrupt you for a moment. We want to
welcome Mr. Blinken back to the committee, who was the staff
director in the committee at one time and is the Deputy
National Security Advisor. So we are thrilled to see that the
world could wait a moment for you to be here with your wife.
Ms. Ryan. I am honored to be considered by the Senate for
this important position, and I am grateful for the trust and
confidence that President Obama and Secretary Kerry have placed
in me with this nomination to be Assistant Secretary of the
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. If confirmed, I
look forward to joining the administration's foreign policy
team and advancing our country's public diplomacy goals.
The mission of ECA is to increase mutual understanding
between the people of the United States and the people of
countries around the world through educational and cultural
exchanges. International exchanges enjoy broad bipartisan
support in Congress. ECA's wide range of programs and
initiatives continue to capitalize on American strengths and
ideals--the near universal appeal of our education system, our
culture and our values, our entrepreneurs and our innovators,
our scientists, athletes, and thinkers. ECA is the lifeblood of
public diplomacy, establishing the personal relationships that
become the foundations of international partnerships.
My background draws me to the position of the Bureau and
has prepared me for the considerable responsibilities of
Assistant Secretary. For the past 4 years, as the Assistant to
Vice President Biden for Public Engagement and
Intergovernmental Affairs, my work focused on bringing people
together from across America on a broad range of issues. I
built and strengthened constituencies and saw the power of
shared ideas. If confirmed, I will see that the American people
remain at the heart of ECA exchanges.
I have also seen the power of people-to-people exchanges
through serving on the board of directors of PeacePlayers
International and working with the Education Partnership for
Children of Conflict. When you bring people together through
areas of mutual interest, you open lines of communication and
build trust that is essential for solving long-term challenges.
Thanks to the opening made through this sports exchange,
children learn that what they have in common far outweighs the
differences that divide their communities.
These experiences instilled in me a conviction that through
education, culture, and sports, the United States can help
defuse conflict, bring people together, and build partnerships
to face global challenges.
With citizens increasingly able to shape local and even
global events, ECA's mission is more vital now than ever.
Annually ECA engages 350,000 exchange participants and is
connected with more than 1 million ECA alumni, including 365
who became leaders of their countries, 54 who won Nobel Prizes,
and many more who returned to become leaders in their chosen
fields. This is the legacy of flagship programs like Fulbright
and International Visitor Leadership Program, which was started
by Nelson Rockefeller who invited Latin American journalists
who came to the United States to learn about freedom of speech
and democratic values.
ECA's international program participants get to see America
firsthand. ECA is connecting with new audiences from every part
of society and empowering youth, women, minorities, and
underserved communities, the world's future problem-solvers.
Equally important is the impact of ECA exchange programs on
the United States. When ECA sends Americans abroad, they become
ambassadors for our Nation. Through ECA programs, Americans
learn about other cultures and gain skills needed to succeed in
the global marketplace.
And every day in every State, your constituents demonstrate
American values to exchange participants through their
hospitality. They open their classrooms, their workplaces,
homes, and hearts to people from nearly 190 countries.
By linking Americans together with people from around the
world, we can develop lasting relationships and partnerships
that overcome political and cultural differences. And there is
a tangible benefit too. Last year, international students
contributed nearly $23 billion to the U.S. economy.
If I am confirmed, I will sustain and build on the Bureau's
extraordinary record of connecting with youth, women, emerging
leaders, and the underserved to address the challenges of today
and invest in the future of America's global relationships.
For example, I am committed to engaging youth from every
region and background because 65 percent of the world's
population is under the age of 30. If confirmed, I am excited
to expand ECA programs like the Youth Ambassadors which started
in Latin America and promotes mutual understanding and
increases leadership skills.
ECA programs are also a bridge to opportunities and
alternative narratives for the next generation.
If confirmed, I believe the following are also essential
strategic directions for ECA.
No. 1, ensuring ECA programs are aligned with foreign
policy priorities.
Two, leveraging technology and new media to connect more
people with America such as virtual exchange programs.
Three, investing in long-term relationships with exchange
alumni to increase the overall impact of ECA's programs.
And last, increasing opportunities for Americans.
Public diplomacy relies on our country's greatest asset,
the American people. When you meet Americans, you meet American
values. If confirmed, my focus will be on creating lasting
people-to-people relationships that are the foundation of U.S.
global engagement.
Thank you very much, and I look forward to answering your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ryan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Evan Ryan
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking Member Corker, for
the opportunity to appear before you today.
I am honored to be considered by the Senate for this important
position--and I am grateful for the trust and confidence that President
Obama and Secretary Kerry have placed in me with this nomination to be
Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.
If confirmed, I look forward to joining the administration's foreign
policy team. It would be a privilege to advance our country's public
diplomacy goals under the leadership of Secretary Kerry, whose
commitment to solving global challenges by bringing people together has
been unwavering throughout his career.
The mission of ECA is to increase mutual understanding between the
people of the United States and the people of countries around the
world through educational and cultural exchanges. International
exchanges enjoy broad bipartisan support in Congress. ECA's wide range
of programs and initiatives continue to capitalize on American
strengths and ideals--the near universal appeal of our education
system, our culture and values, our entrepreneurs and innovators, our
scientists, athletes, and thinkers. Through these programs, the State
Department is building ties to emerging leaders around the world. ECA
is the lifeblood of public diplomacy--establishing the personal
relationships that become the foundation of international partnerships.
My background draws me to the mission of the Bureau and has
prepared me for the considerable responsibilities of Assistant
Secretary. For the past 4 years, as the Assistant to Vice President
Biden for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, my work
focused on bringing people together from across America--including law
enforcement and labor, state and local elected officials, business and
religious leaders, educators and community activists--on a broad range
of issues. I built and strengthened constituencies and saw the power of
shared ideas in advancing the administration's goals. These
constituencies remain deeply engaged with foreign exchange
participants, share invaluable expertise, and host them in our
communities. If confirmed, I will see that the American people remain
at the heart of ECA exchanges.
I have also seen the power of people-to-people exchanges overseas
through serving on the Board of Directors of Peace Players and working
with the Education Partnership for Children of Conflict. When you bring
people together through areas of mutual interest, you open lines of
communication and build trust that is essential for solving long-term
challenges. In Northern Ireland, South Africa, and Israel, Peace
Players uses sports to bring together children of different races,
religions, and ethnicities. Thanks to the opening made through this
sports exchange, children learn that what they have in common far
outweighs the differences that divide their communities.
The Education Partnership for Children of Conflict helps make sure
that children whose lives are disrupted by war still have access to
schools, books, and teachers. War can produce a lost generation; the
Partnership promotes education and offers opportunities to overcome
divisions that lead to conflict in the first place.
These experiences instilled in me a conviction that, through
education, culture, and sports, the United States can help defuse
conflict, bring people together and build partnerships to face global
challenges. We must continue to find creative ways to connect with
people around the world. Exchange programs open doors.
With citizens increasingly able to shape local and even global
events, ECA's mission is more vital now than ever. Annually, ECA
engages 350,000 exchange participants and is connected with more than 1
million ECA alumni--including 365 who became leaders of their
countries, 54 who won Nobel Prizes and many more who returned to become
leaders in their chosen fields. This is the legacy of flagship programs
like Fulbright, founded in 1946, and the International Visitor
Leadership Program, which was started by Nelson Rockefeller who invited
Latin American journalists who came to the United States to learn about
freedom of speech and democratic values.
ECA's international program participants get to see America first-
hand. They live and work here and return to their own countries and
share their new skills and understanding. The impact is global.
Participants are from every part of society. They are high school and
university students, emerging leaders, entrepreneurs, journalists,
activists, government officials, religious leaders, and academics from
every class and background. ECA is connecting with new audiences and
empowering youth, women, minorities, and underserved communities--the
world's future problem-solvers.
Equally important is the impact of ECA exchange programs on the
United States. We live in a globalized world, and providing Americans
international experiences makes our country stronger--better able to
understand, cooperate, and compete. When ECA sends Americans abroad
they become ambassadors for our Nation. They often study, work, and
live with people who have never met an American. Through ECA programs,
Americans learn about other cultures and gain skills needed to succeed
in a global marketplace.
And, every day, in every state, your constituents demonstrate
American values to exchange participants through their hospitality.
They open their classrooms, workplaces, homes, and hearts to people
from nearly 190 countries. From their hometowns, they are sharing the
best of America with the world.
By linking Americans together with people from around the world, we
can develop lasting relationships and partnerships that overcome
political and cultural differences. And there is a tangible benefit,
too: last year, international students contributed $23 billion to the
U.S. economy.
If I am confirmed, I will sustain and build on the Bureau's
extraordinary record of connecting with youth, women, emerging leaders,
and the underserved to address the challenges of today and invest in
the future of America's global relationships.
For example, I am committed to engaging youth from every region and
background because 65 percent of the world's population is under 30. I
know the transformative impact new ideas and experiences have on a
young person. We have to be in the business of talent scouting around
the world, finding emerging leaders, empowering them to fulfill their
dreams, and building a long-term relationship with the people of the
United States. If confirmed, I am excited to bolster and expand ECA
programs like the Youth Ambassadors, which started in Latin America and
has brought young people throughout the hemisphere together to promote
mutual understanding, increase leadership skills, and prepare youth to
make a difference in their communities. And to support the President's
Young African Leaders Initiative, by bringing young Africans to the
United States for summer leadership institutes at U.S. colleges and
universities, and providing opportunities for them to network and
contribute to their country's future when they return home.
It is also essential that ECA connect with young people in
vulnerable communities. ECA programs are a bridge to opportunities,
alternative narratives, and a marketplace of ideas for the next
generation. These relationships are an investment in our shared
futures.
If confirmed, I would look to continue expanding the reach of the
Bureau's English language programs to build on the strong global demand
for English language proficiency. English language skills connect young
people to America, open doors, develop communities, and allow people to
enter the global economy. This is a priority for the President and will
have an impact far into the future. To cite just one example, already
ECA's English Access Microscholarship program reaches tens of thousands
of students each year in underserved communities in more than 85
countries worldwide. They are building strong bridges between
countries, communities, and cultures while strengthening America's
popularity and appeal.
I also believe the following are essential strategic directions for
ECA:
1. Ensuring ECA programs are aligned with foreign policy and
are mutually reinforcing;
2. Leveraging technology and new media to connect more people
with America, such as virtual exchange opportunities;
3. Investing in long-term relationships with exchange alumni
to increase the overall impact of ECA's programs; and
4. Increasing opportunities for Americans and impact on
domestic communities.
Public diplomacy relies on our country's greatest asset, the
American people. When you meet Americans, you meet American values. If
confirmed, my focus will be on creating lasting people-to-people
relationships that are the foundation of U.S. global engagement. I
would be honored to lead this important effort for our country.
Thank you very much, and I look forward to answering your
questions.
The Chairman. Thank you all for your testimony and to your
family members for being here.
Let me start off with an answer I want from each of you and
it is a simple yes or no. If you are confirmed, will you be
responsive to requests from this committee and responsive to
sharing insights in your respective posts with this committee
by both the chair and members of the committee?
Ambassador Barzun. May I start?
The Chairman. Yes.
Ambassador Barzun. Senator, thank you for that question. In
the spirit of brevity, yes, absolutely.
Ambassador Ayalde. Mr. Chairman, I would welcome those
insights.
Ambassador Hale. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Ryan. Mr. Chairman, yes, absolutely. I look forward to
working with the committee.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you.
Now, let me start off with you, Ambassador Barzun. As
former Prime Minister Thatcher would say, the Anglo-American
relationship has done more for the defense and future of
freedom than any other alliance in the world. That is very
true. You embodied it in your opening statement.
In that context, there are still challenges before us,
challenges on terrorism, challenges in North Africa, challenges
as we still seek to deter Iran's march toward nuclear weapons,
for which the United Kingdom has been a tremendous ally in this
regard and forward thinking within Europe. How do you envision
working to strengthen our mutual interests, but of course U.S.
policy in this regard, to get our British allies to continue
not only on the path they have been on but to intensify it in
these areas with us?
Ambassador Barzun. Thank you, Senator, for that question
and raising that important topic--or topics, I should say.
As you pointed out, the defense and security cooperation
between our two countries is unrivaled, and precisely because
the cooperation has been going on for so long and it is so
strong, I will certainly make sure to never be complacent. That
takes a lot of work from an incredibly talented country team
over there at post. And if confirmed, I will engage with the
talented country team to engage on political, economic,
defense, and security, on all those issues because those all
come to play, as we seek to make the world a more peaceful,
prosperous, and just place and of course, if confirmed, would
welcome the opportunity to work closely with you, your staff,
and this committee to make sure that that remains just as
strong as it is today.
The Chairman. Well, I appreciate that. I am particularly
concerned about Iran. This committee has acted a series of
times, in concert with the Congress, in a way in which it is
rare today to have one unified voice of 100-to-0 votes about
our concern about Iran's march toward nuclear weapons. And
Great Britain has been a tremendous ally in this regard, and we
need their continued leadership as we get into a phase of, I
think, increasing challenge. So I commend that to your
attention in your portfolio as you go there.
And something that is on a personal note but I think also
important to our country, but on a personal note, I have for
some time been involved in questions of Northern Ireland from
my days in the House as a member of the Ad Hoc Irish Caucus
from convincing President Clinton's national security advisor
to give Gerry Adams his first visa to the United States, from
helping seven boys called the Ballymurphy 7 to be liberated
from a system of which they had 98 percent conviction rates
just simply because they were Irish Catholics.
And while we have come a long way, a recent set of
circumstances in Northern Ireland with protests exacerbated by
the parades that take place annually and the riots that have
ensued thereon has had a process by which Richard Haas, a
former U.S. special envoy to Northern Ireland, is going to
chair an effort. I hope that you will work with him and play a
role in this regard. I think we have invested too much not to
see the path to peace continue. It has been a cold peace but,
nonetheless, to continue on a march toward greater integration.
So I hope that you will consider that as part of your
portfolio.
Ms. Ayalde, you and I had a conversation about Brazil. I
think it is an incredibly important regional partner. I think
it is incredibly important in its continuing aspirations in the
world. I think the Brazilians have so much potential.
I, however, get concerned when I see, when they have
opportunities, where they are headed sometimes. I get concerned
in their position as the revolving chair of the Security
Council where they seek further engagement with Iran, on Libya,
in Syria in a way in which clearly diverts from my mind from
where our views are. And to the extent that they want to be a
new permanent member of the Security Council, it would make me
real concerned about their aspirations in that regard.
And regionally I hear about their desire to be the regional
leader, but I see them do very little outside of the country on
democracy and human rights.
So while there is a lot that we are in common cause with
the Brazilians, I hope that you are going to pursue, upon
confirmation, a broadening of what I hope their vision is and
their participation is in the days ahead.
Ambassador Ayalde. Senator, I appreciate your comments and
certainly this is going to be a priority for me, if confirmed.
My understanding is that the intensity of this dialogue over
the last 2 years has improved. As Brazil becomes a much more
active global player, the space in which we can dialogue and
influence on these very important issues has increased. And so,
if confirmed, I would want to pursue these very high priority
foreign policy objectives so that we could have a much more
fruitful and constructive way forward.
The Chairman. Ambassador Hale, you have one of the most
challenging posts here, and in that respect, I wonder what your
perspective is on a continuing political and military stalemate
in Syria in terms of affecting Lebanon. What would be the
ramifications in Lebanon for either a rebel victory or a regime
victory in Syria?
Ambassador Hale. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Of course, the situation we are facing today is an impasse
in Syria and the consequences that flow into Lebanon. It is
going to be very challenging in a post-conflict environment,
frankly, to even predict what Syria itself will look like, much
less what Lebanon is going to look like.
But one thing I think is very important to bear in mind is
that Lebanese society is interwoven very deeply into Syrian
society. The connections between these two countries run very,
very deep. All you have to do is look at a map and see why that
is the case.
Our hope is that Lebanon will stay out of this conflict,
that Hezbollah's role in trying to drag Lebanon into this
conflict will be showcased and rejected by other elements of
the population, and that as the situation in Syria stabilizes,
Lebanon itself can go back to a stable environment as well,
that the refugees will be able to go back into Syria.
Ultimately, that will require a political solution there, that
the violence slipping over the border will cease, and the
Lebanese will be able to take back the command of their own
agenda, which is to rebuild their country from years of civil
conflict.
The Chairman. And finally and before I turn to Senator
Corker, because time has run and I want to make sure everybody
gets an opportunity here, what do you think is the view--what
is the degree of your view in terms of having the Lebanese
leadership not allow the country to backslide into their past
in terms of the type of conflict that we have seen in Lebanon
before? What is your barometer reading on it?
Ambassador Hale. I think that the President of the
Republic, President Suleiman, is showing remarkable leadership
in preventing that from occurring. He has spoken out forcefully
about that. He has defended the disassociation policy and he
has condemned those, such as Hezbollah, who are violating it.
That is also true of the commander of the Lebanese Armed
Forces, who has also made similarly courageous statements. I
believe that the vast majority of Lebanese political and
factional leaders and religious leaders, as well as the vast
majority of the population of that country, has a very strong
aversion to returning to conflict. The evidence of what
happened to that country is all around them. All you have to do
is drive the streets of Beirut or in the countryside. Everyone
knows the costs and the consequences of it. But it is very
important that the tension that is rising from the conflict in
Syria and Hezbollah's involvement in it be dealt with directly
and that the political process, which is currently paralyzed,
return to function well so that all elements of that society
feel that they are participating in the decisions being made
for the security and future of the country.
The Chairman. Ms. Ryan, I will get to you in my second
round.
Senator Corker.
Senator Corker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank each of
you for your public service and continued public service,
hopefully, after this weekend.
Ms. Ryan, I had to step out for a moment with something on
the floor and you may have spoken to this in your opening
comments. But I would love to hear how your positions in the
private sector and the public sector have prepared you for this
role in cultural affairs that hopefully you will take.
Ms. Ryan. Thank you so much, Ranking Member Corker, and
thank you again for letting me be here today.
I actually was an exchange student in college, and so I
have that firsthand experience.
But shortly after college, I worked for First Lady Hillary
Clinton, and in that job, I was able to travel to 22 countries
around the world and see the different cultures and different
societies and how different cultures and societies can offer us
insights and we can learn from them and vice versa.
I then worked with a nonprofit called PeacePlayers
International, and PeacePlayers International works with
children of different races, religions, and ethnicities, and
brings them together with sports. They play together, learn
that they have more in common with each other than they do have
differences. They currently operate in Northern Ireland, in
South Africa, and Israel and the West Bank. And what was
fascinating to learn working with PeacePlayers is when you work
with young people who have not yet formed hard opinions about
people who differ from them, you can show them that there is
much more in common that they have with one another than
differences.
I also worked with the Education Partnership for Children
of Conflict, and what we found is one of the first things to go
by the wayside in an area of conflict is a school, a child's
ability to learn. And that can stunt that country's growth,
that country's path in the future if you are not educating its
young people.
So through all of these, as well as through my most recent
work with Vice President Biden when I worked with
constituencies all around the country and saw that when you
bring people together and open a dialogue, there is more that
we can accomplish together than apart.
I think the power of ECA is that you do open doors to
people around the world. There are currently 350,000
participants in exchange programs through ECA, and we bring
them here to this country. They see American ideas, American
values. They are exposed to American democracy. They then go
home to their country. They share their experience of America.
And that benefits us in the long term. I think Senator Lindsey
Graham called ECA's exchange programs ``national security
insurance'' because if you send people back to their home after
they have been here, seen what America is really about, perhaps
something that they had not been exposed to in their own media,
and given them a chance to see how much broader their horizons
can be, that impacts us in the long term in terms of our
diplomacy and in terms of how this country deals with leaders
who have been exposed and been through our exchange programs.
So I think it is a very powerful place to be in terms of
our public diplomacy, and I feel that my background is uniquely
suited to accomplish a lot in this role. And I really
appreciate your question.
Senator Corker. Well, thank you.
We have had some difficulties over the last couple years
where certain efforts have taken place to clamp down on these
programs where we have had people coming here to the United
States and really learning a great deal about entrepreneurship
and for enterprise and all those things that have helped make
this country great. And I do hope, if confirmed, that you will
work with us to ensure that these programs are not clamped down
upon but actually, you know, within the resources available,
expanded because I agree. I think it is a tremendous
opportunity for us to share values with people in other
countries, for them to take those back to their home. But,
again, there have been some efforts, I think you may be aware,
to curtail these activities, and I hope you will help us ensure
that that does not happen.
Thank you again for being here.
Ambassador Hale, I know that Senator Menendez asked you a
couple questions about Lebanon, and I think you talked a little
bit about post. But right now as things sit, what is it that
you think we could be doing to help stabilize Lebanon with the
conflict that is occurring in Syria?
Ambassador Hale. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
There are a number of things that we are doing now and that
I will continue to do in order to help stabilize the situation
in Lebanon.
One of my first priorities is going to be to make sure that
Washington has a clear picture of the impact of developments in
Syria on the ground in Lebanon politically, economically,
security, and the humanitarian situation.
Second, we have to stay focused on that humanitarian issue.
The United States has contributed $160 million out of our total
budget for the Syrian refugee crisis to our partners in Lebanon
to help work with the refugee issues there.
I think we also want to make sure that the Lebanese
leadership is thinking ahead about contingencies related to the
refugees so that they are prepared and the international
community as a partner for them is also prepared and ready with
planning.
And then we need to continue to help with this
disassociation policy rhetorically and behind the scenes
politically to make sure that those who support disassociation
have our support.
One of the most important and tangible ways that we can
stabilize Lebanon is to continue our very concrete support for
the Lebanese Armed Forces and the Internal Security Forces. We
are contributing resources to them so that they can train and
equip to deal with the security challenges inside the country,
including countering the terrorist threats, controlling the
border, including the Syrian border, making sure that Hezbollah
can no longer claim that there is a vacuum in the state, but
there is a strong state institution capable of carrying forth
the security of that country.
Senator Corker. Ms. Ayalde, Ambassador, I thank you for
being here and thank you for your willingness to serve in
another country.
I see I am out of order here. I apologize.
There is a lot of economic and development changes taking
place in Brazil right now. What do you think we can do? I mean,
there is tremendous turmoil. There was growth for a period of
time, obviously much dissension within the country right now
about direction. What do you think we as a country can do to
help move Brazil along in a productive way?
Ambassador Ayalde. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member, and thank
you for the question.
Brazil has tremendous potential on all fronts, and we are
best situated to take advantage of that. We have various
dialogues going on that try to hone in on some of the barriers
to trade, we are already very well poised to address these
issues. It is a very dynamic process.
We have CEO's working on this. We have a very active CEO
forum with 12 CEOs from Brazil and 12 CEOs from the United
States working together trying to identify what those potential
barriers may be and how we can help address them jointly.
There are opportunities in the energy sector that we are
looking at very eagerly. Bids are due to be announced for oil
and gas exploration, and we are looking forward to the
opportunity this can offer U.S. business.
We have a number of areas that we are going to continue to
work with the Brazilians to try to take advantage of
opportunities. But we are already doing a lot. Tourism, for
instance, has just grown exponentially from the United States
to Brazil and from Brazil to the United States. And as a
result, we accommodated our consulates. We had to address the
streamlining. We have one of the highest visa issuance in the
world, and we have a number of Brazilians coming to the United
States and buying. That means jobs.
You mentioned the recent turmoil or protests that have
gotten a lot of public attention. We believe this is a sign of
the resilience of the Brazilian democracy and the voices came
out and protested, and the President responded immediately in a
peaceful way. And those concerns are being taken seriously and
the government is looking at ways of trying to address the call
for improved health services, improved education, and better
transportation.
And then again, there are also opportunities for our
engagement on the infrastructure. There are new airports and
ports projects, and we are looking forward to seeing more U.S.
business engagement. And if confirmed, I would certainly work
with our private sector and the Brazilian government to try to
make sure that there are fair rules of the game for that
economic engagement.
Senator Corker. Thank you.
And, Ambassador, I will probably get to you in a second
round, but I thank you for your willingness to go from Sweden
to where you are going. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Senator Murphy.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to all of our witnesses for your willingness to
serve.
Ambassador Barzun, I appreciate your mention of TTIP in
your list of the top three issues that will confront you in
your new post. I, in my service in the House, was not a 100-
percent supporter of trade agreements that came before the
Congress, but I am a big supporter of this one because I think
it has not only enormous economic potential but has large
geopolitical consequences if we get it right.
That being said, it will be a lot easier to enforce and
maintain a TTIP that we hopefully eventually sign if England is
still part of Europe. And you are going to be there during a
really consequential time for the identity of that nation. In
particular, in 2015, we expect there will be a conversation and
perhaps a referendum, according to Cameron if he wins
reelection, on the U.K.'s continued participation in the EU.
Talk to us just a little bit about our disposition and your
future disposition as Ambassador as England and the United
Kingdom goes through what could be a pretty tumultuous debate
about their future role in the European Union and what the
consequences perhaps are to the United States if their decision
to perhaps withdraw or either further limit their
participation.
Ambassador Barzun. Thank you, Senator, for raising very
important topics and topics I do plan to deeply engage on, if
confirmed.
I think the President said it quite well when Prime
Minister Cameron came to visit earlier this spring, and I will
echo those words in answer to your question. And it is
important to say right up front that the U.K.'s decision for
how it works with and within Europe is a decision and internal
matter for the United Kingdom.
That said, the United States interests--our interest is, as
the President said, for a strong U.K. voice in a strong
European Union for the reasons you touched on, Senator. A
strong U.K. voice--we share a commitment to free and fair
trade. We get a strong, bit TTIP deal done with the European
Union. That is not only good for the European Union and the
United States, which is a third of global trade. It also sets
great, high standards for the rest of the world.
So that is how I plan to handle it, if confirmed, and as
that evolves, I, of course, look forward to working with you,
your staff, and this committee to monitor progress. Thank you.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador.
Ambassador Hale, in our conversation before today's
hearing, you were referencing comments regarding the Syrian
refugee inflow to Lebanon as creating an existential crisis in
Lebanon. And sort of thinking about that afterward, it sort of
strikes me as maybe one existential crisis layered on top of
another existential crisis, perhaps layered on top of another.
This is about as confusing a country for identity politics
purposes as you get, and it plays out in the LAF. It is playing
out right now as the general of the LAF and the ISF are both
seeing their terms expire and you have got infighting amidst
the political groups trying to figure out who comes next.
And it often causes consternation here in Congress because
we, for instance, look at the sometimes watered-down
willingness of the Lebanese Security Forces to take on
Hezbollah, for instance, and we wonder why we are continuing to
fund them if they are not taking the kind of rigorous posture
that we would like them to. I think we sometimes have that
consternation because we misunderstand the complicated nature
of identity politics and political coalition building today,
and we also probably misunderstand the importance of the LAF
and a nonsectarian armed forces in trying to be one of the few
legitimate brokers of peace and political stability.
So we talked a little bit about this privately but talk to
us just a little bit about the role you can play to help us
make the case to appropriators here that we should continue
military funding for Lebanon, certainly with an understanding
that there is a line that they can cross that would cause us to
change our disposition. But how can you help us make the case
that this is an incredibly important funding stream for the
Lebanese people and for our regional security interests?
Ambassador Hale. Senator, that is an absolutely essential
issue that you have raised, and I think you have captured very
well the nature of the challenge that we are facing on this.
I would cast things in the following way. This has got to
be a long-term effort. You know, I saw the Lebanese Armed
Forces at the end of the civil war personally as a diplomat. It
was a broken vessel. The war broke it. We have been helping
them build up literally from the boots up since this period.
And one of the reasons that Hezbollah was able to become
what it is today is that it thrived in the vacuum that was left
by this absent state security authority. So if we have the
long-term ambition, as we do, of making sure that Hezbollah is
no longer the militia and terrorist threat that it is today,
then we have got to have in place state institutions that can
carry on the security challenges that are present in Lebanon
and around the region. So that is the long-term goal that we
have here.
We, obviously, would anticipate that there is not going to
be a military solution to Hezbollah. We saw that in 2006. There
has to be a much more complex approach to it. There has to be a
political strategy by Lebanese to reach a consensus that
Hezbollah can no longer be the one militia that is still around
and still armed and still controlling spots of Lebanese
territory that is still making decisions that affect the life
and prosperity of every Lebanese citizen without any
accountability at all. But we will never get there if we do not
have these institutions in place.
And think of the alternative. If we were not engaging and
bolstering the Lebanese Armed Forces, then you would have not
only Hezbollah but a whole host of terrorist groups seeking
haven in Lebanon, finding their own sanctuaries, developing
their own means, fighting amongst themselves, and then spilling
all that over into Israel and other countries. We have seen
that movie, and it is the last thing we want to see again
happen in Lebanon or anywhere else in the world.
So I believe that this is the right investment to be
making.
Senator Murphy. Thank you. Mr. Ambassador, I just want to
also thank you for your comments about the strong Lebanese
American population and your willingness to draw upon them to
try to make some of these cases I think ultimately to make your
job and our job easier.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And to the witnesses, congratulations. Thank you for your
service.
Mr. Barzun, your inspiring story about John Winthrop makes
me want to offer a sentimental piece of advice to you to
exemplify the same point, the great connection between our
countries. There is a tiny Anglican church a few blocks from
the Thames in the little community of Gravesend, which is at
the mouth of the Thames where it flows into the sea. And in
that parish, there is a very well-tended grave and it is the
grave of the archetypal Virginian Pocahontas. The English
settlers who came to Jamestown--frankly, they did not know how
to survive Virginia weather, and if it had not been for John
Smith, they all would have died. Pocahontas stayed her father's
hand as they were about to kill John Smith and that really
began the peaceful relations between Virginians, Native
Americans, and the English, that first example of English
settlement on this continent.
Pocahontas married another Virginian, John Rolfe, and
traveled back to England, and when she had been there for a
while, they gave her the Christian name Rebecca. She was coming
home and fell ill on the journey down from London and was taken
ashore in Gravesend and died.
The English have taken care of her grave there since the
early 1600s, and in the church, there are two stained glass
windows over the altar. One is Rebecca, her Christian name.
When I went in and looked at it, the other one was Ruth. And I
could not figure out why Ruth was in a stained glass window.
But as you well know from the King James Bible that John
Winthrop probably preached from, Ruth is the subject of the
wonderful Old Testament story of Ruth and Naomi, the mother-in-
law and daughter-in-law, who were of different nations. And
when Naomi told Ruth to go back home after her husband died,
Ruth famously said, ``Wither thou goest, I shall go. Thy people
shall be my people. Thy God shall by my God.''
It is a wonderful tribute to the relationship and that tie
between Virginian Indians and the English but also between the
United States and England. And that is why the stained glass
windows are there and that is why the grave has been so
carefully maintained for so many years. It will inspire you in
your role. I doubt you need inspiration, but it will inspire
you to see it. It is evidence of your proposition.
The Chairman. That is just an example of the tip of the
depth of knowledge that exists on this committee. [Laughter.]
And I thank the Senator for exhibiting it.
Senator Kaine. So now on to the more mundane. I am really
interested in this Scotland referendum, the devolution
referendum. And I do not know if you have any thought about
that or what the conventional wisdom of that is. My
understanding is the Prime Minister offered to Scottish people
the ability to have a referendum about their future, including
potential independence. And I think it might even be right
about the same time as you would be having the discussion about
the European Union.
Do you have any sense about how that is perceived right now
and how it would likely go? I know the United States would have
no position on it, but I am just curious.
Ambassador Barzun. Thank you, Senator.
You are right. The Scottish referendum will be at the end
of 2014, and you are also right that, of course, it is an
internal matter for the United Kingdom. So it would not be
appropriate for me to speculate about future outcomes.
I would, however, like to ask your permission to use that
story about Pocahontas early and often, if confirmed. That is
fantastic.
Senator Kaine. It is not trademarked, as far as I know.
Ambassador Barzun. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Kaine. Thank you.
Ambassador Ayalde, if I could. Just one little thing that
interests me. I could ask you a lot. But the chairman talked
about his concerns about Iran in speaking to you that Brazil,
you know, I think often showing an independence that a great
nation and a great economy would have, does things in the
foreign relations field that make us antsy and ought to make us
antsy.
But one thing about the relationship with Iran I think is
this. Brazil is one of the few nations in the world that gave
up a nuclear weapons program. They were developing nuclear
weapons when they had a military government in the 1970s and
1980s largely because of their concerns about their neighbor
Argentina. And about 5 years after the military government fell
in 1990, they voluntarily abandoned their nuclear weapons
program. They are one of the few examples. I think South Africa
and Libya might be the other two, each for their own reasons,
of nations that were well on their way to developing nuclear
weapons and then decided not to.
It is my hope--the chairman is working on this. We need to
do things with respect to Iran, military options, strong
diplomacy, strong sanctions. And yet, at the same time, there
ought to be some positive examples out there of why nations
have decided that it is in their own long-term interest to
abandon nuclear weapons programs.
And I hope that that story of Brazil as an example of a
nation that abandoned a nuclear weapons program might be
something that you and your colleagues in the Brazilian
Government, should you serve in that capacity, could tell
because I think it would offer some lessons to Iran and
possibly to North Korea or other nations that are deciding to
pursue a nuclear path. You do not need to pursue a nuclear path
to be a strong economy and be a global power. I think that is a
lesson from Brazil, and I just wondered if you might want to
say anything about that.
Ambassador Ayalde. Thank you, Senator. Yes, very much so.
That is the kind of positive moves that we are trying to
encourage. The global partnership dialogue includes some of
these global issues, including the relationship with Iran, and
we hope to be able to move in positive directions through
forceful diplomatic dialogue. And the experience that you have
highlighted certainly points to ways in which this can happen,
but we want to see that more frequently and obviously much more
robustly.
Senator Kaine. And I know, as the chairman knows, one of
the things that is most troubling about Iran is the way they
are trying to play all throughout the Americas, the Spanish
language TV and radio networks, trying to spread the influence
of Iran in Brazil elsewhere. And we need to pay attention to
Iran in the southern hemisphere not just in the Middle East.
And I look forward to working with you on that.
Ambassador Hale, I recently went with Members of the Senate
to the Middle East and Afghanistan and saw in Turkey and Jordan
the effects of Syrian refugees. But we did not go to Lebanon
and have extensive discussions about the effect of Syrian
refugees in Lebanon. In Turkey, the refugees tend to be in
camps of about 10,000 each, and when a camp is filled, then you
build another camp of about 10,000 each. In Jordan, the camps
tend to be larger, and because of water shortages in Jordan,
they tend to be very challenging for the Jordanian Government.
I would suspect because of the ties between Syria and
Lebanon, a lot of the refugees who would come from Syria into
Lebanon would sort of maybe not be in camps but blend in more
with family or friends or connections in parts of the country.
But could you describe the effect of the Syrian refugees
currently on Lebanese life?
Ambassador Hale. It is having a huge effect, Senator. And I
appreciate your observations on the situation around Syria's
borders.
The Lebanese decided not to set up camps. There are pros
and cons in all these decisions. There are camps in other
countries where the Syrian refugees themselves are extremely
unhappy, in fact, have rioted because of the conditions in
those camps.
And I think you put your finger exactly on the reason why
the Syrian refugees, because of the ties between these
countries, are able to integrate a little bit better into the
society. If you look at a map of where they are located, they
are literally spread all over the country, but not
unexpectedly, the majority are in areas near the Damascus
highway, in the Bekaa Valley, and the coastal highway that
comes down in north Lebanon.
The impact is on almost every aspect of life. These people,
some of them, have had resources but their resources are
beginning to dry up. They have rented apartments and so forth,
but others do not have resources and are living with extended
families in overcrowded housing, unable to necessarily meet
their basic needs. And that is where our role becomes so
important. They are doubling up in schools. The Lebanese have
opened up the schools, but the demand is very great.
I saw this in Jordan. By the way, I served there during a
large period of the conflict in Iraq. We had a very similar
challenge.
So one of the objectives that we have is to make sure that
our assistance goes to the community where the refugees are not
just to the refugees, because their demands are spilling over
into areas that are already disadvantaged.
Like Jordan, the Lebanese have a neuralgia about refugees,
and you can understand why, because of the Palestinian refugee
population and the distortions that that generated in the
society.
So I think everyone, going back to chairman's initial
question, is looking to us also to see that there is going to
be a solution to this problem. And so that is why, working with
the Syrian opposition, ultimately the answer is to find a
political solution inside Syria.
Senator Kaine. Thank you.
Ms. Ryan, I will have a question in round two, but back to
you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Let me ask you, Ms. Ryan. I agree with
everything you said--that is rare around here--with reference
to the importance of educational and cultural affairs in the
Bureau. There is an effort underway to make significant
reductions to the Department's funding to the tune of
approximately $124 million below the State Department's request
for fiscal year 2014. I personally will work against that, but
I hope it does not get realized.
But inevitably, the challenge is when you are looking at
the overall resources for our State Department, our Foreign
Service abroad, this is an area that seems to be ripe for those
who do not understand--and I agree with Senator Graham that
this is probably one of the best placed resources germinating
our ideas across the globe on democracy, freedom, and the
potential of each individual human being to fulfill their God-
given potential. So it has enormous value.
But to the extent that we are restricted with sequester and
other challenges looking ahead, if you were to be confirmed,
how do you look at how do we prioritize this effort in the
world? How do we look at the changing realities in the Middle
East and North Africa? How do we tailor our programming or
should we tailor our programming as part of an overall mission
to fight extremism?
So, you know, in my mind, we would love everybody to come
and see and engage and then go back in their own countries and
promote these values that they will see for themselves are, in
essence, really not just American but universal. But that is
not going to happen.
So is there a prioritization that we should be pursuing in
this regard, especially in light of the budget challenges that
we consistently face?
Ms. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You make a critical
point and that is an excellent question.
I know that ECA works very closely with the regional
bureaus of the State Department and with our embassies around
the world to ensure that our programs at any given time are in
line with our foreign policy priorities. And as you stated, in
these budget times, we do have to make sure that the programs
that we are developing are the ones that are most helpful to
our foreign policy priorities and that they meet the needs of
the changing global landscape.
To your point, there is a program that ECA has called Tech
Women that started just with women in the Middle East. It has
now been expanded to parts of North Africa. And what they do is
they bring women from the Middle East who are interested in
developing skills in tech. They come here for a mentorship
program in Silicon Valley where they are matched with women who
teach them tangible skills and technology. They go back to
their home countries. They have marketable skills. They know
how to start a business. They know how to develop these things.
We have now empowered them, taught them these skills. They have
benefited completely from the United States.
And what you will find is, especially with women--this is
why I think this program is so unique and powerful--women
invest in their children and in their children's education and
help form the opinions that their children are going to grow up
with about the United States. So that is one example of, I
think, how ECA has been nimble in making sure that their
programs do align with the foreign policy priorities of the
administration of this country.
The Chairman. So if you are confirmed, you will oversee a
department that will be nimble enough to respond to the
changing challenges we have within the context of your fiscal
constraints.
Ms. Ryan. Exactly. And making decisions about which
programs we need to prioritize based on what the current needs
are for our goals.
The Chairman. I have one last question and you referenced
it in your opening statement, which I was glad to see, and that
is using new media platforms as a way of expanding our reach
globally within the context of public diplomacy. Can you
expound a little bit upon that because I think that especially
when we are having budget challenges, this is an opportunity to
reach mass audiences in a way that, first of all, is aware in
how they seek to communicate and, secondly, gives us the
opportunity to expand our reach?
Ms. Ryan. Thank you, sir. That is a very important point.
One of the things that ECA has focused on recently is
virtual exchanges where people can learn from us online. We can
develop programs where they can sit at their computer in their
country and learn virtually with programs here in the United
States. So that is something that will be a priority. It is
something that, as you can imagine, is at a much lower cost
than actually transporting people. So virtual exchanges is
something that is on the horizon and that ECA is already
working on. And I look forward to, if confirmed, to continuing
in that effort.
One other piece of--you know, in terms of what you have
raised and how we can accomplish these goals and meeting
people's needs through other means. We already have very strong
English language programs around the world. What that has
accomplished and what I hope it will continue to accomplish at
a, hopefully, lower cost is purely by teaching American English
to people around the world, you then enable them to read
American media, to read English online in a way they would not
have been able to before, be exposed to ideas online purely
because there are these English language opportunities that
have been a priority for a very long time of ECA and I hope, to
your point, do not get cut in any budget cuts because English
language teaching is a very subtle diplomatic tool and very
powerful way to engage people not only with the United States
but with U.S. Web sites, Internet, ideas, and information. And
so I am hoping that that English language teaching could remain
because I think it is a very subtle and powerful way to teach
people about this culture but also open their minds.
The Chairman. That is great. I hope we are teaching
highbrow New Jersey English. [Laughter.]
Senator Corker.
Senator Corker. We could debate that.
I want to thank you all again for your service. I know
there are a number of panelists. We have two more coming up,
and I will be very brief.
But, Ambassador Barzun, you know, the United Kingdom has
been--we have a special relationship with them, as you have
mentioned. And if you can remember the Pocahontas story when
you get there, you will be one of the most outstanding
Ambassadors ever.
But you know, the fact is, at the same time, there are only
three NATO countries that are actually living up to their
obligations as it relates to funding defense. U.K. is barely
doing that right now and it looks like through budgetary cuts
could in fact drop down below. I know this is a short and quick
answer. But I assume you will be a strong advocate for the
United Kingdom in spite of the fact that we have a special
relationship with them in maintaining their obligations to NATO
in that regard.
Ambassador Barzun. Absolutely, Senator. Thank you for
raising the issue around this important NATO ally.
It is my understanding that Chancellor of the Exchequer
Osborne in his most recent budget laid out a defense budget
that would remain above the 2 percent. And we all know--both of
our countries know--that maintaining a modern deployable force
is expensive. And because of our deep cooperation with the
U.K., we are committed to working with that strong relationship
to make sure that they remain full spectrum capability, that
they remain interoperable with us, and also that they finally
are able to continue to lead missions on behalf of NATO.
So it is an area of critical concern, one that I will
engage on when I get on the ground, and I look forward to
working with you, your staff, and this committee, if confirmed.
Thank you.
Senator Corker. Well, again, I thank all four of you for
your willingness to serve our country in this way and for being
before us today. And I look forward to a long engagement with
each of you. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Ms. Ryan, just briefly. Again,
congratulations to you.
One of the programs that your office administers is called
the Exchange Visitor Program, and this is already kind of like
a constituent question. Virginia has been a great user of this
program, and it is to bring international teachers to Virginia
who have been very enriching of the student experience in the
Virginia public schools.
I just wanted to put on your radar screen for the day that
you are doing the job that the traditional time period for
these international visits is about 3 years. But the State
Department and Virginia have worked very cooperatively for some
time in allowing 2-year extensions to ultimately take those
periods in Virginia to about 5 years. And I know my
superintendent of public instruction, Patricia Wright, will
have that letter on your desk as soon as you are there. And I
just want to encourage you--I know you know the value of this
program and these teachers--how much they enrich students. But
just to encourage you in that because in Virginia we have found
that to be a really important program that your office operates
and we are big fans of it.
Ms. Ryan. Thank you, Senator Kaine. Indeed, I do know that
it is a very important program. The teachers who come over here
are teaching critical language skills to our students, but they
are also exposing our students just by being there to different
cultures and that is a very important program. And if
confirmed, I look forward to working with you.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Well, thank you all for your testimony, your
willingness to serve.
I remind members that the record for these nominees will
stay open until the close of business today for any questions.
If you do receive a question, I urge you to answer it
expeditiously. It is the intention of the chair, working with
the ranking member, to have these nominees before a business
committee later this week, but that will depend upon having
answers to all questions at that time.
With that and with the thanks of the committee, this panel
is excused.
I invite Senator Kaine to take the chair. And I invite our
next panel to come forward: Kirk Wagar, Daniel Sepulveda,
Terrence Patrick McCulley, and James Swan.
Senator Kaine [presiding]. If I could get members of the
panel, please, to come forward, we will begin now panel three.
I will do introductions of the four nominees who are before us
and then ask Senator Nelson to make some statements. I know he
is here to introduce his friend, Kirk Wagar. And after Senator
Nelson's comments, we will hear from the four nominees in the
order that I introduce them.
First, Kirk Wagar is a friend and has been nominated to
serve as Ambassador to Singapore. Mr. Wagar is a Floridian who
has had a distinguished and very successful career as an
attorney with a deep commitment to public service, including
service on the Advisory Board of the Import-Export Bank of the
United States. I am pleased to welcome him before the committee
to consider his nomination as Ambassador to Singapore.
The position for which he has been nominated is a very
important one in the region, both for the issues on the United
States-Singapore agenda, such as deepening defense cooperation
and the Trans-Pacific Partnership and also because Singapore's
role in helping to forge a new and emergent regional
architecture for a rules-based Asia-Pacific order. Singapore is
also a wonderful innovation capital, and there are great
exchanges of information and ideas that can be forged in this
role.
The unique role that Mr. Wagar has had as an attorney and
his commitment to public service, including the Export-Import
Bank, will qualify him in a great position for this Ambassador.
And I will introduce Senator Nelson in a minute who will
say more.
Terence McCulley. Ambassador McCulley, welcome. Ambassador
Terence McCulley is to be the nominee of the U.S. Ambassador to
Cote d'Ivoire. As a senior member of the Foreign Service,
Ambassador McCulley brings extensive leadership skills, coupled
with strong management and interagency experience. His previous
service in challenging countries, such as Mali and Nigeria,
have instilled necessary insight to serve in a country
beginning to find its way after a long and difficult civil war.
Since the crisis following the disputed Presidential
elections in 2010, Cote d'Ivoire has been steadily emerging
from a difficult era. The current President initiated measures
to restore security, address human rights issues, ensure
transitional justice, promote political reconciliation, revive
the economy, reform security, and rebuild state legitimacy. A
sizable agenda.
The United States has been a steadfast partner in these
efforts, especially in work on the judiciary and electoral
systems. We have also supported efforts to disarm and
demobilize former combatants and promote national
reconciliation. The immense challenges are not insurmountable.
With the wealth of experience and steadfast leadership of
Ambassador McCulley, the United States will continue to be a
partner of the Ivoirian people, and in a region that has been
too long plagued by conflict, a renewed Cote d'Ivoire will be a
valuable partner.
Next, Ambassador James Swan. Maybe one of the most
challenging countries in Africa, the Democratic Republic of
Congo, is wealthy in natural resources yet remains poor and
divided by conflict. Few people know more about these
challenges than Ambassador Swan. And I am pleased to welcome
him here as we consider his nomination.
Ambassador Swan has the depth and breadth of experience to
engage our partners in the Democratic Republic of Congo to move
toward realizing its potential and the Congolese people deserve
no less than the best the United States can offer.
It is one of the largest countries in Africa, presents
great challenges, but there are few people in the service of
the United States who understand the challenges and
opportunities more than Jim Swan. As a career Foreign Service
officer, he has had a long relationship with this country.
Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Africa Bureau. He has
promoted security reforms and the establishment of broad-based
government across the continent, and these happen to be two of
our highest priorities in the Congo. Welcome.
Daniel Sepulveda. The Internet and telecommunications are
at the heart of the modern international economy and both
present huge opportunities and challenges. With many years of
experience on just these issues while in Congress and past
administrations and in the private sector, Daniel Sepulveda is
the perfect candidate to champion the Nation's international
information and communication policies and priorities. I am
pleased to welcome him as the nominee for Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for International Communications and
information Policy with the rank of Ambassador.
He is well known here in Congress both for his expertise on
global telecom and Internet issues, as well as for his
extensive experience working for both Senators Cowan and Boxer,
as well as for President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry
when they were both Senators.
Mr. Sepulveda would assume the head of the State
Department's Information Policy Group at a moment when our
country is faced with complex international debates over
privacy, data flows, Internet governance issues, as well as a
time when the administration is pursuing a very significant set
of trade and investment agreements that impact directly upon
his portfolio.
I want to welcome all of the witnesses before us. Thank you
for your public service.
And I am going to begin by asking Senator Bill Nelson of
Florida to say a few words of introduction to Kirk Wagar, and
then we will have--actually before I do that, I am going to ask
my ranking member, with a great hand signal from Senator Nelson
about what I was supposed to do next----
[Laughter.]
Senator Kaine [continuing]. That I was able to observe.
Before I introduce him, I would like to ask Senator Corker, the
ranking member of the committee, to offer some introductory
comments.
Senator Corker. I think you have done an outstanding job of
introducing these great candidates and nominees. And I know we
have a very distinguished Senator from Florida who is waiting
patiently to speak. So I will defer and look forward to your
testimony and thank you again for your willingness to serve.
Senator Kaine. Senator Nelson.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you said, it is
my privilege to be back to the committee that I spent many very
happy years as a member of this committee and thank you all for
your dedicated service doing what has to be done in the
confirmation of these nominees. And I am here on behalf of Kirk
Wagar.
I have known Kirk for many years. He is from Miami. He is a
University of Miami law graduate. He has his own Miami-based
law firm. And he has a passion for justice and advocacy. And,
of course, someone possessing those characteristics, it is no
wonder that the President picked him for a very sensitive
diplomatic and political post, and that is Singapore, because
Singapore is a major trading partner. It will continue to play
a major part in our engagement in efforts, particularly trade
efforts, in Asia and our Ambassador there oversees the 17th
largest trade relationship. It is worth $50 billion a year.
Singapore, fortunately, has a history of championing trade
agreements. And as we get to looking to these Pacific trade
agreements, it is going to be all the more important that the
Ambassador representing us in Singapore in the Trans-Pacific
Partnership negotiations is going to be very crucial.
Now, interestingly, Singapore plays a very strategic
military role for us not because they have an army but because
we have an agreement with them that the U.S. Navy maintains a
logistical command unit in Singapore, and it serves in
coordinating warship deployment and logistics. And this is
right there at the critical Strait of Malucca, which is the
narrow passage from the Pacific to the east, to the Indian
Ocean to the west. So our U.S. representative in this tiny, in
effect, nation state is critical. Squadrons of U.S. fighter
planes are rotated to Singapore, for example, for a month at a
time, and the naval vessels make regular port calls. And so the
security cooperation with this little country is extremely
important to the interests of the United States.
And I want to commend to you for your consideration Kirk
Wagar as our Ambassador.
Senator Kaine. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson. We
understand that you may have other events to attend to, but we
appreciate you being here.
And, Mr. Wagar, why do we not start with you and then we
will just move from your side of the table all the way across
in the opening comments. And then Senator Corker and I will ask
questions, along with any other members who might come.
STATEMENT OF KIRK W.B. WAGAR, OF FLORIDA,
TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
Mr. Wagar. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Chairman, Senator
Corker, it is an honor and a humbling experience to appear
before you as President Obama's nominee to be the next United
States Ambassador to the Republic of Singapore.
I am blessed to be a citizen of the greatest Nation on
earth. I came here as an 18-year-old student, the first member
of my family to attend college, and from that time, this
country has provided me with my family, my education, my
career, my home, and numerous opportunities to serve in our
political process. My story is not possible in any other
country in the world.
I would like to first thank President Obama for the faith
he has shown in me with this tremendous responsibility and
assure this committee that I do not take it lightly.
I also want to thank my dear friend, Senator Nelson, not
only for his far too generous words but also his friendship and
leadership on behalf of my family and all Florida's families.
We could not ask for a more dedicated and gracious champion.
His example is one I have followed and I will follow every day.
If the committee will allow, I would like to recognize my
family. I was adopted at 4 months old into the most loving of
families, and while my parents could not be with us today, I
must acknowledge it is because of their guidance and strength
that I have achieved anything in my time on this planet.
I would also like to introduce my brilliant and wonderful
wife, Crystal Wagar. From her Midwestern roots to her
unparalleled work ethic, Crystal serves as a model and
inspiration every day, and her willingness to embark on this
adventure on behalf of the country we both so dearly love
ensures that we will do the best job we can on behalf of the
American people.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, it would be an honor to serve
my country as the United States Ambassador to the Republic of
Singapore.
Singapore is one of our strongest partners in the region, a
region that President Obama has made clear is a priority for
our future. There are three main pillars to our comprehensive
and productive relationship with Singapore.
The historic foundation of the relationship is our dynamic
and robust defense cooperation. Few countries surpass Singapore
as a partner and a friend to the United States on our defense
priorities in the region. Singapore is eager to have
interoperable equipment, facilities, and processes that make it
easy for us to cooperate with them on broad ranges of
activities. We recently forward deployed to Singapore on a
rotational basis the first of the U.S. Navy littoral command
ships, which serves as an example of the depth of our shared
interest in peace and prosperity in the region. If confirmed, I
will work tirelessly to keep this relationship moving full
steam ahead on a positive trajectory.
The second pillar of our relationship is the economic
cooperation we have with Singapore bilaterally, regionally, and
globally. The U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement was our first
free trade agreement in Asia. This bilateral free trade
agreement set high standards and broke new ground for future
FTAs. Since entering into force in 2004, bilateral trade has
flourished, increasing almost 60 percent. U.S. investment in
Singapore is twice what we have in China and five times that of
what we have in India. By many, many measures, this is
America's best performing FTA.
And we are building on that success as we partner with
Singapore in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The TPP will create
a 21st century trade and investment agreement among a dozen
countries that make up almost 40 percent of the world's GDP. If
confirmed, I will work with Singapore to successfully complete
the TPP negotiations this year, if possible, and to ensure
TPP's full implementation. Singapore has a remarkable open
economy with strong protections for intellectual property
rights. It is no secret why over 2,000 American companies base
their regional headquarters in Singapore. Taking this success
and building on it in the region will be an exciting challenge
for me.
Our cooperation with Singapore on law enforcement and
homeland security issues is the third pillar of our
relationship. Our law enforcement cooperation with Singapore
over the years has successfully used the available tools and
resources, but it is time to update the cooperation to use 21st
century tools to combat the 21st century challenges that face
us. There is untapped potential in our partnership with
Singapore as we confront the global challenges of cyber crime,
illicit finance, counterproliferation, and trafficking in
persons. I look forward to working with Singapore, if
confirmed, on coming up with modern and mutually beneficial
solutions to the problems of the present and of the future. I
want to see our nonmilitary security cooperation elevated to
the same parity we have on our military and economic
cooperation.
Finally, I came to this country because of the values that
make America great: freedom, equality, and opportunity. Those
values will be intertwined throughout all that I will do, if
confirmed. Through our strong people-to-people exchange
programs and my own personal public diplomacy efforts, we will
continuously represent these values with dignity, sensitivity,
and humility. I consider working to increase respect for
universal human rights and fundamental freedoms a key element
of the job of an ambassador and pledge to make sure that human
rights is squarely on the embassy's agenda, if confirmed. It
would be my distinct honor to serve as Ambassador to Singapore
on behalf of this great country that has given me everything.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Corker, thank you for inviting me to
testify before you today and for giving my nomination your
serious consideration. I am pleased to answer any questions you
may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wagar follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kirk W.B. Wagar
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is an honor and a
humbling experience to appear before you as the President Obama's
nominee to be the next United States Ambassador to the Republic of
Singapore. I am blessed to be a citizen of the greatest nation on
Earth. I came here as an 18 year old student--the first member of my
family to attend college--and from that time, this country has provided
me with my family, my education, my career, my home, and numerous
opportunities to serve in our political process. My story is not
possible anywhere else in the world.
I would like to first thank President Obama for the faith he has
shown in me with this tremendous responsibility and assure this
committee that I do not take it lightly. I also want to thank my dear
friend, Senator Nelson, not only for his far too generous words, but
also his friendship and leadership on behalf of my family and all
Florida's families. We could not ask for a more dedicated and gracious
champion and his example is one I have followed and will follow every
day. If the committee would allow, I would like to recognize my family.
I was adopted at 4 months old into the most loving of families, and,
while my parents could not be with us today, I must acknowledge that it
is because of their guidance and strength that I have achieved anything
in my time on this planet. Lastly, I would like to introduce my
brilliant and wonderful wife, Crystal Wagar. From her Midwestern roots
to her unparalleled work ethic, Crystal serves as a model and
inspiration everyday and her willingness to embark on this adventure on
behalf of the country we so dearly love ensures that we both will do
the best job possible on behalf of the American people.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, it would be an honor to serve my
country as the United States Ambassador to the Republic of Singapore.
Singapore is one of our strongest partners in the region--a region
that President Obama has made clear is a priority for our future. There
are three main pillars to our comprehensive and productive relationship
with Singapore. The historic foundation of the relationship is our
dynamic and robust defense cooperation. Few countries surpass Singapore
as a partner and friend to the United States on our defense priorities
in the region. Singapore is eager to have interoperable equipment,
facilities, and processes that make it easy for us to cooperate with
them on a broad range of activities. We recently forward deployed to
Singapore on a rotational basis the first of the U.S. Navy Littoral
Combat Ships, which serves as an example of the depth of our shared
interest in peace and prosperity in the region. If confirmed, I will
work tirelessly to keep this relationship moving full steam ahead on a
positive trajectory.
The second pillar of our relationship is the economic cooperation
we have with Singapore bilaterally, regionally, and globally. The U.S.-
Singapore Free Trade Agreement was our first FTA in Asia. This
bilateral FTA set high standards and broke new ground for our future
FTAs. Since entering into force in 2004, bilateral trade has
flourished, increasing almost 60 percent. U.S. investment in Singapore
is twice what we have in China and five times our investment in India.
By many, many measures, this is America's best performing FTA, and we
are building on that success as we partner with Singapore in the Trans-
Pacific Partnership negotiations. The TPP will create a 21st century
trade and investment agreement among a dozen countries that make up
almost 40 percent of the global GDP. If confirmed, I will work with
Singapore to successfully complete the TPP negotiations this year if
possible and to ensure the TPP's full implementation. Singapore has a
remarkable, open economy with strong protection for intellectual
property rights. It is no secret why over 2,000 American companies base
their regional headquarters in Singapore. Taking this success and
building on it in the region will be an exciting challenge for me.
Our cooperation with Singapore on law enforcement and homeland
security issues is the third pillar of our relationship. Our law
enforcement cooperation with Singapore over the years has successfully
used the available tools and resources, but it is time to update this
cooperation to use 21st century tools to combat the 21st century
challenges that face us. There is untapped potential in our partnership
with Singapore as we confront the global challenges of cyber crime,
illicit finance, counterproliferation, and trafficking in persons. I
look forward to working with Singapore, if confirmed, on coming up with
modern and mutually beneficial solutions to the problems of the present
and of the future. I want to see our nonmilitary security cooperation
elevated to the same parity we have on our military and economic
cooperation.
Finally, I came to this country because of the values that make
America great: freedom, equality, opportunity. Those values will be
intertwined throughout all that I will do if confirmed. Through our
strong people-to-people exchange programs and my own personal public
diplomacy efforts, we will continuously represent these values with
dignity, sensitivity, and humility. I consider working to increase
respect for universal human rights and fundamental freedoms a key
element of the job of an ambassador and pledge to make sure that human
rights is squarely on the Embassy's agenda if confirmed. It would be my
distinct honor to serve as Ambassador to Singapore on behalf of this
great country that has given me everything.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Rubio, and members of the committee, thank
you for inviting me to testify before you today and for giving my
nomination your serious consideration. I am pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
Senator Kaine. Thank you so much, Mr. Wagar.
And just to alert you all, we have just been informed there
may be a series of up to seven Senate votes beginning in a very
few minutes. But what we are going to try to do is get through
opening statements, and if the votes happen, we will just keep
you posted as to when we will come back to questions.
Mr. Sepulveda.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL A. SEPULVEDA, OF FLORIDA, FOR THE RANK OF
AMBASSADOR DURING HIS TENURE OF SERVICE AS DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND
INFORMATION POLICY IN THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC, ENERGY, AND
BUSINESS AFFAIRS AND U.S. COORDINATOR FOR INTERNATIONAL
COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION POLICY
Mr. Sepulveda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator
Corker.
I am honored to appear before you as the President's
nominee for the title of Ambassador while serving as Deputy
Assistant Secretary of State and U.S. Coordinator for
International Communications and Information Policy.
I would like to submit my full statement for the record and
summarize it for you now.
Senator Kaine. Without objection.
Mr. Sepulveda. I want to recognize my wife, Heather
Higginbottom, who happens to be the Secretary's counselor as
well, and is here today. And I want to recognize our baby girl,
Giselle Fabiana Sepulveda, who is at home.
My parents, Alejandro and Fabiola Sepulveda, are in
Florida, but I also want to recognize their support and express
my appreciation to them.
Mr. Chairman, I served 12 years in the United States Senate
for four Senators, as you mentioned. I managed technology and
telecommunications issues, as well as international trade, for
all of them. I am well-versed in these issues and passionate
about the importance of a thriving, open, and interconnected
global communications infrastructure both to our economy and
our democracy.
The State Department office I am nominated to lead promotes
and preserves global innovation and communications, including
international wireless, wired, and satellite communications.
The office is also charged with defending and promoting the
existing multistakeholder system of Internet governance that
has allowed the global information system to revolutionize how
we work, educate, and express ourselves. And this mission is
more critical now than ever, not just to us but to the billions
of people not yet connected to the Internet.
In the coming years, we will face international proposals
on Internet issues that will be discussed in multiple fora. You
can be confident that the administration's positions on those
proposals will continue to reflect the consistent bipartisan
approach to Internet governance issues that has prevailed since
the Internet's privatization in the 1990s.
If confirmed, I will look to you for guidance and
assistance. I take your oversight authority very seriously and
I know that jobs, innovation, and discourse of the
communications sector has helped enable in your States are
critical to the economic and democratic well-being of the
country.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity and the honor of
appearing before you today, and I look forward to any questions
you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sepulveda follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel A. Sepulveda
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee.
I am honored to appear before you as the President's nominee for the
title of Ambassador while serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary of
State and U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and
Information Policy in the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs.
I want to thank President Obama and Secretary Kerry for the honor
of being nominated for your consideration to serve as a representative
of the United States. If confirmed, I will discharge the important
responsibilities assigned to the U.S. Coordinator to the best of my
ability.
I want to recognize my family here today and those that could not
be here as well for all of their support.
Mr. Chairman, I served approximately 12 years in the U.S. Senate,
assisting Senator Boxer, then-Senator Obama, then-Senator Kerry, and
Senator Cowan. I managed technology and telecommunications issues as
well as international trade for all of them. Most recently, I was a
senior advisor to Senator Kerry in his capacity as chairman of the
Subcommittee on Technology and Telecommunications on the Senate
Commerce Committee and worked with his Foreign Relations Committee
staff on international issues in the same space. I am well versed in
these debates and passionate about the importance of a thriving, open,
and interconnected global communications infrastructure to our economy
and democracy.
In simple terms, this State Department Office promotes and
preserves global innovation in communications. In international
wireless communications, this has required the coordination of rules
and licenses in wireless operations around the world and the promotion
of best practices in policy and law that attract investment in
broadband networks.
In addition, we are charged with defending and promoting the
existing multistakeholder system of Internet governance that has
allowed the global information system to revolutionize how we work,
educate, and express ourselves. Preserving and enabling the Internet
environment for innovation is our mission. And this mission is more
critical now than ever, not just to us, but to the billions of people
not yet connected to the open Internet.
After last year's sometimes contentious World Conference on
International Telecommunications, it seemed that an unbridgeable divide
was potentially opening between the developing world and developed
economies on how best to address the role of intergovernmental
organizations in the management of international Internet-based
communications. We are working to close that divide to protect the
openness of the Internet and the freedom it grants innovators and
citizens alike to create new services that reach the world as well as
exercise their rights to speech and assembly.
Toward that end, I have some good news and a lot of hope. Last May,
we were able to start changing the tone of the debate. At the
International Telecommunication Union's fifth World Telecommunication
Policy Forum (WTPF), participants again debated important issues like
the adoption of IPv6 (the protocol that provides an identification and
location system for computers on networks), promoting Internet Exchange
Points, and supporting the multistakeholder model of Internet
governance. As the head of the U.S. Delegation in my capacity as a
Deputy Assistant Secretary, I was acutely aware of the anxiety leading
up to this conference that some governments would push for an outcome
pointing toward international regulation of the Internet.
Fortunately, at the event over 900 participants from more than 130
countries came together to adopt six consensus-based opinions on
important subjects including the promotion of Internet exchange points
and the facilitation of the transition to IPv6. None of the consensus
opinions threaten the existing multistakeholder Internet governance
system. This outcome validated the multistakeholder preparatory
process, which brought together governments, the technical community,
civil society, and academia on an equal footing. The U.S. Delegation
and key private sector stakeholders were very pleased.
In the coming years, additional international proposals on Internet
issues will be discussed in multiple international bodies.
Specifically, the United States is preparing for future Internet-
related public policy discussions at the Internet Governance Forum in
Bali, Indonesia (October 2013), ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee
in Argentina (November 2013), the ITU's World Telecommunication
Development Conference in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt (April 2014), and the
ITU's Plenipotentiary Conference in Busan, Korea (October-November
2014).
You can be confident that the administration's position on Internet
related proposals will continue to reflect the consistent bipartisan
approach to Internet governance issues that has prevailed since the
Internet's privatization in the 1990s.
Another key communications priority for the Obama administration is
the World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC), which will take place in
the last quarter of 2015. At WRC-15, we will address critical spectrum
needs such as identifying frequencies to command unmanned aircraft by
satellite and new internationally harmonized mobile allocations to
progress the administration's broadband agenda. The decisions we will
shape at WRC-15 will advance emerging technologies, protect essential
government systems, and drive competition in an international
regulatory framework hospitable to U.S. industries.
In addition to these international conferences, my office will
continue to host a number of bilateral discussions on ICT issues with
key engagement countries such as India, Brazil, Mexico, Japan, Korea,
and the European Union. Under the stewardship of my predecessor, U.S.
Ambassador Philip Verveer, these bilateral relationships have proven
critical in helping to ensure strong support and collaboration on a
myriad of communications and information technology issues.
As U.S. Coordinator, I will continue to promote the development of
the global Internet and work to enhance our relationships and
partnership with the developing world in our shared desire to expand
Internet broadband access worldwide. If confirmed, I will look to you
for guidance and assistance. I take your oversight authority very
seriously and I know that the jobs, innovation, and discourse that the
communications sector help enable in your states are critical to the
economic and democratic well-being of the country.
Thank you for giving me the honor of appearing before you today. I
look forward to any questions you may have.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Sepulveda.
Ambassador McCulley.
STATEMENT OF HON. TERENCE PATRICK McCULLEY, OF WASHINGTON, TO
BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF COTE D'IVOIRE
Ambassador McCulley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And with your permission, I would like to recognize three
people who are here with us today. First, a great friend and
great mentor, retired career Ambassador Johnny Young who served
four times as Chief of Mission for our country and I had the
honor of serving with him in Togo.
Second, I would like to recognize Christie Arendt, our desk
officer for Cote d'Ivoire, who has helped prepare me for this
hearing.
And finally, Ambassador Daouda Diabate, the Ivoirian
Ambassador to the United States who has joined us today.
Senator Kaine. Welcome, Mr. Ambassador.
Ambassador McCulley. Mr. Chairman, I am going to recognize
my wonderful family in the course of my statement, and with
your permission, I will continue.
Senator Kaine. Please.
Ambassador McCulley. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to appear
before you today as the President's nominee to be the United
States Ambassador to Cote d'Ivoire. I would like to thank
President Obama and Secretary Kerry for the confidence they
have placed in me and, if confirmed, I look forward to working
with this committee, with Members of Congress, and others on
our important relationship with Cote d'Ivoire.
I would also like to thank my wife, Renee, and our great
sons, Sean and Liam, for their constant support. Renee and Liam
are in Washington State at the moment, and I believe they are
following this on a webcast. Sean is in Japan. I am quite
certain he is sleeping. It is about 5:30 in the morning. But he
has promised that he will be watching this on a recording.
Mr. Chairman, with nearly three decades of service in
Africa, most recently as the U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria, I am
eager to remain on the continent and, if confirmed, represent
the United States in a country that we hope will once again be
a political and economic hub in the West African subregion.
Mr. Chairman, I believe strongly that the success of our
engagement abroad depends on our people, and I will make it my
highest priority to ensure their safety, their well-being, and
their security, as well as that of the private American
community in Cote d'Ivoire. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with interagency partners and our Ivoirian friends to
improve an already excellent relationship and to promote the
interests of the United States while continuing to press for
the peace and prosperity the Ivoirian people deserve.
After more than a decade of instability, Cote d'Ivoire is
on a corrective yet challenging path in key areas. The country
held free and fair elections in 2010, and the Ivoirian
Government has made progress in investigating crimes committed
during the preelectoral crisis. Yet there is much more to be
done, and if confirmed, I am resolved to engage with our
Ivoirian friends to promote transparency, inclusiveness,
equity, and accountability.
Yet justice and reconciliation will not be successful
without a credible and transparent legal process nationally and
internationally that ensures the investigation of crimes
committed by both sides of the conflict and holds those
responsible to account, irrespective of political affiliation.
If confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I will work with Ivoirian and
international partners to press for progress on these
critically important issues.
The economy of Cote d'Ivoire is improving, and the United
States is engaging with the Ivoirian Government to address
corruption and improve the investment climate in order to
promote stability and economic growth. If confirmed, I will
make it a priority to pursue our economic statecraft agenda
supporting and advocating for American businesses that seek
opportunities in Cote d'Ivoire.
I am also committed to the collective effort to advance
security sector reform, as well as disarmament, demobilization,
and reintegration of ex-combatants in Cote d'Ivoire. The
country can, the country must, redouble its efforts in both
areas in order to promote stability, protect civilians, and
realize Cote d'Ivoire's considerable economic potential.
With President Ouattara's democratic election, the United
States lifted restrictions on assistance to Cote d'Ivoire. The
bulk of our support now goes toward global health programs
focused on prevention, care, and treatment for those living
with HIV/AIDS. But we are also providing assistance to support
democratic institutions and support capacity building in the
security sector, including in respect for human rights and on
the role of professional security services in a democracy.
Mr. Chairman, Cote d'Ivoire is a keystone country in a
region of growing interest to the United States, and a
politically stable and economically vibrant Cote d'Ivoire will
promote prosperity in the subregion. Our agenda with Cote
d'Ivoire is complex, challenging, and ripe with opportunity and
includes support for democracy, good governance and
reconciliation, for security sector reform, and for economic
recovery. If I am confirmed as United States Ambassador to Cote
d'Ivoire, I will be a vigorous advocate for America as we
advance our relationship with this important west African
country.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today, and I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador McCulley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Terence Patrick McCulley
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, and members of the committee,
I am honored today to appear before you as the President's nominee to
be the United States Ambassador to the Republic of Cote d'Ivoire. I
would like to thank President Obama and Secretary Kerry for the
confidence they have placed in me and, if confirmed, I look forward to
working with this committee, other Members of Congress, and others on
our important relationship with Cote d'Ivoire. I would also like to
thank my wife, Renee, and my sons, Sean and Liam, for their constant
support. Renee and Liam are on the West Coast at the moment, and Sean
is in Japan. They are watching the webcast of this hearing. With nearly
three decades of service in Africa, most recently as the U.S.
Ambassador to Nigeria, I am eager to remain on the continent and, if
confirmed, represent the United States in a country that we hope will
once again be a political and economic hub in the West African
subregion.
Mr. Chairman, I believe strongly that the success of our engagement
abroad depends on our people, and I will make it my highest priority to
ensure their safety, security, and well-being, as well as that of the
American community in Cote d'Ivoire. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with interagency partners and our Ivoirian friends to improve
our already excellent relationship and promote the interests of the
United States while continuing to press for the peace and prosperity
the Ivoirian people deserve.
After more than a decade of instability, Cote d'Ivoire is on a
corrective if challenging path in key areas. The country held free and
fair elections in 2010, and the Ivoirian Government has made progress
investigating crimes committed during the post-electoral crisis. Yet
there is much more to be done, and I am committed to engaging with our
Ivoirian friends to promote transparency, inclusiveness, equity, and
accountability.
In the current post-crisis climate, where significant rifts remain
and with the 2015 Presidential elections on the horizon, serious
efforts must be made to advance national healing. Justice and
reconciliation will not be successful without a credible, transparent
legal process, nationally and internationally, that ensures the
investigation of crimes committed by both sides of the conflict and
holds those responsible to account, irrespective of their political
affiliation. If confirmed, I will work with Ivoirian and international
partners to press for progress on these critically important issues.
The economy of Cote d'Ivoire is improving, and the United States is
working with the Ivoirian Government to address corruption, and improve
the investment climate in order to promote stability and economic
growth. If confirmed, I will make it a priority to pursue our economic
statecraft agenda, supporting and advocating for American businesses
that seek opportunities in Cote d'Ivoire.
I am also committed to the collective effort to support Cote
d'Ivoire's security sector reform; as well as disarmament,
demobilization, and reintegration of ex-combatants. The country can--
and must--redouble its efforts in both areas in order to promote
stability, protect civilians, and realize Cote d'Ivoire's significant
economic potential.
With President Ouattara's democratic election, the United States
lifted restrictions on our assistance to Cote d'Ivoire. The bulk of our
assistance goes toward global health programs focused on prevention,
care, and treatment for those living with HIV/AIDS. We also provide
assistance to strengthen democratic institutions to build strong
systems of governance and rule of law. We advance maritime security in
the subregion and we provide training to build the capacity of Cote
d'Ivoire's military and police, including in respect for human rights,
and on the role of a professional security services in a democracy.
Cote d'Ivoire is a keystone country in a region of growing interest
to the United States, and a politically stable and economically vibrant
Cote d'Ivoire will promote prosperity in the subregion. Our agenda with
Cote d'Ivoire is complex, challenging, and ripe with opportunity,
including support for democracy, good governance and reconciliation,
for security sector reform, and for economic recovery. If I am
confirmed as U.S. Ambassador to Cote d'Ivoire, I will be a vigorous
advocate for America as we advance our relationship with this important
West African nation.
Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today, and I welcome your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ambassador McCulley.
Ambassador Swan.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES C. SWAN, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE
AMBASSADOR TO THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO
Ambassador Swan. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to appear
before you today as the nominee to serve as U.S. Ambassador to
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and I am grateful to the
President and the Secretary for the confidence they have placed
in me.
I will briefly summarize some longer prepared remarks, if
they could be entered into the record.
Senator Kaine. Without objection.
Ambassador Swan. First, before beginning more formal
testimony, I would like to recognize my wife, Daphne Michelle
Titus, and my children, Mitchell and Garner, who regrettably
cannot be with us here today, but I am thinking of them.
Mr. Chairman, as you noted in your opening remarks, I have
devoted most of my Foreign Service career to Africa and,
indeed, much of it to the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
including service as desk officer in the mid-1990s and then a
6-year period when I was assigned to our Embassy in Kinshasa.
And if confirmed, I look forward to drawing on this extensive
background to advance our interests in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo and the Great Lakes.
And indeed, Mr. Chairman, the United States has significant
interests in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It is the
largest country in sub-Saharan Africa and borders on nine other
nations. It has an enterprising population of some 70 million
people, and it is of global environmental significance because
of the Congo Basin rainforest.
A stable, prosperous, and well-governed Congo would advance
peace and development throughout central Africa. Yet
regrettably, as you noted, Senator, in recent decades the Congo
has instead been more notable for recurring cycles of cross-
border conflict, internal rebellion, human rights abuses,
sexual and gender-based violence, and the like.
I see three sets of issues as of particular importance to
advance American interests in the Congo over the next several
years.
First, we must intensify efforts to help the Congolese
resolve the longstanding conflict in eastern Congo. There are
many dimensions to this decade-long human tragedy, including
recurrent meddling by the neighbors, proliferation of armed
groups, lack of sufficiently capable and professional Congolese
security forces, and a culture of impunity for human rights
abuses.
This array of challenges may seem daunting, but we are
encouraged this year by the opportunity for peace presented by
a framework agreement for peace, security, and cooperation that
was signed among 11 countries in the Great Lakes region earlier
this year. And that framework agreement has now been bolstered
in recent months by actions such as an unprecedented joint
visit by the U.N. Secretary General and the President of the
World Bank to the region, by the appointment by Secretary
General Ban Ki-moon of the former Irish President, Mary
Robinson, as special envoy, and by adoption by the Security
Council of an expansion of the U.N. peacekeeping operation to
include a robust intervention brigade to pursue negative forces
and militia groups in eastern Congo.
The United States has also stepped up its already
considerable efforts in the Great Lakes region with, for
example, the appointment of former Senator Russell Feingold, a
former member of this committee, as the special envoy for the
Great Lakes, and just last week, Secretary of State Kerry, also
a former member of this committee, hosted a meeting at the U.N.
Security Council focused on the Great Lakes.
In addition to the international attention on eastern
Congo, a second main area of focus must be support for improved
Congolese governance. With strong international assistance, the
DRC held national elections in 2006 that were generally hailed
as credible and reflective of the will of the people. But we
noted a setback with the flawed 2011 elections. The Congolese
now have the opportunity of upcoming regional and perhaps local
elections in 2014 and 2015 and then a Presidential election in
2016 to put that right and ensure that they are afforded a free
and fair choice of leaders.
A third emphasis must be on continuing to work to unleash
the economic potential of this resource-rich country and its
people. This means working to develop the human capital of that
population. It also means working to foster a stable,
predictable, and attractive investment climate in order that
Congo's potential can be developed and also developed by
American companies that already are invested there.
Finally, let me mention two overarching priorities that
will guide my work every day, if I am confirmed as Ambassador.
First, of course, I will give priority to the well-being of all
American citizens in the Congo, and they number in the
thousands. I also take, with utmost seriousness, my
responsibility, if confirmed, to lead and ensure the safety of
the entire U.S. Embassy team, including American staff of all
agencies, their family members, and our invaluable Congolese
colleagues.
Mr. Chairman, once again I am honored to testify before
your distinguished committee and stand ready to answer any
questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Swan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ambassador James C. Swan
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am honored to appear
before you today as the nominee to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. I am grateful to the President and
Secretary of State for the confidence they have placed in me. Before
beginning my formal testimony, I would like to recognize my wife,
Daphne Michelle Titus, and children, Mitchell and Garner, who
regrettably are unable to be here in person today.
Mr. Chairman, I have devoted the majority of my Foreign Service
Career to African issues, most recently serving as Special
Representative for Somalia since 2011, and prior to that as Ambassador
to the Republic of Djibouti (2008-2011). If confirmed as Ambassador to
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, I would return to a portfolio I
have known well since the mid-1990s. I served as Desk Officer for then-
Zaire (1996-1998) during the rebellion that toppled Mobutu Sese Seko
after 32 years in power and during the turbulent first year of his
successor, Laurent Kabila. I was then assigned to our Embassy in
Kinshasa for 6 years (1998-2004), including 3 years as Deputy Chief of
Mission, during the peace process that led to the withdrawal of six
foreign armies from Congo and an internal political settlement that
resulted in a transitional government to prepare for nationwide
elections. I later returned to Washington as Director of Analysis for
Africa in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (2005-2006) and then
Deputy Assistant Secretary for African Affairs (2006-2008). In both of
these positions, DRC issues were also at the top of my agenda. If
confirmed, I look forward to drawing on this extensive background to
engage the Congolese Government and people to advance the wide-ranging
U.S. agenda in the DRC and the Great Lakes.
u.s. interests in the congo
Mr. Chairman, the United States has significant interests in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. It is the largest country in sub-
Saharan Africa (as large as the United States east of the Mississippi)
and borders nine other nations. It has an enterprising population of
some 70 million people, vast natural resources, and global
environmental significance due to the Congo River Basin rainforest.
With its size and geography, Congo's chronic instability has a
destabilizing effect in the broader central Africa region, which
stretches from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean. A stable, prosperous,
and well-governed DRC would advance peace and development throughout
central Africa and the Great Lakes and could go a long way in fostering
regional economic integration and realizing the Congo's significant
energy potential. Regrettably, in recent decades, the DRC has instead
been more notable for recurring cycles of cross-border conflict,
internal rebellion, human rights abuses, sexual and gender-based
violence, humanitarian crises, and weak human development indicators.
As a sign of the challenges faced by the DRC and the help it needs, the
country hosts the second-largest U.N. Peacekeeping Operation in the
world, the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO).
In preparing to serve as Ambassador to the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, if confirmed, I see three sets of issues as of particular
importance to U.S. interests over the next several years.
conflict in eastern congo and security sector reform
First, we must intensify efforts, working with our regional and
international partners, to help the Congolese resolve the longstanding
conflict in their eastern provinces. There are many dimensions to this
decades-long human tragedy, including recurrent meddling by the
neighbors, the proliferation of armed groups, the lack of sufficiently
capable and professional Congolese security forces to secure the
region, impunity for human rights abusers, a horrific pattern of sexual
and gender-based violence, protracted internally displaced and refugee
populations, the ongoing illegal trade in conflict minerals, the
absence of government services, and inadequately representative
regional and local governance structures. A durable response to the
conflict in the east will require a comprehensive approach that
addresses all these factors, among others. A number of U.S. Government
agencies, both at State and at the United States Agency for
International Development, will play an important role in developing
this comprehensive response, as well as in continuing to ensure the
provision of life-saving humanitarian assistance.
While this array of challenges may seem daunting, we are encouraged
this year by the opportunity for peace presented by the February
signing of the Peace, Security and Cooperation Framework agreement
amongst 11 countries in the region and the resulting increase in
international attention and energy being devoted to the Congo and the
Great Lakes. To address the root causes of conflict and instability in
the region, the Framework agreement includes commitments by the DRC
Government to undertake much-needed security, governance and economic
reforms. The signing of the Framework also launched a comprehensive
peace process, which has been bolstered in recent months by U.N.
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and World Bank President Jim Kim's
historic joint visit to the region, the World Bank's commitment of $1
billion in development assistance under certain conditions, the
appointment of former Irish President Mary Robinson as U.N. Special
Envoy for the Great Lakes to oversee the peace process, the U.N.
Security Council's approval of a robust 3,000-person Intervention
Brigade to strengthen MONUSCO's military capability, and the refocusing
of the Congolese Government's commitment to significant security sector
reform. Along with other international partners, the United States is
increasing its already considerable focus on the Great Lakes, for
example, Secretary Kerry's appointment of former Senator--and chairman
of this subcommittee--Russell Feingold as U.S. Special Envoy for the
Great Lakes, the Secretary's convening and chairing a Ministerial
Debate at the U.N. Security Council just last week, and the active
congressional engagement on Congo and Great Lakes issues. While a great
deal of work remains to implement the Framework agreement and to
translate these positive steps into lasting progress on the ground, the
increased attention and commitment I have noted is an important start.
I am also encouraged by the DRC's commitment in the Framework to
undertake security sector reform, or SSR, a key objective in the DRC.
The people of the Congo will not know safety and security until the
country has a military capable of securing the territory and protecting
the people. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the DRC
Government to prioritize SSR, including the army, police, and
judiciary, as an integral part of combating the conflict in the East,
eventually paving the way for the eventual exit of MONUSCO, and in
upholding the Framework agreement. I welcome the DRC Government's
recent publication of its army and police reform plans, but much more
needs to be done to implement both plans, including implementing a more
robust vetting system, increasing the capacity of the judicial sector,
and ending impunity across all military ranks.
elections and governance
In addition to the international attention on eastern Congo, a
second main area of focus must be support for improved Congolese
governance. Only through effective and representative governance at the
national, regional, and local levels can Congolese leaders truly speak
for their people and make legitimate decisions to address the critical
policy issues facing the country. With strong international support,
the DRC held national elections in 2006 that--while not perfect--were
generally hailed as credible and reflective of the will of the people.
Electoral assistance from the United States and other partners was
catalytic in helping Congolese institutions prepare for that vote.
Regrettably, the flawed 2011 elections were widely perceived as a step
backward. We now have the opportunity of upcoming regional--and
possibly local--elections in 2014 and 2015 and then the next
Presidential election in 2016 to ensure that the Congolese people are
afforded a free and fair choice of their leaders, consistent with the
Congolese constitution. This focus on elections must of course also be
matched by continued attention to building strong legislative,
administrative, judicial, and civil society institutions to sustain
improved governance beyond polling day.
development and economic growth
A third emphasis must be on continuing to work to unleash the
economic potential of this resource-rich country and its people. This
means working to develop the human capital of 70 million Congolese by
improving their health and education and ameliorating the country's
infrastructure. USAID is a key partner in these endeavors, among many
others.
In order to unleash Congo's potential, we will also need to help
foster a stable, predictable, and attractive investment climate. By
helping the DRC increase transparency in public finances, decrease
corruption, and expand the legal and licit trade of natural resources
we can help boost private sector growth that will benefit not only the
Congolese population but also American firms, such as those already
invested in the manufacturing, mining, oil, and telecommunications
sectors in Congo. Vast natural resources in agriculture, energy,
minerals, and many other sectors present real opportunities for rapid
economic growth--even beyond recent levels of approximately 7 percent
real GDP growth per year--if the right enabling environment can be
established. The DRC's resources, of course, also include priceless
environmental assets, notably the Congo River Basin Rainforest, the
second-largest in the world after the Amazon, and the Congo River and
its tributaries, which has the hydropower potential to help provide
electricity to much of the entire continent.
american citizens and the embassy community
Finally, let me mention two overarching priorities that will guide
my work every day if confirmed as Ambassador to the Democratic Republic
of the Congo. The well-being of all American citizens will of course be
my top priority. Americans in the DRC, working in private business, for
nongovernmental organizations, on missionary programs, with U.N.
agencies, or in other endeavors number in the thousands. I also take
with utmost seriousness my responsibility, if confirmed, to lead the
entire U.S. Embassy team, including American staff of all agencies,
their family members, and our invaluable Congolese colleagues and to
ensure their safety. I will advocate tirelessly for our team to have
the necessary management platform and security support so that we may
represent the American people to maximum effect in the DRC.
Mr. Chairman, once again, I am honored to testify before this
distinguished committee and stand ready to answer any questions. Thank
you.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Ambassador Swan.
We will proceed to questions. I will begin and I may be
relieved by Senator Menendez. We will try to tag team on the
votes a bit.
I will start with just a thank you, especially to those of
you who are career State, and your families who are here. I am
just really struck by the challenges of your careers. I know
there are upsides. I know there is excitement. But the frequent
moves and the challenges that that pose for spouses and kids
are very, very notable. And you are all to be commended for
being willing to serve in these capacities, and I thank you for
it.
First to Mr. Wagar, I am really fascinated with the
Singapore story as a small fishing village not that many
decades ago that has become our 17th-largest trading partner
and become really a global brand in a way of how innovation can
power an economy. It is not a piece of real estate that has
vast national resources, but they have a very innovative and
entrepreneurial spirit.
Many of the innovations in Singapore were innovations that
they went out and found, including finding them here in the
United States. They had a significant effort to improve their
educational system where they came to the United States and
decided that rote memorization learning techniques were not
getting them far enough and they needed to learn American
qualities of entrepreneurship and creativity. They developed an
educational philosophy called ``teach less, learn more'' that
really focused on the learner even more than the teacher. And
so they had a wonderful innovation track record.
I know as an innovator, and so I just wanted to ask you
about how you think in your role as Ambassador you can both be
a champion of American innovation but also bring back good
innovation ideas and continue to deepen the relationships
between our two countries around that central theme.
Mr. Wagar. Thank you, Senator, and it is a great question.
One of the most fascinating things that I have learned, as
I have gotten more and more familiar with the day-to-day
mechanism of Singapore, is their commitment to excellence that
crosses every sector and high standards and high rewards when
they are met.
Senator, I am sure you are aware that Yale is starting a
new project in Singapore partnering with the National
University of Singapore. It is the first liberal arts college I
think in Asia but certainly in Singapore. And their first class
right now, I understand, is in New Haven and will be going
back. They have 154 students, and there were 11,000 applicants
for those spots. So this is the first year that they are trying
to even go further than they have gone to, I think, experiment
with our liberal arts education.
This is the kind of innovation that certainly through our
shared values we can work with Singapore on a daily basis, and
it is something that I think is the role of any ambassador but
I think it is particularly important in Singapore.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Wagar.
Mr. Sepulveda, I would like it if you might talk a little
bit about the debates going on in the International
Telecommunications Union and, if you would, talk a little bit
about the administration's approach to advancing our telecom-
Internet objectives, technology objectives, through the ITU and
what is the administration's approach in those debates for
addressing concerns raised by other governments about
governance issues. These have been much debated and will be
much debated, and I know many of our allies and countries
around the world have significant concerns. What is the
administration's approach to dealing with those concerns?
Mr. Sepulveda. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
It is a longer conversation but the ITU is a body within
the United Nations, a 150-year-old body. It started as the
International Telegraph Union and evolved over time. Its
primary purpose is to ensure that we have global communications
that are interoperable, so satellite services and spectrum
services, as well as wired services, historically the telephone
system, that those communications work on a global basis.
There has been some question relative to the Internet
because the Internet is not person-to-person communications but
computer-to-computer communications which has been outside the
jurisdiction of the ITU and has been governed by an
international multistakeholder system in which academics,
scientists, industry, and governments all play a role in
ensuring that the global information system that is the
Internet continues to operate and that the technological and
day-to-day functions of the Internet are managed by
technological experts.
So it is our goal as the Government of the United States to
continue to promulgate that system because it has worked quite
well. In Reston, Virginia, for example, you have one of the
capitals of the Internet where whole networks come together,
and you see this Internet exchange of information and exchange
of services working extremely well to generate innovation,
democratic discourse, entrepreneurship, and we want to continue
promoting that.
Now, the challenge at the ITU is that there are a number of
developing countries who feel like they are not reaping the
benefits of the Internet, that they are predominantly consumers
of services. They are not producing the kind of services on the
Internet that they would like to see. Their deployment is not
as wide as they would like to see, and the prices are not where
they would want to be.
And we share all of those concerns, and there are a number
of ways to address those through the existing multistakeholder
system, through capacity-building and cooperation between our
Nation directly with the developing world. And the
administration's current strategy is to go out to the
developing world--I was just in South Africa and other parts of
the developing world--to ensure that they know that we care
deeply about ensuring that their people are connected to what
is the world's most revolutionary communications system and
that we want to see them reap those benefits and we are
prepared and willing to provide the technical assistance
necessary to do that.
Senator Kaine. How is the aftermath of the news about
Snowden, the Snowden affair, affecting particularly our
relations with European partners on some of these issues that
are pending at the ITU? Just give your sense of that, please.
Mr. Sepulveda. Well, yes, sir. As you know, President Obama
has directly reached out and worked with German Chancellor
Merkel and others, and there is ongoing dialogue between the
intelligence services in our partner countries, among our
allies with our intelligence services. That is well outside of
the scope of my work. But the way that it affects our work is
to ensure that you do not get a conflation of these issues so
that we do not have a federated system of the Internet in which
there would be a cloud for Europe and a cloud for China and a
cloud for India and we would lose the economies of scale and
efficiencies and the benefits that come with cloud computing in
a global network.
We are taking the concerns of our colleagues abroad very
seriously and are working with them on a daily basis to
ameliorate whatever concerns they might have.
Senator Kaine. Great. Thank you.
Ambassador McCulley, I would like you to talk a little bit
further about the national reconciliation efforts in Cote
d'Ivoire and how they are proceeding and what would be your
sense about their progress going forward.
Ambassador McCulley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first
start by thanking you for your generous comments about our
Foreign Service families. I would not have the honor to appear
before you today without friends and colleagues and mentors
like Ambassador Johnny Young. But of equal importance, much
greater importance, is the support that I have enjoyed from my
family over the years, particularly the strength and resilience
and counsel of my wife, Renee, and the courage and adaptability
of my sons. So thank you for those comments.
Mr. Chairman, reconciliation is absolutely essential to
both the political development and economic recovery in Cote
d'Ivoire. The country, as you know, went through a divisive
civil war. And the reconciliation process needs to proceed, and
that means reform of the security sector. It means
demobilization of ex-combatants. It means accountability for
those who committed crimes on both sides of the political
divide, and that means justice in an evenhanded fashion.
This process is moving forward, Mr. Chairman. The
Government of Cote d'Ivoire has established a national security
council. They have a security sector reform strategy. The U.N.,
UNOCI, the U.N. mission in Cote d'Ivoire, is deeply engaged in
promoting security sector reform. The United States is
supporting that effort through provision of advisors. The
justice sector is in the process of being rebuilt. And Cote
d'Ivoire has had successful elections both legislative and
municipal and will be heading toward a critically important
election in 2015 in the Presidency.
It is important, going forward, that that process of
reconciliation be accompanied by accountability; accountability
for those who committed crimes during the post-electoral
crisis. And as we discuss this issue with our Ivoirian friends,
we have said that it is important that the national process be
credible and transparent and that Cote d'Ivoire, at the same
time, work with the International Criminal Court on the
international process to assure accountability and transparency
because that is really the only way to achieve reconciliation,
and without reconciliation, Cote d'Ivoire's economic recovery
cannot proceed effectively, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Ambassador McCulley.
Ambassador Swan, a question about economics and natural
resources in the DRC. How would you characterize U.S. and other
efforts, multinational attempts, to stem adverse impacts of
illicit resource extraction in eastern Congo? I know Dodd-Frank
contained a special reporting requirement with respect to this.
Is that a useful tool or something that would make us feel good
but that would not ultimately serve the purpose? And is there
more that we can do that is calibrated toward accomplishing the
right objective?
Ambassador Swan. Thank you very much, Senator.
Congo is a deeply resource-rich country, and if those
resources can be properly channeled, developed, and exploited
for the benefit of the people, this can truly be an engine of
growth not just for the country but for the broader region.
Unfortunately, in many cases, certain minerals, known
widely as ``conflict minerals,'' have regrettably contributed,
in fact, to cycles of violence and actually financed militia
forces and others.
The provisions of Dodd-Frank, indeed, are designed to get
at that by seeking to provide greater traceability and
accountability of minerals entering the broader economic
system.
The United States has supported and encouraged firms that
are operating in Congo to comply with the provisions of this
legislation. Their initial reporting requirement will be due in
2014 and we have urged American firms to develop the necessary
information in order to be able to respond to that requirement
of the legislation.
Moreover, through the U.S. Agency for International
Development, we have been working on a partnership arrangement
that includes both NGOs, civil society organizations, and firms
that are operating in the minerals sector in Congo as a way to
develop further information about additional steps that could
be taken to try to ensure that conflict minerals do not enter
the broader economic stream.
It continues also to be an issue that we raise regularly
with the Congolese Government as an important issue that will
require their continued and ongoing attention.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, and I am going to now turn the
gavel back over to the Chair who has his own questions.
The Chairman [presiding]. Well, thank you very much. I
wanted to relieve Senator Kaine so he can go vote. We have a
series of up to seven votes. So we are a little bit between and
betwixt.
One or two final questions. Unless there are members who
wish to do so, we can excuse this panel.
Mr. Wagar, you are familiar, because you and I had an
opportunity to discuss the case of Shane Todd who is a U.S.
citizen who was lost and who died in Singapore. And it is an
important case to us. And I would hope that upon your
confirmation, you would raise this issue. We have come a long
way with the Singaporeans in this from where we started, but it
is a continuing case that not only the Chair but Senator Baucus
as well as Senator Tester, whose citizen home State is from--is
an important issue. So I assume that we can count on you to
continue to pursue that case upon your becoming the Ambassador.
Mr. Wagar. Absolutely, Senator.
The Chairman. I just met with the Japanese Ambassador
because we are going to be having a trip to Japan during the
August recess. And I was asking him what are your goals here
because I understand you and the Singaporeans are getting
together as it relates to TPP. And they have been good allies
and certainly good economic partners at the end of the day. But
I wonder sometimes what their goal is at the end of the day to
try to pursue a mutual effort as it relates to their strategic
pursuit in TPP. So he was very diplomatic, but he basically
gave me harmonization of global rules which, of course, we are
for harmonization of global rules, but how they cut depends a
great deal.
So I want to commend that to your attention because,
obviously, there are a lot of concerns here domestically by the
domestic automotive industry, and yet there are other
opportunities in many parts of our sector. So this is going to
be, I think, one of the critical assignments that you will have
even though you are not going to be negotiating the whole TPP,
but you are going to be having a bilateral relationship in
which our messaging is going to be very important. So I look
forward to your efforts in that regard.
Mr. Wagar. Thank you, Senator, and I look forward to
working with this committee.
The Chairman. Now, with reference to Mr. Sepulveda's
position--congratulations to all of you on your nominations. I
think Senator Kaine may have pursued this, but I want to get a
sense of whether you think your challenges were heightened as a
result of Mr. Snowden's actions? And if so, how do we continue
to overcome those challenges? Because obviously it is in the
global interest of the United States playing a global
leadership position in this regard in telecommunications and
information technology in the world. So what do you think will
be your challenge? And I apologize if you already addressed
this question, but it is important to me.
Mr. Sepulveda. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the
question.
As you know, in the short term, obviously, this raises a
number of diplomatic challenges. The President has reached out
at the highest levels to our colleagues abroad. The Secretary
has as well to ensure that the intelligence communities work
with each other on those questions relative to what nations can
do to protect themselves in an age of mass information and the
Internet.
As it relates specifically to the economic aspects of our
work and the diplomatic work that we do abroad, our goal is to
retain an international, global, functional, and open network.
And I think as more information comes out about how these
different areas of governance play in terms of how our
Government deals with these situations, you will see that we
remain the strongest champion for Internet freedom in the
world, whether that be the freedom to engage in commerce or the
freedom to engage in discourse, assembly, speech. And that is
the message that we are taking out to the world.
Particularly as it relates to the developing world, I know
you are deeply concerned about much of the developing world
particularly in Latin America. We have built very strong
relationships in Colombia, Chile, and elsewhere and are working
with our colleagues in Brazil to get a united and regional
understanding of the virtues and value of having an open
Internet, of having open communications, and having an open
platform for entrepreneurship.
So in the short term, yes, the disclosures have led to some
degree of diplomatic difficulty, but we believe that through
continued discourse, through open engagement at the highest
levels throughout both the national security community and our
economic channels, that we will continue to be able to protect
what is the most revolutionary communications system the world
has ever seen, which is the Internet.
The Chairman. Mr. McCulley, let me ask you. How do you view
the success of the Cote d'Ivoire Government in reviving the
economy of the country and particularly in creating employment
especially for demobilized former combatants?
Ambassador McCulley. Thank you for the question, Mr.
Chairman.
I think the Ivoirian Government has made enormous strides
in bringing the country back from a position of considerable
decline. Cote d'Ivoire, before the coup in 1999, represented
about 80 percent of the West African Monetary Union's gross
GDP. That had fallen considerably over 10 years of crisis. It
has now has come back to the point where Cote d'Ivoire
represents 40 of the West African Monetary Union's GDP. I think
that is a signal and a symbol of President Ouattara's success
in building an economic team to address Cote d'Ivoire's
economic decline.
But you are correct. In order to proceed to the most
difficult part of demobilization, disarmament, and
reintegration, it is critically important to provide jobs for
the some 64,000 ex-combatants who need to be demobilized. And
so the government needs to do more particularly in creating
conditions that attract investment especially in the
agricultural sector to grow the economy.
Senator, if confirmed, my goal will be to continue that
dialogue with the Government of Cote d'Ivoire to encourage them
to take greater steps to combat corruption, take greater steps
to create a better investment climate, a more transparent
public procurement process so that Cote d'Ivoire can benefit
from its considerably advantages, a great port, a significant
cocoa sector, to grow its economy to create the kind of jobs
that will provide employment for the number of ex-combatants,
to continue with economic recovery, and to conclude this
important process of political and economic reconciliation,
Senator.
The Chairman. And finally, Mr. Swan, what do you think
about--the President has appointed a special envoy to the Great
Lakes region. Given the heightened interest in the conflict in
the eastern DRC, in your view how successful have past
appointments of special envoys been in focusing the U.S.
Government's attention on the Great Lakes conflict? And what
more can we do to elevate this issue?
Ambassador Swan. Thank you very much, Senator, for the
question.
Mr. Chairman, former Senator Feingold's appointment as a
special envoy for the Great Lakes I think is a further signal
of the additional attention that the United States----
The Chairman. Excuse me. I am sorry.
I want to hear your answer and I cannot do it when staff
was talking in my ear. So go ahead.
Ambassador Swan. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The appointment of
former Senator Feingold as a special envoy for the Great Lakes
I think is a strong additional signal of U.S. interest in the
Great Lakes region and particularly in trying to help the
region resolve the conflict in eastern Congo.
It should not be seen, however, as an isolated measure
being taken by the United States. We have also seen just last
week Secretary Kerry's personal engagement by convening a
meeting at the ministerial level in New York. And that meeting
itself should be seen in the context of a broader international
effort to bring further attention to this problem set. An
international effort reflected particularly in a framework
agreement, was concluded among the countries of the region.
That has been reinforced by recent travel of the U.N. Secretary
General to the region, by the appointment of a U.N. special
envoy, former Irish President Mary Robinson, and by efforts
through the Security Council to ensure that there is a more
robust capability of the peacekeeping operation there.
So despite the, frankly, huge challenges that we see still
in eastern Congo and in the Great Lakes region, there is an
intensified energy and new focus, and we very much believe that
the appointment of someone of the caliber and the deep
knowledge of Africa represented by Russell Feingold adds to
that and will, indeed, contribute to our efforts to assist in
resolving the situation.
The Chairman. On a different topic, what about the election
process? We put a lot of effort in 2006. It turned out to be a
pretty successful election process. In 2011, there was a lot of
dispute and concern about the results. How do we move forward
and prepare for the appropriate next set of elections that
ultimately can create a sense of confidence and transparency
and honesty in the process?
Ambassador Swan. Mr. Chairman, the 2006 elections were
quite successful. I think that a good deal of the reason for
that was related to catalytic U.S. involvement several years in
advance in terms of assisting the Congolese both with the
constitutional reform process and with putting in place a
capable electoral commission and drafting electoral
legislation. So I think the lesson of 2006--and I think it is a
lesson that we learned in other electoral cases also--is that
engagement must happen as far upstream as possible to help
shape the whole environment around which the elections will
take place.
And I believe that there is an opportunity, as we now look
out to planned regional and provincial elections in 2014 or
2015, then the next Presidential election in 2016, that if we
are able to engage early, along with other partners, in support
of the Congolese, that we do have an opportunity to help them
shape this to be a much more successful election. But we will
need to engage early. I can assure you, Senator, that if I am
confirmed for this position, that will be a high priority for
me.
The Chairman. I appreciate hearing that.
Well, I understand there are no members that were seeking
to at least appear and ask questions. There is a variety of
votes going on. So with the thanks of the committee to all of
you for your willingness to serve, the record will remain open
until the close of business today. If there are any questions,
we urge you to answer them because it is the Chair's intention
to seek to place these nominees at a business meeting toward
the end of the week so that we can get you on to your posts and
begin to represent America abroad. And we thank you all for
joining us.
The Chair will call the committee into recess so that the
tranche of votes that are presently before the floor can be
voted on by members. And then Senator Markey will return and
chair the final panel of nominees here. So we ask those
nominees to bear with us as we deal with votes on the floor.
Until then, the committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Senator Markey [presiding]. We will reconvene the
committee, and we will begin by hearing from John Phillips. He
is the grandson of Italian immigrants. He is a leading attorney
and litigator. His ability to negotiate and his legal acumen
will serve the United States very well. We recognize you, Mr.
Phillips, for an opportunity here to address the committee.
STATEMENT OF JOHN R. PHILLIPS, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO
BE AMBASSADOR TO THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, AND TO SERVE
CONCURRENTLY AND WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AS AMBASSADOR
TO THE REPUBLIC OF SAN MARINO
Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Senator.
Let me start out by first congratulating you on your recent
election. I understand this is your first hearing.
Senator Markey. Sitting in this chair.
Mr. Phillips. Sitting in this chair. And so it is a
privilege and honor for me to be your first witness of your
first hearing.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
Mr. Phillips. It is a great honor to appear here today.
First, I want to acknowledge my wife of 40 years, Linda
Douglass, who spent many years up here covering this Congress
as the chief Capitol Hill correspondent for ABC News, and my
daughter, Dr. Katie Byrd, an emergency room doctor at George
Washington University Hospital, and her husband Keith, a fire
and explosives investigator here in the District. I am proud to
have them with me here today. I am grateful for their love and
their support.
The United States and Italy enjoy a robust and vibrant
relationship, something that was on full display when President
Napolitano visited President Obama in the White House as
recently here as last February. And Secretary of State Kerry
recently made Rome the centerpiece of his first trip to Europe
as Secretary of State.
But as strong as the ties are between our leaders, the
bonds between our people are what make the relationship stand
out. More Americans visit Italy each year, about 5 million,
than visit any other non-English speaking country. When it
comes to studying abroad, Italy remains a top choice of
American students, with some 35,000 a year. What is more, 20
million Americans trace their ancestry back to Italy. Italian
Americans have been some of the most outstanding contributors
to the growth and success of our country in a wide variety of
fields.
While it may not be apparent--my last name is Phillips--I
am one of those 20 million Americans with Italian ancestors. My
grandparents, Angelo Filippi and Lucy Colussy, left their
villages in Friuli of northern Italy to come to America over
100 years ago. They settled down in a small town near
Pittsburgh where others from their hometown in Italy had come
before them. When my father's older brother, my Uncle Louie,
went to school for the first time, the teacher showed him how
to write Filippi in English: ``Phillips.'' So my brothers and
my cousins and I have always regretted losing our distinctive
Italian heritage.
My interest in Italy and in the United States-Italian
relations has grown over the years from an initial desire to
connect with my roots to personal engagement committed to
bringing our two nations closer together. This effort has
brought me to Italy 50 times in the last decade alone. I have
had the honor of serving as a trustee of the American Academy
in Rome, perhaps the preeminent institution in Europe promoting
United States-Italian cultural exchange. I also learned a great
deal about Italian local government and cultural and historic
preservation when I, in 2001, invested in an abandoned group of
five 800-year-old houses in Tuscany and worked over an 8-year
period to bring them back to life, always mindful of, and
faithful to, the region's proud cultural and historic heritage.
I believe my professional career as a lawyer involved in
public policy issues over 40 years has prepared me well for
this challenging new assignment. In 1970, I cofounded one of
the first Ford Foundation-funded public interest law firms
which, for two decades, successfully brought important cases on
public policy issues.
In the mid-1980s, I worked closely with Senator Charles
Grassley and Congressman Howard Berman to strengthen the Civil-
War-era False Claims Act, which was designed to root out fraud
against the taxpayers. Since 1986, when President Reagan signed
the amendments that we worked on together into law, more than
$55 billion has been recovered by the United States Government
from companies that defrauded it. My firm, Phillips & Cohen, is
responsible for about 20 percent of those recoveries, or $11
billion.
In 2009, I was appointed by President Obama to serve as
chairman of the President's Commission on White House
Fellowships, considered by many to be the Nation's premiere
fellowship program. While I have not previously served as a
diplomat, I believe my experience in public policy and public
service will serve me well in leading our mission and engaging
Italy on a full range of issues.
That engagement is a crucial job. Italy is a leader and
contributor to peacekeeping missions worldwide and has
committed to continuing its leadership role in western
Afghanistan as part of the NATO mission in that country. Italy
works hard with us to find resolutions to violence and unrest
in many parts of the globe, including Syria and the Middle
East. Italy is also an important partner for building regional
stability in North Africa. We are grateful that Italy hosts
approximately 15,000 U.S. military personnel at United States
and NATO military bases on Italian soil.
In an increasingly globalized world, economic ties with
Italy remain important for the health of the United States
economy. The United States remains the largest source of
foreign investment in Italy. If confirmed, I would promote
United States exports to Italy and support the Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership as a way to boost economic
growth in the United States and the EU.
Once again, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
thank you for this opportunity. I am humbled and honored to
receive this nomination. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with this committee and the other Members of Congress
in advancing United States policy and interests in Italy and in
the Republic of San Marino. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Phillips follows:]
Prepared Statement of John R. Phillips
Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished committee, it is a
great honor to appear before you today. I want to express my gratitude
to President Obama and Secretary Kerry for the trust and confidence
they have placed in me with this nomination to serve as the next U.S.
Ambassador to Italy and to the Republic of San Marino. I also want to
acknowledge my wife of 40 years, Linda Douglass, who spent many years
up here covering the Congress as the Chief Capitol Hill Correspondent
for ABC News, my daughter, Dr. Katie Byrd, an emergency room doctor at
George Washington University Hospital, and her husband, Keith, a fire
and explosives investigator. I am proud to have them with me here today
and am grateful for their love and support.
The United States and Italy enjoy a robust and vibrant
relationship--something that was on full display when Italian President
Giorgio Napolitano visited President Obama in the White House this past
February. Secretary of State Kerry made Rome a centerpiece of his first
trip abroad as Secretary and has consulted closely with our Italian
partners since that time.
But as strong as the ties are between our leaders, the bonds
between our people are what make the relationship between the United
States and Italy stand out. More Americans visit Italy every year than
any other non-English speaking country. When it comes to studying
abroad, Italy remains a top choice of American students. What's more,
more than 20 million Americans trace their ancestry to Italy. Italian
Americans have been some of the most outstanding contributors to the
growth and success of this country in a wide variety of fields.
While it may not be apparent from my last name, Phillips, I am one
of those 20 million Americans of Italian descent. My grandparents,
Angelo Filippi and Lucy Colussy, left their villages in the Friuli
region of northern Italy to come to America to seek a better life. They
settled down in a small town near Pittsburgh, where others from small
towns in Italy had come before. When my father's older brother went to
school for the first time, the teacher showed him how to write Filippi
in American: Phillips. My brothers, cousins, and I have always
regretted losing that distinctive Italian identity.
My interest in Italy and in U.S.-Italian relations has grown over
the years--from an initial desire to connect with my roots, to personal
engagement committed to bringing our two nations closer together. For
several years now, I have had the honor of serving as a trustee of the
American Academy in Rome, perhaps the preeminent institution in Europe
promoting U.S.-Italian cultural exchange. I also learned a great deal
about Italian local government and cultural preservation when I
invested in an abandoned group of houses in Tuscany and worked to
restore them, always mindful of, and faithful to, the region's proud
cultural heritage.
I believe my professional career as a lawyer involved in public
policy issues for over 40 years has prepared me well for this
challenging new assignment. In 1970, I cofounded one of the first Ford
Foundation-funded public interest law firms which, for two decades,
successfully brought important cases on major public policy issues. In
the mid-1980s, I worked closely with Senator Chuck Grassley and
Congressman Howard Berman to strengthen the Federal False Claims Act,
which is designed to root out and deter fraud against the taxpayers.
Since 1986, when President Reagan signed the amendments we worked on
into law, more than 55 billion dollars have been recovered by the U. S.
Government from companies that defrauded it. My firm, Phillips & Cohen,
is responsible for recovering $11 billion of those 55 billion dollars.
Since 2009, I have been privileged to serve as Chairman of The
President's Commission on White House Fellowships, considered by many
to be the Nation's premiere fellowship program. Each year the
Commission selects 12 to 15 outstanding candidates to be future leaders
of America and to work for a year at the highest levels of government.
While I have not previously served as a diplomat, I believe that, if
confirmed, my experience in public policy and public service will serve
me well in leading our mission and engaging Italy on a full range of
issues.
That engagement is a crucial job. Italy is a leader and contributor
to peacekeeping missions worldwide, and has committed to continuing its
leadership role in western Afghanistan as part of the NATO mission in
that country. Italy works hard with us to find resolutions to violence
and unrest in many parts of the globe, including Syria and the Middle
East. Italy is also an important partner for building regional
stability in north Africa. We are grateful that Italy hosts
approximately 15,000 U.S. military and civilian personnel at U.S. and
NATO military bases on Italian soil.
In an increasingly globalized world, economic ties with Italy
remain important for the health of the U.S. economy. The United States
remains the largest source of foreign investment in Italy. If
confirmed, I would promote U.S. exports to Italy and support the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) as a way to boost
economic growth in the United States and the EU.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the relationship between the
United States and San Marino. The United States cooperates closely with
this small but proud nation on many important issues, including the
fight against international terrorism and serious crime. We also
maintain excellent collaboration in the United Nations and other
international organizations.
Once again, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you
for this opportunity. I am humbled and honored to receive this
nomination to serve as the next U.S. Ambassador to Italy and San
Marino. If confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee and
the other Members of Congress in advancing U.S. policy and interests in
Italy.
Senator Markey. I thank you very much. You are an excellent
choice to be Ambassador. I am sure your grandparents are very
happy right now knowing that you will go back to Italy as the
United States Ambassador, something I am sure that they could
have never thought possible. But congratulations.
Our next nominee is Kenneth Francis Hackett, the
President's nominee to be Ambassador to the Holy See. He is
uniquely qualified to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to the
Vatican, having served a long and distinguished career in
international human development and relief.
To mention only a few highlights of Mr. Hackett's career,
he served as CEO/President of Catholic Relief Services from
1993 to 2012. He is still an advisor for the University of
Notre Dame Institute of Global Development and was Director of
the Millennium Challenge Corporation from 2004 to 2010.
The election of Pope Francis, the first Pope from the
southern hemisphere, and one who gives every indication of
being fully engaged in the pursuit of social justice, gives Mr.
Hackett a unique opportunity to reengage the Vatican on these
issues of pressing mutual concern. His lifelong dedication to
helping the less fortunate around the globe and working within
Catholic institutions make him an excellent choice to be our
Ambassador to the Holy See.
And finally, relevant at least to me and to Mr. Hackett, as
a graduate of Boston College class of 1968, the two of us sit
here today I think amazed that I am chairing and he is being
nominated to represent our country at the Vatican as graduates
of this Jesuit university up in Boston.
So we welcome you, Mr. Hackett. Whenever you are ready,
please begin.
STATEMENT OF HON. KENNETH FRANCIS HACKETT, OF MARYLAND, TO BE
AMBASSADOR TO THE HOLY SEE
Mr. Hackett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me
extend my congratulations to you for your new position. It is
wonderfully ironic that we are here together.
It is also a great honor for me to appear here today. I
want to express my gratitude to President Obama and to
Secretary Kerry for the trust and confidence they have placed
in me with this nomination to serve as the next U.S. Ambassador
to the Holy See.
Of course, I could not be here today without the love and
the support of my wife, Joan, behind me, my children, Jennifer
and Michael.
Growing up in Boston, I never expected that my life would
be dedicated to international service. My model was my dad, a
telephone worker who returned from World War II, started
climbing poles for the New England Telephone Company, and rose
through the ranks into senior management.
At Boston College, I studied business. You were in the
smart school over at Arts and Sciences, Mr. Chairman. And I
thought for sure that I would work at a major U.S. corporation
after graduation.
But as chance would have it, in my senior year, a Peace
Corps recruiter convinced a friend and me to sign up for the
Peace Corps, and a few months after graduation, I find myself
in Ghana working in an isolated farming and fishing community.
I began my journey in international service in a very rural
area of a place called the Afram Plains where I was assigned to
live at a Catholic mission with a priest from the former
Czechoslovakia. It was 1968, the year of the Prague Spring. And
as we listened on a short wave radio each night, my host would
interpret and explain what was happening in his country. After
3\1/2\ wonderful years in Ghana, I knew that I wanted to
dedicate my career to international relief and development.
So when I returned home from Ghana, I applied to work for
Catholic Relief Services. Initially they turned me down but I
was not going to give up. And finally I was hired and sent back
to West Africa. I spent 18 years as President and CEO of
Catholic Relief Services and a total of 40 years at the
organization. And throughout those four decades, I encountered
many inspired, dedicated, and heroic people in countries around
the world. Whether they were lay people, clerics, or religious,
they exhibited true witness to faith through acts of compassion
during times of hardship and often physical danger.
During those years, I had numerous opportunities to engage
with leaders of the Catholic Church in countries where CRS
works. And in many cases, my work led me to the Vatican. And as
you can read from my record, I served for many years as a
member of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum, the Holy See's
coordinating body for Catholic charitable endeavors and as the
North American Vice President of Caritas Internationalis, a
confederation of national Catholic charitable entities. I have
met frequently with staff and the leadership of the Secretariat
of State at the Holy See and other offices in the Vatican.
If confirmed, I would expand not only my connections with
the Holy See in Rome, but with Catholic leaders and workers
whom I came to know in over 100 countries over my 40-year
career. Over the years, I have found that cooperation and
communication with leaders and lay people of other faiths was
crucial as well. I look forward to expanding these
interreligious ties in advancing U.S. policy goals.
Recent profound social changes across the world have
highlighted the important role of religion and religious
tolerance in our foreign policy. The Obama administration
considers religious freedom a strategic national interest and
has made it a diplomatic priority. President Obama has called
for integrating religious leaders in the faith community into
the policy process to address the critical global issues of our
day. The Holy See represents, I would suggest, one of the most
significant religious entities able to affect the course of
development around the world. Since President Reagan
established diplomatic relations with the Holy See almost 30
years ago, the United States and the Vatican have enjoyed
strong cooperation on many issues of mutual importance such as
the pursuit of peace, interreligious dialogue, environmental
protection, spurring human development, and promoting human
rights.
With the Senate's consent, I would look forward to
continuing that work with the Holy See and its global network
of dioceses, religious workers, and charitable and humanitarian
agencies on these critical issues. And let me expand on just
two areas that are priorities for the United States and where
the global network of allies, including I believe the Catholic
Church, is necessary.
The first is the area of human trafficking, an issue where
our interests overlap. We have done much with the Holy See
already and we look forward to doing much more on this terrible
scourge.
Just recently, the Holy See welcomed President Obama's plan
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to contribute to a
resilient, low-emission world. I believe the President's plan
provides a renewed opportunity to work more closely on
environmental advocacy with the Holy See.
Once again, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
thank you for this opportunity. I am humbled and honored to
receive the nomination to serve as the next U.S. Ambassador to
the Holy See. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely
with you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hackett follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kenneth Francis Hackett
Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished committee, it is a
great honor to appear before you today. I want to express my gratitude
to President Obama and Secretary Kerry for the trust and confidence
they have placed in me with this nomination to serve as the next U.S.
Ambassador to the Holy See. Of course, I could not be here today
without the love and support of my wife, Joan, and my children,
Jennifer and Michael.
Growing up, I never expected that my life would be dedicated to
international service. My model was my dad, a telephone worker who
returned from World War II, started climbing poles for the New England
Telephone Company, and rose through the ranks into senior management.
At Boston College, I studied business and thought for sure that I would
work at a major U.S. corporation after graduation. But as chance would
have it, in my senior year, a Peace Corps recruiter convinced a friend
and me to sign up. A few months later, I found myself in Ghana working
with isolated farming and fishing communities. I began my journey in
international service in a very rural village on the Afram Plains where
I was assigned housing at a Catholic mission with a priest from the
former Czechoslovakia. This was 1968: the year of the Prague Spring. As
we listened to the short wave radio each night, my host would interpret
and explain what was happening in his country. After 3\1/2\ wonderful
years in Ghana I knew that I wanted to dedicate my career to
international relief and development work.
When I returned home from Ghana, I applied to work at Catholic
Relief Services (CRS). Initially, I was turned down by CRS but I was
persistent and finally was hired and sent back to West Africa. I spent
18 years as President/CEO of CRS and a total of 40 years at the
organization. Throughout those four decades, I encountered many
inspired, dedicated, and heroic people in countries around the world.
Whether they were lay people, clerics, or religious, they exhibited
true witness to faith through acts of compassion during times of
hardship and often physical danger.
During those years I had numerous opportunities to engage with
leaders of the Catholic Church in countries where CRS works. And in
many cases, my work led me to the Vatican. As you can read from my
record, I served for many years as a member of the Pontifical Council
Cor Unum, the Holy See's coordinating body for Catholic charitable
endeavors, and as the North American Vice President of Caritas
Internationalis, the confederation of national Catholic charitable
entities. I have met frequently with staff and leadership in the
Secretariat of State and other offices of the Holy See in the Vatican.
If confirmed, I would expand not only on my connections with the
Holy See in Rome, but with Catholic leaders and workers whom I came to
know in over 100 countries over my 40-year career. Over the years, I
found that cooperation and communication with leaders and lay people
from other faiths was crucial as well. I look forward to expanding
these interreligious ties in advancing U.S. policy goals.
Recent profound social changes across the world have highlighted
the important role of religion and religious tolerance in our foreign
policy. The Obama administration considers religious freedom a
strategic national interest and has made it a diplomatic priority.
President Obama has called for integrating religious leaders and the
faith community into the policy process to address the critical global
issues of our day. The Holy See represents, I would suggest, one of the
most significant religious entities able to affect the course of
developments around the world. Since President Reagan established
diplomatic relations with the Holy See almost 30 years ago, the United
States and the Vatican have enjoyed strong cooperation on many
important issues of mutual interest such as the pursuit of peace,
interreligious dialogue, environmental protection, spurring
development, and promoting human rights.
With the Senate's consent, I would look forward to continuing to
work with the Holy See--and its global network of dioceses, religious
workers, and charitable and human development agencies--on these
critical issues and others where we share a common purpose and cause.
Let me expand on two areas that are priorities for the United States,
where a global network of allies, including, I believe, the Catholic
Church, is necessary for meaningful progress.
Human trafficking is an issue where our interests clearly overlap.
The Holy See and the United States see trafficking as a human rights
issue, and have already worked closely together to prevent and address
this crime. Pope Francis has been at the forefront of advocacy for
concerted international action to combat trafficking and is a natural
partner for us. If confirmed, I will continue to work with the Holy See
on this priority and build on successful programs supported by the
Embassy, like the training programs for male and female religious in
antitrafficking skills, strategies, and networking that have made a
real difference in this fight.
Just recently, the Holy See welcomed President Obama's plan to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to contribute to a resilient, low-
emissions world. I believe the President's plan provides a renewed
opportunity to work more closely on environmental advocacy with the
Holy See, a priority issue for the Church, linked to its goal of
safeguarding the world's resources, and making them available equally
to all.
Once again, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you
for this opportunity. I am humbled and honored to receive this
nomination to serve as the next U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with you and other Members of
Congress in advancing U.S. policy and interests with the Holy See. I am
more than happy to answer your questions.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
And next is Alexa Lange Wesner. As the President of Be One
Texas, Austin, Texas, she has pursued an impressive career in
civic engagement and public service. She is an accomplished
leader and has successfully built productive civic partnerships
among the business community, all levels of government and
civil society. A seasoned spokesperson, organizer, and
philanthropist with lifelong multicultural experience and
German language ability, Ms. Wesner will bring essential skills
to the task of furthering bilateral relations with the
Government of Austria, a key U.S. partner within the European
Union. I am sure Ms. Wesner will prove an extremely
distinguished United States Ambassador to Austria. Welcome and
whenever you feel comfortable, please begin.
STATEMENT OF ALEXA LANGE WESNER, OF TEXAS,
TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA
Ms. Wesner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to
echo my colleagues in offering congratulations. Good evening,
Senator Kaine.
I am honored to appear before you as President Obama's
nominee to be the United States Ambassador to the Republic of
Austria.
I am deeply grateful for the confidence and the trust that
President Obama and Secretary Kerry have placed in me. I am
humbled by this opportunity, and if confirmed, I will proudly
represent our country abroad.
With the chairman's permission, I would like to acknowledge
the family members who have joined me today. I particularly
wish to thank my husband, Blaine, for his unwavering support in
this new endeavor. I would also like to recognize my three
young children, Natalie, Tennyson, and Livia, who are with
their grandparents this evening. My children continue to
inspire me to enter public service, just as they inspired me to
take leadership positions in the nonprofit sector, a segment of
society that has helped strengthen our country's democracy
through the promotion of civic values.
I come before you today as an accomplished business woman.
If confirmed, I will bring to our Embassy in Vienna more than
15 years of founding leadership in business and not-for-profit
endeavors. My professional experience has deepened my
appreciation for international trade and global economic
vitality. This experience will serve me well in promoting
United States exports and advocating for United States firms
doing business in Austria. I will also bring to bear my passion
for cultivating business and social entrepreneurship. If
confirmed, I will draw upon all my knowledge and experience to
successfully advance United States interests in Austria and
enhance our strong cooperation with this important partner.
If confirmed, I will give the highest priority to ensuring
the safety of the United States citizens living, working, and
traveling in Austria. I will also seek opportunities to enhance
our cooperation and mutual understanding on international
security issues, as Austria plays an important role in
international peace and stability. Austria contributes to
peacekeeping missions around the world, most notably in the
Balkans and Lebanon. Austria also contributes personnel to the
International Security Assistance Force mission in Afghanistan
and has pledged resources through 2017 to help sustain the
Afghan National Security Forces following the 2014 security
transition. I will encourage Austria to continue to contribute
to these important security efforts.
If confirmed, I also look forward to continuing our
productive dialogue with Austria to promote the stability,
democracy, prosperity, and Euro-Atlantic integration efforts of
the countries of the western Balkans region.
While our approaches to regional and international issues
may differ at times, the United States and Austria share many
common values and perspectives. These include a commitment to
reducing the threats posed by climate change and nuclear
proliferation, and the promotion of economic development and
environmental sustainability through new and renewable energy
supplies. We also share an agenda of broad support for human
rights and the rule of law, stabilization in the western
Balkans, and a common vision of peace and freedom for all.
To build upon these commonalities, if confirmed, I will
draw on my ability to build strong partnerships for a common
cause, uniting the force of government with the private sector
and NGOs. In addition, it is my hope that I can help further
Austria's dedicated pursuit of a tolerant and inclusive
society.
Both the United States and Austria currently occupy seats
on the U.N. Human Rights Council. This gives our two countries
real opportunities to ensure that our mutual aims of global
security, prosperity, and the protection of human rights are
achieved together. If confirmed, I will work with Austria to
encourage the leadership and innovation it takes to strike that
important balance.
Austria is a great friend to the United States. Indeed,
this year we are celebrating our 175th anniversary of
diplomatic relations between our two countries. We have strong
trade and investment in both directions. We are bound together
through myriad people-to-people contacts in business, the arts,
education, tourism, and a host of other exchanges.
If confirmed, I pledge to do my best in advancing America's
interests and values. I look forward to working with this
committee and Congress in that effort.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today, and I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wesner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alexa Lange Wesner
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished members
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
I am honored to appear before you as President Obama's nominee to
be the United States Ambassador to the Republic of Austria.
I am deeply grateful for the confidence and trust that President
Obama and Secretary Kerry have placed in me. I am humbled by this
opportunity, and if confirmed, I will proudly represent our country
abroad.
With the chairman's permission, I would like to acknowledge the
family members who have joined me today. I particularly wish to thank
my husband, Blaine, for his unwavering support in this new endeavor. I
would also like to recognize my three young children, Natalie,
Tennyson, and Livia, who are with their grandparents today. My children
continue to inspire me to enter public service just as they inspired me
to take leadership positions in the nonprofit sector, a segment of
society that has helped strengthen our country's democracy through the
promotion of civic values.
I come before you today as an accomplished businesswoman. If
confirmed, I will bring to our Embassy in Vienna more than 15 years of
founding leadership in business and not-for-profit endeavors. My
professional experience has deepened my appreciation for international
trade and global economic vitality. This experience will serve me well
in promoting U.S. exports and advocating for U.S. firms doing business
in Austria. I will also bring to bear my passion for cultivating
business and social entrepreneurship. If confirmed, I will draw upon
all my knowledge and experience to successfully advance U.S. interests
in Austria and enhance our strong cooperation with this important
partner.
If confirmed, I will give the highest priority to ensuring the
safety of U.S. citizens living, working, and traveling in Austria. I
will also seek opportunities to enhance our cooperation and mutual
understanding on international security issues, as Austria plays an
important role in international peace and stability. Austria
contributes to peacekeeping missions around the world, most notably in
the Balkans and Lebanon. Austria also contributes personnel to the
International Security Assistance Force mission in Afghanistan, and has
pledged resources through 2017 to help sustain the Afghan National
Security Forces following the 2014 security transition. I will
encourage Austria to continue to contribute to these important security
efforts. If confirmed, I also look forward to continuing our productive
dialogue with Austria to promote the stability, democracy, prosperity,
and Euro-Atlantic integration efforts of the countries of the Western
Balkans region.
While our approaches to regional and international issues may
differ at times, the United States and Austria share many common values
and perspectives. These include a commitment to reducing the threats
posed by climate change and nuclear proliferation, and the promotion of
economic development and environmental sustainability through new and
renewable energy supplies. We also share an agenda of broad support for
human rights and the rule of law, stabilization in the Western Balkans,
and a common vision of peace and freedom for all. To build upon these
commonalities, if confirmed, I will draw on my ability to build strong
partnerships for a common cause, uniting the force of government with
the private sector and NGOs. In addition, it is my hope that I can help
further Austria's dedicated pursuit of a tolerant and inclusive
society.
Both the United States and Austria currently occupy seats on the
U.N. Human Rights Council. This gives our two countries real
opportunities to ensure that our mutual aims of global security,
prosperity, and the protection of human rights are achieved together.
If confirmed, I will work with Austria to encourage the leadership and
innovation it takes to strike that important balance.
Austria is a great friend to the United States. Indeed, this year
we are celebrating the 175th anniversary of diplomatic relations
between our two countries. We have strong trade and investment in both
directions. We are bound together through myriad people-to-people
contacts in business, the arts, education, tourism, and a host of other
exchanges. If confirmed, I pledge to do my best in advancing America's
interests and values. I look forward to working with this committee and
Congress in that effort.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
would be happy to answer any questions.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
So now we will begin questions from the members, and we
will begin by recognizing Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And it is a treat to
be on this committee with you. Your background as a leader on
foreign relations issues is decades-long, and it is going to be
wonderful to work together in this way.
And to the nominees, congratulations to all of you. I feel
personal connections. I have personal connections to two, and
as a Jesuit educated former missionary in Honduras, a Jesuit
Pope from the Americas is warming my heart virtually every day,
including today with a front page article that made me very
happy in the Washington Post. So that is all I will
editorialize.
But to begin, Mr. Phillips, one of the things that we
probably hear most about with respect to Italy--and I am not on
the Europe Subcommittee of Foreign Relations, but the
significant economic challenges and how they play in terms of
the broader eurozone and the European efforts to find a path
forward. If you would, just talk a little bit about the
challenge currently facing the Italian Government and your
sense, as you are getting ready to take this post, about the
tasks ahead of them in dealing with these significant issues.
Mr. Phillips. Thank you for the question, Senator.
These are challenging times for all the EU countries and
particularly Italy. It has had a period of nine consecutive
quarters of negative growth. Its GDP today is lower than it was
10 years ago. Italy has had a strong record of success, but it
really has to confront some of the important issues that will
establish growth and establish opportunity. They have a very
high percentage of unemployment among youth, 40 percent right
now. And so the key for Italy is to increase demand to get more
of the companies, the small- and medium-sized business
companies, to have access to credit. They are not getting
access to credit.
Their financial problems did not stem like others did from
mortgage failures or from exotic financial instruments. It is
really created from a period of stagnation and no growth. And
when they have, they have had a very high percentage of loans
in trouble with Italian banks, and the Italian banks today have
had to increase their own capital. So they have not been able
to make loans to these small businesses that have not been able
to hire people. It is not unlike a lot of the other EU
countries.
I think the real way out here is to figure out how to
establish greater demand in the EU zone. The Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership treaty negotiations which are
beginning--have just begun I think are really important for
Italy and for EU. Everybody will benefit if they can come up
with more standardized ways of exchanging materials and having
agreed upon rules. That is going to be a very ambitious
undertaking but I think now they need the political will to
face up to a lot of the things that have stymied the growth in
Italy.
I think the Italian people are resilient. I think they want
to find a way out just like all of EU does. And the ways that
we can help them try to get real progress on the trade
agreement and really develop our relationships on trade issues
with them so that growth will expand and more opportunities
will expand for them.
Senator Kaine. Thank you very much, Mr. Phillips.
Ambassador Hackett, welcome. What an exciting time to be
taking on your role.
And you mentioned religious freedom. I think that is a
fertile ground for work between our government and you in
particular and the Holy See. So much of what we deal with,
sadly, on this committee is starting to take on the tones of
sectarian challenges between religious factions. The hearings
that we have on the Middle East--it often seems that that is at
the core. We have Christian communities, Coptic communities in
Egypt, and Christian communities in Syria. We have Ba'hais in
the Middle East and other smaller segments of the Muslim
population that feel oppression. It is a fundamental value It
is in the first amendment for a reason in our country, the
freedom to worship as you please and not having an established
state religion. Our birth of that idea that if you do not
punish or prefer someone for their religious views, you will do
the right thing by government and the right thing by religion
is one of the best things about our country.
And I just would like you to talk a little bit more about
how you see working with the Vatican on spreading that message
of religious liberty and religious freedom because I think the
partnership could be a very powerful one.
Mr. Hackett. Thank you very much for the question, Senator.
As I mentioned, this is an important--and I just learned in
the last few weeks in being briefed for this new possible
assignment--an important new part of the Obama administration's
agenda. Diplomatic priority is being given to it. Focus is
being given to it. And it offers a great opportunity both
through collaboration and joint efforts with the Holy See, of
which there have already been some, but they can be expanded
far beyond where they are now particularly if it is given a
priority within the administration.
But even beyond that, in my understanding of where the Holy
See sees this kind of issue, it takes it beyond just
collaboration in a one-path way to engagement in interfaith as
well as ecumenical efforts and to put behind those efforts real
type of collaborations and not just dialogue. So we can work
together with Jewish groups and Muslim groups around taking
care of refugees who have left Syria. This is where you put the
heart into the whole religious liberty and freedom question. So
I believe we can do much, much more in that regard, and I have
to believe that the door is open on the Holy See as well.
Senator Kaine. Everything I have seen from the Holy See in
the last few months would suggest that that would be a topic of
great interest to them as well. And I will look forward to
watching your progress in that way.
Ms. Wesner, finally, one of the things I think is
interesting about Austria is not only the bilateral United
States to Austria--and they have been a very strong ally--but
also that Vienna is a city that is a very international city
and a lot of international organizations like OPEC and others
are headquartered there.
The one that I am really focused on that is going be
getting an awful lot of attention is the U.N.'s International
Atomic Energy Agency, the inspectors. You know, we spend
probably more time in this committee talking about the Iranian
nuclear threat than virtually any other issue. The United
States has to have a strong, credible military response to not
allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons. We have to continue
powerful sanctions. But there is no substitute ultimately for
good diplomacy because I do not imagine Iran or any other
country is ever going to back away from something because
somebody else made them. There has to be strong diplomacy.
There is going to be a new President of Iran in on Saturday who
was elected with a strong and surprising majority vote from a
public that was demonstrating a desire for reengagement with
the West and with the United States. And I think the role of
the U.N. agencies and particularly the IAEA in Vienna could be
very powerful.
So I just want to encourage and then if you have any
comments on it, I would love to hear. I just really want to
encourage, take advantage of those other international partners
in the international city of Vienna because some of them are--
OPEC also will be playing very critical roles to broader global
peace efforts in the coming years.
Ms. Wesner. Senator Kaine, thanks for the comment. I could
not agree with you more. We have a trimission in Vienna. There
are three missions there, the United Nations and then the OSCE
and the bilateral relationship, the Embassy, of course, and
other international organizations that are there. And working
with them is going to be very important, if confirmed. I know
that I and colleagues at the trimissions will be working with
those agencies.
Senator Kaine. Great. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Markey. I thank the gentleman.
Let me just follow up on Senator Kaine's question going to
Austria again and its international role as a place where
energy policy is created and ask you about natural gas in
Austria. About 51 percent of its natural gas comes from Russia.
And one of the issues, of course, that we have is this ongoing
effort by Russia to use natural gas as an economic weapon and,
as a result, a political weapon. The central European gas hub
is located in Austria, and the Russian Government has been
seeking to purchase a 50-percent control or more of that.
So I guess what I was wondering about was, from your
perspective, what the role do you think the United States can
play with Austria in helping to create an alternative energy
view that can help Austria and help other countries to break
this kind of vice-like control which the Russians seek to use
as part of their natural gas political strategy.
Ms. Wesner. Thank you, Senator, for the question. It is a
very important issue.
As you know, Austria's petroleum company, OMV, was recently
the lead support of a project, one of two competing pipelines.
They were leading the Nabucco West pipeline to get gas from the
Caspian Sea. Now, in June the consortium did not choose the
Nabucco West pipeline, and since OMV has stated that they will
now explore production and exploration in the Black Sea.
It is a very important issue for the United States and for
Austria--energy diversification. And the Embassy has done great
work, and if confirmed, I will continue that great work to work
with the Austrian energy officials to work on their
diversification of their sources and their roots as a form of
energy security. It is very important.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
Mr. Phillips, could we talk a little bit about nuclear
weapons in Italy and the role that the United States has in
partnering with Italy on this issue and get your perspective in
terms of the role which Italy plays as a security partner with
the United States, not just in nuclear weapons deployment but
also in terms of the military bases which are there in Italy
and the role which it plays in helping to project American
power?
Mr. Phillips. Well, with respect, Senator, to nuclear
weapons under the NATO program, that is not something I am
fully briefed of. That is more of a NATO issue and stationing
of nuclear weapons in the country. I certainly will look into
it and be glad to get back to you with respect to that
regarding policy.
Italy has been a tremendous partner with the United States
on defense-related issues. It has played a critical role
because of its strategic location especially. If you go back in
the 1990s in Bosnia, the three major bases that are now
stationed in Italy--American bases and NATO bases--have been
utilized very effectively to provide safeguard and defense both
there, Afghanistan--they are great partners in Afghanistan.
There are 3,000 troops there now. They have made a commitment
post-2014 to commit to spend 120 million euros a year and have
their own troops there on the training of the Afghan forces
after we exit. They have been very helpful and active in north
Africa, in Libya, given their longstanding relationship. They
were part of a no-fly zone.
It is a critical relationship for us and for all the NATO
countries. And Italy has been very forthcoming and very
supportive. And if confirmed and I am serving there as an
Ambassador for the United States, I will want to really
continue to develop that relationship because it has been so
important to us.
Senator Markey. Good. Thank you.
Mr. Hackett, the Pope, the new Pope, has been now speaking
about the poor of the world in a way which I think is
refreshing for many people on the planet. Could you give your
insight as someone who ran one of the major Catholic Relief
organizations what you think might be a partnership that the
United States could create with the Vatican and perhaps even
with Catholic Relief organizations to better serve the poor
people of this planet?
Mr. Hackett. I think we have all been deeply impressed at
what Pope Francis has been saying in a lot of different areas.
We have had a longstanding relationship between the
development and relief efforts of our Government with Catholic
organizations throughout the world. There is much more that
could be done. The network of Catholic hospitals, Catholic
development groups, Catholic charitable groups is enormous. It
stretches from the capital cities into the most rural and
isolated areas. And I believe that the people at USAID and
other people in the administration, Millennium Challenge
Corporation that I was associated with for a while, recognize
that capacity. And I just see the time being right to expand it
and to move it even further, adding dimensions of religious
freedom, human rights to long-term development efforts.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
The gentleman from Virginia, do you have any additional
questions?
Senator Kaine. No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Markey. Why do we not do this? I would like to give
each one of you 1 minute just to summarize from your
perspective the job that you are asking for the United States
Senate to confirm you to, and just give us your 1-minute
summation. We will begin with you, if we could, Ms. Wesner.
Ms. Wesner. Certainly. Thank you so much for allowing us
the opportunity to talk about that.
You know, Austria-United States relations are very strong.
As I said, it is the 175th anniversary of our bilateral
cooperation. We are their fourth-largest trading partner. There
are approximately 340 United States companies doing business in
Austria. Yet, we do not want to be complacent as it relates to
the economic issues of our time.
If confirmed, I would like to increase trade and use TTIP
as a tool to do so. I would like to further the security
cooperation that my predecessor has begun. And I would like to
continue the dialogue on energy security, very important. And
last, I would like to harness my experience as an entrepreneur.
I view entrepreneurship not only as an export but as an
American value as it relates to individual empowerment, to
regional security, and to global growth.
Thank you.
Senator Markey. Mr. Hackett.
Mr. Hackett. Mr. Chairman, as you and Senator Kaine have
recognized, this is a very unique and poignant time in regard
to the relations between our country and the Holy See with the
new Pope. The relations are strong and good and longstanding.
The Holy See has no battalions, has no nuclear arsenals, but it
has credibility and influence around the world, as you well
know. I believe that this is a time where we can enhance and
expand our contacts with the Holy See in important areas, areas
such as the care of refugees, conflict resolution, trafficking
of persons, wider religious freedom issues, and of course,
dealing with the insidious problems of poverty that still
infect so many communities around the world. It is an
opportunity for us to take our message to them and expand on
what is already happening.
Senator Markey. Mr. Phillips.
Mr. Phillips. Well, what I would like to do, if confirmed
as Ambassador, is first to work with the mission there. It is a
large mission. There are 500 people in Italy alone and it is so
important to establish the relationships with everybody,
everybody working on the same page, everybody understanding
what the goals ahead are and moving ahead. Morale is very
important and you have to have a strong team to achieve all of
your objectives.
I think the security issues that we talked about are going
to be a fundamental focus to sustain that relationship, to
improve it. Italy is such a strategically located country with
respect to northern Africa and southern Europe, and we have to
maintain and continue to develop that relationship.
But third, Italy is such an amazing place. That peninsula--
you think about 2,000 years what has gone on in Italy. They
have probably delivered more to civilization to benefit
civilization in the world than any place in the world. When you
go to the Pantheon in Rome and you see 2,000 years old. Look at
that amazing engineering and brilliance and genius that
produced this. And you look at everything else that has gone on
in Italy from the Renaissance to art, this is an amazing place.
These people who live there now on the Italian peninsula
inherit this. They have a great opportunity ahead.
What I would like to see as Ambassador is to help get their
economy going with our joint efforts on our trade agreements,
create jobs, create demand so Italy feels very secure going
into the future. And I think they have a great future ahead.
Senator Markey. Well, thank you.
Senator Kaine, anything?
Senator Kaine. Congratulations.
Senator Markey. Ms. Wesner, I think you did a fantastic
job. Thank you for being here, and we know you are going to
represent our country very well.
Ms. Wesner. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Markey. I think we are sending a dream team here,
Mr. Hackett and Mr. Phillips, to Rome and to Italy, and you can
just see it in this hearing. And we thank you both for your
willingness to serve our country. We thank you. I think we are
sending America's finest to Italy with the pair of you. Thank
you.
So we thank everybody for your attention to this hearing.
And for the other members, questions for the record must be
filed by the close of business today if any committee member or
staff wishes to pose questions to the witnesses. And we request
that each of the members respond promptly to that request.
So with that, we wish you all Godspeed in your mission, and
this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 6:50 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record
Responses of Matthew Barzun to Questions Submitted
by Senator Robert Menendez
Question. It was been 15 years since the Good Friday Accords were
signed, a triumph many thought impossible. While there has been peace,
many would argue that it has been a cold peace and that the political
peace that was expected to grow over time from the Accords has not, in
fact, taken root. Deep rooted divides continue to exist between the
Catholic and Protestant communities. These divides are exacerbated by
events like the annual Protestant street parades through traditionally
Catholic neighborhoods in Belfast. A decision this year by the Parades
Commission to alter the route away from these neighborhoods set off 5
days of protests by Protestant loyalists. In the wake of the riots,
members of the legislature have agreed to form an all-party group aimed
at addressing hot-button issues such as parades. The all-party process
will be chaired by Richard Haass, a former U.S. special envoy to
Northern Ireland.
What role can the United States play in helping to resolve
these tensions and to support the peace? Do you anticipate
working closely with Envoy Haass on these issues?
Answer. The United States has remained strongly engaged both
politically and economically with Northern Ireland for decades. The
administration continues to support the vision that was set out in the
Good Friday and subsequent agreements. The Department maintains our
support through the U.S. Consulate General in Belfast, through
contributions to the International Fund for Ireland, and through strong
and vibrant academic and cultural exchanges with the people of Ireland
and Northern Ireland. Over the past year, the administration has
increased cooperation in science and technology with Ireland and
Northern Ireland through the U.S.-Ireland R&D Partnership, which is
working to accelerate economic development and research by encouraging
collaboration between United States, Irish, and Northern Irish
scientists and industries to bring innovations to market. The United
States will continue to fully support Northern Ireland as it works to
build a brighter future for its people.
In his capacity as the independent chair of the All-Party Talks,
Dr. Richard Haass will be assisting Northern Ireland leaders address
historically divisive issues such as parades and protests, flags,
symbols, emblems, and issues related to the past to encourage community
reconciliation. While he is not a U.S. envoy, the Embassy in London and
the Consulate General in Belfast are prepared to offer Dr. Haass and
the All-Party Group every support in this endeavor. On July 15, Vice
President Biden spoke with Dr. Haass, as well as First Minister
Robinson and Deputy First Minister McGuinness, to welcome the launch of
an All-Party Group process and to express the full support of the
United States. As President Obama said in Belfast in June, it is
essential Northern Ireland leaders tackle sensitive issues to create a
lasting and prosperous peace in Northern Ireland. The administration
stands ready to assist the political parties in this crucial work. If
confirmed as Ambassador to the United Kingdom, I will ensure the
Embassy in London and our consulate in Belfast remain fully engaged in
advancing reconciliation and the peace process.
Question. The United States has relied on British military support,
in the gulf war, the NATO air war over Serbia, the war in Iraq, Libya,
and the ISAF mission in Afghanistan--it is a visible manifestation of
``the special relationship'' in the post-cold-war world. This spring,
there were reports that the Cameron government's budget cutting might
reduce the defense budget below 2 percent of Gross Domestic Product.
Ongoing cuts have already led to the Ministry of Defense losing 30,000
personnel and the elimination of major weapons systems.
Mr. Barzun, are you concerned about the United Kingdom's
ability over the
medium or long term to participate in military actions to
address challenges overseas, and what's the significance for
``the special relationship'' with the United States?
Answer. If confirmed, it is certainly an issue on which I intend to
engage. The United States-United Kingdom special relationship is
grounded in our shared history, values, and traditions. It remains as
vibrant and as relevant today as it has ever been. We count on each
other, and the world counts on our alliance. The administration is in
constant communication at all levels of government and work together on
a wide range of political, economic, and security issues. And we
respond in like fashion to the shared challenges we face around the
globe: on Iran, Syria, Middle East Peace, Mali, and instability
elsewhere in Africa, terrorist threats, and humanitarian crises. The
United Kingdom is our closest, and one of the most capable, NATO
allies. It is also one of the few countries in NATO that continues to
meet the 2 percent of GDP defense spending target. I am gratified by
Chancellor George Osborne's recent announcement that the United Kingdom
would continue to meet this important target through 2016, thus
demonstrating the kind of leadership we count on the United Kingdom to
show at NATO. The United Kingdom plays a vital role in NATO's most
important mission, ISAF, and within NATO HQ is focused on improving the
efficiency of NATO structures so they are as efficient as possible.
The United States-United Kingdom defense relationship is as strong
as ever. The administration honors the commitment and sacrifice of the
U.K.'s soldiers and civilians who serve alongside our forces in
Afghanistan and around the world. We are committed to working with the
U.K. Armed Forces to help ensure they remain a full-spectrum defense
and security partner, maintain interoperability with U.S. forces, and
continue to lead in the full range of NATO missions.
______
Responses of Steve Linick to Questions Submitted
by Senator Robert Menendez
Question. Both the OIG and the Bureau of Diplomatic Security
conduct investigations into allegations of passport and visa fraud and
investigate alleged misconduct by State Department employees. Over the
years, this practice has led to concerns about duplication of effort,
conflicting investigations, and competition for jurisdiction.
How will you ensure that these two organizations work in a
complementary fashion?
Answer. If confirmed, I will meet on a regular basis with senior
management officials from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and other
affected offices to ensure that investigations are complementary,
adequately supported, and appropriately leveraged. To that end, I will
work to ensure that OIG investigative resources are used wisely and
efficiently, which will include an assessment of how to avoid
duplication of effort, conflicting investigations, and competition for
jurisdiction.
Question. In January 2013, the OIG released a report highly
critical of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG)--an institution
whose FY13 budget exceeded $750 million. The report cited a
dysfunctional structure, limited Board oversight of the institution,
and inadequate self-governance policies, among other issues.
What steps will you take to follow up on this report?
Answer. I have read the January 2013 OIG inspection report and its
recommendations. I recognize that oversight of the Broadcasting Board
of Governors (BBG) is an important part of OIG's mission. If confirmed,
I will work to ensure that OIG provides ongoing independent and
effective oversight of the BBG. Such OIG oversight will include
vigorous followup efforts to prompt BBG compliance with the
recommendations in the 2013 report.
______
Responses of Steve Linick to Questions Submitted by Senator Bob Corker
improving oig's independence and credibility
Question. Are you aware of the challenges identified by GAO about
lack of adherence to proper auditing standards and a lack of
independence within the State OIG and are you willing to make policy
and, if necessary, staffing changes to restore the credibility and
independence of the Office? What do you think can be done to address
these issues?
Answer. I am aware of the challenges identified by GAO and have
read the GAO reports regarding the issues. As I noted in my written
testimony, if confirmed, I pledge to ensure that the Department of
State OIG is an independent and objective organization that provides
timely, robust, oversight, transparency, and accountability to the
programs and operations of the Department of State. After I have had
time to study the key issues identified by GAO, I will be prepared to
make any needed changes to achieve my goals. I also will devote
considerable time to meeting with stakeholders interested in and
affected by the work of the OIG, including Department of State
management, Congress, GAO, and other interested groups, as appropriate.
Question. Do you agree that a constantly rotating staff of Foreign
Service officers and other State Department employees at OIG prevents
the OIG from having institutional, investigative know-how? If
confirmed, what will you do to address these issues?
Answer. I believe that it is important for the Department of State
OIG to employ dedicated individuals who have experience, skill, and
expertise in the core mission areas of the OIG, including
investigations, inspections and/or audits. I agree that a constantly
rotating staff can adversely affect institutional, investigative know-
how. At this stage, however, it would be premature for me to reach any
conclusions or make recommendations without first-hand knowledge of the
surrounding facts and circumstances.
contractor oversight and accountability
Question. Should you be confirmed as the next inspector general,
how would you use the Office of the Inspector General to assist the
Department to make better use of this important contracting oversight
and accountability tools such as suspension and debarment?
Answer. The Department of State uses substantial taxpayer dollars
to fund its various programs and operations. Protecting taxpayer funds
from potential misuse is a core OIG function. Suspension or debarment
remedies should be pursued when contractors and other awardees violate
the public trust through poor performance, noncompliance, misconduct,
or other actions. If confirmed, I will review carefully the
Department's suspension and debarment program and make any necessary
recommendations for improvement. In addition, I will take steps to
enhance OIG referrals for suspension and debarment.
Question. Based on your experience with procurement related
investigations and oversight, what are the acquisition-related
challenges the Department faces that you feel best equipped to address,
and how do you plan to tackle each one?
Answer. Based on my experience as the former Director of the
Department of Justice (DOJ) National Procurement Fraud Task Force, I am
well equipped to address the challenges associated with procurement
issues, particularly in high risk areas. Under my guidance, the task
force investigated and prosecuted individuals and companies for
corruption and fraud related to contracts and grants, with a special
emphasis on overseas programs focused on the conflicts in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
The Department of State OIG has identified contract and procurement
management, including grants and cooperative agreements, and the
military to civilian-led transitions in Iraq and Afghanistan as two of
the Department's 10 most serious management challenges. If confirmed, I
expect to focus audit, investigative, and inspection efforts on these
acquisition related challenges. In addition, I will look at systemic
problems related to acquisition practices and make necessary
recommendations to address these problems.
______
Responses of Daniel Sepulveda to Questions Submitted
by Senator Marco Rubio
Question. Last year there were several proposals put forward at the
World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) that could
have fundamentally harmed the free flow of information and negatively
impact the Internet. Moving forward, I am especially concerned about
the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) adopting detailed,
binding, technical solutions that could have unintended consequences
that lead to censorship or stifle innovation. On the other hand, many
countries do struggle with the problem of bringing broadband access to
their citizens and look to the ITU for solutions to that problem.
What do you see as your and the State Department's roles in
preparing for the 2014 Plenipotentiary Conference and engaging
stakeholders inside and outside government?
Answer. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) will
convene a Plenipotentiary Conference (PP-14) from October 20 to
November 7, 2014, in Busan, Korea. This conference, which takes place
every 4 years, is the highest policymaking body of the ITU and will
adopt the strategic plan for the ITU; consider proposed amendments to
the ITU Constitution and Convention; and adopt resolutions and other
nontreaty decisions.
Consistent with prior PP meetings, the Department of State will
lead the U.S. delegation to PP-14 and our delegation will include
representatives from the private sector and other federal government
agencies. In leading the delegation, the State Department will engage
stakeholders inside and outside government to develop American
proposals and positions for the PP. The State Department will also work
to promote international support for our positions.
U.S. proposals and positions will reflect the following objectives:
--Ensure that the ITU continues to perform vital functions in the
area of radio communication and other telecommunication areas
efficiently and effectively.
--Maintain the ITU's existing mandates while allowing the institution
to remain relevant and evolve relative the needs of member
states.
--Promote a proactive strategy of institutional reform in order to
improve member state oversight of the organization, strengthen
the accountability of ITU officials, enhance overall
efficiency, and increase transparency of ITU activities.
--Secure sufficient budgetary support within the current zero nominal
growth limits of the overall ITU budget for the efficient
operations of the ITU Radiocommunication (R), Standardization
(T) and Development (D) Sectors.
--Ensure that the ITU promotes predictable, transparent,
procompetitive regulatory policies for radio communication and
other telecommunication areas that will lead to increasing
investment in the world's wireless and wired broadband
telecommunications infrastructure.
--Preserve the role of sector members in the ITU and expand the
participation of civil society, the technical community, and
academia in Internet-related discussions.
Question. Does the State Department plan to facilitate bringing
American technical expertise to countries that do not have deep
knowledge in deploying broadband and ensuring that the ITU does not
adopt heavy-handed regulation or expand its reach?
Answer. Yes. The State Department is committed to working with
other countries to foster accelerated growth of broadband and the
Internet sector in such countries, especially by promoting private
investment and helping facilitate sharing of U.S. expertise. Our
experience at WCIT-12 in Dubai has further crystallized the need to
focus on greater Internet access and broadband infrastructure
development, especially in developing countries. For example, with
funding from USAID, we are developing a ``Technology Leadership
Program,'' through which we will provide direct technical assistance
and expertise to countries that do not have deep knowledge in deploying
broadband. So far, in FY13, we have funded eight projects, which
included bringing a high-level Burmese delegation to Washington for
intensive training in telecommunications regulations, sending expert
groups to Iraq and Mexico to assist in systems modernization, and
sending U.S. Government experts to conduct workshops at regional
meetings. We also coordinate closely with USAID's programs in this
area, including its Global Broadband and Innovation Program, and we
support public-private partnerships, such as the U.S.
Telecommunications Training Institute, which are active in providing
technical assistance.
Question. Did the International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
overstep its jurisdiction at the 2012 WCIT by adopting the revised
International Telecommunications Regulations that included Internet
provisions?
Answer. The United States approached the World Conference on
International Telecommunications (WCIT) as an opportunity to promote
continued development of international telecommunications services by
updating the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs) in a
way that would avoid unnecessary regulation and support liberalized
markets. The United States stated clearly in the runup to the event
that we opposed any effort to expand the scope of the treaty to address
issues related to the Internet.
The United States remains unsatisfied with the ITRs as finally
adopted because they include provisions and a resolution that address
issues which relate to the Internet and therefore lie outside the scope
of the ITU's existing remit to address international
telecommunications. And although the WCIT did not result in a
consensus, we can draw valuable lessons from it about the way ahead for
both telecommunications and Internet policy. It is around these
outcomes that we seek to strengthen our coalition of likeminded states
as well as build much broader global consensus around the importance of
telecommunications services and support for the highly successful,
existing framework for Internet governance.
Question. Do you believe that there should be more transparency at
upcoming ITU meetings? If confirmed, will you ensure that ITU meetings
are not closed to scrutiny and input from civil society and the general
public, and how?
Answer. The Department of State believes that there should be more
transparency at upcoming ITU meetings. If confirmed, I will work with
other Department officials to build on existing international support
to broaden the role of both the civil society and the public in the
proceedings of the ITU. We will stress to senior ITU officials and
other senior government officials the need for the ITU to engage in
open consultations with stakeholders, so that they can bring in their
unique and invaluable insight to issues central to the activities of
the ITU. We will also stress the importance of conducting meetings and
deliberations in an open, transparent and inclusive manner, making
documents freely accessible, broadcasting proceedings, and taking steps
to enable greater remote participation. We will continue to welcome
members of civil society as members of the United States delegation to
ITU meetings.
Because of the State Department's efforts, the proceedings at the
ITU's recent World Telecommunications/ICT Policy Forum for the first
time gave industry and civil society the opportunity to voice opinions
and concerns during the Forum's deliberations. This, along, with
additional participation from new voices into the Forum's opinions
greatly benefited the outcome of the event. We are hopeful that this
trend will continue for future ITU meetings.
NOMINATION OF NISHA DESAI BISWAL
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2013
----------
Hon. Nisha Desai Biswal, of the District of Columbia, to be
Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs
----------
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tim Kaine
presiding.
Present: Senators Kaine, Risch, Rubio, and McCain.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM KAINE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Kaine. I am calling this meeting to order. This is
a Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing of
Ms. Nisha Biswal. So glad to have you all here. I welcome you
all to this hearing.
A word of introduction. We will have a more closeup and
personal one in a second from Congresswoman Lowey. We are so
glad to have her with us. Ms. Biswal is a distinguished public
servant and this is a very important position within the State
Department family. I have had a good visit with the nominee and
feel very excited about the prospect of her serving in this
important position.
I tried to take out all bias for her because she graduated
from the University of Virginia, but I am finding that hard to
do. Of course, she would be one of a number of UVA graduates
that have devoted themselves and their careers to public
service, and this way UVA has a great track record of putting
people into the Peace Corps, the State Department, other NGOs
that do work in the international area. Ms. Biswal is a
distinguished addition to that great group.
After the University of Virginia, she started her public
service career with the Red Cross, inspired by the horrible
tragedy in Rwanda and wanting to make a difference and thereby
starting her work in the international field. She had a long
and successful run working in both international affairs and
appropriations for the House of Representatives, left those
positions to work with InterAction, the largest alliance of
U.S.-based international humanitarian and development NGOs.
She currently serves in a very important role since 2010 as
USAID's Assistant Administrator for Asia. Much of the real
estate that you would represent in this important post in the
State Department she has worked on in her capacity with USAID.
We are very happy to have Ms. Biswal and her family before
us. I want to welcome family members especially. This is an
exciting day for you and I know you are very, very proud, as
you should be.
Senator Risch, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Near East and South and Central Asian Affairs, will be joining
us, but will be a bit late, and he has indicated that it is
good to proceed because we are joined by Congresswoman Nita
Lowey, who has good personal experience working with Ms. Biswal
during her on the House side, and they are close, and we are
very, very happy to welcome Congresswoman Lowey, who I think
may have votes coming up. So I wanted to get right to it. So,
Congresswoman Lowey, it is great to have you here and we would
love to have your introductory comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. NITA M. LOWEY, MEMBER,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Representative Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is such
an honor for us to appear--I will thank you again, Mr.
Chairman. It is such an honor for me to appear before you today
and to assume this very important, pleasurable task.
It gives me such pleasure to introduce today's witness and
President Obama's nominee to be the Assistant Secretary of
State for South and Central Asia Affairs, Nisha Desai Biswal.
Nisha was the Clerk of the Appropriations Subcommittee on State
and Foreign Operations, of which I was chair, from 2005 until
2010, when she joined the administration as an Assistant
Administrator for Asia at USAID.
Over those 5 years, Nisha consistently demonstrated
tremendous foreign policy acumen. She proved herself to be a
leader, manager, who had the respect and admiration of both the
staff and members on both sides of the aisle. While with the
subcommittee, Nisha spearheaded a number of important
initiatives that changed the way America engages with important
allies and partners throughout the world, as well as how we
address the more challenging and dangerous regions in which we
work.
It would be impossible for me to encapsulate all the
incredible work she did in the short time I have here this
morning. So I will limit myself to just a few examples. Nisha
led the subcommittee through the reorganization of the
appropriations bills which united State Department funding with
our foreign operations work. Through this complex process,
Nisha immersed herself in the gritty details of how we fund our
work overseas and was a driving force behind making our
programs more accountable and effective.
She helped draft benchmarks for continued funding in Iraq
as we work to draw down our troop presence there and
conditioning of our aid to Afghanistan under her watch. She
worked to shift how we engage with Colombia, focusing on
critical development initiatives to promote stability and the
rule of law.
We also worked closely with partners in Jordan and Israel
to create the Palestinian Security Training Program that has
equipped the Palestinian Authority with its own security forces
to provide stability for itself and for Israel.
Most importantly, Nisha proved to be a fearless, persistent
negotiator in dealing with our arch-nemesis, the United States
Senate.
In all seriousness, I know that the time she spent with the
subcommittee has prepared her well for the responsibility she
will assume at the State Department if confirmed by the Senate.
While at USAID, Nisha was responsible for repositioning our
assistance programs in Asia to more closely align with our
foreign policy goals for the region. Nisha worked with her
colleagues at USAID, the State Department, and the whole of the
U.S. Government to ensure our assistance to Central Asia is
focused on strengthening regional trade between those countries
and Afghanistan.
She transitioned the aid program in India into a true
partnership between American and Indian private sector
institutions and universities to find cost-effective solutions
that will benefit India and the world. In east Asia, Nisha
accompanied the President on his historic visit to Burma and
joined him in opening our aid mission there to support Burma in
its transition to democracy. Her work on the Lower Mekong
Initiative and new programs in the Pacific Islands has
supported the administration's increasing focus on Asia.
That is a lot to accomplish in 3 years and I have no doubt
that, with her energy and determination, she will be equally
successful at the State Department. I have greatly enjoyed
knowing Nisha over the years and watching her grow, both
professionally and personally. I had the pleasure of attending
her wedding and seeing her embrace motherhood with her two
beautiful daughters, who were born while she was working on the
committee.
Nisha is a talented, dedicated, brilliant public servant
who will capably serve the administration and the country. She
has the substantive knowledge and personal skills to be
incredibly successful in this challenging position.
I also want to acknowledge her husband, her two daughters,
her brother, her in-laws, because it is a big job and without
the support of her family I know it would be very, very
difficult, as talented as Nisha is, to accomplish all she has
done and all she will do.
So I am very proud to call her a friend and honored to be
here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to be part
of this important occasion. I yield back.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Congresswoman Lowey. Even more
important I think than a candidate's resume or credentials is
the quality of people who stand up and vouch for them and
validate the work that they have done. Having you in her corner
is a wonderful attribute that Ms. Biswal brings to the table
and we appreciate you being here with us on the committee
today. Do not miss any votes on our account. You have done good
work.
With that, I will turn to our nominee. With Senator Risch,
I may offer Senator Risch the opportunity to make some opening
comments when he comes, but now would be a great time, Ms.
Biswal, for your opening comments, and then we will follow that
up with a vigorous Q and A.
Thanks again, Congresswoman Lowey.
STATEMENT OF HON. NISHA DESAI BISWAL, OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
SOUTH ASIAN AFFAIRS
Ms. Biswal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Kaine,
Senator Risch, members of the committee. Thank you very much
for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am honored to
be the administration's nominee for the Assistant Secretary of
State for South and Central Asia. I particularly want to thank
Nita Lowey for her glowing introduction. I am tempted at this
point to simply say let us just go straight to questions and
let me dispense with any remarks that I may have. But she has
truly been a friend and a mentor over the years and I am
honored that she would take time out of her busy schedule to be
here today.
As was noted, I am joined here today by family and friends,
whom I would like to take a moment to introduce. My parents,
Kanu and Lata Desai, could not be here today, but I am joined
by my brother, Pinank Desai, my mother-in-law and father-in-
law, Anu Biswal and Dr. Nilambar Biswal, and most importantly
my husband and children. You know, the best decision that I
ever made was in marrying Subrat Biswal, and he and Safya and
Kaya, our two daughters, are the source of boundless joy for me
and I am grateful for their support in my career and in all
things that I do.
Finally, I am grateful for the friendship and support of so
many former colleagues in the authorizing and appropriations
committees of the House and the Senate and colleagues from the
administration who are here today. I want to particularly note
the presence of Amos Hochstein and Sonal Shah, two very close
friends who have been just an incredible source of support.
Mr. Chairman, I will offer brief remarks and ask that my
full statement be entered into the record.
Senator Kaine. Without objection.
Ms. Biswal. As I said, I am indeed honored to be the
President's nominee for the Assistant Secretary of State for
South and Central Asia at a time of incredible challenge, as
well as opportunity, for the countries of the region and for
U.S. interests there. As you well know, the entire region is
focused on the upcoming transition in Afghanistan and the
implications for future security, stability, and prosperity.
While my direct responsibilities if confirmed would not
include Afghanistan or Pakistan, one of the Bureau's top
priorities will be to work with Ambassador Dobbins and his team
to support that transition by strengthening Afghanistan's
economic connectivity to its neighbors. Already we have seen
strong cooperation from South and Central Asian states in
support of our efforts in Afghanistan. India, which has
provided over $2 billion in economic aid, continues to play an
important role, and all five Central Asian states have provided
vital support for our mission and for our military through the
Northern Distribution Network.
Understandably, Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of anxiety in
the region and uncertainty about what this transition will
bring. Yet it is important to remember that, while there are
many players with divergent interests, all are interested in a
stable and secure Afghanistan that brings benefit to the entire
neighborhood. I look forward, if confirmed, to promoting U.S.
policies that will make regional economic integration a
reality, knitting together all of the countries of the region
through a web of economic, energy, transit, trade, and people-
to-people linkages.
In South Asia, advancing the United States-India strategic
partnership will be of paramount importance. The United States-
India relationship, founded on our shared democratic values,
our converging strategic and economic interests, and strong
people-to-people ties, has broadened and deepened dramatically
over the past decade. In the defense sector alone, we have seen
defense trade increase to over $8 billion today. And the
broader United States-India trade has quintupled over the past
decade, to about $100 billion. But it can and should be
significantly higher.
India's economic growth can benefit greatly if it takes
steps to remove additional constraints to foreign direct
investment, it enhances the intellectual property protection,
eases local content requirements, and addresses other trade-
inhibiting policies.
If confirmed, I will engage with our counterparts in the
Indian Government to ensure that our two countries work
together to meet the significant potential of what President
Obama has called the defining partnership of the 21st century.
Mr. Chairman, let me briefly touch upon a few key
challenges and priorities in the region, particularly with
respect to strengthening democratic governance and advancing
human rights. As Sri Lanka works to rebuild its society after a
devastating civil war, I will, if confirmed, continue to stress
the importance of reconciliation and accountability and for the
government to meet its commitments to all of its population.
Across Central Asia, this administration has steadfastly
championed core American and universal values, such as
religious freedom and broader human rights and political
freedoms, as part of all of our bilateral engagements, a
practice which I will strongly endorse and continue if
confirmed. In Bangladesh, where we have seen remarkable
economic and developmental gains, the administration continues
to urge greater progress on labor rights and transparency as we
seek a more comprehensive partnership with that country.
Nations such as the Kyrgyz Republic, Nepal, Bhutan,
Maldives have embraced democratic values and we will continue
to support them on this journey.
Finally, I wanted to share with you, Mr. Chairman, three
lessons that I have learned over the course of my career which,
if confirmed, which I take with me into this new position. The
first, which I learned working with the Red Cross with refugees
in the Caucasus, is the link between human security and
national security. This of course has played out across the
globe as we see tragic circumstances that impact national
security emanating from human insecurity.
The second, informed by my work at USAID, is that our
policies and programs have to speak not just to the governments
of these countries, but to the hopes and aspirations of the
people.
The third lesson, which I have learned in my extensive time
on the Hill, is the importance of transparency and trust in
relations and interactions between the executive and
legislative branches. To that end, Mr. Chairman, if confirmed I
pledge to work closely with you, Senator Risch, consult
regularly with this committee and the Congress. And I thank you
for your consideration of my nomination and I would be pleased
to answer any questions that you and the committee might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Biswal follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Nisha Desai Biswal
Chairman Kaine, Ranking Member Risch, members of the committee, I
am honored to be here today as President Obama's nominee for Assistant
Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs. It is a
privilege to appear before this committee again, and I'm grateful for
the confidence President Obama and Secretary Kerry have placed in me. I
also want to thank Representative Nita Lowey for taking time away from
her important responsibilities to introduce me. Representative Lowey
has been much more than a boss over the years. She is a friend and
mentor. Working for her and with the dedicated staff of the House and
Senate appropriations committees has been one of the highlights of my
career. I also want to thank the members and staff of the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, where I cut my teeth and had the opportunity to work
with some extraordinary individuals, many of whom have crossed over to
this side of the Capitol. I'm grateful for their continued friendship
and support.
I am joined today by many family and friends to whom I owe my
success. First, my parents, Kanu and Lata Desai, who could not be here
today but who changed my life when they immigrated to America, leaving
behind all that they knew in pursuit of opportunity. I am joined by my
brother, Pinank Desai, and my father and mother-in-law, Dr. Nilambar
Biswal and Anu Biswal. And finally, as Sheryl Sandberg wrote in her
book, ``Lean In,'' the most important career decision a woman makes is
in choosing her life partner. I showed profound good judgment when I
married Subrat Biswal. He and our two girls, Safya and Kaya, are the
light of my life.
Mr. Chairman, I am indeed honored to be the President's nominee for
Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia at a time of
incredible challenge as well as opportunity for the countries of the
region and for U.S. interests there. A career spent in the executive
and legislative branches, as well as working in the development and
humanitarian community, has prepared me well for this important
responsibility. There are three lessons that I have learned in my
career which I carry with me into this new position. The first, which I
learned as a delegate for the Red Cross working with refugees and
vulnerable populations in the Caucuses after the fall of the Soviet
Union, is the link between human security and national security. The
second, which builds on the first, and which underpinned my work at
USAID over the past 3 years, is that, for our diplomatic and
development efforts to be successful and sustainable, our policies and
programs have to speak to the hopes and aspirations of the people and
not just the governments of the region. The third, which became very
clear during my time on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and House
Appropriations Committee, is the importance of transparency and trust
in the interactions between the executive and legislative branches of
government.
As you know well, the region is focused on the upcoming transition
in Afghanistan and the implications for future security, stability, and
prosperity. While my direct responsibilities, if confirmed, would not
include Afghanistan or Pakistan, one of the South and Central Asia
bureau's top priorities will be to help connect Afghanistan to an
increasingly stable and prosperous region. If confirmed, I look forward
to working with Ambassador Dobbins, the Special Representative for
Afghanistan and Pakistan, to build on the progress we have made so far
to foster stability and economic opportunities in South and Central
Asia.
Already, we have seen strong and steady cooperation from South and
Central Asian states in support of our efforts in Afghanistan. India
continues to play an important role in supporting the economic
development of Afghanistan with its provision of over $2 billion in aid
to Afghanistan. Kazakhstan, with its support for the Afghan Security
Forces and training of Afghans in Kazakh universities as well as
hosting the Istanbul process ministerial and the P5+1 talks, has
demonstrated its importance as a leader in the region. In fact, Mr.
Chairman, all five Central Asian states have provided vital support for
our mission in Afghanistan, including through the Northern Distribution
Network. That support will be all the more important in the months and
years ahead.
Understandably, there is a lot of anxiety in the region.
Afghanistan's neighbors are uncertain what the transition in 2014 will
bring and whether we will leave behind a political and security vacuum
that will destabilize the region. Many still doubt our long-term
commitment and fear we will turn our attention elsewhere. And in a
region that is the least economically integrated in the world, Central
and South Asian states wonder how the economic transition will affect
their interests and economies. I look forward, if confirmed, to
promoting U.S. policies that will make regional integration a reality,
knitting together all the countries through a web of economic, energy,
transit, trade, and people-to-people linkages.
Mr. Chairman, while there are many players with divergent interests
in this region, one unifying sentiment is that a stable and secure
Afghanistan will benefit the entire neighborhood as we understand that
it affects our own national security. That is why this administration
has invested significant effort and resources to find a political
solution to the conflict in Afghanistan and increase economic
connectivity and cooperation. The administration's vision is for
Afghanistan to be at the heart of a region with more trade and
investment, more infrastructure and energy links, and more economic
opportunities for its people. We are clear-eyed about the challenges of
promoting greater regional cooperation, but we also see the potential
and opportunities. It's telling that since former Secretary Clinton
first articulated the ``New Silk Road'' vision in 2011, the region has
adopted its own vision of greater connectivity and integration. The
administration welcomes partnership with other key players in the
greater region, like China, to achieve this important goal that, in the
end, will bolster peace, stability, and prosperity for all the peoples
of South and Central Asia.
Important regional infrastructure linkages are already developing.
Uzbekistan has built a rail line from its border to Afghanistan's key
northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif and now Turkmenistan and Tajikistan
have agreed to build a rail line linking their two countries via
Afghanistan. Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India are making
progress on the proposed TAPI gas pipeline. Pakistan recently announced
its intention to sign the intergovernmental agreement on CASA-1000,
which would substantially link the electrical grids of Afghanistan and
Pakistan with those of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan for the very first
time. And we hope that Pakistan and India will continue taking steps
toward trade normalization. Perhaps most importantly, and for the first
time, all of the countries in the region are either WTO members or on a
path or exploring steps toward accession. We still have many challenges
ahead but, if confirmed, expanding greater regional connectivity and
linking economies and markets will be one of my top priorities.
Shifting to our bilateral relations, if I am confirmed by the
Senate, advancing the U.S.-India Strategic Partnership will naturally
be of paramount importance. India's growing economic power make it a
vital anchor for the vision of regional economic engagement, as well as
a cornerstone of our strategic rebalance to Asia. The U.S.-India
relationship, founded on our shared democratic values, converging
strategic interests, and strong people-to-people ties, has broadened
and deepened dramatically in the last decade. Nowhere has this
cooperation been stronger than in the defense sector, where we have
seen defense trade increase from a cumulative $300 million through 2008
to over $8 billion today, and we are now engaging in robust joint
training and exercises. As an example of the synergies inherent in our
partnership, U.S.-made C-17s and C-130s now flying in Indian Air Force
colors add a powerful new capability to India's regional security role,
as well as added capacity to provide humanitarian and disaster relief,
complementing U.S. efforts in these areas. India and the U.S. are
already strong partners in combating terrorism and the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, and, if confirmed, I will endeavor to
strengthen and expand these efforts.
While there is much to laud in the U.S.-India partnership, which
President Obama has called a defining partnership of the 21st century,
the potential for greater cooperation and opportunity remains vast.
While U.S.-India trade has quintupled over the past 10 years to almost
$100 billion, it can and should be significantly higher. The political
transition in Burma has opened the potential for long-anticipated
greater economic connectivity between South and Southeast Asia. The
vision of an Indo-Pacific Economic Corridor and its potential for
driving global economic growth will require free, efficient,
integrated, and open markets. India's economic growth can benefit
greatly from removing constraints to foreign direct investment,
enhancing protection of intellectual property; signaling clear tax
policies for international investors; facilitating market access,
easing requirements for local content, and facilitating trade links to
the broader region. These are tough challenges, but, as Vice President
Biden and Secretary Kerry have underscored during their visits, our two
countries can and should work collaboratively to meet the significant
economic potential of this vital relationship. I believe that the
Indian people and their government will take the necessary steps to
stimulate further economic growth for the benefit not only of the
Indian people, but for many millions across the broader region who rely
on India as a source of stability, prosperity, and democratic values.
By connecting the countries of South and Central Asia, we will not
only unleash the flow of energy and commerce, but also the flow of
ideas and innovations, of science and technology. If confirmed, I will
build upon the rich science and technology collaboration with India and
the nascent Science and Technology dialogue we have launched with
Kazakhstan, an important regional partner, to expand collaboration
between our private sector and academic institutions with organizations
across the region to address common challenges of food security, water
management, climate change, and infectious diseases.
Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not also touch upon key
challenges in the region with respect to democratic governance, human
rights, and corruption. As Sri Lanka works to rebuild its society after
a devastating civil war, we continue to stress the importance of
sustainable post-conflict reconciliation, ensuring accountability for
wartime atrocities, and fulfilling the government's own commitments to
its people. In Uzbekistan, where we are seeing some steps toward
addressing the problem of forced labor, we will remain closely engaged
to press for steady progress toward ending this practice and continue
to press on human rights concerns. Across Central Asia, where freedom
of religion remains heavily circumscribed, we are steadfastly
championing this core American and universal value. The administration
strongly supports Bangladesh as it continues to make remarkable
economic and developmental progress, but we express our concerns as it
grapples with challenges such as labor rights and political gridlock.
As countries such as the Kyrgyz Republic, Nepal, Bhutan, and Maldives
embrace democratic values, the United States is committed to supporting
and strengthening their democratic institutions and helping these
societies combat corruption and advance the rule of law. If confirmed
by the Senate, I will continue to use our broad engagement with
countries throughout the region to underscore that, while we will
continue to work with them to safeguard against the threats of
terrorism and extremism, we believe that progress toward democracy and
human rights, so that people have peaceful avenues for expressing
dissent, is essential to achieving that goal.
Finally, there is no higher priority for the Department than the
security of American citizens, our personnel, and our facilities
overseas. In the past year, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and the
regional bureaus have already done a great deal of work to ensure
closer information-sharing and coordination on security, and to make
sure that our decisions about our presence abroad are informed by a
thorough and ongoing review of the value of the work we conduct
overseas, the threats we face, and the costs of mitigating those
threats. If confirmed, I will continue to make this a top priority,
working together with our colleagues in Diplomatic Security and at our
overseas posts.
Mr. Chairman, let me close by again thanking you for the honor and
the opportunity to testify before the committee. I am humbled by the
trust and confidence that President Obama and Secretary Kerry have
placed in me by this nomination. I consider this appointment to be the
highest honor and a sacred responsibility to undertake on behalf of the
President and the Nation. If confirmed, I will collaborate closely and
consult regularly with this Committee and Congress in fulfilling my
responsibilities.
Thank you. At this time I would be pleased to answer any questions
you and the committee might have.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Ms. Biswal, for that statement.
Again, thank you, Congresswoman Lowey, and our best.
I think I will begin with questions. We will ask questions
in 7-minute rounds. Senator Risch has decided, to the extent
that he would like to do opening, he can do that as part of his
Q and A. We may do more than one round, and we may be joined by
other Senators, but we will just now begin with the dialogue.
You actually stole my first one. I was going to ask you
about lessons learned in your previous capacities and how you
would apply them to this position.
The United States-India relationship, let us begin there, a
very important one. We talked in my office, and I would like
you to maybe elaborate a bit more, on what you see as a
potential sort of trajectory in that relationship. As new
generations of leaders in both countries come about, talk about
some of the reasons for optimism about the United States-India
relationship. Then I have a followup question about the
civilian nuclear deal and the prospects for that between our
countries.
Ms. Biswal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned in my
statement, the United States-India partnership, as the
President has indicated, is the defining partnership for the
21st century, both because the United States and India share
profound values of democracy, diversity, secularism, and human
rights, but also because as an emerging power and an economy of
global consequence, the model that India represents for
democratic development is one that the United States actively
supports and promotes across the globe, and that partnership is
one that will benefit deeply not only the people of the United
States and India, but really the globe.
I do think that there is tremendous potential and scope to
broaden and deepen that relationship in all sectors, whether it
is in science and technology, whether it is in defense and
security cooperation, and certainly in terms of how our two
economies are increasingly intertwined and interlinked.
Senator Kaine. Could you talk a bit about the prospects for
progress on the civilian nuclear deal between the United States
and India?
Ms. Biswal. Sure, thank you. I think that the 123 Agreement
was a transformational agreement between the relationship
between the United States and India. But since that deal was
enacted I think that there has been very slow and halting
progress because of the nuclear liability law in India and the
hindrances that that has posed to advancing civil nuke
cooperation.
I am hopeful, though, that we are making progress and that
there seems to be some progress between Westinghouse and the
Indian Government and NPCIL on approving a small contract. We
are hopeful that that is something that can be announced in the
near future and that that will pave the way for additional work
in the months ahead. It is going to be a long and tough road to
work through the issues with the nuclear liability law, but I
think it is fundamentally in India's interests as well as in
the interest of the United States to work through those issues
so that we can progress with civil nuclear cooperation.
Senator Kaine. You mentioned in your opening statement that
the Afghanistan-Pakistan issues are very important to your work
and yet they are under the purview of a different leader in the
State Department, Jim Dobbins, the Special Representative to
Afghanistan and Pakistan. If you could, share a little bit
about what you hope to do working in tandem with Jim Dobbins,
especially on the India-Pakistan relationship?
Ms. Biswal. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that
that is an important question that is on many people's minds. I
have profound respect for Jim Dobbins. I think he is an
incredible professional with an incredible track record of
service to the Nation on tough issues, and I think he is
exactly the right person in the right job at this time.
If confirmed, working closely with him on the priorities
that we have set for an Afghanistan that is stable, secure, and
economically linked and integrated into its neighborhood is one
that I will work diligently toward. One aspect of that is going
to be looking at how the countries of the region interact with
Afghanistan.
Already much work has been done to promote trade and
people-to-people linkages. Turkmenistan is currently working
toward a rail line that will connect Turkmenistan to
Tajikistan, via Afghanistan. Uzbekistan has already established
rail linkages into Mazar-i-Sharif. There is tremendous power
that is already being provided by Uzbekistan and the lights are
on in Kabul because of Uzbek power. So there are already much
that is happening. Kazakhstan has been a tremendous supporter
and an important player for our efforts in Afghanistan.
But as we move toward this transition, those efforts are
going to need to be stepped up. That will be a very key
priority. Looking at the long term, trying to bring on line the
Turkmen-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline to provide gas into
South Asian markets is going to be an important thing. CASA-
1000, which is the provision of hydropower coming from
Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan into predominantly Pakistan, I think,
is going to be important to the energy security of Pakistan. We
have seen very positive steps that the Government of Pakistan
has already taken to bring that about, to make that into a
reality.
So those will be some of the areas where I will be putting
considerable attention during my tenure if confirmed.
Senator Kaine. Great. Thank you, Ms. Biswal.
Chairman Menendez will very much want me to ask a question
about Bangladesh. It is an issue, and especially labor
conditions there, that he cares about deeply. We had a full
committee hearing on these issues on June the 6th. If you could
just talk a little bit about status of reforms--the President
suspended trade benefits under the Generalized System of
Preferences earlier this year as a result of concerns about
some of these labor issues. If you could talk about status of
reforms in Bangladesh, that would be helpful.
Ms. Biswal. Sure. Senator, Mr. Chairman, let me start first
by thanking you, thanking Senator, Chairman Menendez, because
it was very important both in our engagement with Bangladesh
and for the Bangladeshi people to see the very strong concern
and reaction that was elicited from the United States and from
the United States Congress after that horrific tragedy in Rana
Plaza. Indeed, the suspension of GSP and the incredible
outpouring of concern from the United States and really the
world has forced the Bangladeshis to take action, and it has
focused attention.
We have seen some progress to date. We have seen greater
ability for unions to form and organize, and we have supported
those efforts. We have redoubled our own support for
organizations like the Solidarity Center and the International
Labor Organization to work with those nascent unions. We have
seen the private sector, the ready-made garment industry, come
together both in Europe and in the United States and put
forward some standards that it will adhere to in terms of
building safety, in terms of worker safety.
So these are all very positive movements. There is still a
long ways to go, and if confirmed I will continue to work
diligently in this area with counterparts in the interagency
and with counterparts in the private sector to ensure that we
are meeting those worker safety issues.
Thank you.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Ms. Biswal.
Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, can you give me your view? What do you hear
about how the Indians are looking at our withdrawal from
Afghanistan? Are they worried about it? Are they preparing for
it? What's your observation there?
Ms. Biswal. Thank you, Senator. There is understandable
anxiety in India and across the region about what this
transition will bring. But we are in very close dialogue with
the Indians, and from my role at USAID I was able to
participate in some of the trilateral conversations between the
United States, Afghanistan, and India about the transition,
about our prospects and priorities for the coming 18 months.
India has played an important role in Afghanistan's economic
development and continues to do so, and we will continue to
work very closely with our Indian counterparts and with the
Afghan Government on what an appropriate and stabilizing role
that India can play in the region.
Senator Risch. Are they concerned at all about the
relationship that Afghanistan is going to have with Pakistan,
that is from a competitive standpoint?
Ms. Biswal. Senator, I actually think that there is
somewhat of a convergence of interests here, in that neither
India nor Pakistan want to see an insecure and unstable
Afghanistan. I think that the opportunity that we have before
us is to engage both countries on that particular interest.
Ultimately, the efforts for Afghanistan's political transition
and reconciliation will be Afghan-led and it will be for the
Afghans to determine how they will engage with other partners
in the region. We are certainly supportive of working with all
of the interested parties toward that.
Senator Risch. Thank you.
Let us turn for a minute to the nuclear liability law. You
are right about the agreement that was entered into. I think it
is probably a model for what is going to happen around the
world on nuclear agreements for generating electricity for
peaceful use of nuclear power. What are the prospects for some
movement on the nuclear liability law in India?
Ms. Biswal. It is a difficult undertaking. I think we----
Senator Risch. Why is that?
Ms. Biswal. Well, India is still grappling with the
devastating legacy of the Bhopal tragedy, and that has defined
in many ways how the Indian population has viewed nuclear
power. We understand those concerns and we understand that
legacy.
Nonetheless, as you look at India's energy needs into the
future, civil nuclear power is an important option, and for
that option to really play out this is an issue that I think
India is going to need to grapple with and it is a conversation
that the government is going to need to engage with its
parliament and with its population.
We are hopeful that that will happen, that this will move
forward, because we do think that this is an area that is
fundamentally in the Indian interest and we want to support
that.
Senator Risch. Is there an understanding there about the
inevitability of nuclear power when it comes to being able to
provide the kind of base load that is needed for a country like
India to thrive?
Ms. Biswal. Certainly in some quarters that is the case. I
would not want to speak to the whole of the country, but I
think that there is a very strong desire to move forward on
this. But I think it is going to be a political challenge for
the Indians, and we look forward to working with them.
Senator Risch. Transitioning from that to the purchase of
oil from Iran, that is something that has been very troubling
to me and I think troubling to a lot of people. Have you had
conversations with the Indian Government about this?
Ms. Biswal. Senator, I know that the administration has had
many and an active and ongoing dialogue. If confirmed, I intend
to continue that very close engagement. I will say that
Secretary Kerry found, earlier this summer, India to have
significantly reduced its import of Iranian crude when he made
the determination and exercised the waiver. I think that that
determination is based on multiple sources and comprehensive
analysis of India's imports.
I am aware that Indian imports of Iranian crude have gone
down significantly since the sanctions have been in place. Iran
used to be the No. 2 supplier and it is somewhere in the
neighborhood of five or six on that list currently.
Senator Risch. I understand. I was one that was deeply
disappointed when the waiver was granted. I do not understand
it. We have a clear policy as far as our embargo with Iranian
oil and other products. I had a spirited conversation with the
Ambassador from India. I still do not understand it.
It seems to me that there are--with oil being as fungible
as it is and as widely available as it is, there is absolutely
no reason for India to purchase oil if indeed they want to
support the world community and indeed want to support us as a
friend and a partner, for them to be buying anything from Iran.
I understand it is a longstanding relationship and what
have you. But the Iranians have demonstrated that it is going
to take who knows what to stop them from the path that they are
on. So the Indians' purchase of oil from Iran in my judgment
endangers the entire world community and is a destabilizing
factor for the Middle East. So I hope you will convey that
message when you talk with them and tell them at least some
Members of this body are deeply disappointed in what they are
doing.
I understand they keep telling me, well, they have reduced
it. Well, again, you do not need to reduce it; you need to just
quit it. That would be my message to them.
Thank you very much. My time is up.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Biswal. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Rubio.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
First of all, thank you for being here today.
Congratulations on your appointment.
Ms. Biswal. Thank you.
Senator Rubio. Thank you for your service and your
continued service.
My question really is going to start in the form of a
statement and then get your impressions on it. I would begin by
just saying something I think you will agree with, and that is
that our foreign policy should not just reflect our interests;
it should also reflect our values. I imagine that you agree
with that.
Ms. Biswal. Indeed.
Senator Rubio. And in fact, it is one of the things that
makes America exceptional, despite Vladimir Putin's assertion
to the contrary. So I wanted to walk you through one of the
values that I think are critically important to Americans and
that is religious liberty, because I think this region of the
world that you will be tasked overseeing our foreign policy on
is a part of the world where religious liberties are under
incredible duress, with few exceptions.
We start, of course, with Afghanistan. There is real worry
there among some of the political class about the growth of
Christianity. For example, the president of their Parliament,
Abdul Rauf Ibrahimi, he condemned proselytizing and he asked
the Committee for National Safety to follow the issue
carefully. In fact, one of the parliamentarians there has made
a suggestion about a new law that would outlaw Christianity and
to punish it. So there are concerns about Afghanistan.
In Pakistan, we have all heard the terrible stories that
emerge from there. A 16-year-old from Lahore was abducted,
gang-raped, and forcibly converted to Islam and then forced to
marry a Muslim. Her family reported it to the media and to
authorities, but she, as a result, was insulted and harassed.
There is of course the infamous story of Asia Bibi, who drank
water from the same cup as a Muslim woman. The woman then
claimed that the water was unclean and that the only way to
clean it was for her to convert to Islam. She refused and of
course has been accused of blasphemy.
These blasphemy laws, by the way, are used in Pakistan as a
way to settle scores and personal vendettas. It is not just a
religious thing.
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Liberty
issued a report that said that in the last 18 months in
Pakistan there are 203 documented incidents of violence in the
name of religion, the resulted in 1,800 casualties and more
than 700 deaths. One of the cases in point is this Christian
Sajjad Masih, who was accused of insulting the Prophet
Mohammed. His accuser recanted. His accuser said: It is not
true; the police made me say that. Nevertheless, he is
convicted and he is serving a life in prison because of it.
In India that we have been talking about here, I am
concerned about what appears to be a growing wave of Hindu
nationalism that's sweeping the country. As a result, on August
3 there is the report of a Christian woman that was confronted
with demands that she convert back to Hindu. She refused and as
a result was abused and beaten.
There is this horrifying story of a Christian woman who was
raped and brutally murdered by two men on August 29. She was
raped in front of her 3-year-old daughter. She suffered
multiple stab wounds to her torso and had been strangled with
her own sari. Her body was left naked, her screaming child
beside her. Two suspects were arrested. They have both been
released and it is unclear whether they will face any official
charges in the future.
As a result, India now ranks among the 50 countries--
according to an organization called Open Doors International,
India now ranks among the 50 countries where life as a
Christian is most difficult. The country is actually number 31,
largely because of the streak of Hindu nationalism that
envisions India as a purely Hindu state. We are concerned about
that.
In Sri Lanka, in the last 4 months 30 churches have been
attacked by Buddhist extremists. I quite frankly was not aware
that there was such a thing, but apparently that exists.
In Nepal there has actually been some progress. I know that
there was an agreement there between the government and the
Christian community, but apparently that agreement has not been
fully carried out and we have reports that the Christian
community there has been forced to bury their dead outside of
cemeteries and have to bury their dead in forests because their
cemetery is too close to some Hindu shrine.
In Uzbekistan--and we could go on and on. I do not want to
run out of time here. But that is one of the places where--
Freedom House says, Uzbekistan is among the 17 worst countries
in the world when it comes to freedom. I didn't know this, but
the law in Uzbekistan only allows people to own government-
approved religious material. So for example, a Protestant
minister there was sentenced to 1\1/2\ years of what they call
``corrective labor,'' which does not sound very pleasant, for
illegally storing religious liberty. In Uzbekistan the
government regulates how many copies of a Bible you can have
and they regulate which translations of the Bible you are
allowed to have.
So I guess my question is, When it comes to this part of
the world, how do we ensure that our policies reflect our
interests, and our interests in the area are important, but
also our values? In particular, our aid programs and so forth
should be conditioned upon progress on all these counts. I am
concerned that this discussion is not happening.
So I wanted to get your perceptions about, No. 1, how can
we be a more forceful voice on behalf of religious liberty and
in particular condemning even our allies in those countries
where a lot of this stuff is happening at the street level
where individuals, because of their own prejudices or views,
are carrying out these attacks. But what is more concerning is
when the government actually backs it up, either through laws
or--as in the case of the blasphemy laws, or by selective
enforcement, where they decide that when individuals carry
these things out they will not punish them, they will not do
anything about it, they will overlook it, or in fact they
harass the victims or their families when they report these
things.
So I think my question is, How do we ensure that all of our
programs, from how we talk about it in terms of condemning
these acts to how our foreign policy with regard to these
nations and our aid programs, are conditioned upon real
progress when it comes to the issue of religious liberty? I
could say the same about human trafficking, by the way, and so
forth. But this is one that I think is a growing problem in
many parts of the world, but in particular in Central Asia and
the other countries that you will be tasked with overseeing.
So I wonder if you would share with us your impressions on
the situation and on how we can improve our foreign policy so
that, in fact, it is the foreign policy of an exceptional
nation, because it reflects both our interests and also our
values?
Ms. Biswal. Thank you, Senator, for that question. I think
you have raised some very important concerns and concerns that
extend across the region, as you rightly pointed out. I will
say that one of the things, as you noted, that makes America
great is that it stands for human dignity, human freedom,
freedom of religion, and freedom of expression. Those are
values that the United States does not shy away from and the
administration does not shy away from in our engagements with
all of the countries in the region.
I know that the administration has conducted bilateral
negotiations, bilateral dialogue and consultations with all of
the countries that you have referenced, and in all of those
consultations religious freedom and human rights have been at
the top of the discourse. If confirmed, that would certainly be
my intention, to continue to stress upon in all of our
conversations the very important concerns that we have with
respect to religious freedom.
Senator Rubio. Just one closing question. Do you believe,
given your experience--I believe you were at USAID as well, so
you have been involved in aid programs. Do you believe that it
is wise for us--I am a believer in foreign aid, but I think
foreign aid has to reflect both our interests and our values.
Do you believe it is wise for us to ensure that any foreign aid
and other programs reflect that in the sense that they be
conditioned upon progress on these issues?
Foreign aid is not charity. Should not our foreign aid
reflect our values as well as our interests, in that we provide
aid to countries, but they have to be making measurable
progress toward things that reflect both our interests and our
values? Otherwise they can look somewhere else for the money.
Ms. Biswal. Senator, I would agree that our foreign aid is
a reflection of our values, and in the sense that our foreign
aid is aimed at not benefiting governments, but the people of
these countries, and in many ways reaches those very
populations that are often marginalized and discriminated
against. So in that sense I would say I do not know if
conditionality is the way to go, but targeting of that
assistance to ensure that it is reaching populations for whom
we have the greatest concern is something that we have
consistently sought to do and perhaps need to do more of in
some of these countries.
Senator Rubio. Just in closing, I would say there is no
doubt that we have foreign aid that is directly related to
populations and individuals, and certainly you can target that
aid in the way you described. But we also do give foreign aid
and assistance to governments, and I would just argue, and
would like to have a further conversation with you about, the
notion that when we do give foreign aid to governments one of
the things that we should be looking at is whether these
governments are conducting themselves in a way that reflects
not just our interests, but also our values. Otherwise perhaps
it's not a wise investment on the government side of aid.
Thank you.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Senator Rubio.
Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congratulations to you. I see your family is here today and
I know they are very proud of you as well. I consider you
another compelling argument for comprehensive immigration
reform.
I want to talk just a minute about India and then a little
bit about Sri Lanka. We all know India has been having some
tough times. It is plagued by political gridlock and divisions,
slow growth and a battered currency. It sounds like another
country that I know.
It has led too many people believe that India is out of the
arena, that it will never match up to China and many of us are
wrong to have the aspirations that we had for the United
States-India strategic partnership. I do not believe any of
that. I have confidence in India, in our strategic partnership,
and both our nations' ability to renew ourselves.
But I would like to ask you generally whether you share my
optimism about India and our strategic partnership, but also
can you describe what plans the administration has to step up
our coordination and cooperation with India in Afghanistan,
especially after 2014?
Ms. Biswal. Thank you, Senator, for that very important
question. I do share your optimism. I think that the United
States-India strategic partnership is an incredibly important
one and one that has tremendous further potential for growth,
for broadening, and for deepening, and that will be a priority
if I am confirmed in terms of where I focus time and effort.
I think that, despite the concerns that are currently in
place, I think the fundamentals of the Indian economy are
strong and sound and that, as I noted in my statement, that
India needs to perhaps take a more aggressive stance on opening
and liberalizing its economy, and that that will enable further
population between the United States and India on the economy
front.
With respect to Afghanistan, I will note that the United
States and India and Afghanistan participate in a trilateral
dialogue where there is an opportunity to both share
information and discuss concerns and priorities. That is
something that if confirmed I will continue to engage in
robustly. It allows the Indians to have greater visibility into
where the United States-Afghanistan relationship, how the
transition is unfolding, and for the United States and for
Afghanistan to have an understanding of India's concerns and
interests in the region.
India has already provided $2 billion in economic aid to
Afghanistan. We understand that it will continue to be an
important and stabilizing influence on Afghanistan.
Finally, I note that in the Istanbul process in the heart
of Asia, India does chair the confidence-building measures with
respect to the Afghan economy, with trade and with economic and
with commerce.
Senator McCain. What is the administration and your
position on a free trade agreement with India?
Ms. Biswal. I think that that is something that in the
future we see as a very important and positive development.
There are certainly concerns between the United States and
India in terms of some of the protective tariffs and trade
barriers that we think that India needs to address. But I would
be very hopeful that we can see----
Senator McCain. Does India seek to join the negotiations
for the Trans-Pacific Partnership?
Ms. Biswal. I know that that is something that the Indian
Government has said that it is looking forward to at some
moment.
Senator McCain. Do you encourage that?
Ms. Biswal. I would like to see us make progress on the
bilateral investment treaty, Senator, and I would like to see
the TPP as a natural outcourse of ongoing discussions between
the United States and India.
Senator McCain. Let us talk about Sri Lanka for a minute.
It went through a terribly bloody conflict and now
unfortunately there continues to be reports from human rights
organizations, both ours and international organizations, that
there is still significant human rights abuses taking place
there against the Tamils, which rise to a level that is very
disturbing. Is that your view?
Ms. Biswal. That certainly comports with my understanding
of the situation, Senator.
Senator McCain. Should the United States be a little more
active in condemning these ongoing serious abuses?
Ms. Biswal. Senator, the United States has been very active
and very engaged with Sri Lanka and in the international
community in expressing our concern about both accountability
and reconciliation between minority populations and majority
populations in Sri Lanka. And we have made clear that we
believe that if Sri Lanka does not address through its own
internal processes that there will be increasing call for
international processes to address these issues.
Senator McCain. Does it make sense for the administration
to offer India an opportunity to participate in the F-35
program?
Ms. Biswal. I would like to look further into that, sir,
and get back to you for the record.
Senator McCain. I would appreciate it.
[The written information supplied by Ms. Biswa pertaining
to the above question follows:]
India is a valued defense partner, and we are deepening cooperation
in a number of fields, including a bilateral channel to enhance
coproduction and codevelopment of defense platforms, sometimes referred
to as the Defense Trade Initiative. To date, the Government of India
has not formally expressed interest in participating in the F-35
program. Should India indicate interest in the F-35, the United States
would be willing to talk to India about this program.
Senator McCain. Despite your misguided political
affiliation, I would like to say that you are a great example
to all of us of people who come to this country--I know you
were very young--and the opportunities that this country
provides. Today Mr. Putin said that it was wrong of the United
States of America to call itself an exceptional nation. I think
you and others like you are a great example of the fact that we
are an exceptional nation. I do not think a lot of people are
banging down the door to go to Russia, but I do believe that we
continue to have an influx of blood and dynamism into our
country that has made this nation an exceptional nation, and
you're a great example of that.
So we look forward to confirming you as rapidly as
possible.
Ms. Biswal. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Senator.
Ms. Biswal, a couple more questions. One, does the
rebalance to Asia overall strategy announced by the
administration--I know that presents many opportunities and is
probably seen positively throughout the real estate that you
will represent, particularly to the extent there is a concern
about withdrawal of Afghanistan signifying a weakening U.S.
connection.
But the fact that we are rebalancing toward Asia I assume
has some positives. Does it create any anxieties in the region,
or is it seen as a good thing?
Ms. Biswal. Well, I cannot speak to what anxieties
individual countries might be feeling, but I do think, Senator,
that the rebalance is an overwhelmingly positive refocusing and
sharpening of the United States commitment and engagement to
the Asia-Pacific region. If you look at some of the economic
prospects for Asia over the coming decades, some projections
indicate that Asian economies will comprise 50 percent of
global GDP over the coming decades. So increasingly for the
United States and for the world the success of Asian societies
and Asian economies to create inclusive, transformational, and
sustainable economic growth will drive economic growth
globally, and it is in the United States interest, it is in the
interest of the countries in the region, for the United States
to forge a strong partnership for stability, for security, and
for prosperity for all of our peoples.
Senator Kaine. Thanks, Ms. Biswal.
One of the questions that Senator Risch asked, really a
line of questioning, concerned Indian purchases of oil from
Iran. He pointed out correctly there has been a long historical
relationship and probably some reluctance on India's behalf to
terminate that relationship. But I do think there are some
interesting opportunities here. In April of this year there was
an announced transaction where India was purchasing liquefied
natural gas, LNG, from a United States producer and supplier.
One of their announced reasons why they were happy about that
purchase was it would enable them to reduce reliance upon oil
from the Middle East.
Just in working with your Indian counterparts, they can
maintain a relationship with Iran by saying: Look, we are going
to eliminate our purchases or dramatically cut them even more
unless and until you make plain that you do not have a path
toward nuclear weaponry, but as soon as you do we are not only
going to buy what we are buying, we want to buy more. So just
in your dialogue with Indian counterparts that would be an
important thing.
I raised a similar proposition with Chinese Government
officials recently and one of the first things they said is: We
would love to do that if you will sell us natural gas. So the
natural gas issue and natural gas exports, it is controversial
for other reasons here in the body and we are going to be
thrashing that through.
But to look at natural gas not only as a valuable commodity
for our own country, but as a way through strategic
partnerships to advance our goal of tightening sanctions on
Iran until they make the right decision about their nuclear
weapons program, there are some real opportunities there in the
natural gas reserves of the United States and using that in
trade. So I just recommend that for your use.
Ms. Biswal. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. Apropos to your
point, I was pleased to note that yesterday the Department of
Energy approved Dominion Cove Point for exporting LNG to non-
FTA countries, and India stands to benefit from over half of
the exports from that facility.
Senator Kaine. The news accounts--and Senator Rubio
mentioned a couple of them--about violence against women in
India in the recent months and maybe in the last year or two
have been very, very troubling. Based on your experience in the
region, is it an uptick in violence, is it an uptick in the
reporting of violence? Is it sort of changing cultural or
religious sensibilities?
To what do you attribute the fact that this is an issue
that is much more prominent in news here and around the world?
Ms. Biswal. Well, certainly the reporting, the coverage of
some of the horrific incidents that have come to light in
recent months, have shocked, shocked Indians as well as those
who care about these issues, which is all of humanity. What I
would say is that the coverage and the reaction to that
horrific incident in Delhi with Nirbhaya has I think in some
ways transformed and galvanized how the Indian public and the
Indian media look at these issues.
So certainly you are seeing far more coverage because you
have an Indian press that is very sensitized to this and you
have a public that is very sensitized to it. So I do not know
that it would necessarily reflect an uptick, but I am heartened
by the fact that there is now so much attention and so much
demand for action and accountability.
Senator Kaine. One last question I have is just moving to
Central Asia. You talked in your opening statement about how so
much of our policy with respect to the five Central Asian
states that were formerly part of the Soviet Union has been
driven by Afghanistan. As we are moving into the next chapter
of our relationship with Afghanistan after 2014, talk a little
bit about the opportunities and challenges in those five
countries and how you hope to focus on them in your new role?
Ms. Biswal. Thank you, Senator. We had a chance to talk
about this a little bit in our discussion yesterday. But what I
would say is that the United States because of its engagement
in Afghanistan has had an opportunity to establish deeper
relationships with the countries of Central Asia. Understanding
that we have many concerns about many of these countries, I
think it has been a positive that we have been able to engage
in dialogue and discourse with all five Central Asian states
and that we have annual bilateral consultations and a strategic
partnership with Kazakhstan, which allows us to talk about how
the United States can engage with and support the economic
development priorities of all of these countries and also
engage in discourse about the areas where we have disagreement
and divergence.
But that dialogue is an important one to advance these
issues, because they will not be advanced overnight and easily,
but if we are present and if we have a continuing commitment to
engage in the region, then we will be far more likely to be
able to see some results in the course of time. And it is
certainly critical that we see Central Asia, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, and a region that historically has been one of the
least connected in the world in terms of trade and economy,
that we see that region become more integrated.
That is something that will advance the interests of all in
the region. So we would like to see a Central Asia that has
greater connections into South Asia through the linkages with
Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that is something that we can
only advance through our ongoing engagement.
Senator Kaine. And that engagement is desired by the other
countries as well. I mean, they have traditionally been in very
close sphere of influence with Russia. They are proximate to
China. India is close. But there is also a desire for that
engagement with the United States.
Ms. Biswal. Absolutely, across the board.
Senator Kaine. I have no other questions. What I would like
to do is thank you for your presentation today, and I think the
tenor of the questions has been positive and we will move I
think promptly on your nomination.
I want to announce, for Senators, either those here or not
here, that questions for the record--additional questions to be
submitted to you--will be due by noon tomorrow. But again, I
very much appreciate the opportunity to chair this meeting. The
Foreign Relations subcommittee that I chair is overlapping much
of your real estate. Congratulations on the nomination and my
best to your family.
With that, the meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:01 a.m., the meeting was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record
Responses of Nisha Desai Biswal to Questions Submitted by
Senator Robert Menendez
Question. On August 12, 2013, The Wall Street Journal reported that
India was considering increasing crude oil imports from Iran. This
reported arrangement would include the purchase of Iranian oil with
Indian rupees which would then be used by the Iranians to purchase
Indian goods. Over the past 2 years, India has made noteworthy progress
in sharply decreasing crude oil purchases from Iran, a move which has
contributed greatly to international efforts to increase pressure on
the regime. I am very concerned that anything but a continued steady
decline in oil imports to India will send the wrong message of
diminished international resolve to the Iranian regime. I am also
concerned that such a move would significantly impact United States-
Indian relations at a time when the relationship has steadily
strengthened.
Has the Indian Government communicated its intention to the
U.S. Government that it will increase imports of Iranian oil in
the coming period? What measures is the State Department
prepared to take to ensure that India continues to decrease
imports of Iranian crude oil?
Answer. We have engaged the Government of India about the recent
press reports in question and expressed our concerns. We understand
Indian officials have floated the idea of increasing oil purchases from
Iran to stabilize the falling rupee. India pays Iran for its oil in
rupees, which are then used to purchase food and medicine to be
exported to Iran. However, we believe India's importers intend to
continue to reduce the volume of purchases of Iranian crude oil. The
United States continues to engage in close consultations with the
Indian Government on U.S. sanctions, and our governments share the
objective of pressing Iran to comply with its international
obligations.
India's strategic decision to diversify its crude oil imports has
resulted in significant reductions in its crude oil purchases from
Iran. Since India was the second-largest importer of Iranian crude oil
prior to the enactment of oil sanctions, every percentage point in
reduced crude oil imports translates into a significant revenue loss
for Iran.
When considering renewing the exception, which expires on December
1, 2013, the Secretary will take into account a variety of public and
nonpublic information sources. We are confident we are making an
accurate determination, based on the best possible available data, both
public and nonpublic. In India, as in all other importing countries, it
is important to look at the actual import numbers and trends rather
than press reports or other statements which may be misleading. We have
worked diligently to establish a worldwide effort to track Iranian
crude oil exports and ensure full implementation of sanctions. India
appears to be on a trend of further diversifying its crude oil supplies
and reducing its imports of Iranian crude oil, despite some variation
in its crude oil purchases. There is always some month-to-month
variability in crude oil purchases.
Question. The political situation in Sri Lanka continues to
deteriorate with
increased reports of human rights abuse against the Tamil population
and lack of progress by the government to abide by commitments made
following the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission. The
government of Mahindra Rajapaksa has also refused to comply with the
U.N. Human Rights Council's March 2012 resolution on reconciliation and
accountability. The United States has played a strong leadership role
in advancing resolutions on Sri Lanka at the U.N. Human Rights Council,
but these efforts have not resulted in any significant change in
behavior on these issues by the Sri Lankan government.
Under what circumstances would the United States support an
international
investigation into reports of atrocities and human rights
violations committed during the country's civil war?
Answer. Four years after the end of Sri Lanka's terrible civil
conflict, the United States remains deeply concerned about the lack of
meaningful progress on reconciliation and accountability, and about
recent backsliding on human rights and democratic governance. The two
U.N. Human Rights Council resolutions in March 2012 and March 2013 drew
international attention to these concerns and provided much-needed
support to Sri Lankan civil society working on issues of
reconciliation, accountability, and human rights. As part of our
strategy to encourage both credible progress on reconciliation and
investigations into serious allegations of violations of human rights
law and international humanitarian law, we are currently reviewing a
range of options for further action in the March 2014 Human Rights
Council session.
We support United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi
Pillay's recent call for credible investigations into alleged human
rights abuses. As she stated, ``unless there is a credible national
process, calls for an international inquiry are likely to continue.''
We also frequently raise our concerns with the highest level of the Sri
Lankan Government about the lack of progress on accountability and urge
them to utilize U.N. resources, including technical assistance, to make
meaningful progress. In the past 6 months, Sri Lanka has taken some
initial steps, including creation of a Commission of Inquiry to
investigate disappearances and abductions during the war. We will
continue to press the Sri Lankan Government to ensure that these
mechanisms are credible, independent, and transparent.
Question. The United States has clear national security interests
in maintaining the Northern Distribution Network capability through the
end of 2014 and perhaps beyond, as U.S. forces gradually draw down from
Afghanistan. Given the authoritarian nature of the Uzbek Government, I
am concerned about the depth of our security relationship with the
country.
How much security assistance has the United States. provided
to the Uzbek Government over the past 2 fiscal years? How has
cooperating with Uzbekistan strengthened our national security
interests in the region? Has our security cooperation with the
Uzbek Government had any measurable impact on U.S. efforts to
support human rights and democratic reform in the country?
Answer. The United States provided $33.26 million in security
assistance to Uzbekistan in FY 2012 and plans to provide $24.11 million
in FY 2013. This assistance included funding for two railroad scanners
on the Northern Distribution Network (NDN), which will speed up
clearance of retrograde shipments from Afghanistan. The United States
also provides nonlethal training and tactical equipment to strengthen
counternarcotics and border security capabilities of law enforcement
organizations; training to support the professionalization of
Uzbekistan's military, including English-language training; and
maintenance of radiation detection equipment through the Institute of
Nuclear Physics, which will be handed over to the Uzbekistani
Government over the next 2 years. Assistance also includes funding for
Ravens, small hand-launched remote-controlled unmanned aerial vehicles
with no lethal weapons capabilities.
As the United States draws down forces in Afghanistan, the NDN, as
an alternative to southern ground lines of communication, is an
important transit route. Maintaining more than one route increases our
flexibility and guards against the disruption that occurs when a single
route is subject to interdiction or delay. In 2011, the United States
and Uzbekistan negotiated an overflight agreement, which permits
frequent flights of cargo aircraft to and from Afghanistan. Uzbekistan
understands that the NDN helps address one of its major national
security concerns--establishing a stable and secure Afghanistan on its
southern border--and this helps us secure Uzbekistan's support for the
NDN.
Improving Uzbekistan's capabilities to secure its southern border
also improves regional security, one of our top national security
priorities. To this end, we have worked with Uzbekistan to improve its
counternarcotics capacity and enhance its ability to monitor and secure
its southern border, strengthening Uzbekistan's ability to guard
against transnational threats.
A growing security relationship with Uzbekistan has enabled us to
develop a principled and constructive relationship with its government
and people on issues such as human rights. Our engagement with
Uzbekistan on security and logistics issues demonstrates the mutually
beneficial nature of the bilateral relationship, and it has afforded us
greater opportunities to raise sensitive human rights and democratic
reform issues with the government. As we develop our relationship, we
have greater room to argue that respect for human rights, fundamental
freedoms, and political liberalization serve Uzbekistan's national
interest by contributing to greater domestic stability and security. We
also have been able to expand our work with Uzbekistan on judicial
reform.
We continue to urge Uzbekistan to implement and enforce its
international commitments on the elimination of forced labor. We are
pleased that Uzbekistan has invited the International Labor
Organization to monitor its labor practices during the 2013 cotton
harvest, a step we have long advocated. The government also took law
enforcement efforts to combat sex and transnational labor trafficking
in 2012. In our bilateral dialogue with Uzbekistan, we have suggested
concrete steps that the government can take to improve the environment
for religious freedom. We continue to stress that allowing citizens to
peacefully exercise their beliefs is an effective way to prevent
violent extremism. We also are working actively to promote greater
interaction between the government and independent civil society.
While cognizant of the importance of the NDN to the efforts in
Afghanistan, we will continue to make clear that the nature of our
partnership and the assistance we can provide Uzbekistan under current
legislation is limited by Uzbekistan's actions on democratic
governance, human rights, and fundamental freedoms.
Question. How is the United States supporting the Government of
Bangladesh's efforts to implement the tripartite national action plan?
The U.S.-Bangladesh Action Plan? The EU-ILO-Bangladesh Sustainability
Compact? What is the United States Government's assessment of the
Government of Bangladesh's ability to fulfill the requirements of these
three plans in a timely and effective manner?
Answer. The United States, through high-level diplomatic
discussions and U.S.-funded programs, is closely engaging with
Bangladesh to implement an action plan to restore Bangladesh's
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) privileges, the ILO-supported
tripartite national action plan, and the EU-ILO-Bangladesh
Sustainability Compact. Through discussions in Dhaka with all
stakeholders, the United States is working to help Bangladesh
strengthen unions, ramp up inspections and improve compliance and
transparency. Through these three plans, Bangladesh has publicly
committed to working closely with the ILO, the United States, the EU,
labor groups, industry associations, and buyers on important reforms to
afford internationally recognized worker rights, but considerable steps
still remain.
Bangladesh has committed to developing and implementing a plan to
increase the number of government labor, fire, and building inspectors,
including by hiring 1,000 inspectors (200 in 2013 and 800 in 2014) and
900 support staff; increase fines and other sanctions for failure to
comply with labor, fire, or building standards; create a publicly
accessible database of all RMG factories; establish a confidential
complaint mechanism to report safety and worker rights violations;
enact overall labor law reforms to address key concerns related to
freedom of association and collective bargaining; and review and reform
labor regulations governing Export Processing Zones for conformity with
international standards.
Question. How many union organizers have been trained on workers'
rights through USAID's Global Labor Program in Bangladesh? What is the
current assessment of the effectiveness of this program in increasing
and improving their capacity to organize workers? In terms of numbers
trained and increased capacity, what is the end-goal of the program?
Answer. Initiated in 2011, USAID's Global Labor Program allocates
approximately $500,000 to Bangladesh to strengthen freedom of
association by enabling garment workers to organize unions and
represent their interests through collective bargaining. This program,
implemented by the Solidarity Center, also works at the national level
to codify labor standards related to wages and worker safety. Already,
1,850 activists have been trained on labor law, 185 trained on
collective bargaining, 40 trained on comprehensive worker rights, and
20 organizers have been mentored on organizing.
The program already shows signs of success. The number of
organizing committees formed has increased significantly in the first
half of year in comparison to the 2 prior years of the program. In the
last reporting quarter alone, organizers formed 21 new unions--11
already registered--equivalent to the number of unions formed in all of
the first year.
Question. How many factoryowners and managers have been trained on
workers' rights through USAID's Global Labor Program in Bangladesh?
What is the current assessment of the effectiveness of this program in
increasing their understanding of the role of trade unions and their
acceptance of and cooperation with union leaders and trade unions in
their factories? In terms of numbers trained and achievable outcomes,
what is the end-goal of the program?
Answer. As part of our comprehensive effort to support labor reform
in Bangladesh, the U.S. Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
(FMCS) is working with the ILO on the critical early stages of
developing a functioning industrial relations system in Bangladesh.
FMCS has conducted negotiation and interest-based problem solving
training to workers and management, including Bangladesh Export
Processing Zone and Ministry of Labor officials, with the goal of
providing an essential foundation for achieving real workplace rights
and safety in Bangladesh. Since late 2012, two FMCS mediators have
conducted three sessions of interest-based negotiation training under
the ILO's Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work program. The
sessions engaged more than 100 tripartite participants from RMG
employers, BEPZA, unions, and Bangladesh's Ministry of Labor and
Employment.
Question. How many trainers have been trained through the State
Department's Strengthening the Capacity of Independent Workers'
Organizations in Bangladesh's Readymade Garment Section and Export
Processing Zones program? How many trainers does the program plan to
train through the program's expiration in December 2014? What kind of
training will the program provide to organizers and activists,
especially women, to increase their capacity to recruit and represent
Bangladeshi garment workers?
Answer. The Solidarity Center has received $495,000 through
December 31, 2014, to implement the ``Strengthening the Capacity of
Independent Workers' Organizations in Bangladesh's Readymade Garment
Sector and Export Processing Zones'' program. The overall goal of the
program is to improve the economic well-being and working conditions of
Bangladeshi garment workers by strengthening their independent worker
organizations. As of September 2013, the program has trained 40
activists and leaders on plant-level organizing, including topics such
as developing strategic organizing plans, identifying organizing
targets and leaders, building organizing committees, charting the
workplace and assessing workers, developing organizing messages, and
understanding effective communication with workers. To support the
organizers success in implementing their organizing strategies, the
Solidarity Center is following up with the organizers on a weekly basis
to get progress reports and work through challenges the organizers face
in the implementation of the plans.
The Solidarity Center also partnered with the Bangladesh Institute
for Labor Studies (BILS) to increase the participation and skills of
women to be active organizers and leaders of the workers'
organizations. The Solidarity Center and BILS will soon begin gender
equity training for 360 people to garner support from both male and
female workers to address some of the challenges preventing women from
joining or taking on leadership positions in the garment sector. In
addition, the Solidarity Center and BILS will conduct women's
leadership trainings for 720 people, focused on women leaders and
activists.
Question. How many collective bargaining agreements have been
reached in factories outside the EPZs? How can programs sponsored by
the United States Government increase the capacity of union leaders to
reach collective bargaining agreements outside the EPZs?
Answer. Collective bargaining agreements and union registration
have increased substantially in 2013 compared to previous years. Over
the last year, the Government of Bangladesh has registered
approximately 50 new unions in the RMG sector, although about five are
management-affiliated, and several unions have presented their charters
of demands to employers and await a response. The Government of
Bangladesh in August reregistered the Bangladesh Center for Workers
Solidarity (BCWS), a prominent labor rights NGO and local implementing
partner of the Solidarity Center.
To increase the capacity of union leaders to reach collective
bargaining agreements, the Solidarity Center program also focuses on
developing more effective leaders, especially women. The Solidarity
Center hosts full-day organizing practitioners' roundtables to allow
RMG union organizers to report on their organizing projects and to
develop new skills on organizing and bargaining techniques as they
operate in an otherwise challenging environment. The Solidarity Center
also plans to host seminars that include bargaining skills training to
utilize occupational safety and health and fire safety material as the
basis of negotiations with employers.
Question. How many collective bargaining agreements have been
reached in factories inside the EPZs? How can programs sponsored by the
United States Government increase the capacity of Worker Welfare
Societies to reach collective bargaining agreements inside the EPZs?
Answer. Bangladesh has publicly committed to bringing the EPZ law
into conformity with international standards, so that workers within
EPZ factories enjoy the same freedom of association and collective
bargaining rights as other workers in the country. The United States
has pressed Bangladesh to extend the national labor law, the Bangladesh
Labor Act, into EPZs and has warned authorities against union busting.
Just as the Solidarity Center program works with unions outside the
EPZs to reach collective bargaining agreements, it also engages in an
almost identical way with Workers Welfare Associations (WWAs) inside
the EPZs. Activities similarly focus on developing more effective
leaders, especially women, by providing capacity-building for union
leaders on effective collective bargaining techniques and occupational
safety. The Solidarity Center hosts full-day organizing practitioner's
roundtables to allow WWA organizers to report on their organizing
projects and to develop new skills on organizing and bargaining
techniques. The seminars utilizing OSH and fire safety material as the
basis of negotiations with employers will include participation from
unions and WWAs.
Question. It appears that the Strategic Dialogue meeting in June
was quite successful, and I understand that Secretary Kerry agreed with
his Indian counterparts that the United States and India would work
together in the leadup to Prime Minister Singh's visit to Washington
this month to resolve a number of bilateral issues. These include
outstanding trade and investment difficulties facing U.S. companies,
possible resumption of talks on a Bilateral Investment Treaty,
advancing the civil nuclear agreement, resolving defense contract
issues, and making progress on a climate change (hydrofluorocarbons)
agreement. These are all critical to advancing the bilateral
relationship. In particular, however, I remain concerned about the
generally deteriorating investment climate in India and the
difficulties American companies are facing in doing business there. I
made my concerns clear in the letter Senator Portman and I--along with
38 other Senators--sent to Secretary Kerry prior to the Strategic
Dialogue meeting, urging him to work with India to improve the business
operation environment. There is great potential to expand our bilateral
cooperation with India,
I would appreciate your comments on the state of bilateral
discussions to advance our mutual civil nuclear, defense
cooperation, and environmental interests, and also request an
update on the actions the administration is taking with India
to eliminate the challenges facing American companies, such as
forced local production, retroactive taxation, and inadequate
protection for intellectual property rights. How do you see
your role and that of the State Department in furthering these
various objectives?
Answer. The U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue, launched in 2010, has
significantly broadened and institutionalized engagement and
cooperation between our two countries across a wide spectrum of
interests and priorities. Challenges and opportunities related to the
civilian nuclear and defense sectors, climate change, and India's trade
and investment policies remain top priorities for advancing the U.S.-
India bilateral relationship. The 123 Agreement was a landmark in the
United States-India relationship. While progress remains slow,
particularly in the area of addressing concerns over India's domestic
liability law, both sides are committed to working through the
obstacles together, so that we can meet India's energy needs and help
U.S. companies realize the agreement's commercial benefits.
Defense sales to India during this administration have resulted in
tens of thousands of jobs created across the country. United States-
India defense trade has grown from almost zero a decade ago to a
cumulative total of nearly $9 billion today. If confirmed, I will
continue to advocate on behalf of U.S. defense companies who seek to
enter into India's defense market, and encourage the further
streamlining and integration of our respective procurement procedures,
and will support the efforts underway through the Defense Trade
Initiative, to encourage greater defense cooperation.
At the 4th U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue, Secretary Kerry and his
Indian counterpart, External Affairs Minister Khurshid, announced a new
bilateral Climate Working Group to elevate discussions on this
administration priority, where Indian leadership is vital to global
progress. More recently, G20 Leaders, including India, agreed to work
more closely together in addressing dangerous hydrofluorocarbons. We
also aim to work with India within the UNFCCC to advance efforts to
reach an ambitious and inclusive international climate agreement for
2015. Through the annual Energy Dialogue and its working groups, the
U.S. Government and India are also advancing clean, low-carbon energy
access and reliability solutions through joint programs such as the
Partnership for the Advancement of Clean Energy (PACE).
Advancing U.S. exports and access for U.S. companies abroad is a
top priority for the Obama administration, including the Department of
State. I understand that the Department of State, the Department of
Commerce, USTR and other agencies continue to raise concerns with
India, both bilaterally and in multilateral bodies such as the WTO, on
a broad range of trade and investment concerns, including localization
barriers and intellectual property protection. The State Department
also plays an active role in the interagency task force on localization
barriers to trade, established by USTR in 2012. We have also
consistently raised the importance of a fair and predicable tax
environment to U.S. businesses. Alongside the business community, the
U.S. Government continues to make the case against policy measures that
harm U.S. firms and prevent India from meeting its own growth and
innovation goals.
If confirmed, one of my top goals will be to ensure that the
Department of State continues to coordinate with agencies across the
U.S. Government to encourage Indian policymakers to adopt policies that
create a level playing field for U.S. companies. We have many avenues
for this engagement, including the U.S.-India CEO Forum, Bilateral
Investment Treaty negotiations, the U.S.-India Commercial Dialogue, and
the Trade Policy Forum. I will also work closely with our teams at our
Embassy and consulates in India, who are actively engaged with Indian
policymakers and opinion leaders on a daily basis to advance U.S.
interests.
______
Responses of Nisha Desai Biswal to Questions Submitted by
Senator Bob Corker
Question. For the past decade, the United States has consistently
encouraged India to shoulder greater responsibility in international
affairs. Yet New Delhi continues to shy away from assuming a more
ambitious role on the international stage.
What accounts for India's reluctance to play a larger role
in international
affairs? Does New Delhi lack the political will or
institutional capacity or are other factors at play?
Answer. While India's economic transformation since 1991 has
fundamentally changed the way it engages with the international system,
India is sometimes reticent about shouldering greater global
responsibilities, particularly given its focus on domestic
responsibilities. India's foreign policy and national security
architecture is still growing and building capacity will take time--for
example, India's foreign service, while growing, is still smaller than
Singapore's.
These factors, however, should not overshadow India's important
role in the world, which has grown significantly over the last decade.
A G20 member, India is playing a greater role in shaping regional
architecture in Asia Pacific, has contributed $2 billion in assistance
to Afghanistan, is the third-largest troop contributor to U.N.
peacekeeping operations, and is an active development partner in Africa
through the India-Africa Forum. The United States and India hold
regular consultations on a wide range of issues, from global energy
flows to the Indian Ocean Region.
Like the United States at the turn of the 20th century, India's
global emergence will not happen overnight, but because of our shared
democratic values and convergence of interests, it remains in the U.S.
interest to continue building a broad and vital partnership with India.
Question. Does the United States overstate India's strategic
importance? Why or why not?
Answer. The priority we place on India reflects its growing global
role and the potential of our partnership. Our European partners,
Japan, Australia, Russia, and China are all eager to expand ties and
enhance trade and investment with the Indian market. In the next two
decades, India will become the world's most populous nation. Despite
the recent slowdown, India remains one of the largest economies in
Asia, and our bilateral trade in goods and services reached nearly $100
billion in 2012. The world's largest democracy, India shares our
commitments to pluralism and the rule of law. The 3-million strong
Indian Diaspora underpins our strong people-to-people ties. With the
world's third-largest army and a navy with growing blue water
capabilities, India is an increasingly important security partner in
Asia Pacific and beyond. Our strategic partnership will continue to
grow given our democratic values, economic ties, and common interest in
maintaining international norms.
Question. What areas for cooperation exist for the United States
and India to partner with others in the Indo-Pacific, including
Australia and Japan?
Answer. As part of its Look East policy, India has made expanding
strategic and economic linkages in the Asia-Pacific a top priority and
supports a strong U.S. presence in the region. This makes the Asia-
Pacific a natural area for cooperation, and over the last 4 years our
collaboration has grown significantly. The United States and India hold
a substantive, twice-yearly regional dialogue on East Asia. Together
with Japan, we have also held four trilateral dialogues and a fifth
round is expected to take place this fall in Tokyo. The trilateral
discussions have focused on humanitarian assistance and disaster
relief; space cooperation; and regional connectivity. India has also
been invited to participate in the 22-country Rim of the Pacific
(RIMPAC) naval exercise hosted next year by PACOM.
The United States encourages India to take a greater leadership
role in multilateral fora, including the East Asia Summit and ASEAN
Regional Forum, due to our shared interests in maritime security,
counterterrorism, nonproliferation, disaster relief, and other key
issues. India signed an ASEAN Free Trade Services Agreement in December
2012. Taking advantage of the opening in Burma, India, is a strong
support of greater connectivity and economic integration in South East
Asia, including an Indo-Pacific economic corridor. Both our countries
also recognize the strategic importance of the Indian Ocean and have
expanded our engagement in this vital region. India served as chair of
the Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation in 2012, and
was instrumental in helping secure Dialogue Partner status for the
United States.
India-Australia ties have been greatly bolstered by the Australian
Labor Party's 2011 decision to overturn its prohibition of uranium
sales to India, and through the commencement of civil-nuclear
cooperation agreement negotiations in March 2013. Then-Prime Minister
Gillard traveled to India in October 2012, and during a visit to
Australia by Indian Defense Minister Antony in June 2013, the two
countries agreed on enhanced security cooperation, including maritime
exercises.
Question. What role does South Asia play in the Obama
administration's ``rebalance'' to Asia?
Answer. Given the strategic and economic linkages between the
Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific, South Asia, particularly India,
is vitally important to advancing American interests in the Asia
Pacific. In a February 2013 address, Indian Ambassador to the U.S.
Nirupama Rao stated ``We welcome U.S engagement in Asia and the Indo-
Pacific. The continuance of economic growth and prosperity in both our
countries is in many ways linked to the opportunities for growth and
prosperity in this region. It is a space that impacts our destinies,
whose security and prosperity is vital to both of us.'' Like the United
States, India views this region as vital to its interests; India's own
rebalance, the Look East Policy, is over two decades old. As we
continue our rebalance to Asia, our growing cooperation in Asia Pacific
is a testament to our shared interests.
Question. The Bangladeshi High Court on August 1 declared illegal
the registration of the political party Jamaat-i-Islami with the
Election Commission. The order came following a petition filed in 2009
challenging the legality of Jamaat's charter under the country's
constitution. If the verdict stands, Jamaat would be unable to compete
in upcoming national elections scheduled to be held in January 2014.
What is your view of the Sheikh Hasina Government's efforts
to ban the Jamaat from the political process?
Answer. We support the democratic process and respect for the rule
of law. One of Bangladesh's great strengths is its commitment to
pluralism. The Bangladesh High Court cancelled the registration of
Jamaat-e-Islami as a political party after hearings on a petition filed
by private citizens. This is a matter to be decided by Bangladeshi
authorities, in accordance with Bangladeshi law and the Bangladeshi
Constitution.
Question. There is concern that if the ruling Awami League Party
and the opposition Bangladesh National Party (BNP) fail to agree on the
mechanisms for conducting impartial elections, the BNP may refuse to
participate in the electoral process.
What impact would a BNP poll boycott have on political
stability in Bangladesh?
Answer. A BNP boycott of the elections may lead to increased
political protests and street violence. Such protests and violence
could undermine Bangladesh's political stability and economic
development. We have repeatedly urged the leaders of the major parties
in Bangladesh to come together and agree on a way forward that will
ensure free, fair, and credible elections in the coming months. What
the way forward looks like is for the parties of Bangladesh to decide,
but we firmly believe violence is never an acceptable solution and call
upon all parties to refrain from the use of violence. Secretary Kerry
wrote to Prime Minister Hasina and BNP leader Begum Zia on September 8,
encouraging them to engage in constructive dialogue.
______
Responses of Nisha Desai Biswal to Questions Submitted by
Senator James Risch
Question. Administrations for decades have sought to build deeper
economic integration throughout Central Asia, but these efforts have
met, at best, with modest success.
What do you see as the obstacles to success and what changes
would you prioritize to improve the chances of success for the
region?
Answer. U.S. engagement and assistance have fostered economic
development among the five Central Asian states. Initiatives such as
the New Silk Road seek to link the economies and infrastructure of
central Asia, Afghanistan, and south Asia. The United States has worked
closely with multilateral and bilateral partners to support regional
efforts to strengthen business and infrastructure links between the
central Asian countries and Afghanistan, links that would aid their
economic development and strengthen regional stability as well as
Afghanistan's fiscal sustainability. The United States has also
leveraged the Asian Development Bank's Central Asia Regional Economic
Cooperation framework, which provides billions to advance regional
development programs.
Regional consensus around the importance of economic integration is
growing. Kazakhstan has recognized the value of, and become a strong
advocate for, greater regional economic integration. Turkmenistan is
working with Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India on a natural gas pipeline
that will connect gas reserves in central Asia with growing demand for
energy in south Asia. With support from our multilateral development
bank partners, rail and electricity projects are under construction and
helping build a stronger foundation for regional economic integration.
Efforts to build people-to-people links, through regional projects such
as two U.S.-supported symposia on women's economic empowerment, also
advance our goals for regional economic integration.
The United States strongly believes that everyone's interests are
served by inclusive and transparent trade regimes such as the WTO. To
this end, we have encouraged and supported the central Asian states and
Afghanistan in their WTO aspirations. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are
already members; Afghanistan and Kazakhstan are making good progress
toward achieving membership; and other states have also expressed
renewed interest.
While historically limited regional cooperation and securing
international financing for large infrastructure have been challenges,
these recent developments all show that central Asian states recognize
the importance of regional integration. Continued strong U.S. support
for these regional initiatives not only helps overcome past challenges
these countries faced in working with each other, but also supports our
interest in a secure, stable, and prosperous region.
Question. Please explain U.S. policy toward the Eurasian Union.
Answer. The United States does not oppose formation of the Eurasian
Economic Union (EEU), to the extent that it is consistent with the
prospective members' WTO and other international trade commitments. The
United States believes strongly in the importance of inclusive and
transparent trade regimes such as the WTO. We have an interest in
continued engagement with the future members of the EEU to promote U.S.
trade and investment interests. There are 170 million consumers living
in Russia and other countries that form the current Customs Union,
which will become the EEU in 2015.
However, the EEU can only promote the stability and prosperity it
aims to achieve if it is truly voluntary and presents benefits to all
member states. We have an interest in the EEU's development as a
responsible member of the global economic system, rather than serving
as a mechanism to protect internal industries and domestic
constituents. The extreme inequality in size between the EEU's members
means that it will be both important and challenging for negotiators to
ensure that all EEU provisions and regulations are genuinely equal for
all parties and will not constrain the ability of member states to
liberalize trade and adopt the global framework of the WTO and other
international arrangements.
Question. What are the major obstacles in India to completing a
Bilateral Investment Treaty with India?
Answer. The United States Government remains committed to
concluding a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) with India that will
help support our common goal of expanding foreign investment in each
others' economies. A BIT would provide greater protections and
opportunities for U.S. firms seeking to invest in India for the first
time or expand existing investments.
In the past 10 years, the U.S. model text for our Bilateral
Investment Treaties (BITs) has evolved to meet the needs of a variety
of stakeholders. India is currently in the process of updating its
model BIT agreement. Our current model BIT texts differ in several
areas, including the treatment of investors prior to the time the
investment is made, the coverage of local content requirements, and the
approach to international arbitration. The U.S. model BIT also includes
important labor and environment provisions that are not included in the
model texts of many countries.
A BIT with India could stimulate Indian investment into the United
States. India is one of the fastest growing sources of investment into
the United States. Indian foreign direct investment in the United
States increased from $227 million in 2002 to almost $5.2 billion in
2012, supporting tens of thousands of U.S. jobs.
The United States and India have engaged in BIT negotiations since
2008, with the last round held in June 2012. Both countries agree that
concluding a BIT is a top economic priority, and we are pursuing
further negotiations toward a comprehensive treaty, which has high
standards, meets the needs of businesses, and more clearly defines
investment rules and practices.
Question. While India has focused heavily on its border with
Pakistan, India is growing more concerned about its border with China.
Please explain these concerns and what assistance the United States can
provide.
Answer. India has expressed a desire to build a positive
relationship with China, but issues relating to a longstanding disputed
border have led to friction in the relationship. The boundary begins
north of Kashmir, in the Aksai Chin region, which is administered by
China but claimed by India. From there the line runs southeast in three
segments to the northeastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. Most of
Arunachal Pradesh is claimed by China as part of Tibet, and this area
saw fierce fighting during the 1962 Sino-Indian war. The eastern part
of the boundary, between Bhutan and Burma, is also referred to as the
McMahon Line, a 1914 colonial boundary agreed to by British India and
Tibet, but never recognized by China. The United States officially
recognizes the McMahon Line as India's northeastern border with China.
Most recently, in April a People's Liberation Army incursion across
the Line of Actual Control occurred in the Ladakh region. The Chinese
State Councilor responsible for foreign affairs and the Indian National
Security Advisor have held multiple rounds of border talks.
The United States continues to encourage greater dialogue between
India and China, including dialogue for a peaceful settlement of their
boundary disputes.
NOMINATIONS OF CAROLINE KENNEDY, ANNE PATTERSON, GREGORY STARR
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
Caroline Kennedy, of New York, to be Ambassador to Japan
Hon. Anne W. Patterson, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary
of State for Near Eastern Affairs
Gregory B. Starr, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary of
State for Diplomatic Security
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert Menendez
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Menendez, Cardin, Shaheen, Murphy, Kaine,
Markey, Corker, Risch, Flake, McCain, and Barrasso.
Also Present: Senators Charles Schumer and Kristen
Gillibrand.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
The Chairman. Good morning. This hearing of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee will come to order. Today we have a
distinguished group of nominees for some critical positions in
our Foreign Service. We will start off with the nominee for the
ambassadorship to Japan, Caroline Kennedy. Normally, the chair
and ranking member would make their opening statements first,
but since we have two of our colleagues here today we are going
to extend them the courtesy of making their comments and
presentations to the committee first, and then we will give our
opening statements. We look forward to having our two
distinguished colleagues present their constituent from the
State of New York.
I also appreciate my colleague and friend, Congressman
Crowley being here in the audience as well.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW YORK
Senator Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
you and Senator Corker, not only for the courtesy of
introducing our great constituent, but for the great job you
have been doing on this committee, and thank all the members
for being here.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, it is my great
privilege to introduce an individual who is well known to this
committee, to most Americans, and to so many people around the
world. Caroline Bouvier Kennedy is an American author, editor,
philanthropist, and attorney, and I am proud to present her as
President Barack Obama's nominee to be the next Ambassador to
Japan.
I would like to welcome her lovely family, who I have had
the privilege of knowing. Her husband Edwin Schlossberg and two
of her three wonderful children are here: Tatiana, who actually
went to high school with my daughter, and John. And Rose is in
California, as well as Vicki Kennedy, Tim Shriver, John
Bouvier, who are joining us here today as well. I am also sure
that her father, mother, her uncles, and extended family are
looking down with pride upon this hearing.
I should also note that I am extremely impressed that
Caroline made it to this hearing today. You see, Mr. Chairman,
just this past weekend she and her daughter Tatiana swam the
Hudson River to raise money for the Leukemia and Lymphoma
Society. It is a 3-mile swim from Nyack to Sleep Hollow, Mr.
Chairman. I am not sure either of us could have accomplished
that amazing feat.
But back to the introduction. Caroline Kennedy was educated
in New York and Massachusetts. She attended the Brearley
School, the Convent of the Sacred Heart, and the Concord
Academy. She earned her bachelor of arts at Radcliffe College
at Harvard University, her J.D. from Columbia Law School,
graduating in the top 10 percent of her class.
From there, she embarked on a long and distinguished career
that has spanned law and politics, as well as education and
charitable work. It is a career that leaves me no doubt she is
well qualified to take on this great task that awaits her if
she is confirmed as the next United States Ambassador to Japan.
Caroline Kennedy grew up in the public eye and we as a
nation grew up with her, sharing her joys as well as her
heartbreaks. Born into a family that has built a legacy of
service, both domestic and globally, she has dedicated her life
to public service and to the elevation of our public debate,
something badly needed these days. She has authored and edited
books on the Bill of Rights, the right to privacy, poetry, and
patriotism. She has served as a member of many, many boards of
directors, the Commission on Presidential Debates, the NAACP
Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and New York City's Fund
for the Public Schools.
She also serves as an adviser to the Harvard Institute of
Politics and as president of the Kennedy Library Foundation,
something all of us here have taken a great interest in because
it is doing such a great job up there in Massachusetts.
In 2002 Caroline turned her attention to New York City's
public schools and she accepted Mayor Bloomberg's offer to
serve in the New York City Department of Education as the
Director of the Office of Strategic Partnerships. In that
position she succeeded in raising tens of millions in private
funding to help modernize New York City's public schools, and
we have many beautiful, new, up-to-date public schools in New
York teaching kids, giving them a path, because of her efforts.
You see, Mr. Chairman, Caroline Kennedy represents the best
of what our Nation has to offer and her dedication to public
service continues in her desire to represent our Nation in
Japan.
Too often forgotten in the history of the United States-
Japanese relations is the critical role her father, President
John F. Kennedy, and her uncle, Senator Bobby Kennedy, played
in stabilizing that relationship in a time of crisis. Their
efforts enhanced bilateral relations on a personal, cultural,
and diplomatic basis and helped solidify the close and enduring
ties between our countries that have lasted to this very day. A
half century later, Mr. Chairman, I am fully confident that
Caroline Kennedy will help nurture those ties built by her
father and uncle and no doubt strengthen relations for another
half century to come.
We all know that Japan remains one of our important allies
in the Asia-Pacific region. It is a critical partner as we
continue our economic strategy and pivot to the region. It is
entering one of the most exciting periods in its history,
because Japan is launching a bold economic program, which
includes a major focus on women in the workforce, what has come
to be called ``womenomics.'' I am confident that Caroline
Kennedy will serve as a role model for Japanese, as well as
American, women, especially in light of the fact that, if
confirmed, she would be the first woman to be Ambassador to
Japan, something that makes me and Senator Gillibrand very,
very happy.
Caroline's appointment would be a reaffirmation of the
importance we place on bilateral relations at a time when Prime
Minister Abe says ``Japan is back.''
As you well know, Mr. Chairman, a key to successful
ambassadors in Japan and elsewhere has been a close
relationship that the ambassador has with the President.
Caroline Kennedy has precisely the sort of close relationship
with President Barack Obama that will ensure United States-
Japan relations remain a focus at the very highest levels.
I have known her for many years. We have worked on many
things together. She is one of the most sincere individuals I
have ever met. Her passion to do right and do good burns so
strongly within her. And I am certain that she will be able to
take our dynamic relationship with Japan to new heights.
So I am proud to wholeheartedly support Caroline Kennedy's
nomination to be the next Ambassador to Japan, and I hope my
colleagues will unanimously support her as well.
Thank you for the privilege--it is truly a privilege--to
make this introduction.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Schumer.
Senator Gillibrand.
STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW YORK
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Senator Schumer, for those
great remarks.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker. I am deeply
honored to have the opportunity to introduce you today to Ms.
Caroline Kennedy, a favorite daughter of New York, as
Ambassador-designee to Japan. The confidence President Obama
and Secretary Kerry have placed in her to represent the United
States in Japan and advance relations with a key U.S. ally in
the Asia-Pacific region is well earned.
Ms. Kennedy has proven herself extraordinarily qualified
for the position and the Nation will be stronger with her
presence in Japan as the United States rebalances diplomatic
engagement and resources toward the Asia-Pacific region. In
addition to Ms. Kennedy's distinguished career as an author and
an attorney, as president of the John F. Kennedy Library
Foundation and chair of the Senior Advisory Committee of the
Institute of Politics at Harvard University, she has dedicated
much of her life to charitable and educational service. Her
work has helped inspire generations of students and others to
make their voices heard and to serve and strengthen our
country.
I had the pleasure of visiting the Asia-Pacific region
earlier this month, including Tokyo, where I was able to
discuss with Japanese officials the deep and abiding
relationship between the United States and Japan. This
relationship has stood for decades and is a cornerstone in our
efforts to bolster stability and security throughout the region
amidst a rising number of challenges, including the ever-
provocative North Korean regime intent on expanding its nuclear
program over the objections of the international community.
Ms. Kennedy is undoubtedly the right person to advance and
strengthen relationships with our Japanese ally in the face of
these challenges and will play a key role in the
administration's rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region.
Finally, I am pleased to note that Ms. Kennedy would be the
first woman ever to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Japan. During
my trip to Japan, I had the chance to speak with a number of
young women regarding the importance of women's leadership
there.
Through her life, her work, her intellect, and her
character, Ms. Kennedy will undoubtedly serve as a shining
example of Japanese and American women, showing the power and
potential of women in public service and how far we can go when
women lead the way.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for the privilege
of introducing this outstanding nominee.
Ms. Kennedy, I wish you great success as you undertake this
very important post. I am fully confident that your passion and
dedication will make you and our home State of New York proud.
I look forward to your testimony.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Well, thank you both for the tremendous
statements on behalf of Ms. Kennedy. We know that you have busy
schedules, so please do not hesitate to move on to your next
meetings whenever you need to. But you are welcome to stay as
long as you wish.
Let me again welcome our nominee this morning, Ms. Caroline
Kennedy Schlossberg of New York, to be the Ambassador to Japan.
Let me welcome the family as well, because we always say that
the families of those who make a commitment to Foreign Service
are part of that commitment, and we appreciate their
willingness to sacrifice and be part of that service to the
Nation.
Let me take the opportunity to recognize the distinguished
Ambassador of Japan to the United States, Ambassador Sasae, who
is here today. Welcome, Mr. Ambassador. Thank you for being
here. We appreciate you taking the time to join us.
Let me just say, Senator Rubio wanted it to be known for
the record that he cannot attend today's hearing because of a
death in his family, but otherwise he would have been present
for this hearing. So we send our condolences to him and his
family.
To all of us on both sides of the aisle, no matter our
politics, the Kennedy name has been synonymous with public
service for over a century, a family that has sacrificed so
much in service to the Nation. Ms. Kennedy, your uncle Ted was
a good friend to me here in the Senate, probably one of the
best friends I had when I came here, and a good friend to many
of our colleagues. His ability to express strong convictions,
yet find a way to reach across the aisle, was a compelling
example of what good governance is all about. Vicki, it is
great to see you here today as you join in your niece's efforts
here.
You represent a legacy of the best and brightest in
politics in a time in our history when we were at the
confluence of intellectualism and a respect for public service
in government. You bring to this opportunity to serve the
Nation an extraordinary range of qualifications beyond the
oversimplified perceptions of your family pedigree--your own
experiences, your own abilities, your own perspective, that
uniquely qualify you for this position.
As an author and editor, president of the John F. Kennedy
Library Foundation, chair of the Senior Advisory Committee of
the Institute of Politics at Harvard, a trustee of the Kennedy
Center for the Performing Arts, vice chair of the Fund for
Public Schools in New York City, board member of New Visions
for Public Schools, honorary chair of the American Ballet
Theater, board of directors of the NAACP, as well as on the
Commission on Presidential Debates, you have lived a life that
honors your family's history of service to the arts and
education, government, and the Nation. I believe you will bring
a broad intellectual curiosity and commitment to serve in your
new role as Ambassador.
If confirmed, as my colleagues have said, you will be the
first woman to represent the United States as our Ambassador to
Japan, a post that has been held by some of the most respected
leaders in our country: former Senator Mike Mansfield, the
longest serving U.S. Ambassador to Japan; former Speaker of the
House Tom Foley; and former Vice President Walter Mondale.
It is a post that has always been and remains of the utmost
importance to this Nation and to the people of Japan. Your
nomination underscores the regional importance of the
relationship between our two nations.
Now, having just visited Japan and the region this past
August, I can tell you that you will assume these new duties
amidst the rise of the Asia-Pacific region, which may well
prove to be the single most transformative geopolitical shift
of the 21st century. You will arrive in Tokyo at a time when
friction between Japan and China on maritime disputes is high
and many other challenges lie ahead as Asia-Pacific issues
become global in nature.
You will arrive as the region takes on new economic
importance. In 2010 U.S. exports to the Asia-Pacific region
totaled $775 billion, up almost 26 percent from 2009. In 2011
they totaled $895 billion, accounting for 60 percent of our
exports, creating and sustaining millions of U.S. jobs in
sectors across the board, from automobiles to power generation,
machinery, aircraft, and other vital sectors of our industrial
economy. In just 3 years we have gone from $775 billion in
exports to the region to almost $900 billion, and we can assume
that figure will be a trillion in the not too distant future.
I think it is safe to say that for the rest of this century
and beyond, much of the strategic, political, and economic
future of the world will likely be shaped by the decisions made
in Washington and the capitals in this region over the next 4
to 5 years.
Our alliance with Japan is a cornerstone of our strategic
engagement in Asia, which will put you front and center in the
United States-Japan partnership, a partnership of equals that
links the world's first- and third-largest economies and
highlights our shared commitment to democracy and human rights.
Japan is a valuable trade and economic partner of the United
States. Its views on regulation, the environment, and
intellectual property complement those of the United States,
and your voice on these issues will be America's voice in
Tokyo.
On the Trans-Pacific Partnership, we look forward to
working with Japan toward a comprehensive agreement that
addresses labor, the environment, currency manipulation, and
intellectual property rights. For Congress to support the TPP,
we need to be assured that our industries are competing with
Japanese industries on a level playing field. As Ambassador,
you will be part of that effort. You will be at the table on
illues concerning our military presence in Japan, like Okinawa.
You will be there to bridge differences on any issues that may
arise between our two nations.
So let me close by quoting your father from a commencement
address he gave at Syracuse University the year you were born,
not too long ago, which described the nexus between education
and intellectualism and the importance of public service,
reminding students that, ``Our Nation's first great politicians
were truly our ablest, most respected, most talented leaders,
who moved from one field to another with amazing versatility
and vitality.''
In that speech he reminded graduates that a contemporary
described Thomas Jefferson as ``a gentleman who could calculate
an eclipse, survey an estate, tie an artery, plan an edifice,
try a cause, break a horse, dance a minuet, and play the
violin.'' Now, I do not believe your father would have expected
you to dance a minuet, but his point is well taken. Your
background, your experience, your versatility, your intellect,
and the legacy of service your family has stood for in American
history makes you exactly the kind of person we need to serve
the interests of this Nation as Ambassador to Japan.
Let me turn to my distinguished colleague, the ranking
member, Senator Corker, for his comments.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSE
Senator Corker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank our two Senators from New York, who are
highly respected, for being with us today, and certainly the
nominee. I enjoyed our time together a couple days ago, and
thank you for your lifetime of public service in a different
way. I know you are doing something, or getting ready to do
something, that is very, very different and it will have its
own challenges. But I very much appreciate your desire to serve
in this way.
Having your family here, as I mentioned in the back room, I
doubt you are going to get much of a hard time today, for lots
of reasons, but having your kids here ensures that that will be
the case. I am glad that they are there, and certainly enjoyed
talking with Vicki a little bit about her husband and our
friend, and certainly appreciate the wonderful legacy that you
and your family have in public service.
I want to also thank our Ambassador to the United States
from Japan for being here. I think it signifies the tremendous
role that you are going to be playing in Japan. Japan--I was
just there also--relishes having people of great notoriety and
public acclaim, and certainly in this case they are getting
that in a heavy dose. I am glad that you are willing to do
this, again.
You know, there are a lot of difficult issues in Japan
right now, as we talked about the other day. While the
relationship is a cornerstone of stability in the Asian-Pacific
region and I know you know that well--we have 50,000 troops
there. There are issues with North Korea that you as Ambassador
will be heavily involved in. And we have the issues of
strengthening our maritime abilities in that area, and I know
that again that will be something that you will be focused on.
The fact that Japan was willing to enter the TPP
negotiations was a game-changer, and I know our chairman
alluded to some of the challenges that you will be dealing with
there to ensure that we are able to compete on an equal basis.
I know as I was there Prime Minister Abe was very concerned
about Washington's ability to deliver on the relationships that
we have with some of the financial issues that we are dealing
with here internally in our country. I know that you are going
to have to be a champion for our national interests and
assuring the Japanese people that we are going to honor those
commitments. I know you are going to be willing to do that.
We still have the thorny issues, as you and I talked about
in the office, regarding the relocation of the troops that we
have there and some of the issues that internally the people of
Japan have with us right now regarding that. But I know you are
going to do that well.
Mr. Chairman, I know we have a second panel that is coming.
I am going to go ahead and make my comments relative to them
very briefly to save time. I know we have an ambassador's
ambassador, if you will, coming up, Anne Patterson. I want to
thank her for her wonderful public service also. She will be
looking after the areas of the Middle East and North Africa. I
do not know if we have a more qualified ambassador in our
Foreign Service, and I know that she is going to have to
develop a coherent, comprehensive strategy for how we deal with
a lot of thorny issues, including and specifically Syria and
Egypt. I think the American people are going to need to fully
understand the importance of Syria to our country and what our
national interests are there. I know you will articulate that
well.
In Egypt, while we might not like what the military has
done in every way, we have a very important relationship with
them. I know you will help lead us to a very good place there,
keeping in mind that we have a lot of national interests. And I
know that you will help us figure out a way to balance our
security interests, but also our interest in democracy and
human rights.
To Greg: I appreciate you being here regarding the
diplomatic piece. I was, as you know, in Libya right after the
events of that time. I know our diplomatic posts are very much
at risk around the world. I thank you for your commitment in
that regard. I know that what happened in Iraq was heroic in
many ways and shows the best of our diplomatic security. At the
same time, there is a lot of money that is flowing into
Afghanistan and Iraq and that is not the case in many other
places. I know that you will attack this job with great fervor.
So I thank all three of you for offering yourself in this
way. I look forward to your comments and questions and
certainly look forward to your service.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Corker. I will have some
comments to make about our other nominees when I introduce them
before the full committee.
Ms. Kennedy, it is now an opportunity for you to make a
statement before the committee. Your full statement will be
included in the record without objection, and the floor is
yours.
STATEMENT OF CAROLINE KENNEDY, OF NEW YORK,
TO BE UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO JAPAN
Ms. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, members
of the committee, Senator Schumer, Senator Gillibrand, it is an
honor to appear before you this morning as the President's
nominee to serve as the United States Ambassador to Japan. I
appreciate the confidence that President Obama and Secretary
Kerry have shown in nominating me for this important position,
and I am grateful for the consideration of this distinguished
committee.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to answer
your questions and hear firsthand your thoughts and concerns
about our essential relationship with Japan. If confirmed, I
look forward to working with the committee and with other
Members of Congress to advance the interests of the United
States, protect the safety of our citizens, and strengthen the
bilateral relationship to the benefit of both our countries.
I would also like to thank my family for their support
throughout this process and their enthusiasm for this mission.
My husband, Ed, is here along with two of my three children, my
daughter, Tatiana, and my son, Jack, and I am so pleased that
my aunt, Vicki, could be here this morning as well. She carries
with her every day the spirit of my uncle, Teddy, whose
devotion to this institution, to his colleagues and our country
was an inspiration to all of us.
I am humbled to be following in the footsteps of some of
Congress' most distinguished members--Senator Mansfield, Vice
President Mondale, Speaker Foley, and Senator Baker. If
confirmed, I will try every day to live up to the standard they
set in representing the United States and advancing our
relationship with Japan. I am also grateful to Ambassador Tom
Schieffer and especially to Ambassador John Roos and Susie Roos
for their generous advice and wisdom.
I would also like to acknowledge Ambassador Sasae from the
Embassy of Japan, who is himself a distinguished diplomat and
has been a steadfast friend to the United States.
I can think of no greater honor than to represent my
country abroad. I have spent my career working to make American
history and ideals accessible to the widest possible audience
and in particular to younger generations. As President of the
Kennedy Library, I am proud that my father became the first
digital President when we made his papers available online
around the world. As chair of Harvard's Institute of Politics,
I have worked to train new generations of leaders to pursue
careers in public service and expand international
opportunities for students.
In my books on the Bill of Rights and the right to privacy,
I sought to engage young audiences in the debate over our
fundamental rights and give them the tools and understanding to
advance and defend our liberties.
For the past 10 years I have been working with the New York
City public schools on education reform efforts. In a school
system where students speak more than 130 languages at home, I
worked to increase individual literacy, cultural awareness,
college access, arts education, and international exchange
programs. I saw the power of public-private partnerships to
leverage involvement and results, and if confirmed I look
forward to building upon these experiences to strengthen the
ties between young people in Japan and the United States.
And finally, this appointment has a special significance as
we commemorate the 50th anniversary of my father's Presidency.
I am conscious of my responsibility to uphold the ideals that
he represented--a deep commitment to public service, a more
just America, and a more peaceful world. As a World War II
veteran who served in the Pacific, he had hoped to be the first
sitting President to make a state visit to Japan. If confirmed
as Ambassador, I would be humbled to carry forward his legacy
in a small way and represent the powerful bonds that unite our
two democratic societies.
I can think of no country in which I would rather serve
than Japan. I first visited in 1978 with my uncle, Senator
Kennedy, and was deeply affected by our visit to Hiroshima. Our
countries are bound by deep political, economic, cultural, and
strategic ties, and our partnership has a global reach. The
United States and Japan share a commitment to freedom, human
rights, and the rule of law. Japan is the world's third-largest
economy, our fourth-largest trading partner, and the second-
largest source of foreign direct investment in the United
States.
Japan is home to 50,000 U.S. troops, the Seventh Fleet, and
170,000 American citizens. As the United States rebalances
toward Asia, our alliance with Japan remains the cornerstone of
peace, stability, and prosperity in the region, as it has been
for more than 50 years. If confirmed, I will work closely with
the leadership in the U.S. military to further strengthen our
bilateral security relationship.
At the same time, Japan is an indispensable partner in
promoting democracy and economic development in the region, as
well as in global humanitarian efforts and peacekeeping. These
are areas I care deeply about, and if confirmed I will work to
further strengthen this critical partnership at a vital moment
in its history.
This is indeed an important moment in the history of United
States-Japan relations. Japan is enjoying a period of political
stability and economic renewal and is eager to increase trade
and investment with the United States. If confirmed, I look
forward to working with American business to expand and promote
American exports, trade, and support initiatives such as the
Trans-Pacific Partnership.
In addition, I will work to increase exchanges between
American and Japanese students, scholars, and citizens, so that
future generations will understand our shared history and
continue to bind our nations closer.
Finally, if confirmed I will meet my most fundamental
responsibility, to promote and protect the welfare of all
American citizens in Japan. This includes providing a safe and
secure environment for U.S. Government employees and their
families.
I especially look forward to benefiting from the support of
the talented Foreign Service professionals, both American and
locally engaged staff, at our mission in Japan.
I would like to thank this committee for your consideration
of my nomination. If confirmed, I look forward to working
closely with you to advance our national interests, protect our
citizens, and deepen our ties with Japan.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kennedy follows:]
Prepared Statement by Caroline Kennedy
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, and members of the committee,
it is an honor to appear before you this morning as the President's
nominee to serve as United States Ambassador to Japan. I appreciate the
confidence that President Obama and Secretary Kerry have shown in
nominating me for this important position, and I am grateful for the
consideration of this distinguished committee.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today; to answer your
questions and hear first-hand your thoughts and concerns about our
essential relationship with Japan. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with the committee and with other Members of Congress to
advance the interests of the United States, protect the safety of our
citizens, and strengthen the bilateral relationship for the benefit of
both our countries.
I would also like to thank my family for their support throughout
this process, and their enthusiasm for this mission. My husband Ed is
here along with two of my three children, my daughter, Tatiana, and my
son, Jack. I am so pleased that my aunt, Vicki, is here as well. She
carries with her every day the spirit of my uncle, Teddy, whose
devotion to this institution, to his colleagues and country, was an
inspiration to all of us.
I am humbled to be following in the footsteps of some of Congress'
most distinguished members--Mike Mansfield, Walter Mondale, Tom Foley,
and Howard Baker. If confirmed, I will try every day to live up to the
standard they set in representing the United States and advancing our
relationship with Japan. I am also grateful to Ambassador Tom Schieffer
and especially to Ambassador John Roos and Susie Roos for their
generous advice and wisdom.
I would also like to acknowledge Ambassador Sasae from the Embassy
of Japan, who is himself a distinguished diplomat and who has been a
steadfast friend of the United States.
I can think of no greater honor than to represent my country
abroad. I have spent my career working to make American history and
ideals accessible to the widest possible audience, and in particular,
to younger generations. As President of the Kennedy Library, I am proud
that my father became the first ``digital'' President, when we made his
papers available online around the world. As Chair of Harvard's
Institute of Politics, I have worked to train new generations of
leaders to pursue careers in public service and to expand international
opportunities for students.
In my books on the Bill of Rights and the Right to Privacy, I
sought to engage young audiences in the debate over our fundamental
rights and to give them the tools and understanding to advance and
defend our liberties.
For the past 10 years I have been working with the New York City
public schools on education reform efforts. In a school system where
students speak more than 130 languages, I worked to increase individual
literacy, cultural awareness, college access, arts education and
international exchange programs. I saw the power of public-private
partnerships to leverage involvement and results, and, if confirmed, I
look forward to building upon those experiences to strengthen the ties
between young people in Japan and the United States.
And finally, this appointment has a special significance as we
commemorate the 50th anniversary of my father's Presidency. I am
conscious of my responsibility to uphold the ideals he represented--a
deep commitment to public service, a more just America and a more
peaceful world. As a World War II veteran who served in the Pacific, he
had hoped to be the first sitting President to make a state visit to
Japan. If confirmed as Ambassador, I would be humbled to carry forward
his legacy in a small way and represent the powerful bonds that unite
our two democratic societies.
I can think of no country in which I would rather serve than Japan.
I first visited in 1978 with my Uncle, Senator Kennedy, and was deeply
affected by our visit to Hiroshima. Our countries are bound by deep
political, economic, cultural and strategic ties, and our partnership
has a global reach. We share a commitment to freedom, human rights, and
the rule of law. Japan is the world's third-largest economy, our
fourth-largest trading partner, and the second-largest source of
foreign direct investment in the United States.
Japan is home to 50,000 U.S. troops, the U.S. 7th Fleet, and
170,000 American citizens. As the United States rebalances toward Asia,
our alliance with Japan remains the cornerstone of peace, stability,
and prosperity in the region, as it has been for more than 50 years. If
confirmed, I will work closely with the leadership in the U.S. military
to further strengthen our bilateral security relationship.
At the same time, Japan is an indispensable partner in promoting
democracy and economic development in the region, as well as in global
humanitarian efforts and peacekeeping. These are areas I care deeply
about, and, if confirmed, I will work to further strengthen this
critical partnership at a vital moment in its history.
This is indeed an important moment in the history of U.S.-Japan
relations. Japan is enjoying a period of political stability and
economic renewal and is eager to increase trade and investment with the
United States. If confirmed, I look forward to working with American
business to promote American exports, expand trade, and support
initiatives such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
In addition, I will work to increase exchanges between American and
Japanese students, scholars, and citizens so that future generations
will understand our shared history and continue to bind our two nations
even closer.
Finally, if confirmed, I will meet my most fundamental
responsibility: to promote and protect the welfare of all American
citizens in Japan. This includes providing a safe and secure
environment for U.S. Government employees and their families.
I especially look forward to benefiting from the support of the
talented Foreign Service professionals, both American and locally
engaged staff, at our Mission in Japan.
I would like to thank this committee for your consideration of my
nomination. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with you to
advance our national interests, protect our citizens, and deepen our
ties with Japan.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
We will start a round of questions. Here in the United
States we have been closely following Abenomics, the efforts by
Prime Minister Abe to economically revitalize Japan's economy.
He talks about three arrows: the first two are fiscal stimulus
and monetary easing--and the markets have reacted very
positively to those. The last one--structural reforms-- is a
tough one. It is tough here in the United States, and it is
tough in Japan.
In that regard, when I met with the American Chamber of
Commerce in Japan, they expressed concern about the narrowly
targeted tax reform in Japan, in contrast to the broader
investment and tax incentives that the U.S. business community
has been calling for.
How do you envision working with our Japanese counterparts
to ensure that structural reform in Japan is seen as both an
internal issue there and an economic issue back here in the
United States. How do you see your role as Ambassador in that
respect?
Ms. Kennedy. Well, I think that Japan's entry into the
Trans-Pacific Partnership provides an opportunity for our
countries to work more closely economically. This agreement
also provides an opportunity for bilateral talks between the
United States and Japan on a number of these nontariff issues
and market access issues, as well as a dispute settlement
mechanism should there be issues along the way.
I know that the team in Tokyo is focused on the
implementation of that agreement should it go forward, and I as
Ambassador would take a deep and personal interest in working
with American companies to make sure that the Japanese market
is open to them and working with the Japanese Government to
make sure that the accord is fully implemented.
The Chairman. I appreciate that. I think Prime Minister Abe
looks at the Trans-Pacific Partnership as an opportunity to
achieve some of the structural reforms that will be needed for
accession to the agreement. I hope that, upon your confirmation
as our Ambassador to Japan, you will work with our Trade
Ambassador to develop the strongest TPP, which I think provides
a pathway for the reforms that we just talked about.
Another significant issue is that the Abe government is in
the midst of a defense policy review that will yield new
national defense program guidelines by the end of the year, and
may very well re-interpret the constitution to exercise the
right of collective self-defense, with implications for the
United States-Japan alliance. Collective self-defense means
that if you have a U.S. ship alongside a Japanese ship and if,
God forbid, there was a strike against the U.S. ship,
collective self-defense means that the Japanese would be in a
position to respond and not just simply watch.
That is important to our national security interests in the
region, as well as our efforts in changing our base status at
Okinawa, which has been both an opportunity for continued
security, but also a challenge. Creating the space for the
Governor of Okinawa to issue the landfill permit is a linchpin
of our efforts to refocus our position there and is incredibly
important. To a large degree, the Japanese Government will have
to create the space for the Governor, but I think there is a
role for the American Ambassador to help create a space for the
Governor.
Could you talk a little bit about how you see that process?
Ms. Kennedy. Well, our military and national security
relationship obviously has many complex issues embedded within
it. But it is, as you say, the cornerstone of peace and
stability in the region. I think that there seems to be some
hope for progress on the Okinawa issues and I know that Senator
McCain, in particular, and other members who I have spoken to,
are deeply concerned about the process moving forward involving
a realignment plan and a landfill plan.
So I have assured him that I will take a personal interest.
I have met and hope to meet further with Admiral Locklear, I
have met with General Angelella, and military issues would be
something that I would spend a good deal of time on and work
hard to see those issues through.
As you say, I think the Japanese are engaged in a process
of debating their self-defense and collective self-defense, and
I think that is obviously a debate that they need to have
within their own society. I would watch it very carefully and
work with people here in Washington and people in Tokyo to make
sure that we understand and are supportive of that process in
whatever way that I can.
The Chairman. A final question before I turn to Senator
Corker. We ask this of all of our nominees. At least since I
have become the chairman, we ask it of all of our nominees. And
that is that, If confirmed, will you be responsive to questions
and requests from the committee about issues facing our
bilateral relationship?
Ms. Kennedy. Of course that would be one of my most
important activities, and if confirmed I hope that I will get
to spend even more time with all of you than I have already
been fortunate enough to do.
The Chairman. You have already shown your prowess, all
right.
Senator Corker.
Senator Corker. I will say that the question he asks of all
Ambassadors is the easiest question they get, and they all
answer it the same way. Anyway, that is very good, and thank
you.
Listen. We talked the other day at length and to try to get
into a lot of depth on policy issues when I know that you have
been wafted out of New York into this position and are
preparing heavily is really not the thing to do. It would be
like, candidly, asking me those questions upon my first day of
arrival in the United States Senate. So I will not go down that
path.
I do know that you care deeply about public service and I
think that matters. I think you have a good sense of what our
national interests are and will develop those even more deeply.
I think you are going to be a great Ambassador to Japan and,
candidly, the kind of Ambassador that they are used to having
in Japan. So I am glad you want to serve in this way and your
family is willing to let you do that.
I would like to talk just a little bit about, between now
and then, what is happening to prep and get you ready for all
the complexities that you are going to be dealing with when you
get there.
Ms. Kennedy. Well, I have had the benefit of a lot of
guidance from the State Department already and I am now engaged
in meeting with other agencies, and I would love to come back
and meet with all of you and other Members of Congress before I
leave, and I will do my best to get up to speed on all the
issues, especially those affecting Tennessee and the auto
industry.
Senator Corker. Well, thank you. I know that as a matter of
fact, since you have jumped to that issue of the TPP, I think
it is a tremendous opportunity for us and I think you do, too.
What are some of the things--I know you met with Mike Froman
the other day to talk a little bit about TPP and some of the
things that we are going to be dealing with. Can you raise--do
you know at present what some of the rubs may be, some of the
tougher areas that we might have to overcome relative to TPP in
Japan itself?
Ms. Kennedy. Well, I think the USTR is hopeful and
everybody has been impressed that the Japanese have come to the
table and are willing to put everything on the table. So they
seem rather optimistic about the chances for success and the
benefits that this would bring to both our economies.
Senator Corker. So have they raised any issues, though,
that they think might be some of the more difficult to
overcome?
Ms. Kennedy. Well, I think that those are being handled in
this bilateral set of talks, and they had a good session, I
understand, and they are speaking about American autos entering
the Japanese market and removing restrictions to that, as well
as some of the agricultural products that Japan has long sought
to protect, obviously. But I think that everybody is impressed
by Prime Minister Abe's commitment to really a comprehensive,
high quality accord.
Senator Corker. Has there been much discussion about the
East China Sea territorial issues and what role you are going
to be expected to play as Ambassador in those issues, with
China flexing, if you will, in those areas?
Ms. Kennedy. Well, I think our policy on the islands in the
East China Sea is obviously we would like to see those issues
resolved through peaceful dialogue between the nations in the
region, but as far as the islands are concerned the U.S. policy
has been, as you know, longstanding and very clear: We do not
take a position on the ultimate sovereignty of the islands, but
we do recognize they are under Japanese administrative control
and are covered by article 5 of our security treaty. So it is
something that I would be watching very carefully and working
as many different ways as I can to encourage the nations in the
region to discuss and resolve those disputes and lower the
tension in the region.
Senator Corker. We talked a little bit about the current
Ambassador, and he has been able, I guess, to develop an area
that he is really focused on in the public-private
partnerships, and I know you alluded to that earlier. You know,
the way the Ambassador's role is in Japan, it is really unique.
The Ambassador has a very special role there, and the
relationship between the United States Ambassador and the
people of Japan or the country at large is very different than
in many other cases.
I know we talked a little bit about you are going to have a
tremendous opportunity, not just to deal with the United
States-Japanese relationship and the things that are in our
national interest, but you are going to have an opportunity
really to carve out an area where you can have a real impact in
Japan, just like you have done in New York and other places. I
do not know if you have thought about that. I know you are just
beginning to see those opportunities, and none of us really
know until we arrive exactly how things are going to be.
As a matter of fact, you do not even have to answer the
question. I know you are going to figure out a way of doing
that. I have a sense that you will do that very, very quickly
and you will have a big impact there. I just, without pushing
you to have to respond to that now, I want to thank you for
your willingness to serve. I know you are going to address
these issues in a serious way, and we look forward to working
with you.
Ms. Kennedy. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. Let me just say, Senator Corker said that is
the easiest question; the last question I asked. I ask it for a
purpose because, having had an experience on this and other
committees, sometimes our nominees when they are nominees are
very forthright and very helpful in sharing information; once
they become the Ambassador it is a little more difficult. So I
like to have it on the record to remind them.
Ms. Kennedy. That is good.
The Chairman. I do not expect that in this case, but I have
had experiences here. It may be the easiest question----
Ms. Kennedy. I grew up under the tutelage of a great
Senator, so I have the utmost respect for the position.
The Chairman. I appreciate that.
Senator Cardin, who is our chairman of our Asia-Pacific
Subcommittee.
Senator Cardin. Well, Mr. Chairman, you are absolutely
right, it is an easy question, but when you start to hear the
requests from Members of the United States Senate we hope that
your respect will continue.
Thank you very much for being willing to step forward to
continue in public service. We thank your entire family. As
Senator Menendez said, this is a commitment of the entire
family.
Vicki, it is great to see you. During my first term I was
fortunate enough to have a seat on the United States Senate
floor next to Senator Kennedy. It was a remarkable opportunity.
What Senator Menendez said about your uncle is absolutely true.
He was able to get through the partisan division here, standing
up for principle and move the process forward. So we know that
spirit is in your family and we thank you very much for your
willingness to move forward.
Mr. Ambassador, it is great to see you here. You represent
Japan very well in the United States, and we know that your
presence here just underscores the importance of the
relationship between Japan and the United States.
Congressman Crowley, I am glad we had a reason to get you
over to the Senate side, but it is great to see you and thank
you for being here.
We had a chance to talk and a lot of the issues we talked
about have already been brought out. I want to mention one
issue that I mentioned with Prime Minister Abe when I was in
Tokyo this year. You mentioned protecting Americans. Recently
Japan agreed to the Hague Convention in regards to child
abduction cases. We are very appreciative of that, and the
Diet's taken action to pass the necessary laws.
I have been told there is pending almost 400 cases
involving Americans that will not come under the Hague
Convention, but need to be resolved. I am aware of three of
those cases involving Marylanders. As one of my first requests
under your response to the chairman, will you use your office,
the best that we can, to help resolve these open cases?
Ms. Kennedy. As a parent, I certainly understand the
emotional aspects of this issue. I have met with the Bureau of
Consular Affairs already and indicated to them my concern. I
understand why these parents--I think it is a welcome sign that
Japan has joined the Hague, and I hope that these cases that
might not be covered can still be handled in the spirit of the
Hague, and I think that everyone that I have talked to in Japan
and in the State Department is really committed to making that
happen and to working with the families to bring these issues
forward and resolve these cases.
Senator Cardin. Thank you. Thank you very much.
I want to follow up briefly on Senator Corker's point on
maritime security issues. It is very true that Japan and
China--there is tension in regards to the territorial claims to
the islands. But it is also true there are many other countries
involved in maritime security issues that threaten the free
transport of commerce and that threatens major U.S. interests,
that also could cause serious security issues. We have already
seen some tension among other countries.
Will this be a priority of your mission, to further reduce
the tension on the maritime issues so that we can maintain the
type of policy that you said, peaceful resolution of these
issues, directly negotiating through the parties, developing
codes of conduct, that reduces the tension in the region?
Ms. Kennedy. Yes. Also, I know that we spoke about the
Helsinki Commission as being a sort of a model for perhaps
countries working together in the region and multilaterally and
exploring kind of a North Pacific dialogue that way. As you
say, the code of conduct, the procedures for any kind of
resolution of any kind of incidents, is something that I am
committed to work through because it is in everyone's interests
that those issues are resolved diplomatically.
Senator Cardin. Thank you. We talked about--and I really do
appreciate your understanding and commitment. We have many
allies in the region, but two of our closest allies are Japan
and the Republic of Korea. Yet the relationship between the
Republic of Korea and Japan is not as strong as we would like
to see it. I think your offices can help improve the
relationship between two of our closest allies in the region,
to the benefit of both countries and to regional security.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Kennedy, welcome. I know you are looking forward to
this and I hope and I have every confidence that you will bring
the same warmth and good feeling to the people of Japan that
Ambassador Sasae has brought here to America. He has done an
outstanding job and I think you would do well to emulate that.
I know you will make every effort to do that.
I want to talk about the East China Sea for just a moment.
I would like to get your thoughts on why this controversy
continues to get worse instead of better. We of course have not
adopted the Law of the Sea Treaty here in the United States,
and indeed those of us that opposed it argued that we would be
giving up certain sovereignty and not getting much for it. The
proponents were telling us about what a great document this was
and what a great protocol it was for resolving international
disputes.
But it seems to me the East China Sea is a poster child for
the lack of the ability of the treaty to resolve these kinds of
things. Could you give me your thoughts on that, please?
Ms. Kennedy. Well, I think those issues in the East China
Sea are driven by the regional countries, but that means that
the United States has an interest and an obligation to do
everything we can to support and continue to support the
peaceful resolution, to encourage dialogue between our allies
and other countries in the region. I know the Senate resolution
was helpful in that, but I think it is something that we are
going to continue to have to work on.
Senator Risch. I agree with everything that you have said.
Would you agree with me that the Law of the Sea Treaty has done
nothing to try to ameliorate the situation there in the East
China Sea?
Ms. Kennedy. Well, I would like to study that further
before I speak specifically on that.
Senator Risch. That is fair. I understand. That is fair.
I know you have been briefed on the importance of the Idaho
National Laboratory, which is the home--it is the leading
laboratory for nuclear energy in America. Of course, with the
tragedy that occurred at Fukushima the INL is doing things as
they examine what happened there and how plants can be built
more safely around the world. I would only encourage you to
take your knowledge in that regard to the Japanese people, to
the Japanese Government, and underscore for them that we in
Idaho want to be helpful in that regard and we have the
expertise, and we are the lead laboratory on nuclear energy in
America and indeed in the world. So I hope you will take that
message when you go to Japan.
Ms. Kennedy. Well, thank you, and I would love to learn
more about the laboratory's work. I have heard already that
they have been in a close partnership and have made their
expertise available. So I would love to follow up on that with
you.
Senator Risch. They have that, and they are ready, willing,
and able every time that there is an incident somewhere in the
world to respond and to assist and to be helpful in seeing that
these kinds of things do not happen in the future.
Thank you very much and thank you for your service.
Ms. Kennedy. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Risch.
If you could have opined on the Law of the Sea Treaty, we
would not let you go to Japan. We would keep you here to help
us.
I also want to recognize--we have more House Members than
we normally ever have here--Congressman Kennedy for joining us
as well. Thank you very much.
Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think Ms. Kennedy's recognition that she should not weigh
in to the Law of the Sea Treaty debate is a good indication
about what a good diplomat she is going to be.
Let me welcome you. It is so nice to see you here----
Ms. Kennedy. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen [continuing]. And nice to welcome your
family, Ed and your children. Vicki, of course always nice to
have you back in the Senate.
For some of my colleagues who may not know, I had the good
fortune to have had a chance to work with you at the Institute
of Politics as you chaired that board. I can reassure anyone
who has any doubts that once you set your mind to doing
something well, you do it. So I have every confidence that you
will be a great Ambassador to Japan, and very much appreciate
you and your family's willingness to take on this challenge at
this time, when we are really looking at, as the President
says, the refocus on the Asian-Pacific region.
I think the President's choice of you as the nominee for
this post is an indication of his strong interest in
maintaining the great relationship that the United States and
Japan have had for so many years. So I look forward to seeing
what you do in this role and to having a chance to work with
you in that capacity.
I want to start by following up on Senator Risch's point
about Fukushima and what has happened in Japan, and really ask
you a two-part question. First of all, I think all of us in
America looked with horror at the tragedy that happened in
Japan with the tidal wave and the typhoon and then the tragedy
at Fukushima. So I would ask you if you see a role for
continued support for the United States as Japan continues to
rebuild in those regions that were damaged by the tidal wave;
and also to ask if you would look at ways to facilitate the
lessons learned from what happened at Fukushima.
As Senator Risch said, we have some technology here that is
important to share with Japan. But I think there are also
lessons there that are important to share with our nuclear
industry here, and for all of us who have nuclear plants in our
States and our regions some of the lessons from Fukushima are
ones that we think it is very important for the industry to
look at and to see how to respond to.
Ms. Kennedy. I think the United States military and then
the Ambassador and the team at the Embassy did a wonderful job
in assisting after the tragic triple disasters in Japan. I know
that I, if confirmed, would benefit from the good will that
their efforts have generated. So I am deeply aware of that and
I will do everything I can to build upon those efforts and
sustain them. I think there are a lot of opportunities for us
to continue to promote exchange programs and other kinds of
efforts, and I would certainly want to learn about whatever
help the United States could provide.
As Senator Risch said, I met with the Department of Energy
and I have heard that they have technology, they have
expertise, and they are eager to assist in any way that they
can. I think that across our government there is a sense that
that incident had international implications and certainly it
matters, and so we would all do well to learn everything we
could from that to benefit the world going forward in the
nuclear area.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
As you know, this past March the United States renewed
Japan's exemption from Iranian sanctions as a result of its
reduction in oil imports. Despite the energy shortfalls
following Fukushima, Japan has worked hard to reduce its
Iranian oil imports. Is there more that we could expect from
Japan on compliance with Iranian sanctions, and what should we
look for from the country as we continue to see how sanctions
can hopefully bring Iran to the table to look at negotiating on
what is happening in Iran?
Ms. Kennedy. I think in the context of Japan's energy
challenges, their efforts have been significant in reducing
their dependence on Iranian oil in their auto industry. I think
they have indicated that they are going to continue to make
efforts to reduce their connections. I know that they are our
partner in many humanitarian and other efforts, and so
hopefully all of those put together will help bring pressure on
the Iranian regime.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Shaheen.
Senator Flake.
Senator Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for being here. I just want to thank you for your
willingness to serve, and for your family and others who will
sacrifice as well. You are going at an interesting time with
the trade agreements that will be discussed and debated over
the next while. These are extremely important, not just for our
economies, but for those involved as well. Also the maritime
issues that have been addressed and regional security issues
with North Korea and other pressing issues. So I just think
that you are going at a fascinating time and that you are very
well suited to--that you are up for the challenges that are in
your future.
So thank you for your willingness to serve.
Ms. Kennedy. Thank you, and you have a lot of friends in
Boston, fans.
Senator Flake. Thank you.
Ms. Kennedy. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Again, congratulations. This is wonderful. Thank you for
taking the time to visit with me last week to discuss the
United States-Japan relationship. This ambassadorship to Japan
is a very important position. As others have said, the United
States and Japan have a very strong relationship. Our nations
work closely together on issues impacting our shared interests,
our shared values. I am very pleased to see that you are
engaged on those issues and willing to serve our Nation in this
critical region.
Although there are many topics to cover, from our security
alliance to Japan's need for U.S. liquified natural gas, I want
to focus my time on one of our significant U.S. exports that we
have discussed, soda ash. As I mentioned to you previously,
soda ash is an issue that your family has spoken about in the
past. Actually, the day I got sworn in to the Senate your uncle
Ted told me about his time in Wyoming, talked about soda ash--
``trona,'' it is also known--and he told me how he stood with
the Wyoming delegation in 1960 at the nominating convention and
it was Wyoming's 15 votes that put your father over the top to
get the nomination.
I questioned it a bit, but actually got back and found a
picture of Ted Kennedy standing with the Wyoming sign at the
convention, and it is a great picture.
He also talked about his rodeo days in Wyoming, which is
impressive.
Also, 50 years ago almost to the day, this coming week, 50
years ago, in 1963 President John Kennedy spoke at the
University of Wyoming in Laramie and 13,000 people attended, a
huge day. Mike Mansfield, who you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, Mike
Mansfield, who was the longest serving Ambassador to Japan, was
on the stage with President Kennedy, as was Secretary of
Interior Stewart Udall, whose son Tom serves on this committee,
all on the stage in Laramie. It was a memorable moment for many
folks across my State.
At the event, President Kennedy talked about the need for
ingenuity and scientific application of knowledge to develop
new resources. Amazingly, he specifically mentioned soda ash in
his remarks. People say he actually, using his Boston accent,
called it ``soda rash,'' and some people thought it was a skin
condition for a while.
But he said--and I will quote from his speech. He said:
``For example, soda ash is a multimillion dollar industry in
this State. A few years ago there was no use for it.'' He said
``It was wasted. People were unaware of it. And even if it had
been sought,'' he said, ``it could not be found, not because it
wasn't there, but because effective prospecting techniques
hadn't yet been developed.'' ``Now,'' he said, ``soda ash is a
necessary ingredient in the production of glass, steel, and
other products. As a result of a series of experiments, of a
harnessing of science to the use of man, this great new
industry has opened up.'' John Kennedy in Laramie 50 years ago
this month.
The United States is the most competitive supplier of soda
ash in the world due to the abundance of the raw material,
trona, and it is in our country. U.S. natural soda ash is
refined from the mineral trona. The Green River Basin in
Wyoming has the world's largest known deposits. It is a key
component, as we said, of glass, also detergent, soap, and
chemicals. It is used in many other industrial purposes. It has
long been regarded as the standard of quality.
Currently Japan has a 3.3-percent tariff, which is what we
had discussed, on natural soda ash imports into Japan. So now
we have formally joined--now Japan has formally joined the
Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. Out of all the Trans-
Pacific Partnership countries, Japan is the only country with a
tariff on U.S. natural soda ash. It is important for the United
States to work, I believe, to resolve this problem. Eliminating
the tariff on naturally sourced soda ash would benefit Japanese
manufacturers, who want it, and U.S. soda ash producers alike.
So my question is, As the negotiations on the Trans-Pacific
Partnership continue, will you commit to me that you will
advocate for the elimination of this tariff on natural soda ash
imports?
Ms. Kennedy. Well, I guess I would not be sitting here if
it were not for the State of Wyoming, so I would definitely
make that commitment. In fact, I did pass along your concerns
to the USTR and they have indicated that soda ash will be an
important issue in the upcoming negotiations. So I will let you
know, and I look forward to working with you on this issue.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Also we had talked about beef, Wyoming's No. 1 cash crop,
but also I know, Senator Risch, it is a big cash crop in Idaho,
MT, the Rocky Mountain West. We are looking forward to pursuing
every opportunity to eliminate trade barriers and increase
exports to Japan for--actually, for all U.S. industry. So I
appreciate your efforts.
We also had a chance to talk a bit about liquified natural
gas, where we have an ability to export. I know, visiting with
the Ambassador from Japan, they have great interest in
importing liquified natural gas.
Ms. Kennedy. In terms of beef, as you know, there has been
a 43-percent increase in our sales to Japan recently this year.
I think that hopefully they will continue to accept more high-
quality U.S. beef.
Obviously, liquid natural gas--in fact, Senator Cardin,
they have just approved a project, and so it is a win for both
countries. So I look forward to working on that because it is
of benefit to all of us.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much and congratulations
again.
Ms. Kennedy. Thank you so much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
I now know more about soda ash than I ever did in my career
and I appreciate the edification.
Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Kennedy, congratulations. This is an exciting, exciting
hearing. I was struck during your opening comments at the
poignancy not only of your personal story, but what it says
about our two nations. Your father received the Congressional
Medal of Honor for heroism displayed and injuries suffered in a
war with Japan, and yet here you are about to achieve this
wonderful diplomatic post, which is a tribute not just to you,
but to the deep friendship between the two nations.
That does not happen by accident. That arc of enemies to
friends does not happen by accident. It happens because of
diplomacy. It happens because of the magnanimity of the
Japanese people and the American people. And it is an
interesting thing for us to think about, that we do not have to
assume that hostilities are permanent. Who are we at odds with
today or who any country is at odds with today does not mean
that we need to be despairing about that we might not be
wonderful allies in a few decades. And that is a really hopeful
thing. There is a real element of hope and optimism because of
this hearing and your personal arc and the way that it connects
the lives of our two nations.
Two questions I just wanted to ask quickly. I see enormous
up sides in the United States-Japan relationship because of the
rebalance to Asia and because of the specific status of the TPP
negotiations. But I wonder, are there any potential downsides?
Is there any concern in your dialogue with folks on the
Japanese side thus far or your briefings, that there is a worry
that a rebalance to Asia more generally or a TPP that
encompasses multiple nations, is there a concern that it would
sort of deemphasize the relationship, the strong relationship
between the United States and Japan? And if there are those
downsides, how could we continue to make sure that Japan knows
how special this relationship is?
Ms. Kennedy. Thank you, Senator, for reminding us all about
the--I do think that I am conscious of the evolution of our
relationship and how my family and my appointment is emblematic
of that. It is something that I am very honored by.
I think from my conversations it seems that the United
States and Japan are facing an important moment, but it is a
moment that is full of promise. The Asia-Pacific region is the
future in many ways. It is 40 percent of the world's trade. I
think that with the political stability in Japan, there are
many opportunities to strengthen this alliance, and hopefully I
can contribute to that.
There are complexities as well, of course. But I think, as
you said, there are so many people here in the United States
willing to work to strengthen this alliance, as well as in
Japan, so I am hopeful that whatever issues crop up, they can
be worked through, as we have done so far.
Senator Kaine. Great, great. Thank you.
The last question. I think this was touched on when I was
out of the room briefly, but just to connect a couple of dots,
including the point that Senator Barrasso was just making. The
Japanese continued purchase of oil from Iran--and there is an
exemption that we have recognized--nevertheless is a troubling
thing. We want to continue to do what we can. Even recent
statements of President Rouhani, we are looking at those with
interest. But to do what we can to make sure that Iran does not
obtain nuclear weapons.
Japan's scale-down of purchases of Iranian oil, that is a
notable thing. We think they could do more. Nevertheless, they
have their own energy challenges, especially after Fukushima,
that put some constraints on them. But there is a potential
connection between their ability to go even further and this
LNG issue, and I just wanted to bring that up.
I had a dialogue recently with another government official
in another Asian country that does not need to be named. But I
was really focusing upon this issue of how could we help you
reduce your reliance on oil from Iran, and he came right back
and said: Well, the main thing you could do is export liquid
natural gas to us.
So the exportation of LNG has other issues. It connects to
domestic pricing and things for natural gas here. Yet it is an
important asset for us to contemplate, even in working with
Japan, that the better we are in that the more they may be able
to take additional steps to reduce reliance upon Iranian oil
and then help us with that important goal that we share of
making sure Iran does not develop nuclear weapons.
So in the broader negotiation around these topics, I just
wanted to put that on that table and encourage you in that
regard.
Ms. Kennedy. Thank you.
Senator Kaine. Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Kaine.
Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I welcome our witness and family members and our beloved
Vicki. I know that Ted is very proud today to have you here
continuing a long family tradition of outstanding service to
our Nation.
You and I had a discussion of several issues in my office.
But I think it is important to reemphasize a couple of points.
One is that tensions between Japan and China are higher than at
any time since the end of World War II. The issue of the
Senkaku Islands, although unknown to most Americans, is very
high on the agenda of both Japan and China, and there have been
incidents of significant tension in that region--movement of
Chinese ships there and military presence.
The new Prime Minister, Abe, is now committed to a
significant increase in defense spending on the part of Japan.
A lot of that has to do with their concern about the aggressive
behavior of China in the South China Sea.
I am sure you are aware of those tensions and I am
wondering if you share my concern about this situation.
Ms. Kennedy. I think it is a matter of grave concern. I
think that, as we spoke about, the U.S. military and the Japan
alliance is a cornerstone of peace and security in the region,
and the United States is committed under article 5 of our
security treaty to support Japan in the Senkakus. But overall
our priority is for those disputes to be resolved through
negotiation and diplomacy and for all parties in the region to
seek to lower the tensions as much as possible.
Senator McCain. You know that the United States position
has been that we support Japanese management of the islands,
but do not acknowledge the sovereignty. You agree with that
policy?
Ms. Kennedy. It is the longstanding policy of the United
States, so that would be the policy that I would try to
further.
Senator McCain. As part of our view of the importance of
the Asia-Pacific region, there has been an announcement a
couple years ago by the administration that--at first they used
the unfortunate word ``pivot,'' but ``rebalancing'' of our
military to the Asia-Pacific region. One of the most important
parts of that that we have been wrestling with for years in the
Armed Services Committee in particular is the movement of U.S.
Marines out of Okinawa.
It is a very volatile issue with the people of Okinawa. It
has got to be accomplished. We have watched with great
frustration time after time, expenditure of billions of
dollars, and we still have not achieved the movement of the
Marines out of Okinawa to a suitable replacement base. We know
that some will go to Guam, some will go, envisioned to a new
base that's being built.
I hope you will give this issue a very high priority. One
more incident in Okinawa and you will see a very serious
reaction from the people of Okinawa, and they have to be
assured that we are moving forward, making progress on this
issue, which frankly in my view has been fraught with delays
and expenditures, which is almost an embarrassment.
Ms. Kennedy. I take that very seriously, Senator, your
concerns, and thank you for expressing them to me in your
office as well as here this morning. I look forward to learning
as much as I can, to studying this issue very closely, and to
working with you to move this forward.
Senator McCain. Well, we look forward to visiting with you
in Japan in the near future, at the taxpayers' expense.
Thank you for your willingness to serve.
Ms. Kennedy. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Massachusetts is very proud of you today. Your mother and
father, your aunts and uncles, all of your family, inspired
generations now of people to public service. I am one of those
people. You are really the pluperfect embodiment of someone who
has dedicated her life to helping other people. And your uncle
Ted and Bobby, but every member of your family just really was
very special in the lives of our country.
You are continuing that story, and I think it is important
for the country to actually see you giving, asking not what
your country can do for you, but what you can do for your
country. And you are doing that here today. I think our country
and all of us really appreciate your following in this
tremendous tradition that your family represents, sitting
proudly behind you here today.
I guess what I was wondering is, are there any personal
priorities that you might have going to Japan? Is there
anything that you might want to share with us that might be a
part of something that you might want to accomplish during your
time in Japan representing our country?
Ms. Kennedy. Well, thank you, Senator Markey, and thank you
for mentioning my family. I feel that I am the most fortunate
to be part of such a supportive and inspiring extended family,
and I am fortunate that not only is my immediate family here,
but my cousin, Timmy, is here, who runs the Special Olympics,
which my aunt started, and my cousin, Joe, who is following in
his grandfather and his father's footsteps serving in
government. So I am very honored and happy to have their
support, and I hope that I can make them proud of me.
In terms of my own priorities, I think as a woman I do have
opportunities in Japan to represent the United States and the
progress that we have made here on some of those issues and the
dialogue about what needs to be done, both here and there. So I
am looking forward to learning more about those issues as they
relate to Japan when I am there if I am confirmed.
Again, I think because of my background in education and
because I have worked to engage young generations in civic
engagement and dialogue and public service, I am hopeful that
because President Abe, Prime Minister Abe, has made education
exchanges and education another cornerstone of his reform
efforts, that I would have a positive role to play in
encouraging those and facilitating exchanges between our young
people and the young generation in Japan, so that this alliance
can continue to be strong going forward and our leaders enjoy
the same kinds of friendships and connections that they have
until now.
Senator Markey. Ambassador Roos has lamented the decline in
the number of Japanese students coming to the United States.
Obviously, that is a big part of creating understanding between
our two nations. So your focus on that is I think absolutely on
the money. It is where we have to be.
Again, I just want to tell you how----
Ms. Kennedy. Thank you.
Senator Markey [continuing]. Proud we are of you. I think
your uncle Ted is really proud of you sitting here.
Ms. Kennedy. Thank you.
Senator Markey. And I thank you for your service.
The Chairman. Seeing no other members, thank you very much
for your answers before the committee. I think you have
acquitted yourself very well.
Ms. Kennedy. Thank you.
The Chairman. The record will remain open until the close
of business on Friday for questions to the nominee. If the
nominee receives any questions, we ask you to answer them
expeditiously so that we can consider you at the next business
meeting.
With that, you are excused at this time. Thank you very
much.
Ms. Kennedy. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for this
hearing.
The Chairman. As Ms. Kennedy departs, I would like to call
our second panel this morning.
[Pause.]
The Chairman. I am pleased to bring before the committee
two of the Nation's most experienced career Foreign Service
officers: Ambassador Anne Patterson, who is the nominee for
Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs; and
Gregory Starr, who is no stranger to this committee, as
Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security.
Anne Patterson has spent the last 2 years serving as
Ambassador to Egypt at a tumultuous and transitional time in
Egypt's history, and I personally want to extend our thanks and
appreciation for her service. She was in the eye of the storm
as the winds of the Arab Spring began to blow across the
region, and her expertise and experience served her well. She
has a long record of service since the time she left her home
in Arkansas and went to Wellesley. Her experience is exemplary
of our Foreign Service officers, who put their lives at risk--
often in places where an American presence is necessary but not
always welcome.
I look forward to supporting her nomination, but I want to
express several ongoing concerns in the region. As you know,
Ambassador Patterson, the impact of sanctions on Iran has been
significant. While I support a diplomatic solution to the
crisis and hope that we can find such an opening with a newly
elected government in Iran, at the end of the day we need a
partner who comes to the table in good faith and with a real
offer in hand and, more importantly than an offer, real
actions. Until then it is my view we must maintain and increase
pressure on the regime in order to ensure the success that we
want. I look forward to hearing your views on the situation in
Iran.
I would also like to know your views on the next steps
moving forward in Egypt to realize the promise we had hoped for
from the events in Tahir Square in 2011, that has given way to
an increasingly undemocratic and insecure environment for all
Egyptians.
In Iraq, I have several concerns about our diplomatic
relations following the drawdown of U.S. troops. I am also
disturbed by Iraq's failure--and I want to underscore, Iraq's
failure, from my perspective--to protect the MEK community at
Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty, which most recently resulted in
52 deaths and the kidnapping of seven individuals who remain
hostages. I expect the Iraqis to hold the guilty parties
responsible for their actions, and I also hold the Iraqis
responsible for the security of those at Camp Liberty, and I
hope that the administration will send the same message.
Finally, on the peace process, I support Secretary Kerry's
efforts and believe that we must continue to keep the
Palestinians at the table engaged in face to face negotiations
with the Israelis. I applaud Israel's courage in agreeing to
the release of prisoners at the outset of negotiations and hope
the Palestinians will publicly commit to remain at the
negotiating table and not pursue statehood or enhanced status
through any international bodies while this effort is going
along. It is only through the hard work of direct negotiations
that we will be able to realize a durable and realistic peace.
You are no stranger to these complex issues. You are a
decorated Foreign Service officer, and I will look forward to
your service.
Let me turn to Greg Star, the nominee for Assistant
Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security, who appeared before
the committee this summer to testify on a bill cosponsored by
Senator Corker and I and other members of the committee, the
Chris Stevens-Sean Smith-Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty Embassy
Security, Threat Mitigation, and Personnel Protection Act. You
provided us with insights and benefits of many years in
diplomatic security, as a special agent in the Foreign Service
serving in Tunisia, Senegal, and the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. You later served in the Secretary of State's security
detail and technical security operations, as Chief of the
Division for Worldwide Local Guard and Residential Security
Programs, and as a senior regional security officer at our
Embassy in Tel Aviv.
And now you are returning, coming out of retirement, to be
considered for Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic
Security at a time when we sorely need your experience and
expertise.
Let me conclude by saying I have said in the past and will
say again, the lessons we have learned from the tragedies in
Nairobi, Dar es Salaam and Benghazi are emblematic of the
broader issue we will increasingly face in the 21st century. It
will require our full, unequivocal, unwavering commitment to
fully protect our embassies and those who serve this Nation
abroad, and that will be your charge as Assistant Secretary, to
help strike the proper balance between sealing off
vulnerabilities in high-threat areas and continuing to conduct
vigorous and effective diplomacy that serves the national
interest.
The fact is we can never have absolute security in an
increasingly dangerous world. But security alone is not our
objective. At the end of the day, we need to address both the
construction of new embassies that meet security needs and we
need to do what we can to secure existing high-risk posts where
we need our people to represent our interests and where new
construction is not an option. That is what Senator Corker and
my embassy security bill seeks to do, and my hope is that we
can look forward to the legislative process soon to achieve
that.
So we look forward to hearing from you, Mr. Starr, about
the progress we have made, what other challenges we may have,
and how do we pursue it. Again, thank you both for your years
of service.
I know Senator Corker had some original comments. I do not
know if there is anything you wish to pursue?
Senator Corker. No.
The Chairman. With that, Ambassador Patterson, we will
welcome your statement. Both of your statements will be fully
included in the record without objection, and the floor is
yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. ANNE W. PATTERSON, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS
Ambassador Patterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Corker, members of the committee. It is an honor to
appear before you today as the President's nominee for
Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce, if I could, my
husband David and my older son Edward and my daughter Lamin.
Mr. Chairman, I have prepared a longer statement for the
committee which I submitted for the record.
I am grateful for the confidence shown by President Obama
in nominating me for this position. If confirmed, I pledge to
work with you to advance U.S. interests across an important and
complex region that is facing historic upheaval.
Mr. Chairman, the changes taking place across the region
carry the promise of a more democratic political order that
will benefit the region and the United States in the long term.
However, the region will remain volatile and often violent for
some time to come. The challenges we face are complex, but our
extensive security, economic, and humanitarian interests demand
our continued engagement. The region has changed in the past
few years and there is no going back.
If confirmed, my top priority will be to protect our
country and our allies. Doing so will require a vigorous effort
to identify and disable Syria's chemical weapons. It will mean
continuing to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
And we must continue to combat terrorism and confront violent
extremism across the region.
Second, we will continue to promote sustainable democratic
transitions. Let me stress again how hard this is going to be.
The results of elections may not be to our liking, and
transitions are often plagued by false starts and reverses. We
will continue our efforts to promote democracy and universal
rights, and we will stand up for the rights of women,
Christians, and other minorities.
Third, we need to support governments and the private
sector to create economic opportunities and jobs. Many
countries in the region need to fight corruption and cut
subsidies to spur investment and growth. Our global economic
leadership and our assistance programs both can play a role.
And we must press for open business and trade environments so
American businesses have fair access to growing markets.
Fourth, Mr. Chairman, mindful that our country has lost
6,757 men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would focus on
coping with the enormous sacrifices that our colleagues in the
State Department, in the international community, and other
civilian agencies are making, supporting these professionals
and their families as we continue to ask more of them. People
working in this region have been deeply and disproportionately
affected by evacuations, lengthy separations from families, and
the sheer workload associated with living and working on the
critical front lines of American diplomacy.
Mr. Chairman, protecting our country requires us to
practice diplomacy in dangerous places. Our people understand
this. Accepting calculated risks is part of what it means to be
an American diplomat today. Our Bureau will work closely
together with our Ambassadors, with Mr. Starr if confirmed, and
our Diplomatic Security colleagues, and with all other elements
of government to protect Americans overseas.
I understand fully the responsibilities arising from the
attack on our mission in Benghazi that resulted in the murders
of four of our colleagues. If confirmed, I will work to fulfill
our obligation to bring the perpetrators of that attack to
justice.
Allow me to briefly review some of your key concerns. Mr.
Chairman, I know that the Secretary of State has briefed you on
Syria and the negotiations under way at the United Nations and
in The Hague. I will simply reiterate his point that there can
be no room for anything less than full compliance with our
consistent goal of deterring and degrading Syria's ability to
use these weapons in the future. The threat of unilateral use
of force by the United States remains on the table should Syria
not comply.
Mr. Chairman, I have just completed 2 years as Ambassador
to Egypt, an extraordinarily important country for the national
security interests of the United States that deserves our
continued partnership and support. Mohammed Morsy was elected
as President of Egypt in elections that were free and fair,
even though the complex constitutional and legal process that
produced these elections managed to confuse and upset nearly
everyone. His removal from office on July 3 followed an
extended series of political miscalculations and an inability
to create an inclusive democratic process.
In the end, Egyptians will be the ones to determine whether
that action was correct. We have made our concerns about this
method of government change and about the violence used against
unarmed protesters abundantly clear. Our response to the
situation in Egypt will be consistent with U.S. laws, our
national interest, and our values.
At the President's direction, we have undertaken a major
review of our economic and our military assistance program. As
Egypt changes, so too must our bilateral relationship. If
confirmed, I will continue to urge the Egyptian government to
move toward an inclusive civilian-led transition that
guarantees universal rights for all citizens, including women
and Christians. I look forward to working with the Congress to
assure that we have the flexibility to respond to and influence
changing events.
Mr. Chairman, the United States is fully committed to
helping Israel and the Palestinians negotiate a final status
resolution to their conflict. We are also fully and deeply
committed to Israel's security. Our security cooperation has in
fact never been closer. Israel is our close friend and the
region's only stable democracy. The United States also
continues to assist the Palestinians as they build governing
institutions.
As we mark 35 years since the Camp David Accords this week,
the search for Middle East peace remains at the very heart of
U.S. national security interests. Secretary Kerry has worked
very hard for the resumption of negotiations, which has
required courageous leadership by Prime Minister Netanyahu and
President Abbas.
Mr. Chairman, Iran is the world's foremost state sponsor of
terrorism, including in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. It continues
to defy the international community by pursuing nuclear
activity in violation of its international obligations. The
United States will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.
Thanks to the indispensable role played by Congress and
with international support, we have put in place an
unprecedented sanctions regime against Iran. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to acknowledge the efforts you played in this effort
along with other members of this committee. Sanctions have hurt
Iran's economy badly. The people of Iran have voted for change
in the recent election of President Hassan Rouhani, who has
demonstrated a markedly different tone from his predecessors.
But to make progress, we need to see concrete actions.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed I pledge to work with you to
assure that the resources and tools you provided our Bureau are
supporting activities that advance our top national interests.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Patterson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anne W. Patterson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker and members of the
committee. It is an honor to appear before you as the President's
nominee for the Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs.
I am grateful for the confidence shown by President Obama in
nominating me for this position. If confirmed, I pledge to work with
you to protect and advance U.S. interests across an exceedingly
important and complex region, facing historic upheaval.
I am also pleased to appear before you today with Greg Starr, whom
the President has nominated to be Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic
Security. I have known Mr. Starr for some time and look forward to
working closely with him on the important task of protecting U.S.
personnel, facilities and interests in the region.
A Long Transformation Underway
Mr. Chairman, despite the tremendous challenges it faces, I believe
that the historic political and social transformations taking place
across the region carry the promise of a more democratic, more
tolerant, and more vibrant political order that ultimately will benefit
both the region and the United States. However, I anticipate that the
region will remain volatile, unpredictable, and often violent for some
time to come. We face complex and difficult challenges, but our
extensive security, economic and humanitarian interests demand our
continued involvement and active engagement.
There are some fundamental trends underway that will set the
context for U.S. diplomacy. Sixty percent of the population in this
region is under 25 and nearly 45 percent of young people in the Arab
world are unemployed. The three most populous Arab countries, Egypt,
Algeria, and Morocco, have median ages of 20, 20, and 21, respectively.
The region's rapidly growing, youthful populations lack confidence in
rigid and unresponsive leaders who are unwilling or unable to address
their aspirations for a better life and a greater say in their own
decision making.
Shockingly, across the region, statistics indicate that
unemployment levels rise with the level of education, leading to deep
frustration with educational systems that fail to prepare its graduates
for the modern labor force. National economies are hobbled by
inefficiency and corruption, unable to provide jobs. In many countries,
young people and their families invest enormous resources in what turn
out to be poor university educations, and are deeply disappointed when
they cannot find jobs or are not properly trained for the labor market.
The situation is even more dire for young women.
At the same time, in addition to more traditional forms of street
protest, these young people have been empowered by new technologies to
communicate and share information in unprecedented ways--and they are
not shy about expressing their anger and frustration. They reject the
tired and transparent excuses and efforts by authorities to avoid
responsibility for their poor performances--and they thirst for
leadership and solutions, even as they watch the wintering of state
institutions meant to protect citizens' personal and economic security.
What will come next is uncertain, but the region's political and
social trajectory has been broadly and irrevocably changed by the
events of the last 2\1/2\ years. Mr. Chairman, as one of your
colleagues pointed out to me in Cairo, we Americans can never go back
to looking at the region in the same way as we did before.
These inherent uncertainties will also pose security, diplomatic,
and economic challenges to the United States, to our allies, and to the
people of the region. With both our important national security
interests and our values in mind, we have much work to do to protect
our interests and to help the people of the region build peace and
economic prosperity.
Our Priorities
If confirmed, Mr. Chairman, my top priority will be to protect our
country and our allies. This will require a vigorous effort under
international auspices to identify and disable Syria's chemical weapons
capability. It will also mean continuing to prevent Iran from
developing a nuclear weapon.
The United States must continue to do everything we can to combat
terrorism and confront violent extremism. Currently, we are seeing
renewed efforts by Al Qaeda in Iraq to undermine that country and an
influx of foreign fighters to the Syrian civil war from other countries
in the region. Such breakdowns in security in the region have allowed
the growth of regional militias, threatening legitimate governments and
becoming breeding grounds for extremism. The United States needs to
work with the region's leaders and its national military forces to
extend counterterrorism cooperation and training for law enforcement
charged with providing security for their citizens.
Second, we need to continue to promote sustainable democratic
transitions in the region. Let me stress again how hard this is going
to be: the results of elections may not be to our liking and
transitions are often plagued by false starts and reverses. Islamist
and populist political parties that do not share our values can be
effective in mobilizing voters. In the face of such challenges, we need
to remain patient and firmly engaged in our efforts to promote
democracy. Free and fair elections based on inclusive politics,
effective governance, and respect for universal human rights, including
freedom of expression and freedom of association, are key elements of
any country's long-term stability. And we will need to stand up for the
rights of women, and ethnic and religious minorities, including
Christians. The broadening of political participation is a key demand
of people in these changing societies; it is also a prerequisite for
successful democratic governance.
I reject the view expressed by some in the region that their
countries are ``not ready'' for democracy, that the low levels of
education and high levels of poverty assure that voters will be easily
led astray, or that only a traditional strongman can control these
fragmented societies. If this were true, future generations in the
region would be doomed to live under autocrats and dictators. Our role,
and the role of the international community, will be to assist these
countries in building more democratic and tolerant societies.
Third, we need to support the private sector and governments in the
region to help create economic opportunities. The region needs to
create as many as 80 million new jobs by 2020 just to meet the needs of
its growing population, a staggering number since the Arab world's
current labor force stands at about 100 million people. The United
States is uniquely positioned to help the region address its economic
challenges. Many countries in the region need to fight corruption and
undertake economic reforms to end subsidies that constrain investment
and growth. In my view, U.S. economic assistance is only one facet of
our influence. Assistance does provide tools for the United States to
encourage and support reforms in needed areas, like higher education,
economic growth or the reform of security forces. But our global
economic leadership and the power of our economy are equally important.
We also need to work with governments to assure open business and trade
environments that promote sustainable growth and enable American
businesses to have fair access to growing markets. Everyone will
benefit because American businesses are respected in the region for
training their people in global business skills and promoting employees
on the basis of merit--and because much of our own business growth is
projected to come from growth in overseas markets. A few months ago,
Mr. Chairman, your Subcommittee on African Affairs issued a report
outlining concrete steps the United States could take to both improve
standards of living in sub-Saharan Africa and to lock American
businesses into primary roles in these fast growing markets. I hope we
can collaborate on a similar study for the Middle East.
And fourth, Mr. Chairman, mindful that our country has lost 6,757
service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, I also would focus on
coping with the enormous sacrifices that my colleagues in the State
Department, in the intelligence community, and in other civilian
agencies must make and are making--and supporting these professionals
and their families as we continue to ask more of them. People in the
Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs have been deeply and disproportionately
affected by evacuations, lengthy separations from families, and just
the sheer workload of living in or working with posts that are
understaffed and always on the critical front lines of America
diplomacy. A large number of our personnel have served tours of duty
without their families at high security threat posts--some of them
several times--as the number of such posts has expanded beyond Iraq and
Afghanistan to Libya, Yemen, Lebanon, Tunisia, and Egypt.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I will be asking our people to serve in
these and other countries, continuing the hard work of outreach and
engagement on behalf of the United States. Protecting our country
requires us to practice diplomacy in dangerous places. Our people
understand this--accepting calculated risks is part of what it means to
be an American diplomat today. Our Bureau will work together closely
with our Ambassadors and with our Diplomatic Security colleagues to do
everything we can to protect Americans overseas. We will maintain open
channels of communication on security matters within the Department,
with the intelligence community and with the Defense Department.
I would like to review with you the broad scope of American
interests that involve the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. We cannot
cover them all here, but I hope it will inform our discussions in the
months ahead.
Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan
The current crisis in Syria underscores the challenges we face. The
authoritarianism and brutality of the Asad family toward the Syrian
people has been unrelenting; the regime has maintained itself in power
through fear and the pitting of one group against the other. It has
also systematically manipulated and destabilized Lebanon through its
partnership with Iran and its support for Hezbollah. As change swept
the region over the past 2\1/2\ years, the Syrian regime has tried to
maintain its power by waging war on its own people. The U.N. estimates
that over 100,000 Syrians have been killed, 2 million people have
become refugees and millions more have been displaced internally due to
the conflict.
The prolonged Syrian crisis has attracted extremists from across
the region. The regime has recruited Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon to
support them in battle. Meanwhile, terrorist groups linked to al-Qaeda
have worked to gain a foothold in Syria and expand their influence
among elements of the Syrian opposition. The regime has violated
Lebanon's sovereignty with shelling and airstrikes. On August 21, the
Syrian regime again brutally and indiscriminately used chemical weapons
in attacks against its own people that killed more than 1,400
civilians. The recent framework whereby we would work with Russia to
transfer the regime's chemical weapons program to international control
and implement its rapid elimination will require Syria to promptly
declare their holdings and cooperate in steps to eliminate them. The
world will now expect Russia to hold the Asad regime accountable for
its public commitments. There can be no room for anything less than
full compliance with international efforts to dismantle the Syrian
chemical weapons (CW) program. Clearly, the threat of unilateral use of
force by the United States played a key role in propelling the Asad
regime to finally acknowledge its CW program and declare its
willingness to accede to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). If
these efforts fail, the President has made clear that he remains
willing to act.
Moving forward, we continue to believe that there is no military
solution to the Syrian crisis, which should be resolved via
negotiations based on the framework outlined in the June 2012 Geneva
Communique. The United States remains in close contact with the
moderate Syrian opposition about next steps. Along with our
international partners, we continue to support the moderate Syrian
opposition as they work toward a democratic and unified Syria that
respects the universal human rights of all its citizens. Mr. Chairman,
I know that members of this committee are not satisfied with the speed
of delivery of equipment to the Syrian opposition or with the level and
speed of humanitarian assistance to neighboring countries. Many of you
have visited Syrian refugee camps in Turkey and Jordan. The United
States is providing over $1 billion in humanitarian assistance to
respond to the crisis within Syria and in neighboring countries. We are
also providing $250 million in nonlethal transition assistance to the
Syrian opposition, including items requested by the Syrian Military
Council. Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, I will work closely with your
committee on these issues.
From its base in Lebanon, Hezbollah has fully entered the Syrian
civil war on the side of the Asad regime, which has long provided it
with support and a reliable connection to its Iranian financial and
military support. Hezbollah seeks to involve the Lebanese people in a
foreign war against their will, with no concern for the destabilizing
effects on Lebanon.
The United States supports Lebanon's sovereignty, independence,
national unity, and territorial integrity. We support efforts by
responsible Lebanese leaders to promote democratic practices and
institutions that foster Lebanon's true national interests. That is why
we will continue to support the Lebanese Armed Forces and Internal
Security Forces with whom we work to confront the threats of terrorism
and instability. We appreciate Congress' support for these important
programs. We will also continue to support Lebanon and its people as
they cope with the burden of assisting the nearly 730,000 Syrians and
45,000 Palestinians from Syria who have sought refuge there.
The Syrian civil war has also created severe challenges for Jordan,
a key ally and partner with whom we work on important U.S. interests in
the region, including Middle East peace, helping reintegrate Iraq into
the Arab world, countering violent extremism and managing the Syrian
refugee crisis. Politically, economically, and on humanitarian grounds,
the United States must continue to demonstrate a strong commitment to
Jordan and its long-term stability.
King Abdullah II's efforts to implement political reforms in Jordan
underscore his leadership in seeking a better future for the Jordanian
people. Moving forward with these reforms is vital to Jordan's
security, stability, democratic development and economic prosperity.
The U.S. continues to support Jordan with bilateral assistance--as well
as loan guarantees and IMF loans--that place special emphasis on reform
and growth. In the past 2 years, we have provided Jordan with
significant additional assistance to ease the burden of hosting over
520,000 refugees from Syria. We appreciate the support Congress has
shown for this key ally.
Egypt
I have just completed 2 years as Ambassador in Egypt, the most
populous Arab country and a bellwether for trends across the region.
Simply put: what happens in Egypt matters far beyond its borders. I
remain convinced that Egypt is an extraordinarily important country for
the national security interests of the United States--it is a country
that deserves our continued partnership and support.
Mohamed Morsy was elected as President of Egypt in elections that
were free and fair, even though the complex constitutional and legal
process that produced those elections managed to confuse and upset
nearly everyone. The Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party and
Salafist and other Islamist parties won widespread support across
Egypt, in part, because Egyptians hoped to see an end to the corruption
and mismanagement of the Mubarak regime and also because other
political parties were poorly organized.
During his 1 year in office, President Morsy, who entered office
promising to be a President for all Egyptians, managed to anger and
disappoint many people. His removal on July 3 followed a series of
political miscalculations and an inability to sustain national
consensus. Demands for his removal regrettably were not tested by an
electoral process, yet in the end Egyptians will be the ones to
determine whether that action was correct. The United States stands for
democracy. And we have made our concerns about this method of
government change and about the violence used against unarmed
protesters abundantly clear. But it is also clear that many Egyptians
seek security and stability after the recent tumultuous period.
The interim government has announced a roadmap to seat a
democratically elected civilian government. The roadmap includes a
constitutional amendment process culminating in a national referendum.
The failure of the Morsy government to create an inclusive democratic
process in Egypt was a mistake that other governments--including the
current interim Egyptian Government--must avoid. The guarantee of
universal rights for all citizens, the inclusion of ethnic and
religious minorities, including Christians, and the empowerment of
women is the government's duty. Egypt needs inclusive processes to
amend the constitution and to conduct parliamentary elections if it is
to stabilize the situation and place the country on a sound political
and economic footing.
The United States believes that only Egyptians can decide the
future direction for their nation. As long-time friends and partners of
the Egyptian people we will do our best to support them as they seek to
stabilize their nation and reignite their economy. Since July 3, the
President, Secretary Kerry, and Secretary Hagel have all clearly
affirmed our support for Egypt's transition to that stable, democratic
and prosperous future. Members of this committee have also helped to
reinforce this message. Senators McCain and Graham, well-known friends
of Egypt, provided the Egyptian leadership with frank advice about
America's expectations for the future.
Moving forward, our response to the situation in Egypt will be
consistent with our laws, our national interests and our values. Over
the past weeks, at the President's direction, we have undertaken a
major review of our economic and our military assistance programs. As
Egypt changes, so too must our bilateral relationship evolve. As we
consider how to best recalibrate our assistance, we must take account
all of the events that have taken place in Egypt, including the last 2
months. The President is currently reviewing how we will proceed,
consistent with the law. If confirmed, I will continue to urge the
Egyptian Government to move expeditiously toward an inclusive,
civilian-led, democratic transition and I look forward to working with
the Congress to assure that we have the flexibility to respond to and
influence changing events.
The Search for Middle East Peace
The United States is fully committed to helping Israel and the
Palestinians negotiate a final status resolution to their conflict. As
the President and Secretary have repeatedly stated, the U.S. is fully
and deeply committed to Israel's security. Israel is our close friend
and the region's only stable democracy; our security cooperation has
never been closer. Meanwhile, the United States continues to assist the
Palestinians as they build governing institutions. This week marks 35
years since the Camp David accords between Israel and Egypt, shepherded
by the United States, lifted hopes for a permanent end to the Middle
East conflict. The search for Middle East peace remains a diplomatic
challenge that is also at the very heart of U.S. national security
interests; it affects all of our relationships in the region.
To his great credit, Secretary Kerry has devoted many hours and
many trips to the region in an extraordinary effort to make possible
the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The resumption has
taken courageous leadership by Prime Minister Netanyahu and President
Abbas. We all know that this is a complicated process that will require
difficult choices for both Israelis and Palestinians as they work
toward reasonable compromises on tough issues with our support.
Consistent with the Secretary's view that the negotiators not be
restricted in their search for peace by public comment or release of
details of proposals on the table, I will not go into the details of
those talks in public. The Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs and our posts
in the region will support Secretary Kerry in every aspect of this very
important mission. Everyone knows that this will not be easy, but the
goal of a two state solution, with Israelis and Palestinians living
side-by-side in peace and with secure borders is at the center of
American national interests in the region and beyond.
Iraq
The United States has made enormous investments and sacrifices in
Iraq, including the 4,489 lives lost and 32,230 wounded during
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation New Dawn. The United States
military departed Iraq in 2011, with Saddam Hussein gone and an elected
government in his place.
Over the past decade, we have come to better understand Iraq as a
country with many diverse ethnic and religious tensions and which,
freed from the despotic regime of Saddam Hussein, has struggled to find
its balance. The United States must support Iraq's efforts to build a
unified and stable democratic nation. We are conducting a great deal of
our engagement with Iraq under the Strategic Framework Agreement. The
U.S. will continue to support the increased production and export of
Iraq's energy resources, because they are so very important for Iraq's
economy--and the global economy.
Regrettably, al-Qaeda in Iraq continues to threaten the Iraqi
Government's efforts to establish a stable government and economy with
violent acts, such as vehicle and suicide bombings. It is also seeking
to rekindle a cycle of sectarian violence that in the past did so much
to damage relations between Iraqis. We are urging Prime Minister Maliki
and all Iraqi leaders to unite and fortify the country politically
against extremist trends from any group or community. We continue to
provide advice to Iraqi Forces on counterterrorism issues. I share the
concern of members of this committee about the situation in Iraq and,
if confirmed, look forward to consulting closely on this matter.
U.S. diplomacy supports Iraq as it seeks to remain independent of
regional disputes and to integrate itself in the global economy,
efforts in keeping with our regional interests. This work has produced
important results, and we welcomed this year Iraq's renewal of
relations with Kuwait after decades of war and enmity. Iraq has been
conducting a series of provincial council elections--and it will face
national elections in the first quarter of 2014, elections that will be
a truly pivotal moment for the future of Iraq's democracy.
Iran
The Government of Iran has for many years been the world's foremost
state sponsor of international terrorism--including in Iraq, Syria, and
Lebanon--and it continues to defy the international community by
pursuing nuclear activity in violation of its international
obligations.
The United States will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.
Thanks to the indispensable role played by Congress, and with
international support, we have put in place an unprecedented sanctions
regime against Iran to impede its progress in prohibited nuclear
activities, as well as to persuade Tehran to address the international
community's concerns about its nuclear program. I would like to
acknowledge the efforts you have played in this effort, Mr. Chairman,
as well as the efforts of other members of the committee. Acting both
through the United Nations Security Council and regional or national
authorities, the United States and our partners have put in place the
strongest sanctions measures in history relating to Iran's nuclear,
missile, energy, shipping, transportation, and financial sectors. Those
sanctions have had a serious negative impact on Iran's economy. The
people of Iran, frustrated with their government's aggressive foreign
policy and straining under the effects of economic sanctions, voted for
change in the recent election of President Hassan Rouhani.
President Rouhani has demonstrated a markedly different tone than
his predecessor and we note he has used conciliatory language since his
election. However, we have made it clear that we need to see concrete
actions to address the international community's concerns about Iran's
nuclear program. The Iranian Government has an opportunity to reduce
its isolation by resolving these concerns. The United States and our
international partners remain committed to a dual track approach of
pressure and engagement to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear
weapon--and we are prepared to meet with Iran as soon as possible on
the matter through the P5+1.
Iran has a rich history and talented people--it is a country which
could be making important contributions to the global community. Should
the Iranian Government choose to engage substantively and seriously to
meet its international obligations and find a peaceful solution to this
issue, the United States will be a willing partner.
The Arabian Peninsula
Over many decades, the United States has built deep and mutually
beneficial relationships with the countries of the Arabian Peninsula.
Generations of students from the region have studied in the United
States, including rising leaders we will see assume positions of
greater authority in the near future. We share common interests in
confronting regional threats, including the proliferation of nuclear
and chemical weapons, and in ensuring stable world markets in finance
and energy. American businesses have developed thriving partnerships in
these expanding economies, which had over 100 billion dollars' worth of
trade with the United States in 2011
While we do not always see precisely eye to eye on the many
challenges facing the Middle East, we have established an unprecedented
counterterrorism and security cooperation. This has been a significant
priority for President Obama and Secretary Kerry and will be for me, as
well. Our security relationships with the Gulf countries over the past
12 years have been vital to our military operations in the region, and
will continue to be strategically critical as we together confront
threats from Iran and regional instability stemming from the Asad
regime's oppression of its people. Qatar hosts CENTCOM Forward
Headquarters and U.S. Air Force Central Command operations at Al Udeid
Air Base. Bahrain is a major non-NATO ally that hosts the U.S. Navy's
Fifth Fleet. Kuwait is a major non-NATO ally that hosts the largest
presence of U.S. forces in the region. The UAE and Oman have been
strong partners and made major contributions to regional peacekeeping
security, and counterterrorism efforts.
Even as we work to strengthen the longstanding security and
economic aspects of our relationships in the Gulf, we are facing new
challenges. These societies have struggled over the past decades to
cope with the rapid pace of modernization, population growth and the
rising expectations of their young people. Our continued engagement
with these countries, both government to government, and people to
people, will be important in addressing key principles such as
adherence to universal human rights, including equality for women and
freedom of religion, as these processes continue to play out. While at
times we have seen an impulse toward greater restrictions, there is a
countervailing domestic pressure toward greater openness and to
strengthen the bridges connecting these societies with the rest of the
world. At least 77,000 Saudi students are pursuing higher education in
the United States, even as King Abdullah has undertaken some initial
steps toward social modernization such as improving the Kingdom's
education and judicial establishments, advancing an interfaith
dialogue, appointing women to the Consultative Council, and passing an
antidomestic violence law.
After some early progress on reform following the Bahrain
Government's 2011 response to domestic protests, the pace has slowed,
particularly on accountability and freedom of expression. Bahrain's
leadership needs to pursue a process of meaningful dialogue with the
country's peaceful opposition that results in sustainable political
reforms. The United States will support Bahrain as it undertakes these
reforms and expands its commitment to the protection of citizens'
universal human rights--changes that will enhance Bahrain's long-term
stability. Across the region, we will continue to express our strong
concerns over restrictions on religious freedom, freedom of expression
and assembly, and women's issues. Our message is clear and consistent:
the only way forward in responding to the demands of a new generation
is increasing openness and adherence to universal human rights.
Finally, I would note that we have seen the Gulf Cooperation
Council states come together and work effectively with us and other
international partners in Yemen, one of the world's poorest and least-
developed countries, which continues to face serious security
challenges. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula remains one of the most
significant terrorist threats to the United States, and it continues to
exploit Yemen's weak governance to find safe haven and to project these
threats outside of Yemen's borders. Under a Gulf Cooperation Council
initiative, and with the help of the United States, Yemen's Government
has defied enormous odds to move from the protests that brought about
an end to the three decade rule of President Ali Abdullah Saleh to a
relatively peaceful and well-defined transition under the leadership of
President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi. The United States has provided
significant assistance to Yemen's transition. Ultimately, Yemen's
successful transition is a key underpinning of long term stability and
security in the region, and the United States will continue work with
the GCC and other international partners to support Yemen's ongoing
transition.
North Africa
More than 2 years after its revolution, Libya continues to contend
with the serious challenges resulting from Qadhafi's dictatorial rule,
including the need to rebuild almost from scratch security forces and
weak institutions, porous borders and loose weapons, and to root out
militia groups and terrorists. There has been political progress: Libya
held its first free and fair elections in over 40 years just over a
year ago and continues taking the steps necessary to draft a new
constitution. Yet recent political unrest has sharply reduced Libya's
oil and gas exports, demonstrating how difficult and fragile this
transition is.
There is tremendous goodwill toward the United States and a strong
desire on the part of Libyans to reengage with the West after decades
of Qadhafi-imposed isolation. The United States has a strategic
opportunity to forge a strong and mutually beneficial relationship with
Libya. Our limited, targeted technical assistance to help Libya build
the capacity to address issues of concern for our own national
interests has been a welcomed part of this reengagement. We have had a
good working relationship with Prime Minister Ali Zeidan and his
government, and I look forward to discussing ways in which we can work
together to advance Libya's democratic reforms and help it address its
security concerns.
Mr. Chairman, we understand fully the responsibilities arising from
the attack on our special mission facilities in Benghazi a year ago
that resulted in the murders of four of our colleagues. If confirmed, I
will work closely with the Justice Department and Libyan authorities to
bring the perpetrators of that attack to justice.
Tunisia and the United States share over 200 years of history,
resulting in rich cultural, economic, and security ties. Tunisia's
January 2011 revolution, which initiated the ``Arab Awakening,'' marked
the beginning of a new phase of cooperation between our two countries.
Tunisia continues to make progress in its democratic transition and has
made major progress in efforts to draft a new constitution. Over the
last 2 years, the United States has committed more than $350 million in
assistance to Tunisia to support its democratic transition, economic
stabilization and growth, as well as its efforts to enhance security in
the country and along its borders. I look forward to improving and
deepening our security cooperation with Tunisia, to include urging the
Government of Tunisia to bring to justice the perpetrators of the
September 14, 2012, attack on our Embassy and the American school.
Algeria and the United States have built a strong bilateral
relationship, with a focus on our shared interest in battling terrorism
and violent extremism. Algeria's experience fighting an Islamist
insurgency during the 1990s resulted in a well-equipped and battle-
hardened military that constitutes one of the strongest counterterror
forces in the region. We hope Algeria will continue to assume a greater
regional leadership role to help stabilize neighboring states, which
are also struggling with the presence of terrorists, loose weapons, and
porous borders. We are working to expand our trade relationship with
Algeria and will continue to support efforts to make room for civil
society and to implement other political reforms en route to
Presidential elections next year.
After more than 235 years of friendship, the U.S. and Morocco
continue to enjoy a strong bilateral relationship, with shared
interests in promoting regional stability, countering violent
extremism, and strengthening trade and cultural ties. In recent years,
King Mohammed VI has initiated reforms to strengthen the role of
Parliament, rule of law, and human rights. Morocco remains a key
partner to the United States on regional security and counterterrorism
issues. Since 2006 the United States and Morocco have had a bilateral
Free Trade Agreement, which has increased bilateral trade by 244
percent. During its current term on the U.N. Security Council, Morocco
has played an important role in international efforts to end the Syrian
civil war.
Focused on our Highest Priorities
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am well aware that we
are facing a period of difficult budgets and many competing priorities.
However, we have a responsibility to protect our national interests, so
many of which are tied to the Middle East and north Africa. The popular
ferment, reform efforts and the transitions underway across the region
highlight the need for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to have a
well-resourced and flexible platform from which to conduct our
diplomacy--with an up-to-date, secure infrastructure. Our diplomatic
and consular posts are being asked to do more and must have the State
Operations and Diplomatic Security resources to meet our diplomatic
challenges. In my view, it is critical that our posts in the region be
able to build new relationships now, in this time of unsettled
transitions, in order to set the tone and direction for America's
partnerships in the region for decades to come. In spite of the immense
challenges, now is not the time to withdraw from the region. Instead,
we must refocus our efforts in support of the many American strategic
interests in the region.
If confirmed, I pledge to work with you to assure that the
resources and tools you provide our Bureau are being directed to our
highest priorities and are supporting activities that advance our top
national security and economic interests. Under the President's
leadership, I pledge to work with you to build a principled structure
on which the United States can deepen our ties with the region, and to
ensure that we continue to have the will, the trust, and the capability
to advance our shared security and prosperity and to meet our many
global challenges together.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ambassador.
Mr. Starr.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY B. STARR, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DIPLOMATIC SECURITY
Mr. Starr. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, members of
the committee, I too am honored to appear before you today. I
would like to thank the committee for your continued support
and the interest in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security Programs
in protecting American diplomats abroad. This support enables
Diplomatic Security, also known as ``DS,'' to safeguard
American diplomats and facilities for the conduct of U.S.
foreign policy, while maintaining our robust investigative
programs which serve to protect the United States borders and
our presence overseas.
As the President's nominee to become Assistant Secretary at
the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, I am thankful to the
President and Secretary Kerry for the confidence that they have
placed in me to lead Diplomatic Security during these difficult
and demanding times.
I have been a security professional for more than 30 years.
My experience both within the Department and outside government
has prepared me to take on the challenges of leading Diplomatic
Security in the future.
The world is changing and so is the way in which diplomacy
is conducted. Therefore the way in which we provide security
for our diplomats must change with it. We can never truly
eliminate all risks faced by the U.S. Government personnel as
they advance our national interests abroad. We in the
Department constantly review evolving threats and seek to
mitigate risk as much as possible.
The challenges we have faced in the previous decade, over
the previous year in particular, have been significant and
growing. Increasingly, our people are called upon to live and
work in difficult and dangerous environments. We operate in
these environments out of necessity because that is where we
must be to serve our Nation's interests. I have learned that we
cannot shut ourselves inside embassies, embrace a zero risk
posture, and forgo the work of helping build the rule of law
and strengthen democratic institutions abroad. It is in just
these countries where it is toughest to serve where American
diplomacy pays the greatest dividends.
This is the face of American diplomacy today and it is my
job and the job of Diplomatic Security to keep our people safe
while still allowing the important work to continue.
As a senior leader within Diplomatic Security, I can tell
you that we are looking toward the next challenges and threats.
We must continue to embrace change across the spectrum of
security requirements. If confirmed, I plan to focus on three
broad priorities. Those are: staffing and resources; improving
coordination among our investigative elements; and continuing
to improve our physical security protections for U.S. personnel
serving overseas.
In terms of staffing and resources, I want to ensure that
we have qualified people with sufficient training and the right
resources at our posts overseas in order to respond to each
post's unique security environment; and we improve the training
of our foreign affairs colleagues by expanding our foreign
affairs counterthreat courses.
On the investigative side of Diplomatic Security, I will
continue to ensure that our criminal investigators, background
investigators, and cyber security personnel are working closely
together, as well as with other Department offices. Under my
leadership we have improved our coordination both within the
Department and with our interagency partners in the Department
of Defense and the international community.
Finally, we will continue to work closely with our partners
in the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations and regional
bureaus to provide safe, secure, and functional embassies and
consulates that represent the United States abroad.
In conclusion, I want to assure this committee that we in
DS realize that our work in securing our posts and protecting
our people will never be done. We take great pride in our
accomplishments, but we are focused on the future. If
confirmed, I pledge that through my leadership everyone in DS
will understand that they must lead by example, properly
delegate authority, and be committed to continually improving
how we deliver security to our constituents and achieve our
global mission.
Having said that, I want to be clear that I believe that
responsibility for the provision of security lies with the
Assistant Secretary of Diplomatic Security, and if confirmed I
am committed to shouldering that responsibility.
I will be glad to answer any questions you have. Thank you
very much for allowing me to appear here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Starr follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gregory B. Starr
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, members of the committee, I am
honored to appear before you today. I would like to thank the committee
for your continued support and interest in the Bureau of Diplomatic
Security's programs. This support enables Diplomatic Security, also
known as DS, to safeguard American diplomats and facilities for the
conduct of U.S. foreign policy, while maintaining our robust
investigative programs which serve to protect the United States borders
and our presence overseas. As the President's nominee to become the
Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, I am
thankful to the President and Secretary Kerry for the confidence they
have placed in me to lead DS during these difficult and demanding
times.
I have been a security professional for over 30 years. My
experience both within the Department and outside our government has
prepared me to take on the challenges of leading DS into the future.
The world is changing, and so is the way in which diplomacy is
conducted; the way in which we provide security for our diplomats must
change with it.
Although we can never truly eliminate all risks faced by U.S.
Government personnel as they advance our national interests abroad, we
in the Department constantly review evolving threats and seek to
mitigate risk as much as possible. The challenges we have faced over
the previous decade, and over the previous year in particular, have
been significant and growing. Increasingly, our people are called upon
to live and work in difficult and dangerous environments. We operate in
these environments out of necessity, because that is where we must be
to serve our Nation's interests. I have learned that we cannot shut
ourselves inside our embassies, embracing a zero-risk posture, and
forgo the work of helping build the rule of law and strengthen
democratic institutions abroad. It is in just these countries where it
is toughest to serve, where American diplomacy pays the greatest
dividends. This is the face of American diplomacy today and it is my
job, and the job of DS, to keep our people safe while still allowing
this important work to continue.
As a senior leader within DS, I can tell you that we are looking
toward the next challenges and threats. We must continue to embrace
change across the spectrum of security requirements. If confirmed, I
plan to focus on three broad priorities: staffing and resources,
improving coordination among our investigative elements, and continuing
to improve our physical security protections for U.S. personnel serving
overseas.
In terms of staffing and resources, I want to ensure that we have
qualified people, with sufficient training, and the right resources at
our posts overseas in order to respond to each post's unique security
environment. We improved the training our foreign affairs colleagues
receive by expanding our Foreign Affairs Counter-Threat (FACT) course.
On the investigative side of DS, I will continue to ensure that our
criminal investigators, background investigators, and cyber security
personnel are working closely together, as well as with other
Department offices. Under my leadership, we have improved our
coordination both within the Department and with our interagency
partners in the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community.
Finally, we will continue to work closely with our partners in the
Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations and Regional Bureaus to provide
safe, secure, and functional embassies and consulates that represent
the United States abroad.
In conclusion, I want to assure this committee that we in DS
realize that our work in securing our posts and protecting our people
will never be done. We take great pride in our accomplishments, but we
are focused on the future. If confirmed, I pledge that through my
leadership, everyone within DS will understand that they must lead by
example, properly delegate authority, and be committed to continually
improving how we deliver security to our constituents and achieve our
global mission. Having said that, I want to be clear that I believe
that responsibility for the provision of security lies with the
Assistant Secretary of DS and if I am confirmed, I am committed to
shouldering that responsibility.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Thank you both for your
statements.
Ambassador, thank you for an in-depth statement. I know
that is partly as a response to issues that I raised, so let me
explore one or two of them with you. Over the last 2 months we
have had over a thousand people killed in Egypt. Hundreds have
been arrested for their political allegiances. The Mubarak-era
emergency law has been reinstated and just extended for another
2 months.
So I look at our efforts here and I see our canceling
Bright Star exercises, I see our suspending the delivery of F-
16s. And it has not, at least to me, indicated changing much of
the behavior of the present leadership inside of the country.
So what other leverage do we have here to get back on the track
to ensure a civilian government, moving toward an inclusive
Egypt? What are your views on conditioning or restructuring aid
to Egypt in the current environment?
Ambassador Patterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say
that certainly the incidents of the past few months, the
killing of unarmed demonstrators and the reinstitution of
emergency law, have been quite worrisome. But let me also point
to a roadmap that the government has put forward, and we will
do everything we possibly can to push them along that path of
reinstating a civilian government.
But this does provide an opportunity to look at the
assistance program in a new way. The President has instructed
us to undertake a full-scale review of our assistance programs
in Egypt and to look at ways to, at the very least, to
modernize those to reflect the new realities, particularly in
the military assistance package. That process is ongoing,
Senator, so I cannot predict what the results will be. But it
is an opportunity to look at things anew in our assistance
relationship.
Senator, I might add that it is not just assistance that
will, I think, encourage the government to resume a democratic
path. Tourism has dried up, investment has dried up. We have
not seen a great deal of disinvestment for the moment, but
engagement with the West is much more widespread than the
assistance relationship. I think there are many in the Egyptian
Government and certainly in the business community who
appreciate that they need those ties and they need that
revenue.
The Chairman. Well, I would appreciate and I hope you will
take back to the Department that it would be good to engage
with this committee as they evaluate what the new paradigm
might be for assistance. I was one of those who argued
strenuously, including on the floor of the Senate, against
cutting all aid or freezing all aid to Egypt. But I have to be
honest with you. As I see circumstances unfold, I increasingly
am concerned about whether that now at this point is the
continuing right decision. I would look forward to a dialogue
with the Department to share views about how we move in a
direction that achieves our goals inside of Egypt.
Let me turn to Iran quickly. I know that there is a lot of
bubbling expectation and hope, and I certainly share the hope,
that some of the words and limited actions that are being taken
are an expression of something deeper. But at the end of the
day, only actions as it relates to the international
community's position, not just the U.S. position but the
international community's position, will lead us to believe
that Iran is sincere about changing their course toward nuclear
weapons.
The expression that ``we will never have nuclear weapons''
is not enough. If the world could just trust everybody, like
Assad, who said he did not have chemical weapons, but now
admits that he has them--to say that ``we will never have
nuclear weapons'' is not enough.
You know, since the Iranian election Iran has added 2,000
centrifuges, including 300 second generation ones. It is
looking at a plutonium process, which is very worrisome. And
yet the administration has issued very few new sanctions.
So I would like to get a sense from you as to what more can
the administration do to send a message to the Iranians that we
appreciate the words, but we will only trust actions that go in
line with the international community?
Ambassador Patterson. Mr. Chairman, I think that is right.
We have seen some encouraging signs in the past few days, the
release of a limited number of political prisoners, some of the
statements by President Rouhani about the nuclear program. But
the fundamental issue here is that they have to comply, Iran
has to comply, with the provisions of their international
obligations, both to the IAEA and to the Security Council
resolutions.
Let me say, Senator, as I was getting ready for this
hearing I looked at the sanctions and I was surprised at how
effective they have been. This is the most effect sanctions
program that I can ever remember. The effect on their petroleum
exports, cutting off Iran from the international financial
system, the effect on inflation, the effect on the depreciation
of the rial--this is what, one might hazard a guess, is what
has brought them to this point.
So I think we need to see how the sanctions regime will
play out. There are some targets coming up. There is the
evaluation of the reduction in oil imports. So I think we need
to give it a little more time. But again, I look forward, if
confirmed in this position, to working closely with you on the
Iranian sanctions program, because again I think it has been
very successful.
One way, one demonstration of that, I believe was the
election of President Rouhani, since the Iranian people voted
for change, clearly voted for change.
The Chairman. Let me just close by saying, look, sanctions
are a means to an end. As strongly as I have been an advocate
and the author of them, if Iran were to act in accordance with
the P5+1 positions, with the international community's
positions, with the Security Council's positions, then upon
acting in that way in a verifiable way, I will be one of the
advocates of seeking to lift those sanctions, because I am sure
the Iranians wonder whether the sanctions would ever be lifted
if they actually comply. I for one would be ready to do so, but
only if, in fact, we have compliance in accordance with the
United Nations Security Council resolutions and the efforts of
the P5+1.
I have a whole host of other questions for you and Mr.
Starr, but I will turn to Senator Corker.
Senator Corker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you both again for your distinguished careers. I
think both of you are very suited for the positions you have
been nominated to and I look forward to working with you both.
In your case, Ambassador Patterson, you are moving from in
a way a field commander's position to a strategist. Some of us
have watched and feel like sometimes that our responses to what
is developing in the Middle East are ad hoc, maybe especially
so in Syria until recent times. I am just wondering if you get
a sense as to whether there is an overarching strategy in the
region or whether, in fact, our foreign policy and our
relationships in these countries is more dependent on events as
they evolve. I would just like for you to expand on that if you
could.
Ambassador Patterson. Thank you, Senator Corker. Yes, I
know this is a very difficult issue, because frankly I think
the changes in the Arab Spring or Arab Awakening, as we now
call it, came at us very, very rapidly. But I do think there is
an overarching strategy toward the region and I tried a bit to
lay that out in my longer written statement.
The first is to try and promote some kind of democratic
transition. These societies are not going to go back to where
they were. They have gotten rid of old autocrats. There is a
high degree of violence. There is a lack of institutional
structures throughout the region. So that I think is our first
priority, and it is going to be really hard, because each
country is at a different level of development.
At the same time we have these enormous security interests
in the region, in Syria and Iran and Libya, and we are going to
have to pursue those simultaneously. So those I would say would
be the two overriding elements in our strategy, but the
implementation of them is going to be extraordinarily
difficult. I might hazard to say that it is going to be
expensive at times. Look at the Syria situation. But I would
say those would be our two priorities for the region, to, one,
promote our security interests, which are going to differ from
country to country, and to promote an overall broad strategy of
democratization.
Senator Corker. You know, a recent observation in the
Middle East would be that democracy means to many of the folks
in the Middle East that democracy is an election. It is almost
a ``one and done'' mentality. The election occurs and then
there is the consolidation of power. Right now in Iraq, one of
the reasons we are having some of the security issues or they
are having some of the security issues they have there is
Maliki is focused on concentrating power and appealing to the
base. We had the same thing with Morsi in Egypt.
Is there anything you might--is there any light you might
shed to us regarding how you see that evolving over time to
real governance issues?
Ambassador Patterson. Senator Corker, that is going to be a
huge challenge, because these countries--elections obviously
are not enough, because these countries have no institutional
structures. I mean, in the most fundamental way they have weak
structures even to support an electoral process. So we are
going to have to help them develop rule of law systems, to help
them develop commercial regulation, to help them develop all
the things, participation by minorities, which I think is
probably the most critical element throughout the Middle East,
to have adequate participation by minority populations in the
overall political environment.
That involves working with political parties. It involves
working with civil society. And it is going to take a really
long time because there is no history of this. I do not want to
come before you and suggest this is going to be easy.
I think we may be aided by having the support of many of
our allies in this respect, but it is going to be a long, hard
slog.
Senator Corker. I appreciated your comment about the
sanctions on Iran, and I do think they have had a big effect
and there is no question of the people on this committee that
have had the biggest role, there is no question our chairman
has, and I want to thank him for that.
I also want to say that I think the committee's actions
relative to Syria a few weeks ago had a big effect on moving
toward the discussions that are now under way.
Now, recently, I guess I read this morning in the paper and
heard through conversations last night that maybe the Iranian
issue is now being discussed. Do you have any sense of what is
happening right now relative to negotiations and how the Syrian
issue may lead to other conversations in Iran that we might not
be aware of?
Ambassador Patterson. No, Senator, I do not have any
information about that.
Senator Corker. Let me ask you this. The Arab Spring or the
Awakening, as you just called it, as we look, and I know the
chairman mentioned something about how we look at our national
interests in Egypt--I too felt like at the time of the debate
it was not the time to just cut off all aid. I think at some
point we will figure out a way to pursue aid in a way that does
further our national interests, at the same time does send a
signal to the Egyptian military.
But can you tell, with everything that has happened--we had
a dictator that left, we had an election, now we have a
different situation--has the Arab Awakening, as you call it,
ushered in any difference in Egypt at this point? Has anything
really changed? Are we back where we started a couple of years
ago?
Ambassador Patterson. Senator Corker, I do not think we are
back where we started, because the population is energized.
This huge number of largely unemployed young men who have now
the ability to communicate through means that they did not have
even 5 years ago--the population is hugely energized and at
least in Egypt believes that taking to the streets in
demonstrations is the way to express yourself politically.
The trick for the international community will be to try to
help countries, and not just Egypt, get past that and channel
this enormous enthusiasm and, frankly, frustration of young
people, which is very multifaceted, into a legitimate political
structure. So I do not think it is going to go back by any
means, but I do think, because of a combination of factors, we
may be in for a prolonged period of instability in this region,
and not just in Egypt.
Senator Corker. I know my time is up and we have other
panelists, and I do not know if we are going to have another
round. If we do not, again I want to thank you both for your
desire to serve in this way.
Mr. Starr, I know we talked at length about Diplomatic
Security. I know that you have emphasized that the buck stops
with you, and I really like that attitude. I do hope that in
the State Department itself you will figure out a way to have a
different degree of accountability than we now have. I hope
that will be a thrust. I think the bill that we have looked at
here in the Senate may help with that. But I do thank you for
your willingness and I will look forward to working with you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Corker.
Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Ambassador Patterson and Mr. Starr, both of you,
for your willingness to continue to serve the country and take
on these important posts at a very critical time.
Ambassador Patterson, I especially appreciate the kindness
you have showed to a number of us when we visited Pakistan
during your tenure there and your great work in Egypt in a
turbulent time.
I actually want to start, Ambassador Patterson, by asking
you about the special immigrant visa program. Having served in
some of the countries that have been critical to the effort in
Iraq and Afghanistan, as I am sure you are aware, the special
immigrant visa program was established by Congress to address
those people in Iraq and Afghanistan who have been very helpful
to our efforts there, who in many cases risked their lives and
their families' lives to help ensure that the Americans who
were on the ground were safe and able to accomplish their
missions.
I am very troubled that we are here with the special
immigrant visa program for Iraqis due to expire at the end of
this month. I am hopeful that we are going to see a willingness
on the part of the House to extend this program. I know that
the Senate is very committed to this, that there is language on
the defense authorization bill that Senator McCain and I have
offered to address it.
But hopefully we can reassure those people who are in the
queue to come to the United States to safety that they will
have our assistance in doing that. I wonder if you could speak
to what might happen to some of those folks if we are not able
to extend this program and allow them to come to the United
States?
Ambassador Patterson. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. Let me
start off with my son, who is here today, Edward, was a captain
in Iraq a few years ago. He sent me an e-mail--I will never
forget this. He sent me an e-mail about one of the interpreters
with his unit, who had pulled some of the injured soldiers in
his unit to safety. So I feel a personal connection to this
issue.
The administration is asking for an extension. I know the
number has been under the cap; 2,500 people have been
processed. We are trying to speed up that process and I hope we
can do that. I will certainly promise you that I will do
everything we possibly can to speed that process up. But we are
going to ask for an extension.
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. As you
point out, it is a two-part problem. One is to make sure that
the program gets extended, that the authorization gets
extended, past September 30. But the other problem is to make
sure that at the State Department we are processing those
special visas in a way that keeps people moving through the
queue. Sadly, I think that to date the record has not been as
good as I would like to see it in terms of addressing the
people who are waiting. I appreciate that there are security
issues and that we need to address those, but it would be
tragic for us to fail to help the people who helped our men and
women on the ground and as the result they and their families
are at risk and threatened.
So thank you for your commitment.
Ambassador Patterson. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Can I also ask you if you could give us an
update on where the current Israeli-Palestinian negotiations
are? I think all of us have applauded the effort to restart
those and Secretary Kerry's tireless work in doing that. But we
are watching with great interest and some concern about whether
these talks are going to go anywhere.
Ambassador Patterson. Senator Shaheen, I have talked to
Secretary Kerry about this and he is very optimistic. I must
tell you, we all admire his leadership on this issue, that he
has really put an enormous amount of his personal prestige
behind this.
But I frankly do not have any details to offer you, because
he has said that he would like to be the one that will engage
on this issue. So I will certainly convey that to him. But I
think Martin Indyk is also--I think he may be back in town, and
perhaps we can arrange a discussion with members of the
committee.
Senator Shaheen. I think that would be very helpful. I
hope, Mr. Chairman, that you will facilitate that.
Thank you.
Ambassador Patterson. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. I am almost out of time, but I just wanted
to ask, Mr. Starr, one question for you, because with the focus
on what happened tragically in Benghazi, we know that security
at our embassies is critical and that, despite their diplomatic
role, that anybody who is assigned overseas is in a risky
position and there is the potential for danger.
At the end of the day, it is really our host countries that
we depend on to address our embassy security. Can you speak to
whether there is more that we can or should be doing in terms
of working with those host countries on ensuring that our
embassies are protected?
Mr. Starr. Thank you for that question, Senator. Yes, I
think that, despite the fact that we work so closely with the
international community and with the Department of Defense,
others in the Federal Government, on all of these issues, in
many cases it really does come down to the State Department
people on the ground and the host country. We believe that
programs like the Antiterrorism Assistance Program and other
programs where we are trying to help host countries develop the
capabilities to protect themselves and protect us at the same
time and protect our presence, are critical. We need to
continue those programs. They have been effective in the past.
We look for opportunities to expand those programs. Quite
honestly, I think that that is an important factor. Beyond just
continuing to say things like we will hold the host country
responsible, we have to help them be responsible. So yes, there
are ways that we can do this and we will continue. If I am
confirmed, I will continue to look closely at that. The
Antiterrorism Assistance Programs, Diplomatic Security is the
implementer. The Bureau of Counterterrorism is the director of
the programs. We will work closely toward that.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I appreciate that and hope you
will share what happens with this committee.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Shaheen.
Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Patterson, I have a series of questions for you on
Syria and on Egypt and others. But I am going to set those
aside, because I have got to tell you, I am shocked, I am
absolutely shocked, to sit here and have you describe the
sanctions against Iran, after you have reviewed them, as you
said, and your conclusion that they have been effective. You
described them as successful.
I am one that was a sponsor of those. I have promoted them.
I had reservations about them, but I have got to tell you, if
this is the administration's view, that these have been
effective and successful, I hope you will take the message back
to the State Department that this is not a ``mission
accomplished'' moment. I think they have been an abject
failure.
You heard the chairman describe about the new centrifuges
they have brought in, about the new technology they are using.
I mean, I do not understand this. I am taken aback by your
description of what the sanctions have done.
These sanctions were not put in place to impose some kind
of pain or something like that. They were imposed to change
conduct. They were imposed in order to make conduct different.
They have been an abject failure in that response, and I would
really hope that you and the administration, if that is their
position, would rethink this.
Ambassador Patterson. Senator Risch, I certainly did not
mean to imply that they have been successful in changing
behavior. But they have certainly been very successful at
causing pain in the Iranian economy, and hopefully they will be
successful in bringing Iran to the table to discuss these other
issues, to actually affect behavior.
I totally understand your point, that it is not just to
cause pain in the economy, but also to change behavior. But
causing pain in the economy is how sanctions work. The
reduction in oil revenue has been dramatic. Cutting them off
from the international financial system has made it almost
impossible for them to export or trade. Again, the distress in
the population, which we think had an impact on President
Rouhani's election.
So it needs time for diplomacy to work. We think there is
still time. But let me again stress, Senator Risch, the
President's position that Iraq will not--Iran, excuse me--Iran
will not acquire a nuclear weapon. But I certainly understand
your point. Let me say that I absolutely--what matters is
results and not just economic pain.
Senator Risch. Well, as we all know, in this diplomatic
business vocabulary is important. I would hope you would remove
the word ``success'' and you would remove the word
``effective'' from the vocabulary when you are talking about
this program, because they are not in any way, shape, or form
successful or effective in making these people comply with the
conduct that the world demands of them.
So I would hope you would review that and instead go back
to the point that we were going to try these things first. We
were going to try sanctions first, but that all options are on
the table, and every day that goes by it looks more and more as
if we are going to have to turn to other options, which we do
not want to do, the world does not want to do, and I guarantee
you when we are done the Iranian people are not going to want
to do.
So I would really hope that you will revisit the language
and the adjectives and the vocabulary that we are using.
Let me just finish up with something that is much more
parochial. I understand this is difficult to do in an open
setting as opposed to a classified setting. But I have a
constituent, Pastor Abedini, that you are familiar with, who
has been held now for 418 days in prison in Iran for doing
nothing but being a Christian and speaking about Christian
matters.
I understand we do not have diplomatic relationships with
the country and we all know how difficult the relationship is.
And we also understand that there are other channels that we
cannot talk about here. But I hope you will take back a message
again to the State Department on how important it is that this
man be released from prison, for doing something that the world
does not condone, and that is simply for exercising his
religious freedom.
My time is up and I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Risch.
Let me just take a moment. I appreciate what the Senator
had to say about how you view the word ``success'' or
``effective.'' I personally believe if we say that the end game
that we want, which is Iran to deter its nuclear weapons
program, have we succeeded in that? No, not yet. But I do
believe that, as I understood the Ambassador's use of the word,
which I would embrace personally, that they have been effective
in moving the Iranians to a point to understand the
consequences to everyday Iranians in their lives, and therefore
to the regime.
The regime ultimately wants to be able to stay in power.
And they may think our efforts as it relates to the nuclear
program is about regime change. It is not. It is about, as the
international community has said, not to pursue nuclear
weapons, a nuclear capacity that could ultimately turn into a
nuclear weapon, not regime change, as much as I may have issues
with the regime. That is not the focus.
But part of the consequences of sanctions, especially if
they continue to be vigorously enforced and ratcheted up, is
that the population inside of Iran will increasingly clamor
against the regime to change the consequences in their lives.
So the regime will have to think about regime change, not from
without, but from within. In that context, I think it is very
important, and I do believe they have been effective. They can
be even more effective.
I would just say to all of my colleagues, having just gone
through the exercise in this committee about the question of
the authorization for the use of military force as it related
to Syria--and each issue is different, but the absence of
continuing to pursue the sanctions regime to a point that may
be what we see in the election of Rouhani, may be what we see
in the comments that have ensued since, is as a result of the
economic pressures that they are facing and are continuously
ratcheted up. But if that is not successful, then the only
option left then will be a vote for a use of force. I hope that
colleagues who feel, as I do, that Iran at all costs cannot
have the wherewithal to achieve nuclear weapons will be in a
position at that time to support the use of force, because
otherwise either we have sanctions vigorously pursued,
hopefully with the goal that we collectively want, or there is
only one other option after that, assuming that does not yield
the diplomacy we want. That is the challenge we will face.
Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, first of all, thank you very
much for those words. Again, I come back to the fact that I
think we should take out of this description of what is
happening there, the words ``success'' and ``effective,''
because, as you pointed out, they have not even been effective
or successful in getting them to put their nuclear program on
hold. Indeed, they are expanding it, as you eloquently
described in your opening statement.
So I think by using in front of a committee like this, the
Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate, for
the administration to come here and say, well, you know, we are
pleased that they have been effective and successful, I think
back in Iran, who watches these statements very closely, they
are going to breathe a little bit of a sigh of relief and say,
well, you know, I guess they are not thinking about the other
things that are on the table.
I think people should understand there and should
understand in the international community and the
administration should understand that the other options on the
table we are getting closer and closer and closer to because of
the ineffectiveness and the lack of success with the sanctions.
So that is my view of the thing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I appreciate that, and I will not belabor it,
that we have a disagreement, that the use of the word I think
is in the context of having abiding economic consequence that
may change part of the equation. But the gentleman and I share
the same goal, and I just hope that, as he and I share the same
goal, that others who have expressed the willingness to share
that same goal also are going to be willing to be supportive of
what the President will need if diplomacy does not yield at the
end of the day.
Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to the committee.
Ambassador Patterson, first thank you for being here today.
I look forward to supporting your nomination and working with
you in my subcommittee chairmanship capacity. I have decided to
give Mr. Starr his money's worth for coming, so I am going to
direct my questions at him if you do not mind.
Mr. Starr, some things have happened since we went on
recess and I think it would just be helpful for the committee
and all who are watching this to understand some of your recent
actions. On the 4th of August the State Department ordered the
closure of 22 diplomatic missions across the Middle East and
North Africa due to potential terrorist threats. If you could,
in the unclassified way, just quickly kind of walk us through
making that decision and then how you made the decision about
when to reopen those consulates and missions, please?
Mr. Starr. Sir, trying to keep this unclassified will be
difficult. We had specific threat information that was
credible. It was not specific to where something might happen
against us. In close collaboration with all of our partners,
decisions were made that closing some of our facilities would
give us time to develop what that threat information was, to
more adequately put protective measures in place, to work with
host governments to protect us while we worked to determine and
counter that threat.
I think it is important that we have the capability to do
things like that.
I would like to put something on the record, which is that
oftentimes we say, you know, an embassy gets closed. In many
cases we may have to close our operations to the public, but
the essential work that goes on in many of our embassies
continues in many cases. We do not abandon our facilities.
There is much that still goes on while we may still be closed
to the public.
But you are correct, there was specific threat information.
We needed a broad brush to address that specific threat
information. I think it is indicative of the administration's
willingness to balance the fact that, yes, we need to stay
there and we need to be able to continue in the long run, with
sometimes we need to take short-term steps that are effective
and help us mitigate threats against us.
Senator Kaine. Mr. Starr, also within the last week there
was a significant attack on the consulate in Afghanistan's
Herat province. There were no U.S. casualties, I think because
of a very strong response, both by embassy personnel and
others. I was hoping you would just describe, again in an
unclassified way, that attack and how State Department
personnel and others worked to make sure that it was rebuffed
without any U.S. casualties?
Mr. Starr. Sir, at approximately 5:30 in the morning a
group of individuals, which we now believe were probably led by
Haqqani or sponsored by the Haqqani network, using Taliban
personnel, attacked our facility in Herat, first with a very
large truck bomb that exploded at our front gate, and then
followed up with attackers that were wearing suicide vests,
carrying automatic weapons, a large variety of mines and
antipersonnel devices, and RPGs.
That Post is one of our posts where it is not protected by
the Department of Defense. It is Diplomatic Security along with
a cadre of very experienced contractors. It is a post that
benefited from the fact that the nondefensive personnel that
are assigned there, the regular Foreign Service officers, had
gone through what we call our FACT--Foreign Affairs Counter
Threat--training beforehand. At the moment that attack
commenced, every one of them donned their protective gear. They
had been drilled to make sure that they got immediately to the
safe havens, which is exactly what they did.
The drilling on the part of the regional security officers
and the defensive personnel that we had was incredibly
effective, and in fact we neutralized the threat. I believe the
total number was eight attackers that our personnel
neutralized.
I would like to go on record saying that it was not without
casualties to our side when we look at the Africa National
Police and guard force members that were killed in that attack,
some of our own Afghan national employees that were translators
and security personnel, and some other personnel that were
wounded. It was significant, but the defense of the facility
was effective. Our personnel were not injured.
Senator Kaine. A very grim reminder of the challenges of
the job, but it sounds as if it was a job effectively done.
Finally, Mr. Starr, we have talked before, most recently in
July at a hearing, about future embassy training needs for
State Department personnel. Is it still the position of the
State Department--I know there is additional dialogue on this.
Is it still the position of the State Department that the best
option for the training of embassy personnel in the future is a
FASTC Center at Fort Pickett, VA?
Mr. Starr. It is certainly my position, sir. We very much
understand that our world has changed, and with that world it
is not just a question of training Diplomatic Security agents,
but it is the entire Foreign Service that needs to be prepared
for the places that they work.
We believe the equities of having a consolidated training
center in the nearby area to all of our other equities--the
Foreign Service Institute, the Department of Defense, the
intelligence community, the Marine Corps bases at Quantico--is
still the most effective solution.
Senator Kaine. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
I have just some final questions. First of all, Ambassador
Patterson, will you commit to me that, upon confirmation, that
you will make an effort with the Iraqis to make it very clear
to them that they are equally as responsible for the security
of those individuals at Camp Liberty and also to do all that
they can to both pursue the attackers at Camp Ashraf and to
return the hostages; the seven hostages that were taken out of
Camp Ashraf?
Ambassador Patterson. Yes, sir, I will.
The Chairman. I want to ask both of you what I ask every
witness: If confirmed, will you be responsive to questions and
inquiries from the committee?
Ambassador Patterson. Certainly, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Starr. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Then finally, Mr. Starr, how often does State
now plan to review presence at high-threat, high-risk posts
through the High Threat Board mechanism?
Mr. Starr. We did the first review earlier this spring,
sir. We have just finished a worldwide review of our threats
against all of our posts overseas. It is something we call the
Security Environment Threat List. Once we have that out--and it
will be out by the end of this month--I intend to conduct
another review in October of our high-threat, high-risk posts
in conjunction with the regional bureaus, the other sections in
the Department that are critical, with USAID, with our
intelligence partners, and with the Peace Corps and others. It
will be this October.
The Chairman. OK.
Now, the Department's six-person panel to, ``thoroughly
review the Diplomatic Security organization and management
structure'' concluded its work on May the 3rd, as I understand.
I am not aware that this report has been released publicly. Is
there an intention to release it to the Congress?
Mr. Starr. It is an unclassified report, sir. I believe it
will be released to Congress. I believe at the moment what we
are doing is going through our responses and trying to line up
what we are doing in regard to the recommendations. But yes, I
believe that ultimately this report is releasable.
The Chairman. Well, I would ask the Department to release
it upon its completion.
I understand 4 of the 35 recommendations were not accepted
by State. Is that a final determination?
Mr. Starr. More or less, sir.
The Chairman. Can you speak to why those four were not
accepted?
Mr. Starr. One was a specific reference to putting a chief
of staff position for the Director of Diplomatic Security. We
do not usually have chief of staff positions in the Department.
It is just a technical response.
The other was about whether Diplomatic Security's
Intelligence and Threat Analysis Section should be part of the
intelligence community. There are plusses and minuses in our
minds to being ``part of'' the intelligence community when in
fact what we are is users of intelligence. Over the past year,
one of the things that we have done best is to increase our
reach and depth into the intelligence community and expanded
our collaboration with the intelligence community.
We at the moment do not necessarily believe that it is the
best answer to try to become ``part of'' the intelligence
community, but to expand our contacts and make sure that we are
getting the international that we need.
The Chairman. Have you had any obstacles in getting the
intelligence that you need?
Mr. Starr. No, sir. We are linked very closely.
The Chairman. Then finally--well, two last things. The
August 29 report of the ``Independent Panel on Best Practices
for Security at High-Risk, High-Threat Posts,'' of which the
committee has not received an official copy, but has had to
rely on Al-Jazeera America's leaked copy, which says a lot,
recommends that a new position be created for an Under
Secretary of Diplomatic Security and the responsibility for
diplomatic security be shifted from the Under Secretary of
Management to this new position.
Do you have views on that recommendation?
Mr. Starr. Sir, as I am up here trying to hopefully become
confirmed, if your committee concurs, as the Assistant
Secretary, I think that is my first hurdle. Looking at that
larger question of whether or not my position should be an
Under Secretary position, I think that is a larger issue that
the Department needs to look at holistically.
I will tell you that one of the reasons I think that
recommendation was made was to ensure that the head of
security, whatever the rank, had access to the Secretary of
State and other senior officials if they needed it. I think it
will be a long process to determine whether or not we need an
Under Secretary of State for Security. It needs to be closely
looked at.
What I would like to do is assure you that I have the
access that I need so far, and should I be confirmed I
absolutely believe I will have the access that I need to have
to the Secretary when necessary, to the Deputy Secretaries, to
the Assistant Secretaries and the Under Secretaries in this
Department. I think that is the critical issue.
The Chairman. Well, I would expect you to have that access,
and in the absence of it, should you be confirmed, I would
expect you to, upon review of this committee, to let us know if
you are not.
Then finally, with reference to the Marine Security Guards,
which I applaud, but my understanding is that two such
detachments of the 35 new Marine Security Guard detachments are
in place, with another expected by the end of September. That
is 3 of 35. How long is it going to take to get the full
complement?
Mr. Starr. I hope to have another six or seven activated by
the end of this calendar year. We believe that is possible.
There are issues that we have to undertake, such as leasing the
facility for the Marines to live in and making sure it is safe
and secure and altering the embassy or consulate profile so
that they have the right place to work out of. That does take a
little bit of time.
Ultimately, we believe this will be a 3-year process to put
all 35 detachments out there. But as I say, by the end of
calendar 2013 I hope to have 6 or 7 more, for a total of 9 or
10 activated this year.
The Chairman. Is the 3-year process because of the physical
aspects that you have just described as part of the process? Or
is it resources, or what?
Mr. Starr. It is not resources, sir. Well, first we have to
have the facilities. We have to lease the facilities. We have
to alter the embassy property or the consulate property so that
we can have the post and the electronics in it. That takes a
while.
Second, the Marine Corps is upping the numbers of Marines
that they can provide for us, and this activation plan is in
accordance with how many Marines can be turned out of the
system and given to us in a timely fashion. Thirty-five
detachments is a lot of detachments. I believe it was the
nineties, sir, when we increased from about 112 to about 150
detachments. We have done this before and there are problems--
not problems. There are issues that come up that we must solve.
We think that the 3-year timeframe is a realistic timeframe.
I would also note, sir, that there are other programs, such
as increasing the number of Marines that we have at our
existing detachments at our highest threat posts, which are
also a very high priority for us. And in some cases, instead of
activating another detachment, we are taking the Marines that
could be available for that and increasing the number of
Marines that we have at an existing facility to improve the
protective capabilities that we have.
The Chairman. Well, obviously the committee wants to work
with you to ensure that we can effectively, but as quickly as
possible, achieve these goals.
Let me just finally say, we appreciate the men and women
who serve in the Diplomatic Security. Having traveled many
places in the world, we see firsthand their efforts and we
appreciate that.
Senator Corker.
Senator Corker. Yes, sir, very briefly. I appreciate your
patience in being here today and your service.
Mr. Starr, we talked a little bit about one of the
positions that you need to fill, the Deputy Assistant for high-
risk, high-threat posts. I guess we passed a piece of
legislation out of committee that will go to the floor that has
some recommendations about the qualifications for that person.
I know you had some concerns about that.
For the record, would you briefly state what those are?
Mr. Starr. Sir, I want to thank the committee for all of
the work that has been done on the embassy security bill. I
think it is an excellent opportunity. It gives us resources and
gives us guidance that helps us go in the right direction.
The Deputy Assistant Secretary position for high threats,
which reports directly to me, is a very good position. It is
something that we need and it works very closely. I think that
the committee was trying to ensure that that position met the
highest of requirements, but I think in trying to do that some
of the requirements were very prescriptive, and I have some
concerns whether or not I can meet some of the prescriptive
requirements that were put down for the Deputy Assistant
Secretary position.
In the final analysis, I believe what I need to be able to
do is pick the most qualified person that I have within my
organization to fill that position. That is just my concern,
that some of the prescriptive requirements were put down, which
with the best of intentions were to ensure that this person met
the highest level of qualifications, may be difficult for me to
fulfill.
Senator Corker. I think the committee worked very well
under the chairman's leadership to produce I think a good piece
of legislation. My sense is that to make it work is also a
goal, and I have a sense we will be able to resolve that issue.
We also talked a little bit that there have been some
concerns about you narrowing down or shortening the training
program down to 10 weeks. I know we had thought maybe that had
been done solely for monetary purposes, but you really do
believe the length of the training and what is being
implemented or what is being put forth in that training program
is exactly what you need for the folks that are moving into
Diplomatic Security posts?
Mr. Starr. Yes, sir. At the current time, the 10 weeks that
we are putting our agents through for high-threat training is
what I believe we need. I will submit to you, though, sir, that
what I have committed to is to run two iterations of that
training, two classes of it, and then do a review of the
training to determine whether or not we got exactly out of it
what we needed to do. So we will be doing a review after we run
it twice and make sure that that is exactly what we need.
Senator Corker. If you would share with us after those two
iterations your sense of what the shortcomings and plusses are,
we would appreciate it.
Just one last question. We will have a debate soon about
aid to Egypt. I do not know when it will occur, and I know that
you are trying to think through the best way to handle that. We
talked a little bit about that yesterday or the day before. A
lot of times people go down to the Senate floor and they talk
about our influence on Egypt regarding the aid, and I think on
the other hand some of us talk about our national interest
relative to aid. Would you just, for the record, talk a little
bit about the influence component with other countries
supplying other types of aid and whether that is what we should
look at or whether it is our national interest in how that aid
is flowing?
Ambassador Patterson. Senator Corker, let me talk about our
national interest, particularly vis-a-vis the relationship with
the Egyptian military. Let me say that I have been deeply
influenced by some of these issues by my experience in
Pakistan, where we cut off assistance to the Pakistani military
for 12 years, with in my view disastrous strategic
consequences, because now we have a generation of people that
have no contact with the American military and no exposure to
our values because of their training here.
So I think we have some very difficult political issues to
work through. But I think our relationship with the Egyptian
military and in turn their relationship with their counterparts
in the Israeli military on the very important issues of Camp
David implementation and on border issues and on the situation
in Gaza, is really a cornerstone of peace in the region.
So I think we have to look very closely at the role of our
assistance in preserving our national security interests in
Egypt, and particularly in protecting and working with our ally
Israel.
Senator Corker. So sometimes countries do not do things
exactly the way we wish for them to do them, but we still have
an interest in preserving the relationship; is that what you
are saying?
Ambassador Patterson. Yes, sir. Often they do not do what
we tell them to do, frankly. But we have conflicting interests
in many cases, and we have to balance our interests. In this
particular case, the Camp David Accord and its implementation
has been really the cornerstone of peace in this region for
decades. So it is very important to sustain that.
And it is very important to sustain the ties, the ties with
the officer corps, not just in Egypt, but in other countries
throughout the region.
Senator Corker. Well, my sense is after your experiences
you will help shape a policy that both helps us influence Egypt
in a positive direction, but at the same time maintains our
national interest.
I thank you both for your testimony and for your
willingness to serve and, as I have mentioned before, I look
forward to working with you both.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Corker.
I am sure what we do is we urge countries to consider a
course of action that we believe shares both our interests as
well as theirs as well. I am not sure we tell them what to do.
In any event, we appreciate your answers to the questions.
The record will remain open until the close of business
tomorrow. If there are any questions that come to you, we urge
you to answer them expeditiously so that we can consider you
for the next business meeting.
With thanks to both of you and to your family who is here,
this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:36 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record
Responses of Gregory B. Starr to Questions Submitted
by Senator Robert Menendez
Question. Establishment of a DAS for High Threat Posts: After the
Benghazi
attack, the Department made a number of internal organizational
changes, the most conspicuous of which was the creation of a Deputy
Assistant Secretary (DAS) for High Threat Posts. Please provide your
assessment of how well these changes have served to better secure U.S.
personnel and facilities abroad.
Answer. On November 29, 2013, the Department of State announced the
appointment of a Deputy Assistant Secretary for High Threat Posts. In
January 2013, the Directorate of High Threat Posts, subsequently
renamed to High Threat Programs (HTP), was created. Under the guidance
and direction of one of our most senior and experienced Diplomatic
Security (DS) Officers, DS/HTP has been providing strategic policy
direction and program support focusing specifically on those posts
deemed to be operating under especially high threat and high risk. For
example, DS/HTP was instrumental in the coordination of the recent
temporary closing of a number of posts and several that went to reduced
staffing. Conversely, DS/HTP will be intimately involved in reviewing
the specific security situations at each post and contributing directly
to the decision to reopen or increase staff, as appropriate, and
prepare those posts for the secure resumption of diplomatic activity.
Domestically, DS/HTP is the focal point for directing resources and
program support to the diplomatic missions in the countries falling
under its responsibilities. DS/HTP is also the central point of contact
for the interagency community when an emergency or crisis or other
situation arises requiring an immediate response. DS/HTP is responsible
for ensuring that our most high-threat and high-risk diplomatic
missions are better protected, better equipped, and better informed
than ever before.
Question. The Department has announced plans to hire and field 151
new Diplomatic Security Personnel by the end of the next fiscal year.
What progress has been made toward this goal? What factors will
influence whether you meet this timeline? How do you foresee deploying
these agents? What is the retention rate for Special Agents? What
challenges, if any, exist to retaining the Agents you hire and train,
and how can those challenges be addressed?
Answer. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) plans to hire and
field 151 new employees by the end of fiscal year (FY14). A total of 75
will be DS Special Agents. The remainder consists of 15 Security
Protective Specialists, 15 Security Technical Specialists, 4 Security
Engineering Officers, 9 Office Management Specialists, 14 Intelligence
Research Analysts, and 19 other Civil Servants. To date we have hired
113 individuals and the other 38 will be hired by the end of FY14. The
locations for the 75 DS Special Agents have been determined based on
input from the Regional Bureaus and the Regional Security Officers and
the DS agents have begun arriving at their respective posts.
Every year the Department sets our hiring goal based on attrition.
For FY14 it was set at 72 for DS Special Agents. Our agent population
is about 2,000, with an attrition rate of about 3.5 percent per year.
DS faces the same retention challenges that are faced by the rest of
the Foreign Service (FS). For example, the strain on employees and
their families at having to serve in overseas assignments and at
unaccompanied tours to high or critical threat posts. Some employees'
family situation changes after they join the FS and serving overseas
becomes a challenge.
Question. Ensuring that a sufficient number of Diplomatic Security
Special Agents are deployed to high-threat posts has been a key
concern. Have there been difficulties in filling these high-threat
positions? If you have met the full staffing needs of the high-threat
posts, how will that affect DS staffing in the rest of the world, if at
all?
Answer. The State Department completed a worldwide security
assessment in March and designated 27 high-threat, high-risk (HTHR)
posts. DS is taking steps to ensure HTHR posts are correctly resourced:
In FY 2013, DS hired 113 new security professionals,
including 75 special agents and 15 security protective
specialists. Many of these new employees will directly serve at
or will provide regional or Washington-based support to HTHR
posts.
An additional 38 DS personnel will be hired in FY 2014.
New Marine Security Guard detachments are in the process of
being established and staffing levels for a number of
detachments located at posts designated as HTHR are increasing.
Based on the work of the Interagency Security Assessment
Teams (ISAT), we are directing considerable physical security
resources to HTHR posts to enhance their capability to
withstand an attack.
We are providing increased training for personnel to better
prepare them for their assignments to HTHR posts.
However, we are not just focused on high-threat, high-risk posts.
We apply the lessons learned from previous attacks to all of our
facilities. Although there are unique conditions at each of our posts
which guide how we provide security each facility and its personnel,
there are a number of programmatic commonalities that apply worldwide,
regardless of threat level and local security environments including:
The construction of hardened, secure facilities;
The use of appropriate technical and physical security
technologies and countermeasures;
Development and maintenance of a well trained, well equipped
and flexible cadre of security professionals across a variety
of disciplines;
The training of the entire foreign affairs community to deal
with enhanced-risk environments;
The deployment of the equipment needed to protect our
facilities and people;
Close cooperation with interagency partners and host country
security agencies to detect, deter, and disrupt threats
directed against U.S. interest abroad.
Managing resources and ensuring that our Regional Security Officers
have the resources they need in order to carry out their mission is
vitally important. This issue will have my full attention and be of the
highest priority for both me and my senior management team.
Question. One problem identified with respect to the facility in
Benghazi was that DS does not have a floating pool of agents that can
provide a surge capacity when the need arises. To what extent has that
problem been addressed? Will any new Special Agents be used to create
such a surge capacity?
Answer. The 75 Special Agents hired under the Increased Security
Proposal (ISP) will fill gaps left in domestic offices so more
experienced agents can fill newly established overseas positions. All
newly hired agents will be provided some basic ``high-threat'' training
during their Basic Special Agent Training (BSAC). Diplomatic Security
recently added 2 weeks of high-threat training to BSAC. The newly hired
DS Special Agents will also undergo the full 10-week high-threat
training course, as time permits, during their first tour in a field
office so they can be deployed to field to assist posts in crisis.
We will continue to work with Congress as we determine how we can
meet the evolving security needs to include additional staffing
requirements.
Question. In order to ensure critical continuity and institutional
knowledge at high-threat posts, the Benghazi Accountability Review
Board (ARB) recommended that key officers--including security
officials--should be deployed to these posts for a minimum of 1 year
(with assignments of no less than 4 months for lower level officials).
What progress has the Bureau of Diplomatic Security made on this
recommendation? What challenges, if any, exist in implementing this
recommendation?
Answer. All high-threat posts now have a minimum of a 1-year tour
of duty. Diplomatic Security (DS) is planning to ensure overlap between
incumbent and incoming positions to facilitate continuity of operations
at high-threat posts. Temporary duty assignments are set at a minimum
of 120 days. With congressional support, we have been able to hire 113
additional DS personnel, of which 75 are DS agents in fiscal year 2013
and 38 additional personnel in fiscal year 2014. These additional
personnel will provide direct support to high-threat posts and well as
improving embassy security at other overseas posts around the world.
Question. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security analyzes threats to
U.S. diplomatic facilities in order to determine what security measures
need to be taken to mitigate those threats. How has DS's ability to
analyze and disseminate information about those threats to key security
management officials improved since the Benghazi attack?
Answer. The Department, including the Bureau of Diplomatic Security
(DS), is working more closely with the Intelligence Community (IC) than
ever before to identify and analyze credible threat information. DS has
established liaison positions at various IC elements to improve the
flow of threat reporting and analysis. DS has also undertaken an effort
to provide highly classified threat reporting directly to regional
security officers at high-threat, high-risk posts by improving our
computer infrastructure at all classification levels. This effort has
improved the timeliness of threat warning. Within the Department, DS
has expanded the distribution of threat reports and analysis by vastly
expanding the readership of the DS daily threat publication.
Question. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security is responsible for
defending the
Department of State's global network of information technology systems
and information assets. Please describe the Department's strategies for
defense against network intrusion and other cyber threats.
Answer. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) coordinates closely
with the Bureau of Information Resource Management (IRM) and other
offices to protect the Department's global network of information
technology systems and information assets. DS has established a
comprehensive ``defense-in-depth'' cyber security program which enables
the Department to detect, react, analyze, and respond to sophisticated
malicious cyber activity from foreign intelligence services and
computer criminals. DS provides this operational security capability
through an interdependent set of cyber security teams, tools, and
programs including network intrusion detection, compliance
verification, vulnerability assessment, incident handling, threat
analysis and the Regional Computer Security Officer program. This fully
integrated program capability enables rapid coordination and action on
a number of issues involving global cyber threats and network security
vulnerabilities.
In functional terms, the DS programs address the following cyber
threat issues:
The Network Monitoring Center maintains a 24/7 watch on the
Department's global network traffic, which checks for anomalous
and/or suspicious activity and reports on events.
The Computer Incident Response Team (CIRT) reviews events
and keeps operational managers, law enforcement and US-CERT
informed about incidents and coordinates incident response
actions with all stakeholders.
The Cyber Threat Analysis team delivers daily and topical
all-source reports on pressing threat issues and works closely
with law enforcement and counterintelligence agencies to
develop a comprehensive threat picture and remediation
measures. This unit also performs proactive penetration testing
and network forensic analysis to detect and resolve major
threat issues.
Regional Computer Security Officers (RCSOs) are the
Department's ``boots on the ground'' performing cyber security
assessments at overseas sites and reporting findings to DS.
DS also works closely with the Department's virus detection
and other security programs to stay abreast of any problems
affecting the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of
the Department's networks.
In addition, DS uses its expert cyber security teams to address and
improve the Department's cyber security posture abroad through these
initiatives:
Providing customized cyber security support to the Secretary
and other senior officials during major diplomatic events.
Detailing DS personnel on a full-time basis to other federal
cyber security operations centers to ensure the timely sharing
and analysis of threats, cyber intelligence and technical
developments. This includes DS personnel assigned to:
National Security Agency/Central Security Service Threat
Operations Center (NTOC);
Department of Homeland Security's U.S.'-Computer Emergency
Readiness Team (US-CERT);
DS Special Agent assigned to the Federal Bureau of
Investigations
National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force (NCIJTF).
DS can provide a briefing in an appropriate setting that will
provide a fuller understanding of the threats affecting the Department
and our cyber security program's ability to mitigate risk.
Question. The Department of State has faced well-publicized
challenges in monitoring and overseeing contracts of all types in high-
risk areas such as Afghanistan and Iraq in recent years. Please
describe your view of DS's performance in this area. Specifically,
please outline what measures have been put in place from an
organizational standpoint (recruitment, training, retention, etc.) to
improve the State Department's performance in this area.
Answer. The Department, including the Bureau of Diplomatic Security
(DS), strives to ensure adequate government oversight of contracts and
will continue to seek to improve that oversight going forward.
Maintaining the appropriate security posture at our missions is a
continually evolving effort. The use of contractors has been important
to permitting the Department to quickly deploy personnel with multiple
skills to operate in nonpermissive environments. Civilian agencies do
not always possess the necessary personnel for such deployments, and
contracting allows agencies to quickly deploy personnel with the
necessary skills where needed. Security programs operating in
contingency environments, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, require
layered, multifaceted approaches that incorporate redundancies in
capabilities, resources, and services.
As part of its effort to improve oversight of security contractors,
the Department institutionalized many additional control measures as
part of the Worldwide Protective Services (WPS) contract awarded in
September 2010. This contract incorporates important lessons learned to
ensure that Private Security Contractors (PSCs) retained by the
Department perform their activities in a professional, responsible,
culturally sensitive, and cost-effective manner. Diplomatic Security's
management and oversight of PSCs includes:
DS Special Agents at each post manage and oversee the Static
Guard and Personal Protective Security programs;
DS Special Agents at each post serve as Contracting
Officer's Representatives (CORs) and Assistant CORs (ACOR) for
the direct management and oversight of the WPS contract;
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 SPS) provide direct operational oversight of
all protective motorcades;
Revised mission firearms policies further strengthen post's
rules on the use of force, and new less-than-lethal equipment
has been distributed to the field as a means to minimize the
need to employ deadly force;
All incidents involving a weapons discharge or other
incidents are required to be reported by PSCs and thoroughly
investigated by the Regional Security Officer;
The Office of Acquisitions Management has a dedicated,
qualified team of contracting officers and contract specialists
assigned to administer PSC contracts. They 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;
Revised standards of conduct, including a ban on alcohol;
Interpreters included in 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;
A larger number of qualified base-contract holders,
thereby increasing competition 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.
Despite all of these changes, certain contracting challenges
remain. The Department is currently seeking the permanent authority to
use Best Value contracting for local guard contracts. The Department
would use this authority at a limited number of posts, which face
challenges in delivering adequate security using the lowest price,
technically acceptable model. While the Department does not anticipate
using this authority broadly, we do seek to use this authority in those
countries where traditional contracting models have proven inadequate.
Question. As I understand it, New Embassy Construction is
prioritized on the basis of security. If confirmed, what are the
criteria by which you think it is important to assess a facility's
overall security? How will you prioritize projects?
Answer. The prioritization process to build new embassy and
consulate compounds that has been in place has proven to be effective,
but we can and will do better. Since 1999, the Bureau of Overseas
Building Operations (OBO) has completed over 100 projects to construct
new facilities, providing a safe and secure work environment for over
29,000 U.S. Government employees. Still, approximately 158 facilities
do not fully meet current security standards. If confirmed, I will
continue to work closely with OBO to ensure that the U.S. Government
has safe, secure, and functional facilities to support the
implementation of U.S. foreign policy.
In keeping with U.S. national security considerations, our foreign
policy goals, and the provisions of the Secure Embassy Construction and
Counterterrorism Act (SECCA) and the Overseas Security Policy Board's
(OSPB) standards and policies, the Department prioritizes new
diplomatic construction based on a risk analysis process that ranks
overseas facilities on a variety of security threats, including
vulnerability. This analysis informs OBO's Capital Security
Construction Program schedule, which prioritizes the top 80 posts
ranked most vulnerable, taking into consideration location and site
availability, and schedules construction based on anticipated contract
award dates. With the creation of the high-threat, high-risk post list,
the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) has requested that, when
feasible, OBO prioritize projects from the Department's high-threat,
high-risk list.
Question. The Benghazi Accountability Review Board, in
recommendation number 17, recommended expanded counter threat training.
Right now, the Department is at capacity with respect to its ability to
provide security training and diplomatic security training is conducted
at up to 19 different, geographically separated, leased, and contracted
facilities nationwide. If confirmed as Assistant Secretary would you
feel comfortable in your ability to prepare DS agents and Foreign
Service officers for positions in high-threat high-risk posts without a
consolidated security training center?
Answer. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) currently trains at
19 leased or use-fee facilities. Utilizing all of these facilities, DS
currently does not have the capacity to train everyone going to high-
threat posts in the Foreign Affairs Counter Threat course. Without a
dedicated, consolidated hard-skills training center, the Department is
not able to offer systematic, efficient hard-skills security training.
Without this training, I do not believe personnel are sufficiently
prepared to counter the violent actions they face abroad.
Working since 2009, the Department of State (DOS) developed plans
for construction of the Foreign Affairs Security Training Center
(FASTC). The attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities last September--in
Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and Sudan--emphasize the need for a
dedicated hard-skills security training center to ensure the foreign
affairs community and other agency personnel serving in overseas are
well-prepared. The evolving overseas mission mandates a stronger
emphasis on the Department of State and the Department of Defense
coordination and collaboration. Strengthening this partnership in areas
of training, planning, contingency support, transportation, logistics,
emergency response, and evacuations is among the Department's highest
priorities.
The purpose of the consolidated hard-skills training center is to
efficiently conduct security, law-enforcement, and antiterrorism
training within the Department of State for the protection of diplomats
and U.S. embassies abroad. FASTC will primarily train U.S. Government
employees, most of whom work for the Department of State. They will
include Foreign Service officers assigned to high-threat posts abroad,
DS special agents, and other DS personnel, such as security engineers
and technicians. A limited number of police and security professionals
from countries that are partner nations in fighting terror will also
receive training. FASTC will also be the site for training of personnel
from other government agencies assigned to specifically designated
high-threat posts to prepare them for those environments.
If confirmed, I am committed to constructing FASTC to maintain and
strengthen synergies with our State Department and interagency partners
training facilities within a ``half-day'' driving range from these
facilities.
Question. What is your understanding of the role and how the
Interagency
addresses security needs at facilities where a facility is shared--or
is used principally by a U.S. Government agency other than the
Department of State? What role do you see for the Assistant Secretary
of State for Diplomatic Security in helping to lead the interagency
process and forge a coherent interagency approach to these issues?
Answer. The Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of
1999 (SECCA) requires that all newly constructed/occupied overseas U.S.
diplomatic facilities possess a 100-foot setback from their perimeter,
and that all U.S. Government operations be collocated on one chancery
or consulate compound. Any deviation from these SECCA provisions
requires a waiver from either the Secretary (all newly constructed
chancery and consulate buildings that do not meet SECCA requirements)
or the Assistant Secretary of Diplomatic Security (all other requests).
In addition to SECCA's requirements for colocation and setback,
security standards are established by the Overseas Security Policy
Board (OSPB), an intergovernmental board comprised of representatives
from all agencies that operate in an overseas environment under Chief
of Mission authority. The Board is chaired by the Department of State's
Bureau of Diplomatic Security. It is through these authorities that the
Assistant Secretary for DS leads the interagency process on facility
security. This process however, involves an interagency approach.
The Department works very closely with the Intelligence Community,
Department of Defense, and the National Security Staff. The Assistant
Secretary of Diplomatic Security coordinates holistically on security
matters and threats facing our embassies. Regular interaction with our
interagency partners and Department of State officials, at both the
senior and working levels, allows the Department to share information
and coordinate on security. Similarly, at every post, the Emergency
Action Committee, a group of subject matter experts appointed by the
Chief of Mission, meet regularly to discuss threats, emergencies, and
manage crises.
For High Threat/High Risk (HTHR) posts, the Department has created
a High Threat Review Board to conduct an internal review of the HTHR
post list every 6 months. The High Threat Post Review Board will review
the U.S. official presence annually, and on an ad hoc basis if required
(e.g., if the security environment deteriorates at a post). Critical
elements for discussion in the designation process include: the
regional bureau's assessment of the political/economic situation, the
ability and willingness of the host nation to protect U.S. interests,
known and perceived threats against the United States, and the
vulnerabilities of U.S. personnel, facilities, residences, and outlying
structures.
Question. Recommendation number 23 of the ARB noted that ``the
Board is of the view that findings of unsatisfactory leadership
performance by senior officials in relation to the security incident
under review should be a potential basis for discipline recommendations
by future Accountability Review Boards, and would recommend a revision
of Department regulations or amendment to the relevant statute to this
end.'' We included a provision in the Embassy Security and Personnel
Protection Act that aims to satisfy this recommendation.
In your estimation, does the Secretary currently have the
authority to fire individuals identified to have exhibited
``unsatisfactory leadership in relation to a security
incident''? Are there additional authorities necessary? How do
you view the role of Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic
Security in assuring that there is senior-level management
accountability and oversight--and responsibility--for security
incidents?
Answer. Section 202 of Senate Bill 1386 would provide that
unsatisfactory leadership by a senior official with respect to a
security incident involving loss of life, serious injury, or
significant destruction of property at or related to a U.S. Government
mission abroad may be grounds for disciplinary action, and authorizes
future ARBs to recommend disciplinary action on this basis. The
Department also is amending its internal regulations to provide for
disciplinary action based on unsatisfactory leadership by a senior
official in relation to such incidents. These provisions will enable
the Department to take disciplinary action, up to and including
separation, with respect to future incidents of unsatisfactory
leadership in relation to a security incident, even in the absence of
some other misconduct. It should be noted that career Foreign Service
employees receive an automatic hearing on separation before the Foreign
Service Grievance Board.
With regards to the ensuring senior leader accountability and
responsibility for security incidents, the Assistant Secretary of
Diplomatic Security (DS) has a shared responsibility with other senior
Department officials to support Chiefs of Mission in protecting U.S.
personnel and facilities, exercising judgment to balance U.S. interests
and policy priorities, evolving security threats, and mitigation of
security risks. Ultimately, the provision of security for the
Department lies with the Assistant Secretary of DS. However, that also
means instilling a culture of responsibility and accountability within
the DS leadership at all levels and better communication within the
State Department, including the Regional Bureaus, and also with the
interagency, as was implemented following the independent Benghazi
Accountability Review Board.
______
Responses of Caroline Kennedy to Questions Submitted
by Senator Bob Corker
Question. Our alliance relationship with Japan is one of the
strongest and, indeed, the most critical security relationship in the
Asia-Pacific. It also is complex and nuanced in ways that are not
obvious to the casual observer.
How do you propose to navigate the hidden complexities of
the bilateral relationship, particularly in light of your lack
of foreign policy experience in the region?
Answer. As the United States rebalances toward Asia, our alliance
with Japan remains a cornerstone of peace, stability, and prosperity in
the region, as it has been for more than 50 years. If confirmed, I look
forward to working to advance the interests of the United States,
protect the safety of our citizens and strengthen the bilateral
relationship for the benefit of both our countries. I will coordinate
closely with the Department of State and the interagency to continue
our strong partnership with Japan. I will also work closely with the
leadership in the U.S. military to further strengthen our bilateral
security relationship. I especially look forward to benefiting from the
support of the talented Foreign Service professionals and locally
engaged staff at our mission in Japan. I will also consult closely with
Members of Congress on important issues concerning the relationship
between the United States and Japan.
I believe that a key to understanding and operating within a
foreign context is to maintain an openness to people and to ideas
within that culture while advancing the interests of the United States
and the American people. Through meaningful interaction with Japanese
officials, civil society, and average citizens, I hope to build a
stronger bilateral relationship and partnership between our two
countries. If confirmed, I will seek advice and guidance from many
quarters to serve my country.
Question. What areas do you see as having the most potential for
improvement in our relationship with Japan, and how do you plan on
approaching them?
Answer. Japan is an indispensable regional partner in promoting
democracy and economic development and in global humanitarian and
peacekeeping efforts. These are areas I care deeply about, and if
confirmed, I will work to further strengthen this critical partnership
at a vital moment in its history.
In addition, I will work to increase exchanges between American and
Japanese students, scholars, and citizens, so that future generations
will understand our shared history and continue to bind our nations
closer. The United States-Japan relationship remains so strong because
it stands on the shoulders of our people-to-people ties, and the
continued strength and vitality of the United States-Japan relationship
will support our efforts to deepen the connections between the people
of Japan and the United States. Throughout my career I have worked to
expand educational opportunity and empowerment, and I look forward to
dedicating myself to expanding exchanges and educational ties between
our two countries.
Question. During my visit to Tokyo earlier this year, Prime
Minister Abe expressed concern over the effect of sequestration on U.S.
security commitments to Japan and about the overall staying power of
the United States in the Asia-Pacific.
In your capacity as Ambassador, how do you intend to
reassure the Japanese public that Washington will continue to
fulfill its security commitments to Tokyo? Are you concerned
that the administration's focus on the Middle East will
contribute to Japanese skepticism of the U.S. ``rebalance'' to
the Asia-Pacific? Why or why not?
Answer. The stabilizing presence of U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific
region has never been more important than it is today. If confirmed, I
will work with the Departments of State and Defense to reassure the
Japanese people that the United States stands fast in our obligations
under the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security. One way to do this
is to continue the close cooperation between the United States and
Japan to address common security challenges, both in the region and
globally; Japan's contributions to our security alliance, including
bases in Japan, are an important component of our shared efforts to
promote peace and stability throughout the world.
Japan is an indispensable partner of the United States at
international fora such as the United Nations, and in responding to
global issues such as the Syria crisis and advancing Middle East peace
efforts. I do not believe the ``rebalance'' is an either/or decision
between Asia and the Middle East. The Obama administration's rebalanced
approach shows its commitment to work with Japan on the global stage,
including in the Middle East.
Question. If confirmed, how will you approach the sensitivities
regarding territorial issues in the East China Sea? How should the
United States respond to Chinese admonitions that Washington refrain
from taking a position on the peaceful resolution of maritime disputes
in the East China Sea?
Answer. U.S. policy on the Senkaku Islands has not changed. The
United States does not take a position on the ultimate sovereignty of
the Senkaku Islands. The Senkaku Islands have been under the
administration of the Government of Japan since they were returned as
part of the reversion of Okinawa in 1972. As such, they fall within the
scope of Article 5 of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security.
The United States calls on all parties to avoid actions that raise
tensions and to prevent miscalculations that could undermine peace,
security, and economic growth in the region. The United States opposes
any unilateral or coercive actions that would seek to undermine
Japanese administration. The United States is fully committed to our
alliance with and security obligations toward Japan. If confirmed, I
will publicly and privately continue to assure the Japanese of our
long-standing position.
The administration has engaged in sustained, intensive, and high-
level diplomacy with China and Japan on easing tensions in Northeast
Asia for many months now. The United States has clearly stated our
position to all parties both privately and publicly, most recently by
Secretary Kerry while in Japan. The State Department and other agencies
repeatedly encourage all parties to adopt a peaceful approach and
pursue dialogue with each other to resolve this issue. If confirmed, I
intend to continue emphasizing this message. Both Japan and China
understand that Northeast Asia is an engine of global economic growth,
and miscalculations have the potential to undermine peace, security,
and economic growth.
Question. Japan's economic revitalization plan or ``Abenomics''
includes monetary, fiscal and structural reforms. If confirmed, what
role do you expect to play in resolving issues that may arise in the
economic relationship between the United States and Japan, including in
the context of the parallel bilateral negotiations to TPP?
Answer. Prime Minister Abe has specifically referred to TPP as a
key element in his overall ``Abenomics'' growth strategy, including
implementing domestic reforms. TPP is an important economic opportunity
for the United States to spur regional growth and expand our exports to
Japan as well as throughout the region--this comprehensive and high-
standard agreement will benefit the U.S. economy and advance the United
States-Japan trade relationship.
The ongoing parallel bilateral negotiations are addressing specific
bilateral issues of concern, including those faced by the automotive
and insurance industries and their workers. If confirmed, I and the
team at the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo will work closely with the U.S. Trade
Representative, the State Department, other U.S. Government agencies
and the Government of Japan to achieve the strongest outcome from these
negotiations. In this and other instances, I intend to play a strong
personal role in working with American companies to make sure that the
Japanese market is open to them.
Question. In advance of President Obama's visit to Japan in
November 2009, there was speculation that he might visit either
Hiroshima or Nagasaki, particularly on the heels of his August 2009
remarks in Prague calling for a world without nuclear weapons. Indeed,
President Obama has expressed the desire to visit Hiroshima and
Nagasaki.
Having noted in your testimony that you visited Hiroshima
in 1978, would you recommend that President Obama be the first
sitting U.S. President to visit Hiroshima and/or Nagasaki? What
impact would such a visit potentially have on the credibility
of U.S. extended deterrence commitments to Japan?
Answer. As I noted to the committee during my hearing, I was deeply
affected by my 1978 visit to the Hiroshima with my uncle, Senator
Kennedy. The Hiroshima Peace Park provides an important message to all
nations to avoid the horrors of nuclear war. If confirmed, I would be
honored to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki as United States Ambassador to
Japan.
Although I do not want to speculate on what specific recommendation
I might make to President Obama should he visit Japan in the future, I
would consider ways that a Presidential visit could highlight mutual
United States-Japan interests in arms control, nuclear disarmament, and
nonproliferation. The Japanese people warmly welcomed the President's
Prague speech and his call for a nuclear-free world. Nuclear
disarmament and nonproliferation are two areas in which Japan and the
United States can accomplish much by working together and at the United
Nations General Assembly First Committee. Over the past few years, for
example, the United States has cosponsored Japan's nuclear disarmament
resolution. The United States and Japan also work together in the
context of their security alliance, whereby the United States has
consistently reassured Japan of U.S. extended deterrence commitments in
robust dialogues on this topic.
The United States-Japan commitment to nuclear disarmament in no way
diminishes the strength or capacity of the U.S. extended deterrence
commitments to Japan, which are a cornerstone of our security
relationship.
______
Responses of Gregory B. Starr to Questions Submitted
by Senator Bob Corker
Question. You mentioned during your testimony that the Bureau of
Diplomatic Security has procedures for closing embassies that are
either attacked or under threat of potential attack.
What governs such closure decisionmaking and procedures?
Please inform the committee about what the State Department
does to ensure mission or facility continuity of operations in
the wake of a closure.
Answer. When the widespread closure of about 20 U.S. embassies and
consulates occurred in August, we had specific threat information that
was credible and noncounterable. In the event we receive such threat
information, we weigh these threats against the host government
capabilities and willingness, and the state of our facilities and
security presence. The decision was made with input from the post on
the situation on the ground; the Bureau of Diplomatic Security on
security generally, as well as threat analysis; the Bureau of Overseas
Buildings Operations on facilities; as well as input from Consular
Affairs, the applicable Regional Bureau, Intelligence and Research;
Counterterrorism, and other Bureaus, and the Under Secretaries, the
Deputy Secretary, and the Secretary of State. We also seek information
from the interagency.
In the event that an embassy closes, operations such as routine
visa issuance are closed to the public but the essential work that goes
on in our embassies continues in many cases. American Citizen Services
are still provided, as are emergency visas for medical purposes or
death of a family member, etc. The facility is not abandoned. We rarely
totally suspend operations, but will do so in a situation where we can
no longer operate safely, such as when we ceased operations in
Damascus, Syria. We then would make arrangements for one of our allies
to serve as the U.S. protecting power so that U.S. interests are
protected.
Above all, the safety and security of mission employees is
paramount in the conduct of foreign affairs. Certain situations require
a mission to reduce the number of employees at the post, including
authorized and ordered departures.
Authorized Departure allows for Voluntary Departure of all family
members and selected employees, while Ordered Departure requires
Mandatory Departure of all family members and designated employees.
An embassy can close to the public, without having an authorized or
ordered departure. However, if an authorized or ordered departure is
necessary, the post must plan to keep a sufficient amount of staff
available at post to maintain certain operating functions until a
decision is made to lift the departure or suspend operations
completely. In preparing for a drawdown of mission personnel, the post
must ensure the following programs have sufficient resources:
(1) Security and logistics for the remaining mission;
(2) Communications with the Department;
(3) U.S. citizen and other consular services;
(4) Communication of U.S. foreign policy; and
(5) Public affairs.
Prior to an emergency and in accordance with the Department's
Emergency Planning Handbook, post determines the number of employees
for each of the following three categories:
(1) Current staffing;
(2) Emergency staffing (to remain under authorized
departure); and
(3) Minimal staffing (to remain under ordered departure).
The Department would be glad to provide more detail on post
closures and drawdowns in a briefing.
Question. You mentioned during your testimony that you had either
sought or would be seeking additional detachments of U.S. Marine Corps
(USMC) guards to supplement Diplomatic Security resources and personnel
at volatile posts.
How many USMC guards you have been seeking?
If you have already made a specific request for additional
detachments, what has been their response?
Answer.Answer: The Department requested funding to support an
additional 35 Marine Security Guard (MSG) Detachments in the FY 2013
Increased Security Proposal. The Department is responsible for
providing the housing for the MSGs, constructing ``post ones,'' the
command post for the MSG and equipping ``post ones.'' With the support
of the Marine Corps, we will have three new MSG detachments activated
by September 30, 2013, and are working with the Marines to have the
remaining detachments activated by the end of FY 2014. In addition, the
U.S.
Marine Corps has been sending extra guards to augment the existing
detachments at some high-threat posts. The U.S. Marine Corps is working
to identify and train more Marines for this program and our efforts
have been closely coordinated.
Question. You mentioned during your testimony that Diplomatic
Security provides a 10-week program for relevant training.
Is Diplomatic Security providing, or planning to provide,
any additional training for agents who are tasked with high-
risk, high-threat posts, or does the baseline training program
already offer this specific training?
Answer. Based on the Benghazi Accountability Review Board (ARB), a
panel of Senior and Supervisory Diplomatic Security (DS) Special Agents
was established to revise high-threat training and raise the standards
for the High-Threat Tactical Course (HTTC). From January to March 2013,
the panel worked in conjunction with the Diplomatic Security Training
Center to develop over 170 enhanced operational requirements and
associated proficiency levels needed for high-threat environments.
Training plans based on these operational requirements were created and
approved for DS Special Agents at the basic-, mid-, and executive-
level.
A new High-Threat Training Strategy was approved on May 15, 2013.
The training strategy envisions a career-long cycle of high-threat
operations-related instruction and ensures that all DS Special Agents
receive an increased level of training to support Department objectives
in high-threat, high-risk areas.
The training strategy calls for three new, intensive high-threat
training courses for basic-, mid-, and senior-level agents permanently
assigned, or going TDY to any of the designated high-threat, high-risk
posts. The foundation of these three courses is the new 10-week High
Threat Operations Course (HTOC), which will replace the former 5-week
High Threat Tactical Course (HTTC). Additionally, a new 4-week High
Threat Operations Mid-Level/In-Service Course (HTOC-IS), and new 4-week
High Threat Operations Executive-Level Course (HTOC-EX) have been
developed.
Further, fundamental high-threat precepts and orientations are now
included in existing basic and in-service training courses: Basic
Special Agent Course (BSAC), Basic Regional Security Officer (BRSO),
Regional Security Officer In-Service (RSO-IS), Special Agent In-Service
(SA-IS), and the Basic Field Firearms Officer Course (BFFOC). The
integration of high-threat material across multiple levels of DS
training acknowledges that threats are not limited to high-threat,
high-risk areas and better prepares DS Special Agents to function
effectively if called upon to provide emergency support. Furthermore,
it provides an introduction to material that will support DS personnel
who may later attend the new operations-specific courses. Overall, the
strategy is a long-term plan that will replace previous High-Threat
Tactical Courses by approximately 2018.
Does Diplomatic Security conduct periodic assessments of
the effectiveness of its current 10-week program?
Answer. DS plans to conduct periodic reviews of the new high-threat
training. Not only will the 10-week High Threat Operations Course, 4-
week High Threat Operations Mid-Level/In-Service Course, and the High
Threat Operations Executive-Level Course have student and instructor
feedback assessments as part of each individual iteration, but the
Diplomatic Security Training Directorate in conjunction with the newly
established Directorate for High Threat Programs will be conducting an
overall review of course effectiveness in April 2014 (following the
first two iterations) and again in October 2014 (after 1 full year of
delivered coursework). The goal of these reviews will be to answer
whether or not DS is meeting its established goal of achieving
operational proficiency in 170 enhanced operational requirements.
Following these evaluations, recommendations will be delivered to the
Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security for any necessary additions
or deletions from the curriculum.
What was the cost of Diplomatic Security for fiscal years
2004-2013?
Answer. The total cost of the relevant high-threat agent training
during fiscal years 2004-2013 was $37.8 million dollars.
Question. Please describe, in your own words, what you think it
means for a government official to be held accountable for poor
decisionmaking.
Answer. Accountability means taking responsible measures before
things happen. Accountability includes being the advocate for security
within the Department and as part of the interagency process overseas.
Accountability means working with the Regional Bureaus, overseas posts,
and the interagency to ensure that a pragmatic balance is struck
between security and the need to carry out the diplomatic mission of
protecting America's National Security. Accountability also means that
if, despite our best efforts, there is a security failure, that the
Assistant Secretary of Diplomatic Security takes responsibility and
that we all work to learn lessons that can help us prevent similar
failures in the future. While risk can never be completely eliminated
from our diplomatic duties, regardless of the threat level, we must
always work to mitigate it.
Question. Do you think the standard for accountability should be
one of gross negligence or a lesser standard? Should be different in a
situation where there has been loss of life?
Answer. First and foremost, it should be clear that the Department
believes that no one should be excused for gross negligence. Leaders at
all levels of the organization should take both responsibility for the
duties of their position, and they should be held accountable for the
decisions they make. It is also clear that we can never truly eliminate
all risks faced by U.S. Government personnel as they advance our
national interests abroad. We can only seek to mitigate those risks to
the extent possible. Despite our best efforts, we may still suffer
losses of our diplomats overseas. Our recent decision to temporarily
suspend operations at about 20 of our embassies and consulates
demonstrates the steps we are willing to take to ensure the safety of
our personnel abroad.
Question. During the recent attacks on the U.S. facilities in
Herat, Afghanistan, please describe the safeguards, including host
nation protection, that were in place that prevented the attack from
successfully taking U.S. casualties.
Answer. The security elements of the U.S. consulate in Herat are
supervised by the Regional Security Officer and are comprised of
Diplomatic Security Special Agents, Security Protective Specialists,
Security Engineers, and a private security contract force of Americans,
third country nationals, and locally employed Afghan nationals. Outer
perimeter security is augmented by a small contingent of Afghan
National Police who were present at the time of the attack.
Safeguards protecting the consulate included an increased setback
from the main highway which provides additional protection for the main
access control point from a potential improvised explosive device
blast. A setback waiver was originally processed for Herat in March
2011. The consulate building has ample setback on the south side of the
property, the side that was attacked. Setbacks on the remaining sides
of the property were less than the 100-foot requirement, and therefore
granted a waiver. Through the field expedient mitigation efforts,
setback was effectively increased on these three sides.
The Regional Security Officer regularly conducts drills with the
entire consulate community, and recently conducted a joint evacuation
drill with U.S. military and Afghan participation. Physical security
safeguards at the consulate include: first floor Forced Entry Ballistic
Resistant (FE/BR) windows and doors; surface mounted antivehicle
planters along the outer perimeter; and steel plates on outer walls to
form anticlimb surfaces. In addition, there are antiram drop arm
barriers at the outer perimeter, which prevented the vehicle borne
improvised explosive device (VBIED) from reaching the Compound Access
Control facility and barriers on September 13.
Question. What, if any, were the security waivers that were granted
for the U.S. facilities in Herat?
Answer. On March 30, 2011, a waiver for the Secure Embassy
Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (SECCA-Public Law 106-
113) statutory requirement for setback of U.S. Consulate Herat was
granted.
Question. Was there any U.S. military response to the attacks? If
so, approximately how long after the attack started did the U.S.
military response arrive?
Answer. On September 13, 2013, at approximately 0532 local hours,
insurgents conducted a complex attack against the U.S. consulate in
Herat. For approximately the next 35 minutes, Diplomatic Security (DS)
Agents, Security Protective Specialists, and security contractors
engaged and neutralized the threat. At 0655, the first U.S. military
units arrived at the consulate to augment the consulate guard force,
establish a cordon around the facility, and conduct a search of the
consulate grounds.
Question. Approximately how long after the attack started did the
Afghanistan National Police (ANP) and Security Forces (ANSF) arrive on
the scene?
Answer. Afghanistan National Security Forces personnel arrived at
the scene at 0558, approximately 26 minutes after the attack was
initiated.
Question. When the ANP and ANSF arrived, were the attackers still
engaged in their attack?
Answer. Responding Afghanistan National Security Forces reported
receiving fire from insurgent positions located across the road from
the consulate when they first arrived on scene.
Question. Were any of the Afghan casualties a result of friendly
fire and if so, how many?
Answer. No, there were no friendly fire casualties.
______
Responses of Anne Patterson to Questions Submitted
by Senator Bob Corker
Question. A recently released Zogby International poll found that
65 percent of Egyptians believe that the United States was too
supportive of President Morsi, and 82 percent of Egyptians believe that
U.S. policy toward Egypt under President Morsi was harmful to Egypt.
Another 62 percent believe that the United States has little or no
understanding of Egypt and the Egyptian people.
What went wrong with our policies toward Egypt to create
such strong negative views? How can we correct these policy
failures?
Answer. Polling data stretching back many decades have consistently
reflected Egyptian mistrust of U.S. policy and intentions in Egypt and
in the region. Egyptians express similar sentiments about most other
Western countries. In recent years, polls have also reflected deep
dissatisfaction with Egypt's successive leaders, including the Mubarak,
Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) and Morsy governments. Our
widely reported role in convincing President Mubarak to leave office
has fueled speculation that the United States has been a force behind
every subsequent government. In fact, we have been attacked by all
sides in Egypt, alternatively being accused of supporting the Muslim
Brotherhood or organizing its removal from power on July 3.
Our policy in Egypt has been premised on the need to protect core
U.S. interests in the region, including its implementation of the Peace
Treaty with Israel, countering terrorism, promoting a more inclusive,
democratic Egypt that reflects the will of the people, and encouraging
fundamental economic reform. We will continue to support Egypt's
democratic transition, offering our partnership on the Egyptian
people's priorities.
Where possible, we will continue and expand outreach programs and
exchanges, including programs to help prepare young Egyptians for the
jobs and the economy of the future. We will also support Egyptian
Government efforts to undertake needed economic reforms and fight
corruption. I believe that views of the United States will begin to
realign as Egyptians begin to experience the benefits of democracy,
development, and open markets. If confirmed, I will work with our
Ambassador and Embassy in Cairo to underscore our support for, and
shared goals with, the Egyptian people.
Question. The media--especially Western media--has focused on the
situation in Egypt as a fight between the military and the Muslim
Brotherhood disregarding--or at least not analyzing deeply--the
opinions of the millions of people that turned out, nationwide, in the
streets to protest the undemocratic actions of the Muslim Brotherhood.
How does the United States take into account the views of
the Egyptian citizens? Where do the opinions of the Egyptian
public fit into U.S. policymaking?
Answer. Following the July 3 events in Egypt, President Obama
clearly articulated the United States support for a set of core
principles--opposing violence, protecting universal human rights, and
meeting the legitimate aspirations of the Egyptian people. We also
acknowledged the role of public opinion leading up to the events of
July 3.
As Ambassador, I regularly met with a wide range of Egyptian
society, including political groups and parties, business leaders and
civil society organizations to better understand their desires,
motivations, and aspirations for their country. We heard substantial
criticism of the Morsy government as well as the growing sense of
personal and economic insecurity that Egyptians have faced in recent
years. Secretary Kerry devoted substantial effort during his first
visit to Cairo last March to talking with Egyptian civil society,
business and government leaders about these problems.
If confirmed, I will continue to work with our Ambassador to Egypt
to ensure that we solicit a broad range of views from the Egyptian
public on the direction of Egypt's transition to democracy, using these
views to identify our priorities for assistance and engagement.
Question. Libya is at its most violent and precarious state since
the conflict that toppled Gaddafi. Foreign investors are now growing
wary as security costs stifle business growth.
What specifically can the U.S. Government do to help make
Libya a safe place to do business, particularly in the
neglected eastern part of the country?
Answer. Libya seeks to enter the global economy and community of
democracies after 42 years of isolation under Qadhafi. Improved
security is a precondition to expanded trade and investment in Libya.
If confirmed, I plan to make Libya one of my top priorities. Since the
revolution, the United States has provided the Libyan Government with
targeted technical assistance in a number of critical areas to help
establish security sector institutions appropriate for a democratic
state and to develop the capacities needed to control loose weapons,
counter terrorism, and improve border security management.
We responded positively to a request this spring from Prime
Minister Ali Zeidan that we help train a new, professional General
Purpose Force which could form the core of a new Libyan Army. We are
still working out the details of the arrangement, but the cost will be
fully paid by the Libyan Government. Moreover we are working together
on a $14 million border security program to assess, train, and equip
Libyan border security forces in securing and management of their land
borders and points of entry (POE) including land, sea, and air. We are
particularly focused on programs intended to prevent proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction.
Additional targeted assistance includes support for
professionalization of security and justice sector institutions,
including the police, demobilization and reintegration of militias,
detention and prison reform, control of conventional weapons, and
chemical weapons destruction.
Question. What is the Department of State currently doing to help
the vetted, moderate opposition in Syria, and what do you plan to do
with such programs if confirmed?
Answer. Over the last 2 years, the United States has committed to
providing a total of $250 million in nonlethal support to the Syrian
Opposition Coalition (SOC) and the Supreme Military Council (SMC). Of
this assistance, approximately $167 million has been obligated to
support the following lines of effort, while the remainder will be
notified to Congress shortly. Assistance already obligated and expended
includes:
Approximately $90 million in small grants and in-kind
assistance to support the SOC, Assistance Coordination Unit
(ACU) and Local Councils' ability to provide basic services for
impacted communities. Examples of support include over $2.5
million in grants to 15 local councils and civil society
organizations to be able to respond to community needs and
improve governance in liberated areas. In addition, the
Liberated Areas Initiative is providing $10 million worth of
generators, cranes, trucks, ambulances, and water bladders to
areas under opposition control. This support is designed to
increase the linkages between local and national-level
opposition groups and improve service delivery and governance
in areas under opposition control.
Approximately $26.6 million in nonlethal equipment to the
SMC to enhance its logistical capabilities on the battlefield.
We have provided 330,000 MREs, 529 medical kits, and over 3
tons of surgical and triage medical supplies to support field
clinics. Over the next several months we plan to deliver
additional equipment consisting of vehicles, satellite access
equipment, laptops, radio communication equipment, and medical
kits.
Approximately $26 million in training and equipment for
civil society groups and local councils to help build the
capacity of nearly 1,500 grassroots activists, including women
and youth, from over 100 opposition councils and organizations
to mobilize citizens, share information, provide community
services, and undertake civic functions.
Approximately $9.5 million in support for independent media,
including assistance to community radio stations providing
information for refugees about available services; training for
networks of citizen journalists, bloggers, and cyber activists
to support their documentation and dissemination of information
on developments in Syria; and support to enhance the
information and communications security of activists within
Syria.
Approximately $9 million for support of interreligious and
communal dialogues, encouraging citizen participation in
shaping the Syrian transition and supporting human rights
documentation and transitional justice efforts to lay the
foundation for future accountability efforts.
Approximately $5 million in equipment, training, and
stipends for local police and judges in opposition-controlled
areas. This assistance includes efforts to help local
communities maintain public safety, extend the rule of law and
enhance the provision of justice to improve local stability and
prevent sectarian violence.
This assistance is in addition to the now $1.3 billion in total
U.S. humanitarian assistance for the Syrian people. In addition to our
efforts to aid the Syrian opposition, the United States remains the
single largest contributor of humanitarian assistance for the Syrian
people.
If confirmed, I plan to continue providing assistance--with the
goal of reducing delivery times--to support the Syrian opposition both
from the top-down by supporting national groups like the SOC and SMC as
well as from the bottom-up by strengthening capable local councils and
civil society groups in Syria. This strategy is helping build an
ethnically and religiously diverse network at the national and
subnational level. I plan to work closely with the committee on these
issues.
U.S. assistance remains a crucial component of our multidimensional
campaign to support a peaceful political transition in Syria, and the
emergence of a stable, responsible government.
Question. How is the conflict in Syria affecting what is seen as a
larger conflict between Sunni and Shia states?
Answer. The Asad regime has worked to stoke sectarian divides and
many among Syria's minority communities, including Alawis, Druze, and
Christians, now fear what the future holds. The Sunni majority is
divided, fractious, and likewise anxious about its role, as it seeks to
assert the rights long denied them by the Asad regime. Some factions
are using these divides to position regional players against one
another, working to lure in Saudi Arabia and Qatar on one side and Iran
and Iraq on the other. The complexity of this conflict, and
particularly its regional dimensions, makes it clear that there can be
no military solution for the conflict. A negotiated transition, as laid
out in the Geneva Communique, is the only way to resolve this conflict
and put an end to the devastating loss of life. If confirmed, I will
continue the administration's work with the U.N. and the international
community to bring both parties to the negotiating table.
______
Responses of Caroline Kennedy to Questions Submitted
by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Question. On May 30, 2009, the Japanese Ambassador to the United
States, Ichiro Fujisaki, delivered in person a long-sought formal and
official apology to the former American POWs from the Japanese
Government. In September 2010, Japan's Foreign Ministry initiated a
visitation program to Japan for American former POWs and their
families. The many Japanese companies that used the POWs as slave labor
in their mines, factories, and on their docks have never, however,
acknowledged the POWs nor apologized. There have been three visits of
seven former POWs or family members. The fourth program will be this
October. Japanese politics and budgets threaten to end this program of
reconciliation and friendship.
How do you plan to encourage the Japanese Government to
continue the POW visitation program and to encourage Japanese
companies to follow their government's example of contrition?
It goes without saying the members of America's Greatest
Generation will not be long among us.
Answer. I echo your praise of former American Prisoners of War
(POWs). Their contributions and heroism should never be forgotten or
minimized. The U.S. Government appreciates the Japanese Government's
words and actions to express remorse for the treatment of American
POWs, especially the yearly visit invitations to POWs to Japan. I am
aware that several Japanese companies have expressed contrition to U.S.
POWs, and many have welcomed meetings with the POWs in an attempt at
healing and reconciliation. If confirmed, I will continue efforts to
build friendship and trust between POWs and Japan, while cognizant of
the fact that the declining number of POWs and their poor health makes
future trips to Japan challenging. I will emphasize that reconciliation
will not only help to ease the suffering of the POWs, but also will
promote healing within Japanese society.
______
Responses of Gregory B. Starr to Questions Submitted
by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Question. I recently visited China, Korea, and Japan, and although
those missions certainly have different physical security needs than
high-threat posts, there is a keen interest in ensuring adequate
language capabilities for their personnel. This is especially true in
China.
Can you explain the importance of, and your priorities for,
language training for our security personnel?
Answer. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) has made significant
strides in increasing language abilities over the past several years.
DS endeavors to ensure DS agents have sufficient time to learn the
language they will need when required for overseas posts. It takes up
to 2 years or more in some ``hard'' and ``super-hard'' languages like
Mandarin to become proficient enough to carry on an in-depth
conversation with counterparts. Unfortunately, DS sometimes must send
someone to post without the necessary language skills when the security
conditions at post require the immediate dispatching of personnel and
such language skills are not essential to the performance of duties.
In early 2014, the Director General of Human Resources will request
that all Foreign Service positions be reviewed as part of the
``triennial language review'' process. At that time, DS will make
adjustments to positions that may need to have language requirements
changed--either increased or decreased.
DS is committed to ensuring that positions that require hard
languages, such as Chinese and Arabic, are filled with DS Agents
qualified to speak that language.
Question. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security is responsible for
defending the Department of State's global network of information
technology systems and information assets. The Embassy Security bill
which the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed rightly addresses
our physical security needs; however, our cyber security posture in is
increasingly under attack. In China, for example, our consulate's
social media page was shut down by the Chinese Government, and the
Chinese also heavily monitor cell phone and other communications.
Please describe the Department's strategies for defense
against network intrusion and other cyber threats.
How are we working to improve our cyber security posture
abroad?
Answer. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) coordinates closely
with the Bureau of Information Resource Management (IRM) and other
offices to protect the Department's global network of information
technology systems and information assets. DS has established a
comprehensive ``defense-in-depth'' cyber security program which enables
the Department to detect, react, analyze, and respond to sophisticated
malicious cyber activity from foreign intelligence services and
computer criminals. DS provides this operational security capability
through an interdependent set of cyber security teams, tools, and
programs including network intrusion detection, compliance
verification, vulnerability assessment, pen testing, incident handling,
threat analysis, and the Regional Computer Security Officer Program.
This fully integrated program capability enables rapid coordination and
action on a number of issues involving global cyber threats and network
security vulnerabilities.
In functional terms, the DS programs addresses cyber threat issues
as follows:
The Network Monitoring Center maintains a 24/7 watch on the
Department's global network traffic checking for anomalous and/
or suspicious activity and reports on events.
The Computer Incident Response Team (CIRT) reviews events
and keeps operational managers, law enforcement and US-CERT
informed about incidents and coordinates incident response
actions with all stakeholders.
The Cyber Threat Analysis team delivers daily and topical
all-source reports on pressing threat issues and works closely
with LE and CI agencies to develop a comprehensive threat
picture and remediation measures. This unit also performs
proactive penetration testing and network forensic analysis to
detect and resolve major threat issues.
Regional Computer Security Officers (RCSOs) are the
Department's ``boots on the ground'' performing cyber security
assessments at overseas sites and reporting findings to DS.
DS also works closely with the Department's virus detection
and other security programs to stay abreast of any problems
affecting the confidentiality--integrity--availability of the
Department's networks.
In addition, DS uses its expert cyber security teams to address and
improve the Department's cyber security posture abroad through these
initiatives:
Providing customized cyber security support to the Secretary
and other senior officials during major diplomatic events;
Detailing DS personnel full-time to other federal cyber
security operations centers to ensure the timely sharing and
analysis of threats, cyber intelligence, and technical
developments. This includes DS personnel assigned to:
National Security Agency /Central Security Service Threat
Operations Center (NTOC);
Department of Homeland Security's US-Computer Emergency
Readiness Team (US-CERT);
DS Special Agent assigned to the Federal Bureau of
Investigations
National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force (NCIJTF).
DS can provide a briefing in an appropriate setting that will
provide a fuller understanding of the threats affecting the Department
and our cyber security program's ability to mitigate risk.
______
Responses of Anne W. Patterson to Questions Submitted
by Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Question. Secretary of State Kerry has facilitated the resumption
of substantive negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO) in Jerusalem in mid-August at the negotiator level.
Many observers are skeptical that the negotiations will lead to
meaningful resolution on core issues of the dispute, citing ongoing
turmoil in neighboring states as one of many factors influencing both
parties' domestic constituencies away from substantive compromise. Some
observers have asserted that time may be running out for a two-state
solution.
What are your expectations for Israeli-Palestinian
negotiation over the next few months? How likely is an Israeli-
Palestinian resolution on core issues of dispute? What are the
main signs of hope and the main obstacles?
Answer. Thus far negotiations between the two sides have been
substantive and serious. The parties have engaged on the core issues in
good faith and we expect that to continue in the months ahead. But we
do not expect that we will be announcing any major breakthroughs, both
because the parties have agreed to keep the content of their
discussions private and because, as has been the case in the past, the
basic premise of the negotiations is that nothing is agreed until
everything is agreed.
We remain optimistic because in Prime Minister Netanyahu and
Palestinian President Abbas, we believe we have two leaders who are
serious about pursuing peace. Both leaders have stepped up to resume
negotiations despite significant domestic political pressure, and we
don't believe they would have paid that political price if they were
not serious about following through.
We know that this will not be easy and that the negotiators will
need to make difficult compromises on issues that have created major
obstacles in the past. They will also face skeptical publics and
numerous spoilers on both sides who will try to sabotage any progress.
However, we believe that with courageous and bold leadership of the
parties, and the commitment by Secretary Kerry and President Obama to
peace, these challenges can be overcome. I know Ambassador Indyk is
happy to come up and brief you in further detail on this very important
subject.
Question. What are we doing to help Israel maintain and enhance its
qualitative military edge?
Answer. As President Obama stated during his March visit to
Israel--and several Israeli leaders have reiterated--the security
relationship between the United States and Israel has never been
stronger. We continue to ensure that Israel maintains its Qualitative
Military Edge so that it can counter and defeat any credible threat
from any state, coalition, or nonstate actor. This is the cornerstone
of the United States-Israeli security relationship.
Through both our government-to-government Foreign Military Sales
program and Direct Commercial Sales, we are able to provide Israel with
advanced defense articles and services available only to our closest
allies and partners.
Additionally, we have strengthened our military-to-military
cooperation with Israel and now conduct more joint exercises and
exchanges of our political, military, and intelligence officials than
ever before.
We are in the fifth year of a $30 billion, 10-year MOU with Israel
on Foreign Military Financing (FMF). In FY 2013, Israel received just
under $3 billion in FMF funds, slightly lower than MOU levels, due to
sequestration. Additionally, the United States has separately funded
development of several Israeli missile defense programs, including the
Iron Dome rocket defense system, which helped defend Israeli
communities against rockets launched from Gaza by Hamas and other
terrorist groups in November 2012.
In April 2013 the United States announced it would make available
to Israel a number of new advanced military capabilities, including
antiradiation missiles and advanced radars for its fighter jets, KC-135
refueling aircraft, and most significantly, the V-22 Osprey, which the
United States has not released to any other nation. When combined with
the Joint Strike Fighter and major advances in our cooperative missile
defense efforts (e.g., Iron Dome, Arrow Missile Defense Systems), these
capabilities will ensure Israel's qualitative military edge and air
superiority for decades.
Question. What is the timetable for concluding a new Memorandum of
Understanding with respect to security assistance to Israel?
Answer. Our current 10-year, $30 billion MOU expires at the end of
fiscal year 2018. As part of our long-term commitment to Israeli's
security, President Obama announced during his March visit to Israel
that the United States would begin discussions with Israel on how we
will extend assistance for the years beyond the current MOU.
At the President's direction, we and the Israelis have already
begun discussions about an MOU for the period beyond FY 2018, given
Israel's security needs and the complex technical issues involved.
These discussions between our two governments are at an early stage and
are ongoing. As the talks progress, we will consult closely with
members of this committee.
Question. As you know, in Geneva, unlike in New York, Israel is not
a part of any regional grouping. It will take a significant amount of
U.S. effort and support to get Israel included in the Western European
and Others Group (WEOG) in Geneva.
Will you commit to making such an effort in Geneva, as we
did in New York? In your opinion, what can be done to ensure
that Israel is treated more fairly at the U.N.?
Answer. Normalizing Israel's participation across the U.N. and
ending its institutionalized unfair treatment in Geneva remains a top
priority of this administration and of mine.
If confirmed, I will support the continuing work to promote full
and equal Israeli inclusion in international bodies, including the
consultative groups in the U.N. system that act as organizing venues
for determining candidates and coordinating policy approaches.
The United States has helped gain Israeli membership in the Western
Europe and Others regional group (WEOG) for several U.N. committees in
New York, and the ultimate goal is Israeli membership in all WEOG
groupings, including in Geneva. The United States believes it is
essential for Israel to be included, as it is the only country not to
belong to a regional group in Geneva, and I share that belief.
If confirmed, I will support my colleagues in coordinating closely
with Israel and with WEOG members to press for Israel's membership in
the group.
Further, as I did as Deputy PermRep in New York when I worked
closely with the Israeli delegation, I will support the
administration's continuing efforts to normalize Israel's status at the
United Nations, including vigorously opposing one-sided, biased
resolutions, fighting efforts to delegitimize Israel, and supporting
Israel's positive engagement with the UN. I will also work with my
colleagues to explore new opportunities for Israel to engage in the
U.N., whether it is supporting the participation and selection of
Israelis for leadership roles in U.N. programs and agencies, or backing
Israeli initiatives at the General Assembly, like this year's
entrepreneurship resolution.
______
Responses of Caroline Kennedy to Questions Submitted
by Senator Marco Rubio
Question. What is your assessment of the Asia pivot/rebalance and
its effect on United States-Japan relations?
Answer. I believe President Obama made a strategic commitment to
rebalance our interests and investments in Asia. As a Pacific nation
that takes our Pacific partnership seriously, the United States will
continue to build on our active and enduring presence in the region.
Secretary Kerry has traveled to the region twice since assuming office
and will be traveling to Asia again in early October, underscoring his
commitment to the rebalance and to close ties in the region.
The specific objectives of the rebalance are to strengthen U.S.
treaty alliances, deepen economic and political partnerships in Asia,
increase trade and investment, and promote democratic development.
People-to-people engagement underpins all of these goals.
The United States-Japan alliance is the cornerstone of U.S.
security interests in Asia and is fundamental to regional stability and
prosperity. The United States and Japan are committed to promoting
peace and stability--both regionally and globally.
The rebalance represents comprehensive engagement in the region,
including trade and investment ties. The Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP) is the economic centerpiece of the rebalance, and a critical
initiative to promote U.S. exports, growth, and jobs. Japan is an
important partner in the ongoing TPP negotiations. If confirmed, I will
coordinate closely with USTR, the Department, and the interagency, as
appropriate, to work with Japan to achieve a high standard,
comprehensive agreement and meet the TPP Leaders' goal of concluding
the negotiations this year.
I would like to reiterate the importance of people-to-people ties.
If confirmed, I will work to invigorate educational and cultural
exchanges in order to enhance understanding and affection between the
Japanese and American peoples. These grassroots ties benefit both our
nations tremendously, as an important investment in even closer
partnership and cooperation with Japan into the future.
Question. What new measures would you take to encourage greater
trilateral United States-South Korea-Japan security cooperation? Do you
agree that such cooperation strengthens U.S. interests in the Asia-
Pacific region?
Answer. The United States treaty alliances with Japan and the
Republic of Korea (ROK) have been the foundation for peace, stability,
and prosperity in Asia for decades. The United States shares with these
two allies many strategic interests: improving regional security and
stability, fostering economic prosperity and open trade, and promoting
our shared values of democracy and the rule of law. Increased
trilateral cooperation not only strengthens U.S. interests, but also
benefits Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the rest of the Asia-Pacific
region.
Our three countries meet regularly at senior levels in a trilateral
format and enjoy close cooperation on a wide range of regional and
global issues, particularly on North Korea. The United States, Japan,
and the ROK seek the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and are
working together to stress to North Korea that it must abide by its
commitments and comply with relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions,
which obligate it to denuclearize, among other things. The three
countries are actively strengthening efforts to reinforce regional
mechanisms including ASEAN, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), and the
East Asia Summit (EAS) and working to strengthen cooperation on
counterpiracy, disaster response, maritime security, and peacekeeping.
In addition to cooperating on Middle East issues, all three countries
are actively providing assistance toward the humanitarian crisis in
Syria.
If confirmed, I will make it a priority to continue and expand
United States-Japan-Republic of Korea trilateral cooperation.
Question. Given the pattern of increasingly aggressive harassment
and incursions by Chinese aerial and naval assets into Japanese-
administered territory, what will you personally do to reassure the
Japanese Government and public about the steadfastness of American
commitments to Japan's security?
Answer. The United States is fully committed to our alliance with
and security obligations toward Japan. If confirmed, I will publicly
and privately continue to assure the Japanese of our longstanding
position. In terms of specific territorial issues between China and
Japan, U.S. policy has not changed: the United States does not take a
position on the ultimate sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands. We call on
all parties to avoid actions that raise tensions and to prevent
miscalculations that could undermine peace, security, and economic
growth in the region. The Senkaku Islands have been under the
administration of the Government of Japan since they were returned as
part of the reversion of Okinawa in 1972. As such, they fall within the
scope of Article 5 of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security.
The United States opposes any unilateral or coercive actions that would
seek to undermine Japanese administration.
But I would note that the administration has engaged in sustained,
intensive, and high-level diplomacy on easing tensions in Northeast
Asia for many months now. The State Department and other agencies
repeatedly encourage all parties to do the same and to pursue dialogue
with each other to resolve this issue. If confirmed, I intend to
continue emphasizing this message. Both Japan and China understand that
Northeast Asia is an engine of global economic growth, so of course we
are very concerned that miscalculations have the potential to undermine
peace, security, and economic growth.
And I will continue to remind the Japanese that the United States-
Japan alliance is the cornerstone of our Asia-Pacific strategy, and our
shared values and ideals provide a broad scope for bilateral
cooperation with a global reach. Japan and the United States also share
common objectives in working with China on a wide array of issues,
including increasing military transparency, strengthening rule of law,
making progress toward denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,
combating climate change, and strengthening the protections for
intellectual property.
Question. In May 2013, the Japanese Diet approved Japan's accession
to the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, an important
and commendable step that could lead to Japan's ratification and
implementation of the Convention by March 2014. I have been assured by
Japanese officials that ratification of the Convention would
immediately cover existing cases of parental abduction as far as the
rights of left-behind-parents to visit their abducted children.
However, I am deeply concerned that implementation of the Convention
does not seem to protect left-behind-parents' rights to see their
children returned to the country in which he/she habitually resided.
What steps would you take to work with Japanese officials
in finding a compassionate solution to these cases?
Answer. The United States Government looks forward to Japan's
ratification of the Hague Abduction Convention. One of the Department's
highest priorities is the welfare of U.S. citizens overseas. This is
particularly true for children, who are our most vulnerable citizens
and who cannot speak on their own behalf.
As a parent, I am deeply concerned about those children not covered
by the Hague Convention. The left-behind parents, of course, want to
know what the U.S. Government is doing specifically to help their cases
when the Convention is not an option for them to seek their child's
return. In those cases, options for seeking the return of a child are
far more limited, thus underscoring why Convention membership is
critical as we move forward.
If confirmed, I will work hard to resolve the existing cases of
international parental child abduction to Japan by raising this
important issue through diplomatic channels and continuing to use every
appropriate opportunity to raise all existing cases with the Japanese
Government. I will reexamine efforts taken in the past and discuss
views with Japanese officials in order to try to develop a workable
approach to resolving this important issue.
The Department of State currently works closely with these parents
to provide information about domestic and foreign resources that may
help parents to resolve their children's cases. Department officials
raise individual cases with foreign governments, requesting through
diplomatic channels that they return abducted children to the United
States. They assist parents to obtain access, confirm their children's
welfare, and understand their options. The Department monitors legal
proceedings as the cases unfold in the court, attends hearings when
appropriate, engages child welfare authorities, advocates for consular
and parental access, coordinates with law enforcement authorities when
parents choose to pursue criminal remedies, and works day-to-day to
explore all available and appropriate options for seeking the
children's return to their countries of habitual residence.
______
Responses of Anne W. Patterson to Questions Submitted
by Senator Marco Rubio
Question. Please clarify the administration's understanding of the
specific violations and timelines that would trigger the use of
military force in Syria under the September 14, 2013, bilateral
agreement with the Russian Federation.
Answer. The Geneva Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical
Weapons specifies a target date by which the Syrian regime is to submit
a comprehensive listing, including names, types, and quantities of its
chemical weapons agents, types of munitions, and location and form of
storage, production, and research and development facilities. The
Framework also sets target dates for the completion of initial
inspections by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
(OPCW), the destruction of production and mixing/filling equipment, and
the complete elimination of all chemical weapons material and
equipment. The Framework also stresses that Syria must provide the
OPCW, the U.N., and other supporting personnel with the immediate and
unfettered right to inspect any and all sites in Syria.
The Framework does not specify that missing these target dates or
other violations of the Framework would automatically trigger United
States use of force. However, the President has said that the credible
threat of the use of force is important both in maintaining pressure on
the regime and as a means of holding the regime accountable for its use
of chemical weapons against its own people.
Question. Upon announcing the agreement with Russia, Secretary
Kerry was confident in the possibility of getting access to Syria's
chemical weapons, because the Syrian regime had maintained area and
access control to these weapons.
Please explain how the administration would prioritize
between supporting the opposition's ability to pose a credible
challenge to the Assad regime versus the regime's desire to
maintain unchallenged control and authority over Syrian
territory.
Answer. We believe that a negotiated political agreement, rather
than a military solution, is the preferred outcome of the conflict in
Syria. A negotiated political agreement provides the opportunity to
separate the regime from the institutions of the Syrian state--
institutions that are key to ensuring national stability into the
future. Yet the Assad regime is unlikely to negotiate political
compromises without feeling genuine pressure on the battlefield.
The regime has lost control over substantial portions of Syria, but
we do not believe it is yet ready to engage seriously in negotiations.
Therefore we and partner countries are increasing our support to the
Syrian opposition.
Question. U.S. law requires the suspension of our direct foreign
assistance to ``the government of any country whose duly elected head
of government is deposed by military coup d'etat or decree in which the
military plays a decisive role.''
In your opinion, does the removal of President Morsi on
July 3 in Egypt constitute a coup under this definition?
Answer. We appreciate the complexity of the situation, but we do
not believe it is in our national interest to make a decision as to
whether the events of July 3 in Egypt were a coup. Following the events
of July 3, the President directed a review of U.S. assistance to Egypt
to reflect our top priorities; that review is ongoing.
The interim government announced a roadmap that it says will
conclude in the seating of a democratically elected civilian
government. This roadmap includes a constitutional amendment process
conducted by two government-appointed committees, culminating in a
national referendum. We have made clear to the interim government that
this process should be fully inclusive and that the constitution should
respect the universal rights and freedoms of all Egyptians. We also
continue to make clear the importance of holding inclusive, free and
fair elections for an early transition to a representative,
democratically elected, and civilian-led government. We will support
robust observation of those elections so that we can assess their
fairness.
Our response to the situation in Egypt will be in line with our
values and our national interests. Maintaining flexibility to influence
changing events on the ground in a better direction will be critically
important. We will urge the Egyptian Government toward an inclusive,
civilian-led, democratic transition. As the President and Secretary
have said, we want to see Egypt's transition succeed, and we support a
path for a stable, democratic, and prosperous Egypt.
Question. What was your message to General el-Sisi and other
military leaders in the runup to the events of July 3? Did you or any
other U.S. official raise the possibility that U.S. assistance could be
cut off in the event of a military takeover?
Answer. We have been clear publicly and privately since the
beginning of the Arab Spring changes that events in Egypt have
implications for our bilateral relationship, including our assistance.
We raised these points with the Egyptian military leadership as well,
including in the runup to the events of July 3. Just as we urged
Egypt's military leadership to let the democratic process proceed
without interruption, we also urged the Morsy government to be more
inclusive and to appoint more competent ministers, particularly in the
economic fields.
The review of our assistance ordered by the President on July 3 and
the subsequent suspension of certain military assistance deliveries and
the Bright Star bilateral military exercise are in response to Egyptian
actions.
Question. Over the past year, the administration worked hard to
provide about $450 million in direct cash transfers to the Egyptian
Government, even as the country failed to take steps toward adopting a
fiscal stabilization program as prescribed by the International
Monetary Fund and it continued to prosecute 43 American, Egyptian, and
German NGO employees working for democracy organizations and block
these organizations' activities in Egypt.
Please provide the committee a full account of your role in
advising the U.S. Government on these decisions as U.S.
Ambassador in Egypt.
Answer. In May 2011, President Obama promised Egypt $1 billion in
assistance toward managing the debt accumulated by the Mubarak regime,
in an effort to help prospects for a successful democratic political
transition. The program was tied to Egypt's commitment to make progress
toward an internationally accepted set of economic reforms under the
International Monetary Fund (IMF). We planned to offer $450 million in
cash transfers--about half of the promised assistance--with tranches of
funding tied to a series of Egyptian Government promised reforms ending
in an IMF agreement. In March, the Secretary announced that $190
million of the cash transfer program for the Egyptian Government would
be transferred; however, the $260 million second tranche remains on
hold since conditions have not been met.
Throughout my tenure in Cairo, I repeatedly outlined to Egyptian
officials and the public international concerns about the economy and
the need for fundamental reform, because economic collapse in Egypt is
in nobody's interest: not America's, not Israel's, and not Egypt's. I
consistently reminded Egyptian officials that political and economic
stability go hand in hand. I had many conversations with the Supreme
Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), with the Morsy government, and then
with the interim government about the need for economic reform, a
message that was conveyed repeatedly by other members of our
government. We urged the interim government to use the space provided
by the substantial gulf assistance since July 3 to undertake these
reforms, improve the business climate, attract investment, and
reconcile with business elites.
Regarding the NGO issue, I sought a resolution of our differences
with the Egyptian Government over the status of American
nongovernmental organizations (NGO) working in the country--both with
respect to the unfair trial and the larger issue of pending legislation
under the Morsi government that would have further restricted civil
society. I engaged frequently with the Egyptian Government on this
matter, both immediately after the December 2011 raid, as the trial
progressed, and with the Morsi government after the trial verdict on
June 4, 2013. I was told by the Morsi government that the matter would
be handled bilaterally after the trial was complete. Since July 3, we
have repeatedly called on the Egyptian Government to demonstrate its
commitment to defending the universal rights of expression,
association, and assembly. The steps taken against NGO workers were an
important element in the decision to postpone some of our assistance
programs. My team and I closely monitored and spoke out on the NGO
trial, legal actions against NGOs, and broader civil society issues in
Egypt. As Ambassador, I met with the Egyptian Government and the
Presidency on several occasions since legal actions began with raids of
the NGOs offices in December 2011, with subsequent charges filed
against the 43 employees alleging they were operating a foreign NGO and
receiving foreign funding without permission. I consistently pointed
out to the government that we considered the trial to have been
politically motivated.
On the NGO trial verdicts, I, along with senior U.S. officials in
Washington, strongly deplored the decision of the court. The charges,
trial, and verdict discourage the exercise of the freedom of
association. The court's decision to shut down several NGOs and seize
their assets contradicts the Egyptian Government's stated commitments
to respect and protect universal rights and freedoms and to support the
role of civil society in Egypt. We have made clear that we want to see
the trial verdict redressed for the sake of all the defendants, and we
will continue to press for that.
More broadly, we continued to urge the government to meaningfully
consult with Egyptian civil society organizations to draft an NGO law
that conforms to international standards. We have repeatedly called on
the Egyptian Government to demonstrate its commitment to ensuring the
universal rights of expression, association, and assembly that
Egyptians aspired to during the revolution. As Ambassador, I repeatedly
conveyed to the Egyptian Government that NGOs continue to play a
significant and positive role in Egypt's society and economic
development and an essential role in ensuring that Egypt's Government
fulfills the aspirations of its citizens for dignity, justice, and
political and economic opportunity.
Question. If confirmed, what will you do to get these verdicts
wiped from the books and for these important groups to be allowed to
reestablish operations in Egypt?
Answer. The administration has consistently made clear since the
trial was launched that it views the charges as politically motivated.
As Secretary Kerry said, the verdicts run contrary to the universal
principle of freedom of association and are incompatible with the
transition to democracy. I frequently raised our objections with the
Egyptian Government as Ambassador, and, if confirmed, I will continue
our efforts to redress these verdicts and allow U.S. support for
Egyptian civil society to continue unimpeded.
Alongside our efforts with the Egyptian Government, we have sought
to minimize the impact of these verdicts on the defendants and their
organizations. We have supported the legal costs associated with the
trial through existing grants. We have worked with INTERPOL to ensure
that it declared invalid Egypt's pursuit of international red notices
against the defendants, due to the trial being politically motivated
and not in compliance with INTERPOL's constitution. The Department is
providing each defendant with official letters for use in the pursuit
of employment or other matters indicating the U.S. Government's view
that the convictions were politically motivated, without merit, and
invalid.
Question. Does the administration plan to provide remaining FY13
FMF or ESF funds to Egypt prior to the end of the fiscal year and what
conditions, if any, will be placed on those funds?
Answer. The President's assistance review is still ongoing. We do
not have any updates on that review beyond what the administration has
already announced. We plan to take the administrative steps necessary
to prevent funds from expiring. These administrative actions are not an
indication of any broader decision about our assistance to Egypt, but
preserve the availability of funds for use in the future. Regardless of
the outcome of the ongoing review, it is important to retain this
flexibility.
Question. What specific actions did you take as Ambassador to Egypt
to raise persecution of Coptic Christians and treatment of women with
the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), the Morsi government,
and the current Egyptian leadership?
Answer. The treatment of religious minorities and women has
consistently been one of the highest priority issues in our engagement
with the Egyptian Government, and I raised these issues with Egyptian
officials at all levels throughout my tenure as Ambassador. One
particular focus of our engagement was ensuring that Christians and
women be included in government committees, political party leadership,
and all national institutions in order to give voice to their oft-
neglected demands. We also strongly pushed for investigations into
crimes against Christians and women and accountability for those found
guilty of violence against these groups.
President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and the administration strongly
denounced the recent attacks on Christian churches, homes, and
businesses and called on the interim government to protect the rights
of all religious minorities. The interim government has arrested a
number of individuals suspected of attacking churches, and it has
committed itself to investigating these heinous crimes. The interim
government needs to do more, however, to protect Christians before such
attacks occur, and we will continue to work with the Egyptian
authorities to stress the need to protect all Egyptians from hateful
attacks on themselves and their institutions.
In response to a wave of despicable sexual assaults against women,
the Department and our Embassy in Cairo initiated a program to help
train Egyptian police to combat all forms of sexual harassment. This
was in addition to our public and private efforts to ensure the
government held the perpetrators accountable for their crimes. We also
launched a Department-wide effort to bring together our assistance
programs and direct them more efficiently to support women's
empowerment. If confirmed, I would continue those efforts to ensure
women, Christians, and all Egyptians, have a voice in determining their
future.
Question. What will you personally do to address the growing
persecution of Christians in Iran and across the Middle East?
Answer. I am very concerned by the increasing reports of threats
and violence against religious minorities in Iran and across the Middle
East. I am committed to protecting freedom of religion for all. I am
also dedicated to protecting Christians and other religious minorities
around the world. Freedom of religion is critical to a peaceful,
inclusive, and thriving society, and supporting it is a critical
component of U.S. foreign policy.
The administration has raised its concerns about the persecution of
Christians in Iran and across the Middle East on numerous occasions,
and in multiple international fora. If confirmed, I will continue to
speak out and highlight cases of religious persecution, work with our
international partners to shine a spotlight on abuses, urge governments
to provide these minorities the requisite rights and protections, and
encourage accountability for acts of violence directed against
religious minorities. I will also press for the release of U.S citizen
Saeed Abedini, who was sentenced to 8 years in prison in Iran on
charges related to his religious beliefs.
Question. What new measures would you adopt to ensure that the
State Department more openly prioritizes human rights and democracy in
its relations with Bahrain, and what leverage points would you use to
encourage progress on these issues?
Answer. Human rights and democracy are core U.S. values that will
remain a priority in our relationship with countries in the region,
including Bahrain. Last week, we publicly expressed our concern over
the Government of Bahrain's recent decrees restricting the rights and
abilities of political groups to assemble, associate, and express
themselves freely. If confirmed, I will make a strong case to the
Government of Bahrain that meaningful dialogue between the government
and the peaceful opposition, political reforms and the protection of
human rights are vital both to Bahrain's long-term stability and to its
relationship with the United States. Moreover, I will ensure that we
continue to review all credible information documenting human rights
violations and to press for investigations into and accountability for
these violations. In addition, I will support advocacy and programming
efforts to expand the space for civil society in Bahrain.
The U.S. Government continues to withhold the export to Bahrain of
lethal crowd control items and other items that have a potential
internal security use due to the Bahraini Government's response to
protests and concerns about ongoing unrest. If confirmed, I will
continue to work to ensure our arms transfer policy continues to take
into account any human rights issues.
NOMINATION HEARING OF DWIGHT BUSH, SR., MARK CHILDRESS, THOMAS
DAUGHTON, MATTHEW HARRINGTON, EUNICE REDDICK, JOHN HOOVER, AND MICHAEL
HOZA
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013
U.S. Senate ,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
Dwight L. Bush, Sr., of the District of Columbia, to be
Ambassador to the Kingdom of Morocco
Mark Bradkey Childress, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the
United Republic of Tanzania
Thomas F. Daughton, of Arizona, to be Ambassador to Namibia
Matthew Harrington, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to Lesotho
Hon. Eunice S. Reddick, of the District of Columbia, to be
Ambassador to Niger
John Hoover, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador to Sierra Leone
Michael S. Hoza, of Washington, to be Ambassador to Cameroon
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Christopher
A. Coons presiding.
Present: Senators Coons, Kaine, Murphy, Markey, and Flake.
Also Present: Senator Durbin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER A. COONS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM DELAWARE
Senator Coons. I am pleased to call to order this hearing
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Subcommittee on
African Affairs as we consider the following nominations:
Dwight Bush to be Ambassador to Morocco; Mark Bradley Childress
to be Ambassador to Tanzania; Thomas Daughton to be Ambassador
to Namibia; Matthew Harrington to be Ambassador to Lesotho;
Eunice Reddick to be Ambassador to Niger; John Hoover to be
Ambassador to Sierra Leone; and Michael Hoza to be Ambassador
to Cameroon.
As I have discussed with our nominees, before we begin more
formally I would like to just say a few words about the
horrific attack in Nairobi in Kenya. My deepest condolences go
out to the families of those injured or killed in this
senseless violence. My prayers are with those who have been
lost with the security forces and the people of Kenya and with
all who have been touched by this event.
The United States stands firmly with the people of Kenya as
they move forward from this unconscionable act of terror and we
will continue to assist the Kenyan Government in responding to
this attack and ensuring that those who are responsible are
brought to justice. It is my hope that this incident will
remind all of us of the value of our alliances around the world
and of those who are willing to stand with us and to take
actions and take risks in the global effort against terrorism.
I welcome each of the nominees and their family members who
are here to support them today, and I welcome my colleague and
subcommittee ranking member, Senator Flake, and I expect we may
see some other members of the committee this morning.
Today we consider nominees for seven different diplomatic
assignments, and I will briefly touch on the relevant
countries. Cameroon has a strong record of stability, but it
has come at the cost of democracy and opportunity for its
citizens that presents some challenges for long-term prospects.
Namibia has achieved upper income status, but works through
the lingering legacy of apartheid.
Sierra Leone has made very significant strides since
emerging from a brutal civil war, but remains challenged by
poverty.
Tanzania has shown a strong commitment to democracy and
benefits from a very wide array of U.S. assistance, but some
weak institutions. Poverty and corruption remain persistent.
Lesotho appears to have successfully embraced democracy
after a tumultuous transition, an AGOA success story,
especially in the textile sector, but that success has bypassed
many Basotho and more than a third of the Lesotho's children
suffer from malnutrition.
Niger has restored constitutional rule following the 2010
coup and its leadership has sought to include diverse voices,
but it is vulnerable to a wide range of threats, both domestic
and international.
Morocco is a steady ally and has signed a free trade
agreement with the United States, but the unresolved status of
western Sahara continues to present some governance and human
rights challenges.
As all my colleagues on the committee know, I am convinced
the United States has to deepen and diversify our engagement
with the leaders and people of Africa. Some of these countries
we are going to discuss today are more often seen through the
lens of two-dimensional cartoons or cliches, both positive and
negative. But countries are not simple cliches. Each deserves
our attention, support, and respect as we work to advance
economic development, security and democracy both for their
benefit and for the benefit of the United States and our
interests. Investing in the success of African countries is
good in my view for both Africans and Americans.
The nominees before us today bring a wealth of foreign
policy and public service experience and I am interested in
hearing your views about how we can build these partnerships.
Dwight Bush has excelled in the world of business and
finance and serves on the board of many nonprofits, including
the GAVI Alliance, which is reaching millions with lifesaving
vaccines and immunizations, and I am confident he will apply
his expertise to managing U.S. bilateral relations.
Mark Childress brings strong insights on law, health,
labor, agriculture, minority rights, all important elements of
Tanzania's development and our enduring bilateral relationship.
Thomas Daughton has most recently served as DCM in Beirut,
during which he was immersed in sensitive security and
development issues. They are important qualifications for any
chief of mission charged with protecting Americans abroad, but
I imagine he is also looking forward to the opportunity to
handle the more diverse set of issues Namibia will present.
Matthew Harrington has demonstrated a deep commitment to
Africa from his service as a Peace Corps Volunteer in
Mauritania to serving as DCM in Windhoek and Lome and
assignments focused on Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Ghana, and is
eminently qualified to represent our interests in Lesotho.
Ambassador Eunice Reddick brings a deep understanding of
the difficult and complex challenges and threats facing Niger
and U.S. policy in the Sahel. Having served most recently as
Director of the Office of West African Affairs, her experience
with the Sahel and previous service as Ambassador in Gabon make
her an excellent choice to lead our mission in Niamey.
John Hoover has served around the globe from Paris to
Beijing to Nairobi, covering consular, economic, security,
political affairs. These skills will serve him well in the
complex and dynamic environment of Sierra Leone as they seek to
move sustainably decisively past a history of conflict.
Michael Hoza has served as a management counselor in
Nairobi and Moscow, two of our largest and most complex
embassies in the world, and as DCM in smaller and more remote
posts, such as in Mbabane, Swaziland. In Yaounde he will have
the opportunity to apply these management skills and his
African experience in pursuit of our interests.
With that broad overview of our remarkably qualified
nominees, I would like to turn to Senator Flake for his opening
statement.
Senator Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all. I enjoyed meeting with all of you in my
office earlier last week and the week before, and I am
convinced that all of you have a great background to serve the
Nation in the capacity that you have been chosen for. I am
envious, especially of Mr. Daughton going back to Namibia,
where I spent a good deal of time. From Arizona to Namibia,
that seems to be a good connection here. But I really
appreciate your willing to make the sacrifice and for your
families as well.
As I mentioned with the last group of African Ambassadors,
when I spent time over there it was a little different, before
the Internet age. It was a little tougher to keep contact with
family here. You have it easier in that sense. But you face
difficult challenges, as we are reminded of just in the last
couple of days, particularly in Kenya.
And I want to, along with the chairman, I want to express
my condolences to those who are affected. Hopefully, we will be
able to help our allies move away from this points up the fact
that we live in a dangerous world, and it points to the
importance of your role here in representing this great
country. So I appreciate your willingness to serve in this
capacity and look forward to your testimony here.
Thanks.
Senator Coons. Thank you.
We will be joined by Senator Durbin in a few minutes. But I
think we should simply proceed, if we could, for the moment. I
would like to invite Mr. Bush, Mr. Childress, Mr. Daughton, and
Mr. Harrington, in order if you would, to make your
introductory statements.
In particular, I would like to encourage you to recognize
your families and your coworkers or colleagues who might be
here to support you today. We are all of us on the committee
conscious of the fact that your service, your willingness to go
and represent us overseas, your service--many of you have
dedicated long periods of time to public life--is possible
really only because of the support and encouragement of your
family and colleagues. So please do take a moment to recognize
them.
Mr. Bush.
STATEMENT OF DWIGHT L. BUSH, SR., OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
NOMINATED TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE KINGDOM OF MOROCCO
Mr. Bush. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Flake, and
distinguished members of the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations, I thank you for the privilege to appear before you
today. I am deeply honored to be nominated to serve as
Ambassador to the Kingdom of Morocco by President Obama and
Secretary Kerry.
I sit before you today as a testament to the remarkable
promise and beauty of our great country. I am a child of
Charlie and Jessie Bush, who committed their entire lives to
making sure that their children could fully participate in the
American dream. I grew up in East St. Louis, IL, a town of rich
history whose boom and bust cycles reflect both the hope and
tragedy of industrial America.
My father passed away several years ago and I know that he
is at peace today and happy with his progeny. My mother sits
here behind me, and I must acknowledge and thank her for the
sacrifices that I know she and my dad made for my siblings and
me.
I also must thank my dear wife, Antoinette Cook Bush, for
her love and steadfast support of me; and to Dwight Junior and
Jacqueline, who bring me joy endlessly every single day.
The extensive friends and families behind me are here
because they know that I depend on them daily for support and
sustenance.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that my life experiences to date
have prepared me for the job at hand. After graduating from
Cornell University, I have had a 35-year career characterized
by increasing responsibility and broad leadership experiences.
I have been a banker and an entrepreneur and I have engaged in
corporate education and philanthropic governance.
One of the things I am most proud of is my 10-year
involvement in the GAVI Alliance, a public-private partnership
that vaccinates over 70 million children a year in the poorest
countries throughout the world. Through GAVI, I have become
keenly aware of the nuances of diplomatic engagement.
Through my experiences I have developed a management style
that encourages consensus-building, teamwork, and excellence.
If confirmed, I look forward to working with our outstanding
Career Foreign Service colleagues in Morocco.
Mr. Chairman, no country has been a friend of the United
States longer than Morocco. They were the first country to
recognize us in 1777. However, we should not be satisfied with
the longevity of our relationship. Rather, we should want a
relationship that is dynamic, growing, and reflective of the
times.
We must also acknowledge the challenges that face the
Maghreb region today. We have bilateral priorities to advance,
American interests to maintain, and a United States workforce
in Morocco to protect. If confirmed, protecting Americans and
American interests in Morocco will be my highest priority.
Our longstanding relationship with Morocco is broad. They
are a major non-NATO ally. We also have a thriving free trade
agreement with Morocco and a nearly $700 million Millennium
Challenge Corporation compact that went into effect in 2008.
When the MCC compact ends at the end of this month, Morocco
will commit to completing the programs that we helped them to
start.
Exports to Morocco have increased dramatically since the
FTA went into effect. The expansion of Morocco's deepwater
Tangier Med port positions Morocco to become a bridge for
American exports to Europe, the Middle East, and beyond.
Expanding trade not just in Morocco but throughout the Maghreb
region could lead to greater levels of regional integration and
greater cooperation on issues like trafficking, illegal
migration, and violent extremism.
Morocco is on a positive path, but it faces significant
challenges. Morocco's youth face high levels of unemployment
and they could be susceptible to violent extremist ideologies.
While the Moroccan Government has aggressively and successful
pursued terrorist cells over the years, the specter of
transnational terrorism remains. Accordingly, it is all the
more important for Morocco to continue investing in education,
job creation, and ensuring that all Moroccans feel that they
are equal stakeholders in their country.
Morocco's continued development and stability depend on
political, economic, and social reforms that King Mohammed VI
championed for the last 15 years that he has been in power.
The 2011 constitutional amendments and reforms strengthened
the role of the Parliament and the elected government. They
enhanced Parliament's ability to pass laws on a wide range of
issues and shifted some political prerogatives from the King to
the Parliament.
Separately, our good friends at USAID engage in activities
that will enhance the lives and potential for Moroccans in the
future.
If confirmed, I will work with the Government of Morocco
and our colleagues across various U.S. agencies to continue to
make progress on principles of good governance.
In addition to political and economic advancement, the
promotion of human rights is also important. Human rights are a
core value of the United States and if confirmed human rights
will figure prominently in my engagement with Morocco.
Finally, there has been progress made in the Western Sahara
and if I am confirmed I will fully support the efforts of the
U.N. Secretary's personal envoy to develop with Morocco and
other parties in the region a just, lasting, and political
solution for the western Sahara.
Mr. Chairman, I am truly humbled today and if confirmed I
will do all that I can to further deepen our relationships with
Morocco. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the members of the
committee for this opportunity to address you and I am
available for any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bush follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dwight L. Bush, Sr.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Flake, and distinguished members of
the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, I thank you for the
privilege to appear before you today. I also want to specifically thank
Senator Durbin for his kind words in support of my nomination. I am
deeply appreciative for the trust and confidence placed in me by
President Obama and Secretary Kerry for nominating me to be the
Ambassador to the Kingdom of Morocco.
I sit before you today as a testament to the remarkable promise and
beauty of our great country. I am the fourth of five children raised by
Charlie and Jessie Bush, two parents who committed their entire lives
to only one mission: to make sure that their children could fully
participate in the American dream. I grew up in East St. Louis, IL, a
town of rich history whose boom and bust cycles reflect both the hope
and tragedy of industrial America. I consider myself fortunate to have
grown up with the working class families, the great teachers, and the
mentors that helped me along the way.
My father passed away several years ago, and I know that he is at
peace today and happy with his progeny. My mother sits here behind me,
and I must acknowledge and thank her for the sacrifices that I know she
and my dad made for my siblings and me. I must also thank my dear wife,
Antoinette Cook Bush, for her love and steadfast support of me, and our
children, Dwight Bush, Jr., and Jacqueline Bush, who bring me endless
joy every day. The rather extensive family and friends gathered are
here today because they know that I depend on them daily for sustenance
and support.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that my life experience to date has
uniquely prepared me for the job at hand. After graduating from Cornell
University I have had a nearly 35-year career characterized by
increasing responsibility and broad leadership experiences in the areas
of corporate management and investing, as well as corporate, education,
and philanthropic governance. Among other things, at The Chase
Manhattan Bank I raised capital for Fortune 500 companies. As an
entrepreneur, I have started and served as the Chief Executive Officer
of a bank. I have been a member of the Executive Committee of Cornell
University, and I have been on the boards of directors of several
public and private companies, and not for profit organizations. For the
last 10 years I have been a member of the board of trustees of the GAVI
Alliance, a public-private partnership that vaccinates over 70 million
children a year in the poorest countries throughout the world. Through
my involvement with GAVI I have interacted with leaders of many
developing countries, and I have become keenly aware of the nuances of
diplomatic engagement. I am a student of history, and I have previously
visited Morocco and several other Saharan countries as well as over
other 40 countries, most in the developing world. These experiences
have helped me to develop a broad set of leadership skills, including
the ability to set goals, establish an esprit de corps, and motivate
others to perform at high levels. I look forward to working with our
outstanding career Foreign Service officers, and if I am confirmed by
this committee, I will bring the fullness of my experiences together in
my representation of our country in the Kingdom of Morocco.
Mr. Chairman, no country has been a friend of the United States of
America longer than Morocco. It was the first nation to recognize our
country back in 1777. However, we should not be satisfied with simply
having a friendship that is longstanding. We should want a relationship
that is dynamic, growing, and reflective of the times. As we look
ahead, we must also acknowledge the challenges that face the Maghreb
region today. We have bilateral priorities to advance, American
interests to maintain, and a U.S. workforce in Morocco to protect. If
confirmed, protecting Americans and American interests in Morocco will
be my highest priority.
Our longstanding relationship has produced several milestones that
demonstrate the depth and breadth of our close relationship. Morocco is
a major non-NATO ally. We also have a thriving Free Trade Agreement
with Morocco, and a $697.5 million Millennium Challenge Corporation
(MCC) Compact that entered into force in 2008. When that MCC Compact
ends this month, Morocco will commit its own resources to complete MCC
programs.
Morocco is on a positive path, but it faces significant challenges.
Morocco's youth face high levels of unemployment and they could be
susceptible to violent extremist ideologies. While the Moroccan
Government has been successful in finding, arresting, and prosecuting
terrorist cells over the years, the specter of transnational terrorism
has grown significantly in the region. These facts make it all the more
important for Morocco to continue to address the problems that cause
young people to lose faith in their system and communities. There needs
to be a heightened focus on education and employment opportunities, and
creating an environment in which Moroccans feel they are real
stakeholders in their government and their society.
Morocco's continued development and stability depend on the
political, economic, and social reforms that King Mohammed VI has
championed since he assumed power nearly 15 years ago. In early 2011,
Morocco introduced a reform program that included a new constitution
and parliamentary elections that were widely found to be free and fair.
The 2011 constitution strengthened the role of the Parliament and the
elected government, enhanced its ability to pass laws on a wide range
of issues, and shifted some political prerogatives from the King to
Parliament. Additionally, the work of USAID will expand opportunities
for millions of Moroccans to lift themselves out of poverty and play
productive roles in Morocco's future. If confirmed I will work closely
with my colleagues across various agencies and with the Government of
Morocco to ensure we continue to make progress on principles of good
governance.
On the economic front, the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement has
increased exports of American products to Morocco, by 369 percent. U.S.
investment in Morocco has also risen sharply in recent years. With the
expansion of Morocco's deep-water Tangier-Med port, Morocco may be well
positioned to become a bridge for American exports to Europe, the
Middle East, and sub-Saharan Africa. These steps should increase access
to Moroccan markets for U.S. exports and investment. If confirmed, I
will commit myself to working to increase commerce with this key ally.
While political and economic reforms are extremely important, the
promotion and protection of human rights is also important. Human
rights are a core value of the United States and will certainly figure
prominently in my engagement with Morocco. If confirmed, I will make
the promotion and protection of human rights a high priority.
The Moroccan Government also understands that its future depends on
the development of the region. Increasing trade among the countries of
the Maghreb could lead to greater levels of economic development than
they can achieve alone. Improving cooperation among these neighboring
countries can help them all better cope with illegal migration,
trafficking, and violent extremism. However, one of the major
impediments to improved cooperation among North African countries has
been the issue of western Sahara. If I am confirmed as Ambassador to
Morocco, I will fully support the efforts of the U.N. Secretary
General's Personal Envoy to develop with Morocco and other parties in
the region a just, lasting and mutually acceptable political solution.
If confirmed, my priorities will be to promote partnership, expand
U.S. exports, promote human rights, counter violent extremism,
reinforce military cooperation and peacekeeping, and of course, protect
Americans living in Morocco.
Mr. Chairman, I want to express how humbled I am to be nominated to
this great country. If confirmed, I will do all that I can to further
deepen our relations with Morocco, our strategic ally, and a key
partner in the Maghreb.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and members of the committee for this
opportunity to address you. I welcome any questions that you may have.
Senator Coons. Thank you very much, Mr. Bush.
Mr. Childress.
STATEMENT OF MARK BRADLEY CHILDRESS, OF VIRGINIA, NOMINATED TO
BE AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
Mr. Childress. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member Flake, members of the committee, it's an honor
to appear before you today as President Obama's nominee to be
the Ambassador to the United Republic of Tanzania and the East
African Community. I am humbled by the trust that President
Obama and Secretary Kerry have placed in me and, if confirmed,
I look forward to further strengthening our relationship with
Tanzania and broadening our engagement with the EAC.
I would like to take a moment to acknowledge my wife, Kate,
and note with some chagrin that you were much more eloquent in
thanking her, Mr. Chairman, than I was going to be. So I think
we will just put your comments in the record and move on.
I lived and worked in Africa on several occasions as far
back as the 1980s, and I have returned as often as possible.
Should I be confirmed, I believe my years of public service in
both the executive and legislative branches, my strong legal
background, and my previous work overseas in Africa and in
Australia assisting development organizations provide me with
the experience and the tools necessary to carry out this
important assignment.
Mr. Chairman, we are at an important juncture in our
relationship with Tanzania. Tanzania's Government, under the
leadership of President Kikwete, has embarked upon an ambitious
economic and political reform agenda. This agenda presents an
opportunity for the United States to move toward what President
Obama has described as a new model for Africa that builds
capacity in countries like Tanzania based not just on aid and
assistance, but on trade and partnership.
In agriculture, in energy, and in many other areas, the
best way for Tanzania to achieve its own ambitious goals is to
use public resources to leverage private sector investments.
Tanzania's development also provides business opportunities
for both American and Tanzanian companies to expand trade
between Tanzania, the EAC, and the United States. If confirmed,
I stand ready to promote U.S. firms and I will work to ensure a
level playing field for U.S. interests.
Tanzania has significant natural gas reserves and it is
important that the United States contribute to its efforts to
develop these resources as rapidly and responsibly as possible.
President Kikwete has committed to increased accountability and
regulatory reform in the energy and power sectors, and the
United States supports these reforms because they are essential
for an attractive environment for private investment.
In addition, tourism provides approximately 14 percent of
the gross domestic product and an estimated $1.7 billion in
revenue. Unfortunately, poaching and wildlife trafficking
threaten not only this important contribution to the Tanzanian
economy, but a unique, natural legacy. If confirmed, I am
personally committed to assisting Tanzania in combating these
threats.
Our strategic objectives in Tanzania include promoting
democratic institutions, supporting Tanzania's economic growth
and private sector development, working with Tanzania to tackle
HIV-AIDS, malaria, and other health challenges, promoting
regional stability, including Tanzania's peacekeeping efforts,
and cooperating on security threats such as terrorism, drug
trafficking, and piracy. As the chairman noted, the events in
Nairobi are a stark reminder of the importance of keeping our
focus on counterterrorism.
Today the partnership with Tanzania is as strong as ever
and President Obama's recent trip highlighted the successes
already achieved and the challenges that remain. Tanzania is
one of only four Partnership for Growth countries and it has
committed to jointly addressing constraints to broad-based
economic development. Tanzania receives assistance under almost
every Presidential initiative, in addition to the recently
announced Power Africa and Trade Africa. These programs can
produce tangible and lasting results.
For example, since the inception of PEPFAR the American
people have provided treatment to more than 405,000 Tanzanians.
The President's Malaria Initiative has been an important factor
in helping Tanzania to virtually eliminate malaria from
Zanzibar. And our partnership with Tanzania under Feed the
Future has helped 14,000 farmers and we have seen rice yields
in that program increase by 50 percent since it started.
Tanzania has recently successfully completed its first
Millennium Challenge Compact that was the largest awarded to
date, almost $700 million, a little bit larger than Morocco,
which focused on building new roads and increasing access to
water and electricity. In order to ensure successful completion
of these projects, Tanzania has made a significant contribution
of its own, which is really important, I think.
Key to many of these successes is a transparent democratic
society that protects rights and promotes tolerance.
If confirmed, I will utilize the Young African Leaders
Initiative to engage with Tanzania's youth. This is essential
as nearly 45 percent of the population of Tanzania is under the
age of 15. I will also work with the Government of Tanzania to
continue to promote human rights and the rule of law across all
sectors.
Looking ahead, Tanzania has its next election in 2015 and
is currently in the process of constitutional reform that will
further define individual rights and which will ultimately
determine the structure of the union between Zanzibar and the
mainland. If confirmed, I will monitor these developments
closely and promote a democratic and peaceful process.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the committee for considering
my nomination and look forward to answering any questions that
you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Childress follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark B. Childress
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Flake, and members of the committee,
it is an honor to appear before you today as President Obama's nominee
to be Ambassador to the United Republic of Tanzania and the East
African Community (EAC). I am humbled by the trust and confidence that
President Obama and Secretary Kerry have placed in me; and if
confirmed, I look forward to further strengthening our relationship
with Tanzania and broadening our engagement with the EAC.
I would like to take a moment to acknowledge my wife, Kate, a
business executive, who also has worked in the government and nonprofit
sectors, and whom I wish to thank for her support.
I lived and worked in Africa on several occasions as far back as
the 1980s, and I have returned as often as possible. Should I be
confirmed, I believe my years of public service, in both the executive
and legislative branches, my strong legal background, and my previous
work overseas in Africa and in Australia assisting development and
nonprofit organizations, provide me with the experience and tools
necessary to carry out this important assignment.
Mr. Chairman, I come before this committee at an important juncture
in our relationship with Tanzania. Tanzania's Government, under the
leadership of President Kikwete, has embarked upon an ambitious
economic and political reform agenda. This agenda, a driving force for
Tanzania's development, presents an opportunity for the United States
to move toward what President Obama has described as a new model for
Africa that builds capacity in countries like Tanzania, based not just
on aid and assistance, but on trade and partnership. In agriculture,
energy, and many other areas, the best way for Tanzania to achieve its
own ambitious goals is to use public resources to leverage private
sector investments.
Tanzania's development also provides business opportunities for
both American and Tanzanian companies, and the recently announced Trade
Africa is just one of the platforms that can expand trade between
Tanzania, the EAC, and the United States. If confirmed, I stand ready
to promote U.S. firms, and will work to ensure a level playing field
for U.S. interests.
Tanzania has significant natural gas reserves, and it is important
that the United States support its efforts to develop these resources
as rapidly and responsibly as possible. President Kikwete has committed
to increased accountability and regulatory reform in the energy and
power sectors, and the United States supports these reforms because
they create an attractive environment for private investment.
In addition, tourism provides approximately 14 percent of the gross
domestic product and an estimated $1.7 billion in revenue.
Unfortunately, poaching and wildlife trafficking threaten not only this
important contribution to the Tanzanian economy, but a unique, natural
legacy. If confirmed, I am personally committed to assisting Tanzania
in combating these threats.
Our strategic objectives in Tanzania include promoting democratic
institutions; supporting Tanzania's economic growth and private sector
development; working with Tanzania to tackle HIV/AIDS, malaria, and
other health challenges; helping Tanzania improve its schools,
promoting regional stability, including Tanzania's peacekeeping efforts
throughout the region, and cooperating on security threats such as
terrorism, drug trafficking, and piracy.
Today, the partnership with Tanzania is as strong as ever, and
President Obama's recent trip highlighted the successes already
achieved and the opportunities and challenges that remain. Tanzania is
one of four Partnership for Growth countries because of its
demonstrated commitment to democratic governance and economic freedom,
and receives assistance under almost every Presidential initiative,
including: Feed the Future, Global Climate Change, and the Global
Health Initiative which includes the President's Emergency Plan for
AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the President's Malaria Initiative, in
addition to the recently announced Power Africa and Trade Africa. These
programs can produce tangible and lasting results. For example, since
the inception of PEPFAR the American people have provided treatment to
more than 405,000 Tanzanians and placed more than 1.2 million into care
and support programs. Tanzania is close to eliminating malaria from
Zanzibar. On the mainland, where the mortality rate in children under 5
years has been reduced by half, much of this progress is thought to be
a result of gradually scaled-up malaria control efforts. Our
partnership with Tanzania under Feed the Future has helped 14,000
farmers apply improved technologies and management practices,
contributing to a rice yield increase of 50 percent since the program
started. In addition, nutrition programs have reached over 96,000
children.
Tanzania has successfully completed its first Millennium Challenge
Compact, the largest awarded to date, which focused on building new
roads, and increasing access to water and electricity. In order to
ensure successful completion of all the projects, Tanzania made a
significant contribution of its own financial support. Tanzania was
found eligible for a second compact, and is developing its new project
proposals.
Key to many of these successes is a transparent, democratic society
that protects rights and promotes tolerance. If confirmed, I will
actively engage with Tanzania's youth, and support their efforts to
advance democratic values. This is essential, as nearly 45 percent of
the population is under age 15. I will utilize the Young African
Leaders Initiative and other exchanges to build relationships that will
continue into the future. I also will work with the Government of
Tanzania to continue to promote human rights and the rule of law across
all sectors. And, I will seek out opportunities to support Tanzania's
traditions of religious and ethnic tolerance, which have come under
strain over the past several months.
Looking ahead, Tanzania has its next election in 2015, and is
currently in the process of constitutional reform that will further
define individual rights, and which will ultimately determine the
structure of the union between Zanzibar and the mainland. It is
critical that Tanzania's constitutional process continues to be
transparent and includes consultations with civil society. If
confirmed, I will ensure that we monitor these developments closely and
promote a democratic and peaceful process.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the committee for considering my
nomination, and look forward to answering any questions that you may
have.
Senator Coons. Thank you very much, Mr. Childress.
Mr. Daughton.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS F. DAUGHTON, OF ARIZONA, NOMINATED TO BE
AMBASSADOR TO NAMIBIA
Mr. Daughton. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Flake, members
of the committee, it is a great honor and privilege for me to
appear before you today as President Obama's nominee to be the
Ambassador to the Republic of Namibia. I appreciate the
confidence that the President and Secretary Kerry have shown in
putting my name forward for your consideration. If confirmed, I
look forward to working with this committee and the Congress to
advance United States interests in Namibia.
I have spent a third of my 25 years in the Foreign Service
working on the African Continent, including as Charge
d'Affaires in Gabon more than 10 years ago. If confirmed, I
very much look forward to returning to Africa. In doing so, I
will have the invaluable support of my wife of 7 weeks, Melinda
Burrell, who I am delighted to have with me here today along
with her father, Steve.
U.S. relations with Namibia are strong and our two
countries share a firm commitment to democratic values. Since
its independence in 1990, Namibia has stood as an example of
stability and good governance in southern Africa. Namibia has
held several democratic elections in its relatively short
history and will conduct elections for a new President next
year.
One of the goals of the United States in Namibia is to see
the young country's democratic institutions continue to become
stronger. If confirmed, I will work with the Namibian
Government and civil society toward that goal.
The United States and Namibia also share an interest in
increasing economic growth and prosperity. For more than 20
years, Namibia has worked hard to create jobs, attract foreign
investment, and seek advice and assistance to diversify its
economy. A $305 million Millennium Challenge Corporation
compact with Namibia that will come to a close next year has
targeted tourism and agriculture as sectors where growth can
help decrease poverty and has provided assistance to the
education system in order to give more Namibians the skills
employers need to be competitive in the regional economy.
Namibia has, however, one of the highest levels of income
inequality in the world and education can help narrow that
divide.
If I am confirmed, one of my priorities will be to ensure
that the implementation of the final phase of our MCC compact
is effective and has a lasting beneficial impact in Namibia.
Namibia also has a 13-percent HIV-AIDS prevalence rate
among adults and one of the highest tuberculosis case rates in
the world. Statistics from recent years reflect significant
progress in tackling both diseases and the United States
continues to work actively with Namibia to combat them. An
important focus of the United States effort is helping the
Namibian Government to strengthen its health system to sustain
treatment and prevention of these devastating diseases as we
work together to achieve an AIDS-free generation.
Namibia has been at the forefront of PEPFAR's efforts to
move its programs to a more sustainable response. The Namibian
Government today funds more than half of the HIV-AIDS response
and has taken financial and supervisory responsibility for
doctors, nurses, and pharmacists previously supported by PEPFAR
and the Global Fund.
Namibia stands as a model in the region of a host country-
led HIV-AIDS response and a transitioning PEPFAR Program. If
confirmed, I will do my utmost to make sure that our taxpayers'
resources continue to be used effectively in this joint effort.
There is also considerable potential for growth in trade
between Namibia and the United States. The Namibian Government
has ambitious plans for expansion in the electricity generation
and transportation sectors, plans that should create
significant opportunities for American companies to sell their
products. Trade goes both ways, of course, and more exports
from Namibia will help the Namibian economy grow, thus
increasing demand for goods and services.
If confirmed, I look forward to promoting the efforts of
United States companies to do business with Namibia and making
available the tools we can offer for Namibians to grow their
own economy.
Namibia has the potential to emerge as a strong leader in
southern Africa. I welcome the opportunity to promote stronger
diplomatic ties between our two nations and better mutual
understanding among our peoples. If confirmed, I look forward
to leading a team committed to advancing our interests and to
supporting one of Africa's youngest nations as it tackles the
challenges of development.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Flake, members of the
committee, thank you again for the opportunity to appear before
you today. I will be happy to answer any questions you might
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Daughton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas F. Daughton
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Flake, 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 Ambassador to the Republic of
Namibia. I appreciate the confidence that the President and Secretary
Kerry have shown in putting my name forward for your consideration. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee and the
Congress to advance U.S. interests in Namibia.
I have spent a third of my 25 years in the Foreign Service working
on the African Continent, including as Charge d'Affaires in Gabon in
the early 2000s. Recent years have taken me elsewhere in the world, but
if confirmed, I very much look forward to getting back to Africa. In
doing so, I will have the invaluable support of my wife, Melinda
Burrell, who I am delighted to have here with me today.
U.S. relations with Namibia are strong, and our two countries share
a firm commitment to democratic values. Since its independence in 1990,
Namibia has stood as an example of stability and good governance in
southern Africa. Namibia has held several democratic elections in its
relatively short history, and will conduct elections for a new
President next year. One of the goals of the United States in Namibia
is to see the country's young democratic institutions continue to
become stronger. If confirmed, I will work with the Namibian Government
and civil society toward that goal.
The United States and Namibia also share an interest in increasing
economic growth and prosperity. For more than 20 years, Namibia has
worked hard to create jobs, attract foreign investment, and welcome
advice and assistance as it works to diversify its economy. A $305
million Millennium Challenge Corporation Compact (MCC) with Namibia
that will come to a close next year has targeted tourism and
agriculture as sectors where growth can help decrease poverty, and has
provided assistance to the education system in order to give more
Namibians the skills employers need to be competitive in the regional
economy. Namibia has one of the highest levels of income inequality in
the world, and education can help narrow that divide. In its first 4
years, the MCC compact has helped Namibia benefit from a growing
tourism industry, increase and improve its livestock production, and
improve its national education system. If I am confirmed, one of my
priorities will be to ensure that the implementation of the final phase
of our MCC compact is effective and has a lasting beneficial impact in
Namibia.
Namibia has a 13-percent HIV/AIDS prevalence rate among adults and
one of the highest tuberculosis case rates in the world. Statistics
from recent years reflect significant progress in tackling both of
these interrelated diseases, and the United States continues to work
actively with Namibia to combat them. Namibia received nearly $90
million in PEPFAR funds in FY 2012 and is included in the Global Health
Initiative. An important focus of the United States effort is helping
the Namibian Government to strengthen its health system to sustain
treatment and prevention of these devastating diseases as we work
together to achieve an AIDS-free generation. Namibia has been at the
forefront of PEPFAR's efforts to move its programs to a more
sustainable response. Specifically, since 2004, the Namibian
Government, in collaboration with PEPFAR, has achieved major success in
the areas of preventing mother-to-child transmission, treatment
coverage (80 percent), human resources for health, and health
financing. The Namibian Government today funds over half of the HIV/
AIDS response and has taken financial and supervisory responsibility
for doctors, nurses, and pharmacists previously supported by PEPFAR and
the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Namibia stands
as one the models in the region of a host country-led HIV/AIDS response
and a transitioning PEPFAR Program. If confirmed, I will do my utmost
to make sure that our taxpayers' resources continue to be used
effectively in this effort.
There is considerable potential for growth in trade between Namibia
and the United States. The Namibian Government has ambitious plans to
increase electricity generation and transmission capacity throughout
the country. It also plans to expand the port at Walvis Bay and develop
a transportation corridor to connect the port with neighboring
countries. These efforts should provide significant opportunities for
American companies to sell their products. Trade goes both ways. More
exports from Namibia will help the Namibian economy grow, thus
increasing demand for goods and services. If confirmed, I look forward
to promoting the efforts of U.S. companies to do business with Namibia
and making available the tools we can offer for Namibians to grow their
economy.
Namibia has the potential to emerge as a strong leader in southern
Africa. I welcome the opportunity to promote stronger diplomatic ties
between our two nations and better mutual understanding among our
peoples. I look forward to leading a team committed to advancing our
interests and to supporting one of Africa's youngest nations as it
tackles the challenges of development.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Flake, 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 might have.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Daughton.
Mr. Harrington.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW T. HARRINGTON, OF VIRGINIA, NOMINATED TO
BE AMBASSADOR TO LESOTHO
Mr. Harrington. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Flake, members
of the committee, I am honored to be considered for the
position of Ambassador to the Kingdom of Lesotho. I am grateful
for the confidence President Obama and Secretary Kerry have
shown in me by this nomination. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with this committee and the Congress in advancing
United States interests and supporting Lesotho in its efforts
to strengthen democratic institutions, reverse the HIV-AIDS
pandemic, and achieve sustainable broad-based economic growth.
At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my family for
their support during this process. In particular, I would like
to recognize my father, Tracy Harrington, who traveled from
Georgia to be with me today. My mom and dad took me to Tanzania
at the age of 1 and Zambia was I was 11. Those experiences
instilled in me a respect and fascination for other cultures
and drew me to a career in the Foreign Service.
I also appreciate the support of a number of good friends
and colleagues who are here today.
I am excited by the opportunity to return to the continent
where I have spent much of my life, as a child, as a Peace
Corps Volunteer, and as a Foreign Service officer. If
confirmed, I will draw on my knowledge of the region as well as
the opportunities I have had to lead interagency teams, oversee
large PEPFAR Programs and MCC Compacts, and design programs to
encourage effective and accountable governance. Those
experiences will enhance my effectiveness in working with the
government and people of Lesotho to shape what is in our mutual
interests--a country that is stable, healthy, and prosperous.
A democratic Lesotho is consistent with American interests
and contributes to regional stability. The United States
remains a strong supporter of Lesotho's efforts to consolidate
the gains achieved since the country's embrace of democratic
governance in the 1990s. The parliamentary elections of 2012
produced the country's first peaceful transfer of power between
political parties since independence and the establishment of
its first coalition government.
If confirmed, I will work in partnership with the
Government of Lesotho to continue to strengthen democratic
institutions and help ensure that the progress made so far is
sustained.
One of Lesotho's biggest challenges is an HIV-AIDS adult
prevalence rate of 23.6 percent, one of the world's highest.
Lesotho has demonstrated a strong commitment to fighting this
scourge, which has devastated the country's social and economic
fabric. The government covers half the cost of the total HIV-
AIDS response, while most external support comes from PEPFAR
and the Global Fund. As a result, the country has made
substantial progress. Sixty percent of adults who require
treatment now receive antiretroviral therapy, or ART, while
more than half of HIV-positive women, pregnant women, receive
ART to prevent transmission of HIV to their children.
These interventions, along with the recently launched
medical circumcision campaign, are critical in reducing the
incidence of new infections. If confirmed, I will focus on
promoting the continued expansion of these key elements of the
HIV-AIDS response.
As the largest bilateral donor to Lesotho, the United
States plays a pivotal role in helping promote economic
development in a country whose government is strongly committed
to improving the lives of its citizens. This month marked the
end of the 5-year implementation period for Lesotho's $362.5
million MCC compact. Through this partnership, Lesotho is
realizing significant improvements to its water and sanitation
systems, health care infrastructure, and investment climate.
As a sign of its substantial commitment, the Government of
Lesotho pledged $150 million of its own funds to cover
additional costs associated with compact projects.
If confirmed, I will work with the Government of Lesotho to
ensure that MCC investments are sustained and benefit as many
Basotho as possible.
Finally, Lesotho is a shining example of how AGOA
stimulates economic growth. AGOA has spurred a vibrant textile
and apparel industry that is the nation's largest private
sector employer and sub-Saharan Africa's largest exporter of
garments to the United States. Lesotho is also the most
improved country in Africa in the World Bank's most recent
``Doing Business'' report, due in part to reforms implemented
under the MCC compact.
The country continues to face substantial economic
challenges, however. If confirmed, I will work to encourage the
Government of Lesotho to continue policy and legislative
reforms necessary to promote sustainable economic growth,
empower Basotho entrepreneurs, and attract foreign investment.
I will also engage with the American business community to
ensure U.S. companies are aware of investment opportunities in
Lesotho.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you again
for the opportunity to appear before you today. I welcome any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harrington follows:]
Prepared Statement of Matthew T. Harrington
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Flake, and members of the committee, I
am honored to be considered for the position of United States
Ambassador to the Kingdom of Lesotho. I am grateful for the confidence
President Obama and Secretary Kerry have shown in me by this
nomination. If confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee
and the Congress in advancing U.S. interests and supporting Lesotho in
its efforts to strengthen democratic institutions, reverse its HIV/AIDS
epidemic, and achieve sustainable, broad-based economic growth.
At the outset, I want to recognize and thank my father, Tracy
Harrington, who traveled from Georgia to be with me today. My mom and
dad took me to Tanzania at the age of 1 and later to Zambia when I was
11. Those enlightening experiences instilled in me a respect for other
cultures and drew me to a career in the Foreign Service. I also
appreciate the support of friends and colleagues who are here today.
I am excited by the opportunity to return to the continent where I
have spent much of my life--as a child, as a Peace Corps Volunteer, and
as a Foreign Service officer. If confirmed, I will draw on my knowledge
of the region, as well as the opportunities I have had to lead
interagency teams, oversee large PEPFAR Programs and MCC Compacts, and
design programs to encourage effective and accountable governance.
Those experiences will enhance my effectiveness in working with the
Government and people of Lesotho to shape what is in our mutual
interests: a country that is stable, healthy, and prosperous.
A democratic Lesotho is consistent with American interests and
contributes to regional stability. The United States remains a strong
supporter of Lesotho's efforts to consolidate the gains achieved since
the country's embrace of democratic governance in the 1990s. The
parliamentary elections of 2012 produced the country's first peaceful
transfer of power between political parties since independence and the
establishment of its first coalition government. If confirmed, I will
work in partnership with the Government of Lesotho to continue to
strengthen democratic institutions and help ensure that the progress
made so far is sustained.
One of Lesotho's greatest challenges is an HIV/AIDS adult
prevalence rate of 23.6 percent, one of the world's highest. Lesotho
has demonstrated a strong commitment to fighting this scourge, which
has devastated the country's social and economic fabric. The government
covers half the cost of the total HIV/AIDS response, while most
external support comes from PEPFAR and the Global Fund. As a result,
the country has made substantial progress. Sixty percent of adults who
require treatment now receive antiretroviral therapy (ART), while more
than half of HIV-positive pregnant women receive ART to prevent
transmission of HIV to their children. These interventions, along with
a recently launched medical male circumcision campaign, are critical in
reducing the incidence of new infections, but they must be expanded. If
confirmed, I will focus on promoting the continued expansion of these
key elements of the HIV/AIDS response.
As the largest bilateral donor to Lesotho, the United States plays
a pivotal role in helping promote economic development in a country
whose government is strongly committed to improving the lives of its
citizens. This month marked the end of the 5-year implementation period
for Lesotho's $362.5 million Millennium Challenge Corporation Compact.
Through this partnership, Lesotho is realizing significant improvements
to its water and sanitation systems, health care infrastructure, and
investment climate. As a sign of its substantial commitment, the
Government of Lesotho pledged $150 million of its own funds to cover
additional costs associated with compact projects. If confirmed, I will
work with the Government of Lesotho to ensure that MCC investments are
sustained and benefit as many Basotho as possible.
Lesotho is a shining example of how AGOA stimulates economic
growth. AGOA has spurred a vibrant textile and apparel industry that is
the nation's largest private sector employer and sub-Saharan Africa's
largest exporter of garments to the United States. Lesotho was also the
most improved country in Africa in the World Bank's most recent Doing
Business report, due in part to reforms implemented under the MCC
Compact. The country continues to face substantial economic challenges,
however. If confirmed, I will work to encourage the Government of
Lesotho to continue policy and legislative reforms necessary to promote
sustainable economic growth, empower Basotho entrepreneurs, and attract
foreign investment. I will also engage with the American business
community to ensure U.S. companies are aware of investment
opportunities in Lesotho.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you again for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I welcome any questions.
Senator Coons. Thank you very much, Mr. Harrington.
We will start with 7-minute rounds, if we might, since we
have three interested members of the committee and others who
may join us.
Thank you for your willingness to serve. As we heard at the
opening of each of your personal statements, it is either your
parents, your spouses, or both who have inspired in you a
passion for service in the continent of Africa, a passion for
public service, are going to sustain you in the service, God
willing, that lies ahead.
Let me start with something that Mr. Childress said, but
that I think sets a theme across all four of you and across all
seven of the countries that we are discussing today. Mr.
Childress, you mentioned that Tanzania offers a new model for
Africa, our relationship with Tanzania, that builds capacity
based not just on aid and assistance, but on trade and
partnership.
You are going to be accredited not just to the United
Republic of Tanzania, but also the East African Community. Each
of these four countries are countries where the Millennium
Challenge Corporation, MCC, compact is either just concluding,
is in the middle of being executed, they are on the threshold
of their second compact, but where it has played a very central
role in economic development and in creating the conditions for
significant economic growth.
Please talk in turn each, if you would, about how you
intend to focus on--and each of you spoke compellingly about
it--how you intend to focus on strengthening the United States
economic partnership with the countries in which you may be
representing us? What are the tools that you most need? How can
we strengthen the MCC? There are more compacts represented just
amongst the countries, the seven of you may be representing us
at, than there is funding in the MCC at the moment. Given your
previous experience supervising MCC compacts and teams, how
would you advise us to strengthen it?
Last, are we doing enough to engage the diaspora community
within the United States, which is one of our unique
competitive advantages over, for example, the Chinese or Indian
or Russian or Brazilian or other investors who are seeking a
larger role in the countries that you would seek to represent
us in? Has the United States done as much as we could to
harness the real skills and abilities of the diaspora community
in the United States in terms of entrepreneurship and
engagement?
So how will you as Ambassador advocate for a stronger
United States role with Morocco, Tanzania, Namibia, and
Lesotho? Please, Mr. Bush.
Mr. Bush. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question. As you
know, we have had a very longstanding, very close relationship
with Morocco since they recognized us in 1777. The relationship
has various aspects that range from coordination of military to
coordination of antiterrorism activities, but is significantly
toward building an economic base that is sustainable and
creates opportunities for the Moroccan people.
It is my view that our ability to help them to develop in a
way that they can sustain themselves as one of the most
important things we can do. I am a businessman by background
and training. I am very familiar with taking a long-term view
on putting in place strategic initiatives that can play out
over an extended period of time.
The Millennium Challenge compact that we signed will
complete at the end of this month. The initial indications are
that it has been a very successful program. We have been
engaged in agricultural activities. We have helped to train
artisans. We have helped to develop the fishing industry. We
have helped small business people to develop their businesses.
One of my priorities if I am confirmed is to work closely
with the Moroccan Government; to work closely with our
colleagues in the Business Council, the Chamber of Commerce; to
work with those companies that appear to have business that is
attractive to the Moroccan people. We need to find a way to
help them to sustain themselves.
One of the things I will advocate after looking at the
review of the Millennium campaign is to look at what the next
phase should be. I do not anticipate we will go at the same
industries. I think we should expand our focus there. But that
is going to be one of my priorities.
The free trade agreement that we have with Morocco has been
very successful. Since it went into effect in 2007, U.S. trade
with Morocco has grown by almost 400 percent. Moroccan trade
with the United States has grown by 150 percent. My view, my
personal view, is that we need to continue to push the free
trade agreement in a way that allows us to export more
products, but also we need to be mindful that the relationship
has to go the other way as well. So one of the things I will do
if confirmed is to help the Moroccan Business Council to
identify additional products that they should be exporting to
the United States.
Also I want to help to make sure that they have the right
type of infrastructure in place that promotes trade. There are
still some issues with transparency. We need to work more
closely with them to have in place a business regime that is as
transparent and open as it can be.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Bush. Moroccan clementines
make up a significant percentage of our Port of Wilmington
business, so it is of particular interest to me. A delegation
from Delaware is about to go to Morocco to pursue strengthening
that relationship further.
Mr. Childress, the nation of Tanzania offers a very wide
range of opportunities and challenges in strengthening our
relationship in the EAC as well.
Mr. Childress. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it sort of
comes down from my perspective to answer the variety of
questions that you have asked by power, because whoever has
looked at the situation in Tanzania--as you know, Tanzania has
enjoyed significant growth, 6-to-7 percent a year, but it has
not gotten translated into the kind of economic development
that you would expect.
So the MCC folks took a look at this and they said, look,
the big constraint we see is power. The Partnership for Growth
folks took a look at it and they said the biggest constraint is
power. The Tanzanians on ``Big Results Now'' took a look at
what the biggest constraint was and it was power. So clearly
there is sort of a twofold challenge, I think.
One is the immediate demands that Power Africa is trying to
meet, which is sort of transmission-based, how do we look at
places where the pickle jar is loose and we just need to take
those extra few steps. I think, as you know, the Tanzanians
identified several dozen of these sorts of programs, both
distribution, power, et cetera. I think in the short term that
is a huge opportunity for American businesses, particularly if
we can make sure they have open tender processes and
transparent bidding, and that is critical because it has to be
on the level.
But in the longer term the real answer here, as you know,
Mr. Chairman--we have talked about this. A country that has
less than 20 percent of its country with electrification and a
significant portion of that coming from emergency power, which
is incredibly expensive--in some cases it is jet fuel--cannot
sustain the kind of economic development that they have as part
of their ambition.
So I think American companies can help in the immediate
term, and then in the longer term--and this is, as you know,
what the MCC second compact really is all about--you have to
have fundamental structural reforms in the energy and power
sector. That is also another opportunity for us.
So I sort of feel as if one hands off to the other. I think
that there are a plethora of challenges, but to me that one is
one that I think answers both your questions.
By the way, on the diaspora thing, I have to tell you I do
not think from my sense that we do at all what we need to do in
Africa. I talked to some of my colleagues who are ambassadors
in Europe. I am incredibly impressed at the programs that they
use, both the direct line programs, but the stuff that they do.
I think we all have to be more creative about that because I
think that is a real untapped reserve.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Childress.
Mr. Daughton.
Mr. Daughton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, Namibia
is a large country with a very small population and as a
result, among other things, I think has no diaspora in the
United States to speak of. But it nonetheless offers, I think,
opportunities that have not yet been fully exploited for the
United States. We have focused most of our attention, to be
honest, on HIV-AIDS relief and on the environment in Namibia
over the last 15 or 20 years.
When you look at what Namibia appears to be poised to do at
this point in terms of its own internal development, I think
that is where the opportunities lie. I mentioned they are
looking at some significant expansion in power generation
because, like Tanzania, they need more electricity. They are
also looking at developing the Walvis Bay port, with the idea
that it might serve as a regional entrepot for materials going
into a larger market. I think both of those areas offer
opportunities for American business.
The U.S. Trade and Development Agency had a reverse trade
mission here just a couple weeks ago looking at the power
generation sector. That seems to have attracted quite a bit of
interest on the part of the Namibian participants.
I think for my purposes, in terms of what I can do in
addition to seeking to promote those opportunities, Namibia has
also not kept up with some of its neighbors in terms of
advertising itself as an attractive place to invest and do
business. I do not think the situation has gotten worse, but it
has not gotten any better, and a number of their neighbors have
gotten better in the process, which makes them look worse.
So one of the things that I will be looking to do is work
with them to see if they can streamline the investment process
for businesses that are interested in setting up, even domestic
businesses, because in the end the most important thing for
them economically at this point is creating an employment for
their huge youth bubble. That is what the MCC compact that ends
next year has been aimed at doing and I think it is made some
significant progress in that respect. But there is a lot of
work left to be done.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Daughton.
Mr. Harrington, if you would speak also specifically to
AGOA as the country that is sort of the poster child for
success.
Mr. Harrington. Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, AGOA has done
exactly what it was intended to do in Lesotho. It has generated
a vibrant textile industry, it has generated 36,000 jobs. It is
the largest private sector employer. Most of those working in
the textile industry in Lesotho are women, so that it is a good
news story.
I think the challenge--I see two challenges going forward
if confirmed. One is working with the Government of Lesotho to
create the kind of environment that is attractive to the
private sector and to foreign direct investment. That was one
of the key elements of the MCC compact and there has been some
progress made under the compact. It is easier now, for example,
to register a business. It is much quicker to do that. It is
easier to register and sell property as well.
There is more work to be done in terms of ensuring better
access to credit and that is an area that I would pay attention
to if confirmed.
I think the down side of the AGOA success story is that
there really needs to be more economic diversification. The
economy relies heavily on textile exports, SACU customs
receipts, remittants from Basotho working in South Africa. So
there really needs to be a broadening of the economy. That is
an issue that the government has recognized as a challenge, and
if confirmed I would work to address that.
One of the ways I would do that I think--as a colleague
mentioned, Lesotho could do a much better job of marketing some
of the opportunities for American business. I will mention just
three quickly.
The area of agriculture--80 percent of the country is
involved in agriculture, most of that at the subsistence level.
But there are some real opportunities in commercial
agriculture, aquaculture, horticulture for instance.
The second sort of major opportunity I think for U.S.
business is in the area of tourism. Lesotho is the only country
in the world entirely above 1,000 meters above sea level. It is
a pristine environment for things like ecotourism, for things
like competitions at high altitudes, for athletes, elite
athletes who want to train in high altitudes. The challenge is
they do not have the kinds of facilities necessary to attract
those kinds of activities.
The third major category is renewable energy. Lesotho
currently meets about 80 percent of its energy needs through
hydropower. They are about to build another dam next year. So
that percentage is going to expand. They are also looking at
the possibility of building a wind farm. So in the not too
distant future Lesotho may meet all of its energy needs
completely through renewable sources.
So I think there are some real opportunities there for U.S.
business, and we will use things like direct line and bidding
systems to get that word out.
Senator Coons. That is tremendous. Thank you.
Thank you, all four, and I appreciate Senator Flake's
forbearance with my pursuing one question.
Senator Flake. No, no problem.
Mr. Harrington, I would expect that you will be entering
the Marine Corps Marathon on your return after all that high-
altitude training.
I did travel to Lesotho several years ago and was struck
by, one, the success of AGOA. Textile factories, as you
mentioned, are quite significant. Levi is there and others. But
the need for diversification is certainly there, and so I hope
that you are successful in helping them broaden their economy.
Mr. Daughton, with regard to investment in Namibia, there
is significant Chinese investment going on in the mining
sector. Do you want to address that, and is that an area that
perhaps we could look for some more U.S. interests?
Mr. Daughton. Thanks, Senator. It is an interesting issue
because the Chinese appear at the moment to be investing
primarily in the uranium sector for their own use, which makes
a certain amount of sense because I think they are trying to
secure stable sources of things like uranium.
There has not been, for various reasons as far as I can
tell, much interest on the part of U.S. mining firms to doing
business in Namibia. My impression is it is primarily because
the South Africans have had such a tight hold on the market
traditionally. I think there are probably opportunities there,
but I have yet to run across any American mining firms that are
expressing current interest, though I would be happy to try to
find some and promote it.
Senator Flake. Well, good.
I know that tourism is obviously important to the country,
and I would love to see more U.S. tourism there, ecotourism.
One thing that struck me back at the time, I think Namibia has
one of the largest populations of cheetahs in the world in the
wild. We have had Americans there helping them with their
program, particularly with conservation and keeping the
population healthy on private ranch land and what-not. So that
I think there are other opportunities with regard to tourism,
and I hope that the country will pursue those.
Mr. Childress, with regard to the power initiatives, you
mentioned that your effort would be to see that there are
tangible benefits from these initiatives, the U.S. programs.
What kind of tangible benefits in the end with regard to the
power initiative can you see in terms of percentage of the
population that has access to power? What tangible benefits are
you looking for?
Mr. Childress. One of the things I think, Senator, that is
interesting about the Tanzanians ``Big Results Now'' effort is
that one of the things that they have adopted--and I think some
of this has come, frankly, from the success of our USAID
programs and other programs with the Tanzanians, is that they
have been very clear about sort of setting metrics and saying,
these are our deadlines about how we want to achieve things.
So they, actually, as part of this ``Big Results Now,'' for
the next 3 years they have 29 specific projects. I think their
ultimate goal is to try to get from, as I said, less than 20
percent of the population with electricity to 34 percent in
that period of time. That is incredibly ambitious, obviously,
but I think it is important that as we get involved with them,
that we apply the same sort of set of standards and metrics
that we have applied in our assistance to assisting them to get
the private sector in.
I will also say, by the way, that one of the things that I
am really concerned about--well, interested, challenged about--
is that we have a number of companies, GE, other U.S.
companies, that are very familiar with the terrain in Tanzania
and are very enthusiastic about their opportunities there, but
I think there are going to be a number of other companies that
have not really thought about it. One of the jobs that I would
have if confirmed, I think is to try to identify that next
layer of companies, because there are enormous opportunities,
but it is not necessarily a place where American companies
other than some of the ones I have mentioned have made a
recourse to have as one of their standard sort of places to
operate.
I think it will present, particularly as these new natural
gas reserves come on line, it will present new opportunities,
but not if we are not there.
Senator Flake. Right.
Mr. Bush, you mentioned the cooperation over a long period
of time between Morocco and the United States. One of the most
fruitful parts of our relationship is in the area of the war on
terrorism--intelligence-gathering. How important is that in the
future and what will you do to continue to foster that
relationship?
Mr. Bush. Thank you, Senator. I think that with all that is
going on to our neighbors to the east, it would be very naive
for us to think that we are somehow insulated from the issues
in the region. So with that in mind, what I know about Morocco
and our partnership is that they have worked very closely with
us on counterterrorism issues. They are members of the
Counterterrorism Forum. They have aggressively pursued cells in
their country. Over the last 12 months or so--excuse me--since
2012 they have shut down four significant al-Qaeda cells in
their country.
In the future, I think that we need to continue to work
very closely with them on a cross-agency basis to make sure
that we are helping them to have infrastructure in place to
address this issue on an ongoing basis.
Senator Flake. Thank you.
Back to southern Africa for a minute. I was able to be in
Namibia during those first elections in 1989 and the drafting
of the constitution in 1990 and to watch that independence
process and to see them go through several elections since that
time. It has been heartening to see that.
We look just a couple countries away in Zimbabwe, where we
have not had that experience. The poor Zimbabwean people have
been through it over the past couple of decades. One thing that
has been disappointing I think to all of us is that regional
organizations, in particular SADC and the African Union, have
not spoken out more forcefully and more on the side of
democracy.
I would hope that--and we talked about this in our previous
meeting. I would hope that you can impress on the governments
that you will be representing us in, or with, the importance of
not living up to some artificially high standard that we have
set, but living up to their own documents, their own charters,
with regard to SADC or the AU that they have maintained as a
high standard that all of them will live up to. I can tell you,
I think everyone knows that that was not the case with Zimbabwe
in this last election.
As we consider trade agreements, concessionary trade
agreements and what-not, that is an important thing that these
countries that make representations to us with regard to
compacts and charters and documents that they have set and
signed and believe in, that they live up to them. So I hope
that you will impress upon those governments the importance of
doing that. I think that that will go a long way in Zimbabwe if
we have other countries putting the right kind of pressure
there.
So thank you. Thank you all.
Senator Coons. Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To the nominees before us, congratulations. You have had
distinguished careers and this is a major step you are each
undertaking, and you come to the task well-qualified.
I want to focus my questions on Morocco. I am the chair of
a different subcommittee of FRC and Arab North Africa is part
of the Committee on the Near East, South and Central Asian
Affairs. So, Mr. Bush, I am very excited about the relationship
we have and about the opportunity that Morocco presents. Even
though I think we are doing a lot with Morocco, I still do not
think as a nation that we are doing enough to really
demonstrate the opportunity.
A nation that has been an ally of the United States since
the 1770s, that is a predominantly Muslim nation, with a King
who is a direct descendant of Mohammed, that has a strong track
record of supporting the rights of religious minorities, that
has done an awful lot in recent years to promote democratic
reforms, including increased inclusion of women in civic life
and political office, and that has an economy that is very
oriented around trade--the free trade agreement with the United
States is but one of the trade agreements that Morocco has
struck with nations around the world--I think offers a
wonderful opportunity for us to spotlight what Morocco is doing
and hold it up as an example in a part of the world that needs
good examples.
Their orientation toward the West, Europe, and the United
States, toward Africa, especially Francophone Africa, and
toward the Middle East makes it a very pivotal player. I think
that the opportunity that you will have is a remarkable one.
Could you talk a little bit about the current status of--I
think the one issue that is often a point of at least some
contention between the United States and Morocco is the status
of the western Sahara, and what is the current status of that
sort of in the United Nations? And what is the right way for
the United States to play a helpful role, but not kind of
overplay our involvement in that issue?
Mr. Bush. Senator, thank you so much for that question. The
western Sahara remains a very complicated story, if you will.
The interests of various parties are involved--the Moroccan
people, the Sahari people. It is indeed very complicated. It is
also an area in which there are human rights issues that we all
have to think through.
The position of the Obama administration is the same as it
has been for the last five administrations, which is to support
and embrace U.N. Security Resolutions 20-44 and 20-99 and to
support the personal envoy, former Ambassador Chris Ross',
efforts to engage on our behalf. There has not been a change in
that approach and my expectation is that we will continue to
work through the United Nation on that matter.
But you should know that if I am confirmed, trying to
support a resolution on western Sahara will be one of my top
priorities.
Senator Kaine. One of the concerns I have about the status
of the western Sahara, Mr. Bush, is with the rise of al-Qaeda
and terrorism in north Africa, a disputed border that is a
little bit potentially porous from South Africa north, presents
some real challenges, and I would not be surprised if some of
the al-Qaeda operations in Morocco that you described earlier
have been benefited by a border that is somewhat in dispute.
So while 20 years ago the disputed border might not have
had such significant impact, I would say now it is something
that I just hope that we will keep a very close eye on, because
that may actually change what the United States posture should
be if that disputed border is one that is exploited by
terrorists, especially those that are connected with al-Qaeda.
So that is something that over time I would look forward to
talking to you more about and folks in the State Department as
well.
Then a related issue. Because part of the complication in
western Sahara is the relationship between Morocco and Algeria,
what do you see that you might be able to do in the role of
Ambassador to Morocco to be a bridge-builder in your way?
Mr. Bush. Sure. Thank you, Senator. You know, I speak to my
colleagues, potential colleagues, in Morocco; they make some
interesting observations. Observation No. 1 is that every day
there are flights from Casablanca to Algiers that are filled
with business people going back and forth. At the same time, we
have a border that has been closed and there does not appear to
be any sign that that is likely to be opened in the near term.
It is in the mutual best interests of both of those
countries to work, I believe, more closely together. It is an
opportunity to build a regional economic base that can help
them to shore up their defenses against external forces like
al-Qaeda cells that could come and affect both of the countries
as well.
If I am confirmed for this position, working with our
colleagues across the State Department, working with the
Moroccan Government, working with my colleague, the Ambassador
to Algeria, I would expect to be actively engaged in trying to
find solutions for those problems.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Bush.
Just finally, I hope that one of the things that you might
do in your capacity is to really spotlight the issues of the
protection of religious minorities in Morocco and also the
growing inclusion of women in political office in Morocco. Some
of the recent political reforms have really advanced that,
because I think both of those trends are really good examples
that can be, I think, articulated in a more dramatic way, in a
neighborhood where both religious liberty and the inclusion of
women in political life are not what we would hope, but the
fact that there is home-grown examples of it working in a
positive way is something that we should spotlight.
I appreciate your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Kaine. Thank you for your
strong interest and for your joining us today and for your
leadership of the subcommittee.
We are honored to be joined by Senator Durbin, whose
schedule in his leadership role is quite demanding. So I am
grateful he is taking some time today to introduce Ambassador-
nominee, Mr. Bush, who is also from East St. Louis and has
acquitted himself wonderfully so far. But I look forward to
your introduction and questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS
Senator Durbin. It reminds me of when you are on an
airplane and the flight attendant says as you are about to
land: Let me be the first to welcome you. I thought you were on
the plane with me. [Laughter.]
To the entire panel: Thank you very much for being here.
My apologies to the committee. Something is going on on the
floor today and I just learned about it--no, it has been going
in anticipation of some important business on the floor and I
was tied up for a little while.
But my special apologies to Mr. Bush and his family, but I
do want to take a moment to acknowledge a little bit about your
background that I think is an indication of why this was such a
good selection by the President to have you represent us in
Morocco.
I do not know if you are from a suburb of St. Louis where I
grew up or the actual city of St. Louis, but we are from the
same region, and I thank you. I know that your wife,
Antoinette, is here with you today. Are your children,
Jacqueline and Dwight here as well? Glad that they have joined
you. And your special guest, your mother, Jessie Bush, is here.
Thank you so much for being with us today.
Your son has brought experience as a CFO and CEO in a
variety of different companies, which I will enter into the
record here, but in the interest of time will not list
specifically. A trustee of his alma mater, Cornell; and a
special interest in Africa, including many visits to Morocco,
South Africa, Tanzania, Rwanda in business and philanthropic
endeavors.
We have many important shared interests in Morocco. I know
that you are going to--you have already answered some questions
on the subject, and I know that you are going to represent the
United States very well, and I am honored to be here and say a
word on your behalf.
Now, Mark Childress is another person I have known and
worked with for many, many years with Senator Daschle's staff
and beyond. Mark, I know of your passionate interest in Africa
and I am sure that you are going to be an excellent choice in
your representation; and to the others as well.
I would like to ask one general question of all of you, and
start with Mr. Bush. When I visit Africa, time and again the
thing I hear is the increasing influence of China on the
continent of Africa, the involvement of the Chinese in so many
different economic activities, investments. They are in fact--I
use this word advisedly--insinuating themselves in local
economies in a major way.
They believe, I think, that China is not only a growing
economic possibility, but also a good resource of energy and
raw materials, and they send many Chinese workers into
countries in Africa and establish a long-term presence in that
regard.
I would like to ask each of you, if you could, to comment
on this phenomenon as you have observed it, or maybe even
disagree with my premise. But what do you think about China in
Africa?
Mr. Bush.
Mr. Bush. Thank you, Senator, for that question. Also, may
I thank you also for your kind words of support. May I also
acknowledge that I am aware that now that you are here there
are at least two St. Louis Cardinals baseball fans in the room.
Senator Durbin. And we are in real trouble.
Mr. Bush. And that brings me a great joy because I continue
to be a Redbird fan.
Mr. Senator, with respect to Morocco, it is my
understanding that China has not been actively engaged in many
economic activities in the country as of yet. However, I would
say that I would share your concern about the growing influence
that they are having on the continent, and I think that we
should be cognizant of that and we should therefore be
cognizant that we can have an impact on these countries as well
by being perhaps a little more forthright and aggressive in
helping these countries from an economic perspective as well.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Childress.
Mr. Childress. Tanzania is a little unusual in the sense
that, as you know, China for many decades was in Tanzania,
almost to the exclusion of the United States because of
socialism and so forth. In some ways, one might argue that the
dynamic is reversing significantly, because the Tanzanians are
looking more and more to the United States. This is true, by
the way, not only of business, but also with the military and
police and training and so forth.
President Kikwete spoke to this actually just a little
while ago and made the point that, you know, look, China is
going to be here. He, interestingly, adverted mainly to the
sort of bilateral development programs, the stadiums and that
sort of thing that China does, but made the point that United
States companies bring technology and expertise that is unique
to America as distinct from China.
I think that is an important point. First of all, it is
very important it is in their consciousness. But I also think,
and I mentioned this earlier, it is vital that we have open and
transparent bid processes because to the extent that processes
are on the level our American companies are going to be more
than able to compete. I think that from my perspective, if I
were confirmed, that is something I would be very focused on as
a practical response to your question.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Daughton.
Mr. Daughton. Thank you, Senator. Namibia and China have a
longstanding relationship that dates from the age when the
Namibian, the current Namibian leadership was a liberation
movement in southern Angola. And Namibia has an important trade
relationship with China that actually benefits Namibia. It is
one of their largest export markets, which makes it a slightly
different dynamic than I think you see in other parts of
Africa.
At the same time, the Namibians do not appear to be slavish
to their relationship with the Chinese. President Pohamba
recently publicly criticized Chinese employers in Namibia for
their treatment of Namibian workers. So I think my impression
is that the Namibians have a fairly wide-eyed or open-eyed view
of what the Chinese are interested in and see their
relationship with China as economically important to them.
I do not think it is a threat to us, however, because the
Chinese are interested as much in the extractive industries
there as anything else.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Harrington.
Mr. Harrington. Senator, thank you for the question. China
has one of five bilateral diplomatic missions in Lesotho. It is
a very small diplomatic community. The bilateral relationship
between China and Lesotho is an active and a positive one.
China's interest in Lesotho seems primarily in the realm of
diplomatic relationships and in funding the construction of
large government buildings.
I do not see them in Lesotho as really undermining our
ability to advance our national interests. We continue to be
the major bilateral donor in Lesotho and our focus in working
with the Government of Lesotho is on the building of a
democratic, accountable government, which has certainly not
been China's focus in Lesotho.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
After I had met with the late President of Ethiopia, who
raised this issue with me, I came back and called together all
of the agencies I could think of in Washington that deal with
Africa--they are pretty obvious--brought them all into one
room. I think it is unfair to say it is the first time they
have met, but they clearly had not spent much time together
thinking about a coordinated strategy of the United States on a
continent that is growing in importance by the day.
We have passed out of this committee a recommendation to
move toward a new export goal for Africa and it has been
bottled up on the floor by some who think we should have no
government involvement in this. China does not think that, and
I hope that we will be more forward-leaning, not just in
promoting values but also in promoting economic relations with
many countries in Africa that you represent.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Murphy.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to our panel. You are all eminently qualified,
about to embark on a wonderful journey for you and your
families, and I look forward to your swift and timely
confirmation.
I really have only one comment that maybe will prompt a
response from you, Mr. Bush. I have spent some time in Morocco.
I hope to be back there later this year and look forward to
seeing you there. Of course, we are all struck by the relative
stability that Morocco has enjoyed in a region and latitude
that has seen a lot of strife over the past several years.
I guess I just ask you to pay attention to one phenomenon.
You may have already talked about this and I apologize. But the
JCO, which is the Islamic Justice and Charity Organization, in
Morocco is in a lot of ways very unlike the Muslim Brotherhood,
but it does represent sort of the largest grassroots opposition
to the King. Again, though the parallels certainly are not
complete, I just hope that while you are there that you will
watch very carefully both the development of that organization
as it rebounds from the death of its founder--they do seem to
have stabilized somewhat and ushered in some new leadership
rather quickly--but also watch the King and the regime's
treatment of that group. They do not participate in politics
openly, but as we have seen other places the quiet but fierce
repression of these groups in other parts of the region has
obviously led in Egypt and other places to some very, very
difficult transitions once that transition to democracy
happens.
So I look forward to seeing you there. It is a country that
I have taken great interest in over the years, a great U.S.
partner, but an underlying issue there, one that simmers under
the surface of a lot of our more worrisome conversations about
the more violent smaller cell Islamic groups that exist in
Morocco, but one that I hope that you will take an interest in
as well.
Mr. Bush. Senator, thank you so much for your comment. As I
mentioned a little bit earlier, I think we would be naive to
think that the issues there to our east are not issues that we
should have a focus on in Morocco as well.
The good news is that we have a very strong working
relationship with the Government of Morocco. We work with them
on issues ranging from counterterrorism to empowerment through
some of our USAID programs engaged in the type of activities
that we hope will keep those type of influences at bay.
I would look forward to your coming to Morocco. If I am
confirmed, I will keep this issue as an issue on the top of my
head, and I will be back in touch with you to make sure that we
are on point.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Bush. Good luck to
all of you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Senator Murphy.
We are going to start a second round with this panel if we
might. I wanted to thank Senator Durbin for his leadership on a
bill that he referenced there that aims to double our exports.
My previous round of questioning was really all about the
economic relationship. Now I want to talk, if I might, about
our significant investment in health. In Lesotho and in Namibia
in particular, we are significant contributors both through
PEPFAR and through many other programs, the MCC compact in
Lesotho really focusing on the health sector.
What do we need to do to achieve better results? Lesotho
remains strikingly burdened by significant public health
challenges, despite significant investment by the United States
over a number of years. And what can we learn from Namibia, a
country that, as you mentioned in your opening statement, has
made the transition to significant country ownership, like
South Africa is now increasingly invested in being a real
partner with the United States.
So if I might, across Mr. Harrington and Mr. Daughton, what
are the lessons we need to learn about how to strengthen and
focus PEPFAR and our health interventions, and how do we get
better results in partnership with Lesotho and Namibia?
Mr. Harrington. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. I
would say there have been successes on the health front. Let me
mention those first. In Lesotho 60 percent of those who qualify
for ART treatment are receiving it. That needs to be higher. A
little more than half of pregnant women are receiving ART. That
needs to be higher.
The government has shown a real commitment, not only in
terms of political will, but in terms of real resources that
they bring to the table. They are paying about half the total
cost of the HIV-AIDS response and about 70 percent of the cost
of ARV's. So that is the positive side.
I think the negative side is that, as I mentioned in my
opening statement, the adult prevalence rate is pretty
stubborn. It has been at about 23 percent for the last 10, 12
years. So the folks on the ground, PEPFAR, some of the
government partners and multilateral partners, have recognized
that really more needs to happen in the area of prevention. The
numbers in that--the three major interventions I mentioned,
more focus on ART's, more women getting medication which
prevents mother-to-child transmission, and a medical
circumcision program, which is in the beginning stages in
Lesotho, all of those need to be expanded as we move forward.
I would also mention in Lesotho the partnership framework
implementation plan is beginning to wrap up. So I think we are
talking with the Government of Lesotho and our multilateral
donors about what the new kind of partnership looks like in
terms of transitioning to host country leadership more than we
have in the past.
So those are a few ideas.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Harrington.
Mr. Daughton.
Mr. Daughton. Namibia as a role model. I think perhaps the
thing that has come out most clearly from the success of the
PEPFAR effort in Namibia is the need to develop sustainable--a
human resource base, people locally who can take over the
problem. The Namibians simply did not have that 10 years ago.
They are now beginning to have it.
They are in the fortunate position in that they have the
money to be able to pay for it. They are now paying for all of
their ARVs. They have taken over supervision and funding of all
of their health care professionals as well.
Going forward, as we look to fine-tune the PEPFAR Program
in Namibia to address the remaining issues and to--in essence,
to make sure that we are contributing where we have the
greatest chance to add value, I think that there is going to be
an increasing focus on at-risk groups, who continue to be kind
of the kernel of the problem. The demography of Namibia is such
that, particularly because of the movement of people back and
forth across the Angolan border, it makes it challenging to
develop a stable treatment and public outreach campaign.
In the end, the Namibians recognize that this is a program
they will have to maintain forever, in essence, and we are now
past, I think, the peak of the epidemic phase and are into a
kind of long-term management phase. The lessons that we draw
from that will be ones that I think can probably be applied in
other countries in the region.
Senator Coons. Thank you.
If I might, Mr. Daughton, just a followup. You mentioned,
in response to another Senator's question, a significant trade
between China and Namibia in uranium. Has there been effort by
Iran to secure access to uranium reserves from Namibia? Have
they been receptive? Is that an area of concern for you as you
take over the security role as well as the development and
trade role?
Mr. Daughton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an interesting
question and one I have looked at quite a bit, because the
largest mine in Namibia is--15 percent of it is owned by an
Iranian state investment corporation that has owned it since
the era of the Shah actually. The mine is controlled by Rio
Tinto, an Australian company. The U.S. Government as I
understand it has worked very closely with both Rio Tinto and
the Namibia Government to ensure both that no product from the
mine reaches Iran and that no profits from the mine reach Iran.
The profits in fact, their 15 percent is held by the Namibians
in an escrow account, so they have no access to the money. And
Rio Tinto has been punctilious, I think, in ensuring that there
is no way that any product from the mine can get to the
Iranians.
It is an odd situation in that they cannot get rid of them,
but at the same time they do seem to have effectively walled
off any Iranian access to the product of the mine.
Senator Coons. Perhaps some creative corporate lawyers from
Delaware could help with the restructuring. We will see.
[Laughter.]
If I could, Mr. Childress, Tanzania seems to be blessed
with an abundance of U.S. Government programs. There is almost
literally not an initiative that is not represented. Every
initiative is represented in Tanzania in some way, at some
level.
Something that really struck me in my visit to Tanzania, to
Zanzibar in particular, you referenced it in your opening
statement. Very proudly, one of the folks with the President's
malaria initiative was announcing that we are on the verge of
completely eradicating malaria from the island of Zanzibar, an
island with more than a million residents about 26 miles off
the coast. And I was very pleased, and we visited a number of
sites and this was very encouraging. Someone sitting next to me
leaned over and said, ``Yes, just like we did in 1964.''
I said, ``Excuse me?'' They said, ``Yes, you know, with the
help from the Americans we had eradicated malaria in 1964. It
might have been 1965. All I remember is it was right around
when I was born.''
How do we sustain investment and development? This follows
on the questions about transition to country ownership.
Apparently that success wasn't sustained over time. There were
other distractions.
And how, as the Ambassador, will you be able to reduce some
of the siloed nature of our investments there? My trip to the
PEPFAR facility there was heralded as the first time that the
logos of all three of the main cooperating entities had
appeared on the same sign. But if we are going to have six,
seven, eight different entities from MCC to PEPFAR to PMI to
Power Africa all operating under the American umbrella, how do
you coordinate them, focus them, and make them more effective?
Mr. Childress. By the way, I was told by the experts
apparently there has been not just the one occasion when you
talked about where we apparently got into preelimination phase;
there has been another one between the one in the early 1960s
and this. So this is a real and ongoing problem. But I do think
our folks with respect to that specific issue are trying to be
aware of the fact of what went wrong before and how to follow
through.
I think you are absolutely right. One thing I know you know
is that the current Ambassador, it is something of an idee fixe
for him, this idea of having these different logos and
different ideas of who is acting where within the country, and
that it is all from the American people. I think he has done a
lot in terms of trying to make sure at a branding level that
message is delivered.
Now, in terms of programs, it is interesting. I actually
think you are absolutely right, people have begun to understand
that the sheer weight of the number of programs--there is a
requirement that we have some synergies develop. Some of that
is happening. For example, as you know, one of the key elements
of the MCC Program was to build roads, also to do electricity.
They took a look at some of the activities that the Feed the
Future folks were doing in the southern agricultural corridor
and realized if we put certain electrical distribution points
in these particular places we can give cold storage facilities,
we can give irrigation facilities to the Feed the Future
Program. It seems simple, but it is a huge deal.
A corollary to that, the Feed the Future Program, although
obviously agriculture-focused, is building and maintaining
thousands of kilometers of roads in its next go-around, which
is, in fact, one of the MCC's objectives. So I think that is
happening.
I think as Ambassador, if I were confirmed, I think it
would be really important that we do a lot more of that very
rigorously.
The other thing--and this references what we were talking
about before and you and I have talked about this--it really is
critical, with respect to these programs, that we make the
point to our friends in Tanzania that we are here today, and we
are going to be here tomorrow, but that we do want to be
looking for opportunities for country ownership.
As you and I also talked about, I think the Tanzanians have
begun to really understand this. With respect to the MCC
challenge compact, it was about a $700 million compact.
The Tanzanians are putting in about $130 million of their
money to make sure that all the activities are completed as
agreed to.
So I think there is a willingness there. They do not,
obviously, have the resources of South Africa, for example, to
take over the PEPFAR Program. But we have got to be looking for
ways and being creative. For example, since PEPFAR has been
successful in Tanzania, there are some moneys that have been
released from the health care system. Can we look at maybe
reinvesting those in certain programs in Tanzania?
So I really think this is an exciting opportunity for us to
work with the Tanzanians and something I really look forward
to.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Childress. I believe Zanzibar
was the second after Morocco to begin diplomatic relations with
the United States.
If I might, my last question for this panel. Mr. Bush, you
bring to the table significant experience with the GAVI
Alliance. Talk more broadly, if you would, about your
experience in terms of their effort to vaccinate millions
around the world and the benefits of public-private
partnerships in the provision of relief, as well as in economic
development?
Mr. Bush. Senator, thank you for that question. I am
pleased that you have this on record because my involvement in
GAVI has been one of the most significant experiences of my
life. The GAVI Alliance was formed specifically as a public-
private partnership to try to prove the theory that the public
sector and private sector working together could be more
effective than either working apart.
It has been in existence for about almost 11 years now. The
initial seed money came from the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation. They provided $750 million, which was subsequently
matched by another $750 million. We have subsequently raised
billions of dollars from countries across the world,
principally in Europe, the United States. We have also raised
additional moneys from the private sector.
We are active in the 72 poorest countries in the world at
all times, and the population shifts as some countries graduate
out or they exceed the income guidelines.
GAVI has helped to basically eliminate some childhood
diseases in countries across the world. We have been
extraordinarily successful. If you were to go to South Africa
you could see the rates of measles going down almost to zero
percent now because of what GAVI has been able to do.
I think it is a structure that should be replicated for
other types of initiatives. As you know, the Gates Foundation
has some similar initiatives that they have put in place, and I
would encourage in a lot of the countries that are represented
at this table that they think about how they can have this type
of engagement to address the issues in their countries.
Senator Coons. Tremendous.
I would like to thank all four of the members of our first
panel--Mr. Bush, Mr. Childress, Mr. Daughton, and Mr.
Harrington--thank you, your spouses, your parents, all who have
supported you in your service. I am grateful for your
willingness to move forward, and I will simply echo what was
said by a record number of colleagues on this committee, that
we will work diligently for your swift confirmation and look
forward to hearing from you in your service and to hopefully
visiting you in the time that you are serving us overseas.
Thank you very much.
We will now move to the second panel, and I will mention
while we are in transition Senator Flake is currently on the
floor and will be returning. But we have a vote scheduled at
11:45, so we will begin the second panel if we might and we may
end up suspending for a few minutes so that I might go cast a
vote and return.
[Recess from 11:27 a.m. to 11:31 a.m.]
Senator Coons. We will now resume the hearing and go to our
second panel, whom we are equally excited to hear from and who
are going to be representing us, should they be confirmed--I
know I am supposed to put it in the conditional tense--to
countries that also present a wide range of development and
strategic and democracy challenges.
If we could encourage folks to allow us to focus on the
second panel, that would be great.
First, Ambassador Eunice Reddick, who is seeking
confirmation to a post in Niger; second, Mr. John Hoover,
seeking a post in Sierra Leone; and Mr. Michael Hoza, who has
been nominated for a post in Cameroon. As I stated at the
outset, all three of you bring a wide range of previous
service, both in Africa and in the Foreign Service, and I am
very eager to hear from you.
Again, I will invite you to recognize any members of your
extended family or your colleagues who you would like to or who
might be with you today or who you would like to recognize.
Ambassador Reddick, please.
STATEMENT OF HON. EUNICE S. REDDICK, OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, NOMINATED TO BE AMBASSADOR TO NIGER
Ambassador Reddick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am honored
to appear before you as President Obama's nominee for United
States Ambassador to Niger. I deeply appreciate the confidence
and trust the President and Secretary of State have shown in
nominating me for this position. Thank you as well to the
committee for your consideration, and I look forward to working
with the Congress to advance our relationship with Niger.
My adult children are unable to be here today, but I would
like to introduce Melissa Cline, who is the head of the Sahel
Unit in the Office of West African Affairs, the office I just
left. And I have other colleagues here from the Africa Bureau
who have given me great support through the years and who I
consider part of my Foreign Service family.
During my more than 30 years in the Foreign Service, I have
had the great fortune to serve and travel throughout Africa,
including as Ambassador to Gabon and Sao Tome and Principe. If
confirmed, I will draw upon my experience to expand the close
relationship between Niger and the United States as we continue
to work toward our mutual goals of combatting extremism
throughout the region, strengthening democratic governance, and
fostering inclusive economic growth.
Despite being one of the poorest countries in the world,
Niger has made such significant progress in developing
democratic institutions, combating corruption, and promoting
human rights that the Millennium Challenge Corporation selected
Niger in December 2012 as eligible to develop a proposal for a
compact. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Nigerien
Government and civil society to continue this momentum for
reform.
Despite some encouraging progress, Niger faces great
challenges. The collapse of security in southern Libya and
conflict in Mali and northern Niger have placed Nigeria at a
dangerous crossroads. Extremist groups and international
criminal networks exploit Niger's porous borders and long-used
smuggling routes to move people and weapons between the Sahel
and North Africa.
Niger has also been a victim of terrorism. In May,
coordinated al-Qaeda-associated terrorist attacks against a
military barracks in Agadez and a uranium mining company in
Arlit took the lives of over 20 Nigerien soldiers and
civilians. The United States and Niger share a common goal of
combating terrorist groups and denying extremist ideology an
environment to thrive. We are committed to supporting Niger's
efforts to protect its borders and build capacity to interdict
illicit material and people.
Niger also has been a leader in the international response
to the Mali crisis, both by providing critical support for
Mali's political process and committing ground troops to the
African force deployed in Mali and the follow-on U.N.
stabilization mission. The United States provided Nigerien
troops logistical support, training, and equipment through the
Africa Contingency Operations Training and Assistance Program.
Niger is also a strong partner in our Trans-Sahara
Counterterrorism Partnership.
On top of great security threats, Niger also continues to
face serious humanitarian challenges and persistent food
insecurity. Despite its own serious humanitarian situation
following a severe drought in 2011, Niger generously opened its
borders to over 50,000 Malian refugees. Since fiscal year 2012
the United States has provided over $172 million in
humanitarian assistance in Niger to address food insecurity and
the needs of Malian refugees.
The United States and Niger partner across a variety of
programs to address the needs of Niger's most vulnerable people
and build resilience to the Sahel's constant cycle of droughts.
In addition to addressing food insecurity, Niger must
generate sustainable economic growth. Economic diversification,
investments in infrastructure, and improvements to education
are all needed to create real economic opportunities. If
confirmed, I will continue to encourage the Nigerien Government
to implement the economic reforms needed to attract investment
and promote trade.
I will also seek to build new relationships between
Nigerien and American companies, to create opportunities for
trade that benefit both our countries. If confirmed, I will
work to ensure that our bilateral relationship remains firmly
rooted in our shared vision for a democratic and prosperous
Niger. Through this partnership, I look forward to fulfilling
my priorities of protecting American citizens and interests,
advancing U.S. national security interests in the Sahel, and
expanding mutual understanding between our citizens.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to appear before
you today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Reddick follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ambassador Eunice S. Reddick
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Flake, and distinguished members of
the committee, I am honored to appear before you as President Obama's
nominee for United States Ambassador to Niger. I deeply appreciate the
confidence and trust the President and Secretary of State have shown in
nominating me for this position. Thank you as well to the committee for
your consideration, and I look forward to working with the Congress to
advance our relationship with Niger.
I began my Foreign Service career in Zimbabwe over 30 years ago,
and have since had the great fortune to serve and travel throughout
Africa, including as Ambassador to Gabon and Sao Tome and Principe, and
most recently, as the Director of West African Affairs in the
Department of State's Africa Bureau. During my career, I have witnessed
firsthand Africa's great challenges, including the effect on
populations of conflict, drought, floods, and famine. More importantly,
I have also witnessed an incredible growth in vibrant democracies and
economies driven by phenomenal human capital. If confirmed, I will draw
upon my experience to expand the strong friendship between Niger and
the United States, as we continue to work toward our mutual goals of
combating extremism throughout the region, strengthening democratic
governance and fostering inclusive economic growth.
Niger is a committed partner of ours, who has invested its own
limited resources to combat the scourge of extremism, both within its
own borders and across the Sahel region. Despite being one of the
poorest countries in the world, President Issoufou has--in 2\1/2\ years
since Niger's return to democracy--invested in concrete steps to break
Niger's destructive cycle of conflict and coups. Niger has made such
significant progress in developing democratic institutions, combating
corruption, and promoting human rights that the Millennium Challenge
Corporation selected Niger in December 2012 as eligible to develop a
proposal for a Compact. If confirmed, I will work closely with the
Nigerien Government and civil society to continue this momentum for
reform by creating strong and responsive democratic institutions,
improving the delivery of government services and promoting food
security.
Despite some encouraging progress, Niger faces great challenges.
The country's expansive and harsh terrain would be difficult to protect
under the best of circumstances. The collapse of security in southern
Libya and conflict in Mali and northern Nigeria have placed Niger at a
dangerous crossroads, as extremist groups and international criminal
networks exploit porous borders and long-used smuggling routes to move
people and weapons between the Sahel and North Africa. Niger has also
been a victim of terrorism. In May, coordinated al-Qaeda-associated
terrorist attacks against a military barracks in Agadez and a uranium
mining company in Arlit took the lives of over 20 Nigerien soldiers and
civilians. The United States and Niger share a common goal of combating
terrorist groups and denying extremist ideology an environment to
thrive. We are committed to supporting Niger's efforts to protect its
borders, build capacity to interdict illicit material and people, and
help return security and stability to northern Mali.
Niger has been a leader in the international response to the Mali
crisis, both by providing critical support for the political process
and committing a battalion of ground troops to the African-led
International Support Mission to Mali (AFISMA) and an even larger 850-
ground-troop contingent to the follow-on U.N. Multidimensional
Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA). The United States provided
those troops logistical support, training, and equipment through the
African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance (ACOTA) Program.
Niger is also a strong partner in our Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism
Partnership (TSCTP), through which we are working together to increase
security sector capacity, address underlying causes of radicalization,
and increase the voices of moderate leaders to positively influence
populations potentially vulnerable to radicalization. If confirmed, I
will seek to advance our already strong security cooperation to further
our shared goal of denying extremist groups space to operate.
On top of great security threats, Niger also continues to face
serious humanitarian challenges and persistent food insecurity. A
severe drought in 2011 resulted in a humanitarian crisis in 2012 as 6.4
million of Nigeriens were at risk for food insecurity, including more
than 330,000 children at risk for severe acute malnutrition. Despite
its own serious humanitarian situation, Niger generously opened its
doors to over 50,000 Malian refugees, who they continue to host. Since
fiscal year 2012, the United States has provided over $172 million in
humanitarian assistance in Niger to address food insecurity and the
needs of Malian refugees.
The United States and Niger partner across a variety of programs to
address the needs of Niger's most vulnerable people and build
resiliency to the Sahel's constant cycle of droughts. The Nigerien
Government has created innovative programs to address food security,
including the ``3N Initiative'' (Nigeriens Nourishing Nigeriens) that
empowers local communities to work together to improve agricultural
productivity. USAID selected Niger as one of its priority countries for
the new Sahel Joint Planning Cell effort, which focuses on combating
food insecurity and building resiliency among vulnerable populations
through layering, integrating and sequencing humanitarian relief and
development programs. In fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013, the
United States provided $66.4 million in bilateral development-focused
assistance to Niger for programs supporting democracy, governance,
health and nutrition, and agriculture. If confirmed, I look forward to
supporting these efforts and exploring new areas of cooperation.
In addition to addressing food insecurity, Niger must generate
sustainable economic growth to tackle high poverty rates and improve
health indicators that place Niger at the bottom of most measures of
well-being. Rapid demographic growth driven by the highest fertility
rate in the world threatens to overwhelm the government's ambitious
plans for development. Economic diversification, investments in
infrastructure, and improvements to education will all be needed to
create real economic opportunities. If confirmed, I will continue to
encourage the Nigerien Government to implement the economic reforms
needed to attract investment and promote trade. I will also seek to
build new relationships between Nigerien and American companies to
create opportunities for trade that benefit both our countries.
If confirmed, I will work to ensure that our bilateral relationship
remains firmly rooted in our shared vision for a democratic and
prosperous Niger that respects human rights and provides economic
opportunities for all. Through this partnership, I look forward to
fulfilling my priorities of protecting American citizens and interests,
advancing U.S. national security interests in the Sahel, and expanding
mutual understanding between our citizens.
Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Ambassador Reddick, and thank you
for your long service across a number of countries and across a
number of functions within the State Department. I look forward
to our exchange.
Ambassador Reddick. Thank you.
Senator Coons. Mr. Hoover.
STATEMENT OF JOHN HOOVER, OF MASSACHUSETTS, NOMINATED TO BE
AMBASSADOR TO SIERRA LEONE
Mr. Hoover. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to
appear before you and for your consideration of my nomination
by President Obama to be the next U.S. Ambassador to the
Republic of Sierra Leone. I want to thank President Obama and
Secretary Kerry for their trust in me to lead the U.S. Embassy
and to manage our relationship with Sierra Leone. If confirmed
by the U.S. Senate, I shall uphold that trust.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your comments about family
members. I would like to acknowledge several colleagues from
the State Department who are here from the African Bureau. We
consider them to be family members also. I have an aunt and
uncle here who are also observing the proceedings. And most of
all, I am honored and pleased to be joined by my wife, Kathy,
who is sitting behind me. She and I were married 1 day after I
was sworn in to the Foreign Service 25 years ago and she has
had my back and been at my side ever since then.
In the aftermath of its devastating civil war, which ended
only a little more than a decade ago, much progress has been
made in Sierra Leone toward consolidating peace and stability,
establishing and strengthening democracy, and generating
sustainable economic development. Indeed, in some respects,
despite meager resources, Sierra Leone is emerging as a model
for post-conflict recovery and development.
The country has held three rounds of successful
parliamentary and Presidential elections since 2002, including
most recently in November 2012 when the country held elections
widely judged to be free, fair, and transparent.
Sierra Leone is also implementing economic reforms and
opening itself up to investment. The results are encouraging,
as the economy grew by around 15 percent last year. The IMF
predicts the economy will continue to grow at similarly high
rates for the remainder of this decade and that Sierra Leone
stands poised for an economic takeoff that could propel the
country to middle income status after 2020.
On the security front, whereas Sierra Leone had the dubious
distinction of hosting the then-largest U.N. peacekeeping
mission during its civil war, the country is now a contributor
of peacekeepers to regional stability. Earlier this year a
battalion of Sierra Leoneon soldiers, trained and equipped by
the United States, deployed to the African Union mission in
Somalia.
Yet, even as Sierra Leone rises and rebuilds, the country
still faces daunting challenges. Despite rapid recent economic
growth, Sierra Leone is still one of the poorest countries in
the world, ranking only 10 from the bottom of the U.N.'s Human
Development Index. The country also faces many tests in terms
of strengthening governance and rule of law. Despite recent
encouraging progress in pursuing corrupt officials, corruption
remains entrenched and poses a major threat to Sierra Leone's
nascent democracy and still-fragile social stability.
If confirmed, I will continue our focus on strengthening
democratic institutions and norms in Sierra Leone, including
continued support for anticorruption efforts. I will also work
to continue U.S. support for market-oriented small farmer
agricultural activity to increase employment and food security,
and I will also continue our support to strengthen Sierra
Leone's capacity to deliver basic health care services.
I will also promote greater transparency, accountability,
and economic sustainability as Sierra Leone begins to earn
significant new revenues from its abundant stock of natural
resources. I will work closely with the U.S. business community
to encourage greater trade and investment between our two
countries as a way to spur prosperity for Americans and Sierra
Leoneons alike.
In December 2012, Sierra Leone became eligible to develop a
compact program with the Millennium Challenge Corporation,
opening an opportunity for significant new U.S. Government
investment in Sierra Leone's future. If confirmed, I will work
to support successful compact development.
In addition to these policy priorities, I take as my most
important responsibility the safety and security of the
hundreds of U.S. citizens in Sierra Leone and the entire U.S.
Embassy team, including our officers, their families, and our
invaluable Sierra Leoneon colleagues.
In the interest of time, I will stop there and refer you to
my written statement for details of my background and
experience working in Africa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoover follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Hoover
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Flake, and members of the committee,
thank you for this opportunity to appear before you and for your
consideration of my nomination by President Obama to be the next United
States Ambassador to the Republic of Sierra Leone. I would like to
thank President Obama and Secretary Kerry for their trust in me to lead
the U.S. Embassy and manage our relationship with Sierra Leone. If
confirmed by the U.S. Senate, I shall uphold that trust. I am also
honored to be joined here today by my wife, Kathy.
In the aftermath of its devastating civil war, which ended a little
more than a decade ago, much progress has been made in Sierra Leone
toward consolidating peace, establishing and strengthening democracy,
and generating sustainable economic development. Indeed, in some
respects, despite meager resources, Sierra Leone is emerging as a model
for post-conflict recovery and development. The country has held three
rounds of successful Presidential and parliamentary elections since
2002, including most recently in November 2012, when the country held
elections widely judged to be free, fair, and transparent. Sierra Leone
is implementing economic reforms and opening itself up to investment.
The results are encouraging as the economy grew by around 15 percent
last year. The IMF predicts the economy will continue to grow at
similarly high rates for the remainder of this decade, and that Sierra
Leone stands poised for an economic takeoff which could propel the
country to middle income status after 2020. On the security front,
whereas Sierra Leone had the dubious distinction of hosting then-
largest U.N. peacekeeping mission during its civil war, the country is
now a contributor of peacekeepers to regional stability. Earlier this
year, a battalion of Sierra Leonean soldiers, trained and equipped by
the United States, deployed to the African Union Mission in Somalia.
Yet, even as Sierra Leone rises and rebuilds, the country still
faces daunting challenges. Despite rapid recent economic growth, Sierra
Leone is still one of the poorest countries in the world, ranking only
10 countries from the bottom of the U.N.'s Human Development Index.
Sierra Leone also still faces many tests in terms of strengthening
governance and rule of law. Despite recent encouraging progress in
pursuing corrupt officials, corruption remains entrenched and poses a
major threat to Sierra Leone's nascent democracy and still fragile
social stability.
If confirmed, I will continue our focus on strengthening democratic
institutions and norms in Sierra Leone, including continued support for
anticorruption efforts. I will also work to continue U.S. support for
market-oriented small-farmer agricultural activity and education to
increase employment and food security, and basic health care. I will
continue also to promote greater transparency, accountability, and
economic sustainability as Sierra Leone begins to earn significant new
revenues from its abundant stock of natural resources. I will work
closely with the U.S. business community to encourage greater trade and
investment between our two countries as a way to spur prosperity for
Americans and Sierra Leoneans alike. In December 2012, Sierra Leone
became eligible to develop a compact program with the Millennium
Challenge Corporation, opening an opportunity for significant new U.S.
Government investment in Sierra Leone's future. If confirmed, I will
work to support successful compact development.
In addition to these policy priorities, I take as my most important
responsibility, the safety and security of hundreds of U.S. citizens
resident in Sierra Leone, and the entire U.S. Embassy team, including
U.S. citizen employees, their dependents, and our invaluable Sierra
Leonean colleagues.
I first served in Africa as a junior officer at the U.S. Embassy in
Mbabane, Swaziland. I returned to Africa later in my career to Nairobi,
Kenya, as the Counselor for Economic Affairs, and then as Deputy Chief
of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Kampala, Uganda. Most recently, I was
the Director of the Africa Bureau's Office of Regional and Security
Affairs. If confirmed, I would bring a strong understanding of the
African Continent and the needs of its people, as well as the knowledge
and experience to successfully advance our national interests in
Freetown.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to appear today. I
would be pleased to respond to your questions.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Hoover. Your background does
include a number of impressive and relevant areas of service in
East Africa as well as throughout the continent.
Mr. Hoza, if I might, to your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL S. HOZA, OF WASHINGTON, NOMINATED TO BE
AMBASSADOR TO CAMEROON
Mr. Hoza. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Flake, members of
the committe, I am deeply honored to appear before you today as
the President's nominee to be the next Ambassador of the United
States to the Republic of Cameroon. I thank President Obama and
Secretary Kerry for the trust they have shown by nominating me
for this position.
I would like to acknowledge the service and support of my
wife, Suzanne, currently overseas advancing U.S. Government
health programs in Ethiopia, and our two sons, Paul and
Christopher. They have supported me through challenging
overseas assignments, endured hardship, shared risks, and ably
represented our country with pride and unflagging enthusiasm. I
am truly grateful for their support, without which I would not
be before you today.
I have had the privilege of serving in Africa for 14 of my
28 years of service with the Department. I have seen our
diplomatic efforts yield tremendous gains in difficult places.
If confirmed, I look forward to using my experience in the
region to help further U.S. interests in Cameroon as well.
With one of the largest economies in sub-Saharan Africa and
a landscape rich in natural resources and biodiversity,
Cameroon has the potential to become an economic stalwart and
serious regional player. Despite this rich endowment and
notwithstanding 53 years of relative political and economic
stability, the country struggles to attain food security and to
combat disease. Moreover, concerns related to human rights,
weak governance, and pervasive corruption continue to serve as
impediments to meaningful economic growth and development.
Cameroon is a relatively stable country in a region that is
decidedly less so. Recent events in both Nigeria and the
Central African Republic continue to spill over into Cameroon,
where an influx of new refugees is taxing local resources. The
insecurity in neighboring countries, compounded with the
growing threat of extremism by Boko Haram in Cameroon's Far
North Region, has the potential to threaten Cameroon's security
and stability.
Cameroon has taken a leading role in combating piracy in
the Gulf of Guinea and is active in regional and domestic
efforts against wildlife trafficking. If confirmed, I will
continue to support U.S. efforts to strengthen Cameroon's
military capacity to confront terrorism, piracy, and wildlife
trafficking, and to encourage greater Cameroonian engagement in
regional security matters.
On April 14 Cameroon took an important step toward
maintaining its long-term political stability by holding the
first Senate elections in its history. Cameroon is also
expected to hold municipal and legislative elections on
September 30. I look forward to the opportunity to build on
this momentum and work in partnership with civil society and
the government to support efforts to strengthen democratic
institutions, enhance transparency, and promote democracy,
human rights for all persons, and the rule of law.
Bilateral trade between our countries exceeded $557 million
in 2012 and U.S. exports to Cameroon have more than doubled
since 2010. Should I be confirmed, I hope to build on these
gains and further strengthen our economic relationship.
The kidnapping of French expatriates in Cameroon's Far
North Region earlier this year demonstrated that, even in a
seemingly stable and safe country as Cameroon, the threat of
violence and extremism can be a reality. It has also reaffirmed
that now more than ever the safety and security of our American
staff and citizens overseas needs to be at the forefront of our
mission. If confirmed, I will ensure that this remains a top
priority for the Embassy.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I thank you for
this opportunity to appear before you. If confirmed, I look
forward to working with the committee and others in Congress to
advance U.S. interests in Cameroon. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoza follows:]
Prepared Statement by Michael S. Hoza
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Flake, and members of the committee, I
am honored to appear before you today as the President's nominee to be
the next Ambassador of the United States to the Republic of Cameroon. I
thank President Obama and Secretary Kerry for the trust they have shown
by nominating me for this position.
I would like to acknowledge the service and support of my wife,
Suzanne, currently overseas advancing U.S. Government health programs
in Ethiopia, and our two sons, Paul and Christopher. They have
supported me through challenging overseas assignments, endured
hardship, shared risks, and ably represented our country with pride and
unflagging enthusiasm. I am truly grateful for their support, without
which I would not be before you today.
I have had the privilege of serving in Africa for 14 of my 28 years
of service with the State Department. I have seen our diplomatic
efforts yield tremendous gains in difficult places and, if confirmed, I
look forward to using my experience in the region to help further U.S.
interests in Cameroon as well.
With one of the largest economies in sub-Saharan Africa and a
landscape rich in natural resources and biodiversity, Cameroon has the
potential to become an economic stalwart and serious regional player.
Despite this rich endowment, and notwithstanding 53 years of relative
political and economic stability, the country struggles to attain food
security and to combat disease. Moreover, concerns related to human
rights, weak governance, and pervasive corruption continue to serve as
impediments to meaningful economic growth and development.
Cameroon is a relatively stable country in a region that is less
so. Recent events in both Nigeria and the Central African Republic
continue to spill over into Cameroon, where an influx of new refugees
is taxing local resources. The insecurity in neighboring countries,
compounded with the growing threat of extremism by Boko Haram in
Cameroon's Far North region, has the potential to threaten Cameroon's
security and stability. Cameroon has taken a leading role in combating
piracy in the Gulf of Guinea and is active in regional and domestic
efforts against wildlife trafficking. If confirmed I will continue to
support U.S. efforts to strengthen Cameroon's military capacity to
confront terrorism, piracy, and wildlife trafficking and to encourage
greater Cameroonian engagement in regional security matters.
On April 14, Cameroon took an important step toward maintaining its
long-term political stability by holding the first Senate elections in
its history. Cameroon is also expected to hold municipal and
legislative elections on September 30. I look forward to the
opportunity to build on this momentum and work in partnership with
civil society and the government to support efforts to strengthen
democratic institutions, enhance transparency, and promote democracy,
human rights for all persons and the rule of law.
Bilateral trade between our countries exceeded $557 million in
2012, and U.S. exports to Cameroon have more than doubled since 2010.
Should I be confirmed, I hope to build on these gains and further
strengthen our economic relationship--one of the cornerstones of United
States-Cameroon ties. Achieving this goal, as well as Cameroon's goal
of promoting increased U.S. investment in Cameroon, will require
continued attention to improving the country's business climate,
addressing endemic corruption, and improving transparency.
The kidnapping of French expatriates in Cameroon's Far North region
earlier this year demonstrated that even in a seemingly stable and safe
country such as Cameroon, the threat of violence and extremism can be a
reality. It has also reaffirmed that, now more than ever, the safety
and security of our American staff and citizens overseas needs to be at
the forefront of our mission. If confirmed, I will ensure that this
remains a top priority for the Embassy.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you for this
opportunity to appear before you. If confirmed, I look forward to
working with the committee and others in Congress to advance U.S.
interests in Cameroon. I would be pleased to answer any questions you
may have.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Hoza.
We are, as ever, juggling a little bit since it is not
quite clear how soon our vote will be called or not. If I
might, with the forbearance of Senator Flake, I am going to
invite Senator Markey to ask an initial question or two, and
then I may go to vote while Senator Flake questions, and then I
may return, since of the three of us I have the most time to
dedicate to this as a panel. Any objection?
[No response.]
Senator Coons. Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
Mr. Hoover, thank you today for appearing before the
committee. I know that you are going to make Massachusetts
proud if you are confirmed as Ambassador to Sierra Leone. I
just wanted to ask you this. What would be your one or two top
specific goals as Ambassador?
Mr. Hoover. Thank you, Senator, and Go Sox. That is all I
can say about that.
Sierra Leone really has a great deal of needs across the
spectrum. But one of the keys I see on this, Senator, is
because there is a lack of institutional capacity and human
capacity, in addition to a lack of resources, financial
resources to fuel economic development. A key really is going
to be supporting Sierra Leonean efforts to improve governance
and specifically economic governance.
As I noted in my statement, the country is moving now to
generate revenues from its abundant stock of natural resources.
It is very important that Sierra Leone gets that right so that
those resources can be used to help develop the economy in a
very sustainable way that benefits all Sierra Leoneans.
Senator Markey. Countries in the developing world with
major extractive industries are often regarded as suffering
from the so-called ``resource curse,'' where the growth of such
countries is constrained because the wealth created by the
industry goes to an elite few in the country. It was to combat
this situation that Congress mandated that the Securities and
Exchange Commission enact increased transparency rules on
resource extraction projects as part of the Dodd-Frank Act, and
Senators Cardin, Leahy, Levin, and I, along with former Senator
Lugar, recently wrote to the Securities and Exchange Commission
to urge that they release strong rules in line with Congress'
mandate.
In Sierra Leone the diamond industry actually played a
large role in fueling the civil war. In fact, the war began in
the impoverished region that was the source of most of the
country's diamonds. How has in your opinion Sierra Leone's
Government sought to reform the diamond sector, a source of
wealth that helped fuel the civil war, and the mining sector
generally?
Mr. Hoover. Thank you again for that question. That is an
excellent question. On diamonds specifically, Senator, after
the end of the civil war, as you may know, Sierra Leone and a
group of other countries established the Kimberley Process,
which is a certification scheme to ensure that diamond exports
from countries like Sierra Leone are not used to fuel conflict.
So the conflict diamond issue has essentially gone away in
Sierra Leone.
Much of the diamond mining is still artisanal, which is to
say informal, which is to say illegal, and the country
continues to lose 15 to 20 percent of its diamond export
revenues through smuggling. So that remains a problem.
More broadly, I should note that Sierra Leone joined the
Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, which is an
international initiative to increase transparency in natural
resource revenue flows. They are temporarily suspended, but I
understand the government is working hard now to get back into
compliance with EITI.
Senator Markey. OK, great.
Mr. Hoover. Thank you.
Senator Markey [presiding]. My time has expired. The
Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Senator Flake. Thank you. Now I can stage a coup. Chairman
Coons is finally gone here. [Laughter.]
I appreciated meeting with all of you in my office earlier
and I appreciated the discussion there.
Mr. Hoza, a followup with regard to Cameroon. Can you
describe some of the antipiracy efforts that the United States
is contributing to there?
Mr. Hoza. Yes, Senator. I appreciate that question. It
talks to one of the true success stories in our bilateral
relationship. U.S. personnel have combined with a special unit
of the Cameroonian military to address piracy in Cameroonian
waters. That program has been sustained over the course of 2
years, and in the course of 2 years incidents of piracy within
Cameroon waters have been eliminated.
That is not necessarily a harbinger for success in the
future without continued effort, and we look forward to
sustaining that.
Senator Flake. Good. It is hoped that in the Gulf of Guinea
we can, I think we have, move to intercept the issue before it
gets as bad as it did off the coast of Somalia certainly. So
that's important and we want to make sure that that continues.
With regard to the antipoaching initiatives that we have,
can you describe those? Are we looking more on the finance
side? How are we combating at this point the poaching
activities there?
Mr. Hoza. Senator, as you are aware, Cameroon is in a
unique position in that it has such a wide range of fauna,
endangered species, throughout the country, but it is also on
the border between the Sahel and the Congo Basin, which means
it is right on the frontier of poaching. In 10 years the
Cameroonian elephant population has declined from 80,000 to
5,000. So the time for action is now and it is across the
spectrum.
First and foremost, we must stop the organized poaching of
the savannah elephants. Last year in December, you may be very
aware, professional poachers came across the desert and
slaughtered 300 elephants in one raid. These are organized
operations, and this is what we will work with with the
Cameroonian military, to stand up an ability to receive early
warning of these raids and to thwart them.
Beyond that, though, sir, the poaching, as you point out,
requires a full spectrum approach. So we will be working with
the Cameroonian justice system to make sure that penalties for
poaching are raised to the same level as penalties for, say,
drug trafficking or trafficking in persons. And we will help
them to prosecute cases more successfully.
Finally, there is a third act and that is to intercept all
of the routes by which the produce of poaching is transported
out of the country. These are the same routes that transport
people, the same routes that transport drugs, the same routes
that transport arms and explosives for terrorism in the north.
So it is an essential part of our program to work with the
Cameroonian military to stop this traffic.
Senator Flake. To what extent are Cameroonians complicit in
this, or is it outsiders typically that are involved? Or is
there some knowledge or help received by either the military or
other institutions?
Mr. Hoza. Cameroon has a very strong commitment on the part
of its military, through a special unit that is committed to
antipiracy, antipoaching, and counterterrorism, and we are very
impressed with this unit. We are also impressed with the
commitment of the Cameroonian Government to thwarting all three
of these activities in their country.
Much of it comes from outside the country, but of course
there are problems within the country that have to be
addressed. If confirmed, this is one of the areas that I intend
to focus on with much of my attention and time and much of the
time and attention of the Embassy.
Senator Flake. Thank you.
Mr. Hoover, in Sierra Leone there is significant Chinese
investment going on there. Can you describe that, and should
we--is this an area that there is a U.S. alternative? I have
found that most African countries, if given the choice between
U.S. investment and Chinese investment, will choose the former
because it is much--the local population is typically better
off and more involved, whether it is resource extraction or
whatever it is. But can you describe the Chinese investment
there and what our response should be?
Mr. Hoover. Certainly. Thanks, Senator, for that question,
a very important question. Chinese companies are investing
heavily in Sierra Leone. They are in a number of sectors,
including the power sector. They are building roads. There is
some talk of Chinese concerns building a new airport closer to
the capital, which is a great need in Sierra Leone right now.
And of course, they are investing also or looking to invest in
extractive industries as well.
These are investments that in principle we should welcome.
These are investments which should help Sierra Leone further
its own economic development goals, which we share. The trick I
think is in--and this goes back to Senator Markey's question--
is supporting Sierra Leone on efforts to make sure that they
have the tools in terms of economic governance to make sure
that they get a good deal when they negotiate these
investments, that there is accountability, that there is
transparency in these investments, that these investments are
socially responsible, that they meet international standards in
terms of labor rights, environmental protection, et cetera.
The other piece of it is, as you alluded to, Senator, is we
need to get more U.S. companies out there to compete with
Chinese and other companies from around the world, because, as
you say, all the good things we can do as a government I think
are far outdone by what our private sector can do in these
countries.
So if confirmed I will work very hard with our private
sector to at least try to make them aware of the opportunities
that are there in Sierra Leone in extractive industries,
agriprocessing, tourism, and other sectors--power.
Senator Flake. We talked about tourism. I did not realize
there was such potential there, but it seems to be so.
Mr. Hoover. There is. It is a beautiful country with
beautiful beaches. But because of the unfortunate legacy of the
civil war, all the earlier tourism infrastructure was
destroyed, and so there is an opportunity now for foreign
companies. In fact, a couple of U.S. hotel chains are looking
to invest or are presently investing in Sierra Leone.
Senator Flake. Ms. Reddick, we spoke in my office about the
impact of the situation in Mali on Niger. Can you describe
that? Presently, looking forward, what do we need to--
specifically, let me say, we do have a drone presence, unarmed
drones. It seems to be welcomed in the country, but how is it
going to be perceived as you know and understand it now? You
will know more on the ground there, I am sure. But what
diplomatic efforts are going to have to accompany that program
of the use of drones in Niger?
Ambassador Reddick. Thank you, Senator. Niger is in what
could be called a difficult neighborhood, with Mali, Libya, and
Nigeria on its borders. The Nigeriens understand that they are
faced with a great problem, in part because convoy routes pass
through northern Niger and convoys traditionally have carried
drugs, weapons, and illicit goods. We know they also are
carrying extremists and terrorists involved in the conflict in
northern Mali.
Nigeriens have reached out to the United States and other
international partners for assistance. The political will is
there. It is a democratic government that is trying to satisfy
the needs of its own population. They have worked very closely
with minority populations like the Tuareg. They are attempting
to create a more inclusive government.
The Government of Niger has reached out for assistance to
build their capacity to monitor their borders and to interdict
these convoys, to try to stop the spread of extremism and the
terrorist threat. We have responded with training. We are
working with various types of assistance to help Niger build a
crisis response unit, and a counterterrorism unit. They are
working with their own population to ensure that their young
people are not attracted to the extremist groups operating in
the region.
I mentioned we have a number of security programs to assist
Niger. We do have unarmed remotely piloted aircraft in Niger.
The Niger Government has welcomed our presence and has
explained to the population why we are there, and we have not
had problems.
If confirmed, I do intend to make sure that I am well
informed before I go out to post, but also while I am there, to
ensure that the programs we have in place are coordinated with
the Government of Niger. Also, as Chief of Mission, I intend to
work very closely with the Combatant Commanders involved in our
programs in Niger. I have already met with General Rodriguez,
who heads our Africa Command, and I do look forward to
maintaining close contact with him.
I think this is a partnership that serves Niger well, but
also serves our own interests in stopping the terrorism threat
in the region. We are working with countries in the region that
have the political will and want to be part of the solution.
Niger has played an important role in the political process
that has led to elections and a return to a democratic
government in Mali. I think the Nigeriens also want to be part
of the political process that looks at the needs of minority
populations and tries to find way to make more inclusive
governments in the region.
Senator Flake. Well, thank you.
With regard to physical security there with the Embassy,
what upgrades has the Embassy gone through over the past decade
in terms of setbacks and everything else? Are we where we need
to be or do we still--is that a continuing process there?
Ambassador Reddick. Yes, the Embassy in Niamey is not one
of the newer embassies. It is going through a major renovation
right now, which will continue into the next year, with
additional security measures to be constructed in the Embassy.
I also would like to point out that following the terrorist
attacks in May the Government of Niger was very responsive to
the Embassy's request for certain security measures to be added
to the neighborhood, and I am very pleased that we have
established that type of relationship with the Government of
Niger.
But I do intend, if confirmed, once I arrive at post, to
get together with my security team and take a look at the
renovations, what lies ahead, and what is still needed. If
there are things that need to take place to better secure the
Embassy for Americans and our locally employed staff, I want to
make sure that information gets transmitted back to Washington
as soon as possible.
Senator Flake. Well, thank you.
Mr. Hoza, with regard to the perception of the U.S. in
Cameroon, have the programs, be it PEPFAR, be it aid with
antipiracy or antiterrorism cooperation, antipoaching, have
these programs bought us good will in the country? How are we
perceived there?
Mr. Hoza. Senator, I think we enjoy a very positive image
in the Republic of Cameroon amongst the people, first and
foremost from our efforts to combat HIV-AIDS along with the
Ministry of Health. Many implementing partners there are very,
very effective at their programs and they are demonstrating an
expertise derived from our best practices that we brought to
them. Their own initiative has been impressive in trying to
slow the rate of increase in the prevalence of HIV-AIDS in the
country.
As far as the military to military relationship on
counterterrorism, antipiracy, and antipoaching, all of these
are welcomed by the Cameroonian Government and the Cameroonian
people. I think they are very much aware of the terrorism
threat. The recent kidnapping of a French family from northern
Cameroon brought home the fact that Cameroon is not immune to
the extremism that is running rampant in the neighborhood.
The important thing, though, is the way our personnel
conduct themselves in the course of their interaction with
military counterparts and with their professional counterparts
in the health sector. We must transmit American values of
respect for human rights, democracy, civilian leadership over
the military in terms of the military side, but on the health
care side, human rights respect for all individuals regardless
of their ethnic affiliation, their religion, or their sexual
preferences.
So these are the sort of values we must convey and we hope
that these values will become common values with our Cameroon
partners.
Senator Flake [presiding]. Well, thank you.
You will have to excuse me. I have got to go vote before
they close it out in a minute here. We will just recess the
hearing for about probably 3 minutes, until Senator Coons
returns. I am going to have to stay there at a meeting
afterward. I appreciate your willingness to serve and the
service you have already given to the country, and I think all
of you are well qualified and will represent the country well.
We will not have to recess at all, because here's Senator
Coons. So thank you.
Senator Coons [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Flake.
All three of you will, if confirmed, be representing the
United States in countries where the MCC plays a somewhat
different role than it did in the previous and where the
opportunities for economic development are significant, but not
yet fully realized, and for economic partnership between the
United States and the countries to which you will hopefully be
appointed.
So please, if you would, just speak about how you see
having been invited or being MCC-eligible playing a role and
how you think we might do a more effective job at sustaining
and building relationships, in particular in Niger, and then
what we need to do in Cameroon in order to move toward a place
where we can have a sustained economic relationship?
One of the values I place on MCC compacts, threshold
compacts and then full compacts, is it requires transparency,
commitment to democracy, commitment to certain sort of core
principles. If I remember correctly, Cameroon is not MCC-
eligible, but the other two nations are. So if you would speak
to how that mechanism helps and what you see as being the best
or likely focus as the countries to which you may well be
confirmed go through the MCC process?
Just in order, if you would, Ambassador Reddick, Mr.
Hoover, Mr. Hoza.
Ambassador Reddick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that
question. In Niger the Millennium Challenge Corporation has
been a motivating factor. With a democratic government in place
with the political will to do better by its population, to
deliver more services, to become more democratic, I think MCC
has acted as a motivation to do more.
Niger has had an MCC Threshold Program that has focused on
areas of investing in people, governing justly, and doing
business in Niger. After the return of a democratic Government
in Niger, we were able to restart the Threshold Program and
construct many of the schools that were scheduled to be
completed under the Threshold. That has been a very important
part of investing in people. Many of these schools will bring
more women and more young girls into the education system.
There has been a focus on corruption in the Threshold
Program and this issue is also important to the current
government of President Issoufou, so I think we are walking
hand in hand down the same path with the Nigeriens under the
MCC Threshold Program.
Senator Coons. Is the prospect of an MCC compact a
significant incentive or is it a rounding error in the greater
context of the concerns facing President Issoufou?
Ambassador Reddick. My sense is, from my experience working
in the West Africa Office and also with Sao Tome-Principe as an
MCC Threshold Program country, it is a great incentive, very
much so. We have continued to see a push by Niger to continue
to meet the criteria, and I am sure they are looking forward to
being eligible again when the indicators are published over the
next couple of months.
MCC is in Niger now considering what a good proposal for a
compact will look like. I understand they are looking, in
particular, at livestock, one of the major exports of Niger.
Livestock depend upon water. MCC is focusing on where water
sites are available for the livestock. What happens to the
livestock? Well, a lot of the livestock have traditionally been
exported to Nigeria. What are the constraints to maintaining
these exports or increasing them? What are the trade barriers,
for example? This is another area that MCC is looking at with
the Nigerien Government.
The government understands very well that, for example,
they do need to reduce trade barriers. They still need to work
on corruption and they are doing so through new agencies within
the government to attack corruption by developing cases and
prosecuting those individuals involved in corruption.
I see MCC working hand in hand with governments with the
political will to invest in their people, expand the economy,
strengthen democracy and good governance, and bring prosperity
to their citizens. Niger a very good example, and if confirmed
I look forward to working closely with MCC there. From what I
have seen, from my experience, what works well is when there is
a development team that brings together MCC and USAID. I look
forward to working with such a team when I am in Niamey, if
confirmed.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Ambassador Reddick.
Mr. Hoover, does eligibility for an MCC compact have much
of an impact in Sierra Leone? And if so, how would you see the
trajectory playing out?
Mr. Hoover. Thank you, Senator. I am a big fan of the MCC.
Eligibility itself has already had an impact without a single
dollar really being disbursed yet in Sierra Leone. Just the
prospect of becoming compact-eligible has been used by the
administration there in Sierra Leone, to their credit, as a way
to improve their political and economic governance.
When they were made eligible last year in December, their
performance on their MCC score card had improved dramatically,
and that was specifically because the government had identified
the MCC compact or threshold program as an incentive that they
chose to pursue. So it has had a great benefit already without
any money even being spent.
Currently, MCC and the Government of Sierra Leone are
working toward compact development. I do not want to prejudge
how that is going to come out. There are huge needs across the
board in Sierra Leone. We do not know what our budget will be
for the MCC compact if one materializes. But I can see
investments in governance, in anticorruption efforts, in the
power sector, education, health. It really is kind of the whole
gamut. Again, I do not want to prejudge that, where those
resources might go. But I look forward, if confirmed, to using
MCC and using the compact development again to continue to
shape incentives to encourage further economic reform. And at
the end of the day we hope actually to disburse some money, so
that we can invest in the country's future.
Senator Coons. That is encouraging. I have noticed both in
a recent trip to Liberia and a previous trip to Benin sort of a
real significant focus by national leadership on what an MCC
compact, or a second compact in Benin's case, could mean, not
just the raw dollar value, but sort of the prestige of being
deemed eligible and then deemed a partner, and the way it is
delivered in terms of real partnership for the long term.
So, Mr. Hoza, Cameroon President Biya in some ways
epitomizes entrenched power in Africa. It is, as you mentioned
in your statement, a relatively speaking stable country, but
one where the reach of its natural resources has not yet been
fully developed to the benefit of its people.
What are the tools you might use in Cameroon? Is MCC even
on the horizon as one of them, or are there others, to help
encourage liberalization, steady progress toward democracy? And
what do you think of the prospects for elections soon, if at
all this year?
Mr. Hoza. Thank you, Senator. We have to be very, very
clear-eyed about the challenges in Cameroon and maintain a very
clear-eyed perspective on some of the shortcomings that need to
be overcome. But we also have to keep in mind the importance of
Cameroon to the region. Stability in a very unstable region is
valuable. They are custodians of great biodiversity and
custodians of much of the Congo Basin. So there is a lot at
stake here.
Progress has been made. In April of this year, a senate was
elected. Of 100 senators, 20 are women and 18 are members of
the opposition. So we are beginning to see some steps forward.
On September 30 there will be parliamentary and municipal
elections and there have been some electoral reforms, not least
of which is biodata voter registration and publishing of the
voter rolls on the Internet. These are all positive steps
forward towards what we hope will be a democratic process of
transparency that will have the confidence of the Cameroonian
people.
We are looking at Presidential elections in 2018.
We have also seen some greater press freedom, particularly
in the area of Cameroonian politics, and these are encouraging.
Again, we must be clear-eyed. There are still severe challenges
to the democratic process in Cameroon and it will be important
for us to bring to bear all of our influence to improve that
situation.
Senator Coons. We often face challenges when advocating for
values that are rooted in America, whether it is democracy,
transparency. Cameroon is a country that Human Rights Watch has
identified as having one of the most aggressive anti-LGBT
prosecution and enforcement efforts. What would you do as
Ambassador to raise the issue of human rights broadly and also
specifically to advance the rights of those whose sexual
orientation makes them subject to harassment or abuse in
Cameroon?
Mr. Hoza. Cameroon recently witnessed two very tragic
murders of LGBT activists. Ambassador Jackson attended the
funerals and has commenced a program, with the assistance of
various offices back here in Washington, commenced a program to
address legislation, to attempt to change legislation in
Cameroon to protect the rights of LGBT individuals.
He has pressed also for a proper investigation into those
murders and to bring the perpetrators to justice. If confirmed,
I will continue those efforts.
Senator Coons. Thank you. I would look forward to hearing
updates on your progress in that important work.
Last, you mentioned there are significant resources in
Cameroon, but some real challenges in terms of transparency.
Tell me about how EITI or other initiatives that are designed
to improve transparency--I think Senator Markey asked about
some of the SEC rules--might be applied in the private sector,
in particular in extractive industries, both the transmission
and the development of oil resources from Chad and then within
Cameroon?
Mr. Hoza. EITI has been a very, very helpful tool. We
import--the largest amount of exports from Cameroon to the
United States is from their oil industry, and a significant
portion of our exports to Cameroon have to do with the oil
industry, whether it is in surveying for oil and natural gas or
actually extracting the product from the ground. The pipeline,
of course, as you mentioned, is also another important factor
in Cameroon's economy.
We see a number of ways to impact transparency and a way to
reduce the corruption that is endemic in the private sector in
the market in Cameroon. We have seen a doubling in U.S. exports
to Cameroon and we are selling things like civilian aircraft
and diesel-electric locomotives, important to the development
of their industries from the eastern portion of the country,
drawing out the mineral and forest resources responsibly, to
the new deepwater port in Kribi.
So Cameroonians see the advantage of trade with the United
States and know that we have the technology and the products
that they need to develop their economy. We need to capitalize
on that. We need to press them to make sure that there is a
level playing field, that all tenders are open and transparent,
and that corruption will not be tolerated. The more we can
press that issue and the more that we can ensure that our
corporations adhere to all of our rules and regulations and all
the rules and regulations of Cameroon, the better the trade
will be.
Senator Coons. I think you are right, Mr. Hoza.
Mr. Hoover, if I might. If confirmed, you will be
overseeing a relatively small embassy, mostly first or second-
tour officers, in somewhat challenging, at times even
difficult, living circumstances. How do you support the
professional development of your staff in that kind of an
environment? How do you maintain morale and ensure their
safety?
Mr. Hoover. As you pointed out, Senator--thank you for that
question--it is a difficult environment in Freetown. The
Embassy is pretty much supplying all of its own water, its own
power, and much of its own infrastructure because of the
context there of underdevelopment. So maintaining morale,
maintaining unity of purpose, I think will be one of my biggest
challenges if confirmed and one of my biggest areas of focus.
As you also noted, we have a lot of one-person sections at
that Embassy, and often those one or two people in those
sections are quite junior. I have already spoken to the deputy
chief of mission there, a person I have worked with before. She
and I share a very, very strong belief in developing those
younger officers. That will be one of my--in terms of the
internal management and leadership of the mission, that will be
one of my highest priorities, is providing those younger
officers with the support they need, the guidance they need, to
be fully successful, not just at the mission there in Freetown,
but throughout their careers.
How do we go about doing this? It is just what you do every
day, day in and day out, working with people, encouraging them
and giving them the guidance they need to do good work.
Senator Coons. I know that is a challenge for all chiefs of
mission.
But if I might, Ambassador Reddick. As someone who is going
to a country that both faces significant challenges and has
real opportunities, if I might by way of a closing question, In
your opening you referenced the regional environment and how
Niger has been exposed to increased violence and the potential
of real terrorism, both because of southern Libya's
instability, because of developments in Mali, and developments
more regionally relating to Nigeria.
How do we ensure that Niger, currently a relatively staunch
U.S. ally with which we have built some strong partnerships,
does not become the next Mali? What are the steps we need to be
taking to ensure that it remains stable and a key ally in our
work in the Sahara and the Sahel?
Ambassador Reddick. That is an excellent question, Mr.
Chairman. I think we frankly need to continue what we are
already doing in Niger. We have important programs in place
through USAID, through MCC, that allow us to work with the
Government of Niger in key areas of strengthening
democratization, focusing on good governance, and improving the
situation of the people of Niger.
I think this will make a big difference. It will create a
more stable Niger. It has had a history of political fragility
and that is why I think we need to continue to work with the
Nigerien government on strengthening institutions, and also
continue to work with civil society. We do work through a
number of NGOs, including local NGOs, through USAID. All this
empowers the people of Niger. It gives them a voice to hold
their own government accountable. And the government of
President Issoufou, I think, hears them and is trying to
respond. We need to help them with the tools to become more
resilient to these cycles of drought, and focus on
diversification of crops, so if one crop fails, such as millet,
then perhaps there can be a successful onion crop.
We are doing these things through USAID to make a
difference for the people of Niger so that they can become more
resilient to the environmental shocks of drought and famine and
also flooding, which they recently experienced.
We are working in the area of education, not only building
schools but focusing also on women, especially young girls, to
improve the human resources of Niger so that women can fully
participate in the economy.
These are just a few examples. Our government is headed in
the right direction; we are doing the right thing. We need to
do more of it perhaps. We could always use more resources, not
only in Niger but also in the Sahel region. We are looking at
working more regionally. We have started a special unit of
USAID based in Dakar that focuses on the Sahel as a region. I
think this will have resonance as USAID also develops
activities that will strengthen each of the countries in the
region.
I am very pleased to be going out to Niger, if confirmed
because there is a lot we can do. I think we are already doing
some good things that will have an impact, and we are working
with a very cooperative partner with the Government of Niger
and the people of Niger.
Senator Coons. Great. Thank you, Ambassador Reddick. Thank
you, Mr. Hoover. Thank you, Mr. Hoza. All three of these
countries are countries that are valued American allies and
where we have some real challenges, in stabilizing Sierra Leone
and ensuring its ongoing recovery from what was a devastating
civil war, and in ensuring transparency and progress toward
tackling very significant human poverty challenges; in
Cameroon, preserving the value of stability while still really
promoting our values, democracy and openness in the economy and
protecting vulnerable minorities; and in Niger, ensuring that
we are helping them deal with the likely impact of climate
change and become more resilient and become better able to
fight poverty, but also to continue to be a real stalwart ally
for us in the region.
Thank you, all three of you. Thank you to your families and
coworkers and colleagues who have come today to support you.
I am going to leave the record open for a week for those
members of the committee who were not able to join us today,
but who may want to submit questions.
With that, this hearing is hereby adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:24 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record
Response of Dwight L. Bush to Question Submitted
by Senator Robert Menendez
Question. Morocco's claim to the Western Sahara has caused friction
in United States-Morocco relations, with its neighbor Algeria, and
within the African Union. Its claim stymies regional economic and
security cooperation.
How can the United States facilitate political discussions
around this contentious issue?
Answer. The U.S. Government continues to support the process led by
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and his Personal Envoy for Western
Sahara, Christopher Ross, to find a peaceful, sustainable, and mutually
agreed solution to the Western Sahara conflict. The U.S. Government,
along with all the other members of the Security Council, unanimously
adopted Resolution 2099 (2013), which took note of the Moroccan
autonomy proposal presented to the Secretary General on April 11, 2007,
and welcomed the serious and credible Moroccan efforts to move the
process forward toward a resolution. It also took note of the Polisario
proposal presented on April 10, 2007.
In November 2012 and March of this year, the U.N. Secretary
General's Personal Envoy held broad-based consultations with the
parties to the conflict, Morocco and the Frente Polisario, as well as
with important regional stakeholders Algeria and Mauritania. He also
consulted with the Friends on Western Sahara (France, Spain, Russia,
the United Kingdom, and the United States). Ambassador Ross' work to
bring the two parties together continues to hold promise and inspires
hope for progress toward the resolution of this conflict. The United
States supports Ross' approach of bilateral talks with the parties with
the aim to launch shuttle diplomacy to work toward finding a just,
lasting, and mutually acceptable political solution. If confirmed, I
will work diligently to translate that support into tangible
improvements.
______
Response of Matthew Harrington to Question Submitted
by Senator Robert Menendez
Question. Lesotho has flourished under the African Growth and
Opportunity Act (AGOA) to become the act's top nonenergy exporter to
the U.S. of goods, exclusively textiles. Labor disputes, including over
minimum wage, have accompanied the growth of the textile industry.
Can you describe Lesotho's institutional capacity to
resolve future labor disputes? What role can and should the
United States play in helping to resolve these disputes?
Answer. Lesotho's primary institutional mechanism for labor
mediation and dispute resolution is the Directorate of Dispute
Prevention and Resolution, an independent government agency established
in 2000. The Directorate effectively resolves most disputes through
conciliation or arbitration, although the process can be lengthy.
The United States plays a leading role in helping Lesotho resolve
labor disputes in the textile industry, which employs more than 36,000
Basotho, mainly women. The majority of textile firms exporting to the
United States under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA)
participate in the International Labor Organization's (ILO) Better Work
Lesotho Program (BWL), which was established in 2009. BWL works with
factories and unions to improve compliance with ILO core labor
standards and the Lesotho national labor law, with the goal of
maintaining Lesotho as an ethical sourcing destination. American buyers
like Gap, Levi's, and Walmart support industry participation in the
program by encouraging all of the factories they source from to enroll
in the program. In addition, these buyers rely on Better Work Lesotho
assessment reports rather than conducting their own periodic audits. A
U.S. Department of Labor grant of $3.3 million solely funds Better Work
Lesotho for the period 2010-2014.
In 2012, the U.S. Embassy worked with Better Work Lesotho and the
U.S. Department of Labor to bring experts from the Federal Mediation
and Conciliation Service (FMCS) to Lesotho to train union officials and
employers on communication skills and dispute resolution. FMCS returned
to Lesotho in September 2013 to provide additional training in
collective bargaining and problem solving at the factory level.
The labor movement in Lesotho's textile industry is fragmented,
with multiple unions competing for membership; as a result, unions have
reduced bargaining power with employers. Nonetheless, labor relations
in Lesotho are generally positive--the textile industry experiences
relatively few strikes or other mass labor actions. While in prior
years unions concentrated on industrywide minimum wage negotiations,
more recently their efforts have been focused on negotiations with
individual factories.
______
Response of Eunice S. Reddick to Question Submitted
by Senator Robert Menendez
Question. Niger struggles with security issues due to ongoing
threats from Boko Haram, AQIM and affiliated groups, and broad regional
security challenges. What are Niger's existing counterterrorism
capabilities? What is the extent of United States-Niger
counterterrorism efforts? Do they meet the needs of the United States
to protect U.S. interests in the region?
Answer. Niger is a committed partner in combating terrorist groups
and extremist ideology throughout the Sahel. Our relationship enjoys
broad-based support from the government and people of Niger and is
cognizant and reflective of Nigerien priorities, interests, and
concerns.
The United States has long supported the Government of Niger's
efforts to secure its borders and counter the threat of extremism.
Under the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Program (TSCTP), the United
States provides training and equipment to Niger. Support under this
program aims to increase security sector capacity, address underlying
causes of radicalization, and increase the voices of moderate leaders
to positively influence populations potentially vulnerable to
radicalization.
We are also working closely with Niger to support the deployment of
the U.N. Multidimensional Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA).
Niger has committed an 850-ground-troop contingent to the mission,
almost all of which have already deployed to Mali. The United States
provided those troops logistical support, training, and equipment
through the African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance
(ACOTA) Program.
Niger provides critical support for U.S. regional security goals
throughout the region. U.S. Africa Command has positioned unarmed
remotely piloted aircraft in Niger to support a range of regional
security missions and engagements with partner nations. This effort is
designed to promote regional stability, and to strengthen relationships
with regional leaders committed to security and prosperity.
______
Response of Dwight L. Bush to Question Submitted
by Senator John Barrasso
Question. The United States is the most competitive supplier of
soda ash in the world, due to the abundance of the raw material trona
in our country. U.S. natural soda ash is refined from the mineral
trona. The Green River Basin in Wyoming
has the world's largest known deposits of naturally occurring trona.
Soda ash is a
key component of glass, detergents, soaps, and chemicals. American soda
ash has
long been regarded as the standard for quality, purity, and energy
efficiency in
production.
As I have discussed in this committee before, soda ash continues to
face significant trade barriers around the world. Since 2009, the U.S.
soda ash industry
has urged the administration to press the Government of Morocco to live
up to the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement by permitting U.S. origin
soda ash to enter duty-free. Instead, Morocco imposes a 2.5 percent
duty while this country's European competitors enter their soda ash
duty-free under the EU-Morocco Free Trade
Agreement.
In your testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,
you committed to ``working to increase commerce with this key ally.''
Will you commit to me that you will strongly advocate to
resolve the problem of the duty being levied on U.S. soda ash
to Morocco?
Please outline what efforts you will take as U.S.
Ambassador to the Kingdom of Morocco to ensure that Morocco
finally lives up to its free trade agreement with the United
States by granting U.S. origin soda ash duty-free treatment.
As Ambassador, will you diligently pursue every opportunity
to eliminate trade barriers and increase exports for all U.S.
industries?
Answer. I will commit to you that I will strongly advocate to
expand wherever possible opportunities for the U.S. soda ash industry
to penetrate the Moroccan market. The U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement
(FTA) came into force in January 2006, and on the first day that the
treaty came into effect, 95 percent of goods and services became
tariff-free. All remaining tariffs are to be eliminated by 2015. From
entry into force through the end of 2012, the FTA increased overall
trade by 244 percent, from $927 million to $3.2 billion; exports of
U.S. products to Morocco soared 369 percent from $481 million to $2.3
billion and U.S. investment in Morocco jumped sharply.
The United States Trade Representative leads the Joint Committee on
the Free Trade Agreement to discuss the implementation of the FTA.
During these committee meetings, the United States Trade Representative
will work diligently to ensure that Morocco fully lives up to its
commitments under the FTA. Recent bilateral discussion on joint
principles for investment as well as a new agreement to facilitate
trade through common customs procedures should help further open the
Moroccan market to U.S. exports and investment. If confirmed, I will
diligently pursue every opportunity to eliminate trade barriers and
increase exports for U.S. industries.
NOMINATION OF TOMASZ MALINOWSKI, KEITH HARPER, CRYSTAL NIX-HINES,
PAMELA HAMAMOTO
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
----------
Tomasz P. Malinowski, of the District of Columbia, to be
Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human
Rights, and Labor
Keith M. Harper, of Maryland, to be the United States
Representative to the United Nations Human Rights
Council
Crystal Nix-Hines, of California, to be the United States
Permanent Representative to the United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
Pamela K. Hamamoto, of Hawaii, to be Representative of the
United States of America to the Office of the United
Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:31 p.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer
presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Coons, Rubio, and McCain.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Good afternoon. Today the full Senate
Foreign Relations Committee meets to consider four very
important nominations. I want to say welcome to all of our
nominees and congratulations to you on your nominations.
I am also so pleased that Senators McCain and Coons will
say a few words about two of our nominees. So I am going to
make an extremely brief opening and I am going to kick it to
Senator Coons because he has a time issue, take it to Senator
McCain, unless Senator Paul comes in and needs to make an
opening statement. I do not believe so. So that is what is
going to happen here, and then of course we will hear from all
of you.
Our first nominee, Tom Malinowski, has been nominated to be
the Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.
He most recently served as the Washington Director for Human
Rights Watch, where I got to know him. Prior to this Mr.
Malinowski, an Oxford graduate and Rhodes Scholar, served in a
number of important positions, including as a Senior Director
on the National Security Council under President Clinton. He
has written prolifically about human rights abuses around the
globe.
Our second nominee, Keith Harper, has been nominated to
serve as the U.S. Representative to the United Nations Human
Rights Council. He is a member of the Cherokee Nation of
Oklahoma and has spent a significant part of his legal career
fighting for the rights of Native Americans. He has also served
as a trial court judge. If confirmed, he will join a small
number of Native Americans who have held the rank of U.S.
Ambassador.
Our third nominee, Crystal Nix-Hines, has been nominated to
serve as the U.S. Representative to UNESCO. She is a Harvard
Law School graduate with an accomplished legal career and spent
many years in private practice and clerked for Supreme Court
Justices Thurgood Marshall and Sandra Day O'Connor. Ms. Nix-
Hines has also held several positions at the State Department.
Our final nominee, Pamela Hamamoto, has been nominated to
serve as U.S. Representative to the Office of the United
Nations in Geneva. She worked for many years in the private
sector, including as an executive at Goldman Sachs and Merrill
Lynch. She chose to devote her time since then to serving her
community, and particularly underprivileged students, and
advocating on behalf of women and girls.
So if you are all confirmed, which is certainly my hope,
you will play an important role, each of you, in ensuring that
U.S. foreign policy continues to reflect our values, including
protecting human rights, promoting democratic governance, and
ensuring international collaboration on a range of topics.
This is so important because we live in a very tough world
today, where women are brutally raped, abused, and murdered
simply because they are women and where girls have acid thrown
in their face simply because they want to go to school. We live
in a world where vicious dictators like Syrian leader Assad
will go to whatever extremes necessary to maintain their grip
on power, even gassing their own people. And I am proud of this
committee for taking a stand against that, especially to my two
colleagues who happen to be here at this time.
In too many places, democracy and human rights seem to be
headed down a dark path. But America is still the beacon of
light and hope. So when you are confirmed you will be at the
forefront of these great challenges. You are all examples of
the American dream. I was thinking about that on the way over.
And you do embody that spirit of America.
So I believe you are all up for it and I thank you for
stepping forward for your country, and I thank your families.
At this time I will turn to Senator Coons, followed by
Senator McCain.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the
opportunity to participate in today's confirmation hearing.
I am very pleased to introduce my good friend, Crystal Nix-
Hines, who has been nominated by the President to serve as U.S.
Permanent Representative to the United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO. Having known
Crystal for the better part of our lives since growing up
together in Delaware, it is without reservation that I proudly
voice my enthusiastic support for her nomination.
Crystal has a long career of distinguished service as a
reporter, attorney, and adviser at the State Department that
has nearly perfectly prepared her for this critical and
challenging role. She began her career as a reporter for the
New York Times and has continued a lifelong commitment to
writing and the arts, which are particularly relevant to
UNESCO. In fact, she has served as a writer and producer on
several network television shows, ``Commander in Chief,''
``Alias,'' and ``The Practice.''
But her writing has also been with purpose. Throughout the
nineties she held positions at the State Department, including
counselor to the Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human
Rights, and Labor, member of the Department's Policy Planning
Staff, and special assistant to the Legal Adviser. These
experiences built on the very strong foundation of her legal
career, which began at Harvard Law School and continued, as you
mentioned, with distinguished clerkships for the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court.
If confirmed, Crystal would proudly represent the United
States at UNESCO in advancing human rights, tolerance, and
education globally. Her career in public service is deeply
rooted in her family's enduring commitment to public service. I
am thrilled that her mother, Dr. Lula Mae Nix, is here with us
today. Her mother and father are an important part of the
fabric of the civil rights movement in our home State of
Delaware and she and her large extended family have played a
significant role in our State.
She also is supported by her husband, David, her children,
Julia and Samuel, and is someone who I know will represent us
in absolutely the finest tradition of the Foreign Service and
will bring all of her strengths and skills to bear. I
enthusiastically endorse her nomination today.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Senator Coons, thank you so much.
Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
When Tom Malinowski asked me for my assistance and support
for his nomination to be Assistant Secretary of State for
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, I was pleased to offer it.
And I told Tom I would be happy to praise him publicly or
criticize him publicly, whichever would be more helpful to him.
[Laughter.]
It turns out that Tom wanted me to say a few kind words
about him here this afternoon, and I believe he even brought
his mother to keep me on my best behavior.
Is your mother here, Tom? Welcome, ma'am. I will try to be
as nice as is possible for me. I thank you.
I could spend the rest of my day praising Tom Malinowski,
but that would cut into the time I might have to beat him up
with our concerns about human rights. So I will always be
brief. I always refrain from indulging in speculation about
what I would do if I were President, but I will break that rule
a little today to say this: Had I been President, I could
imagine no one better for this important job than Tom
Malinowski.
I say this not because Tom is a closet Republican--he
certainly is not; I think he may be a socialist--and not
because Tom and I agree on everything--we certainly do not. But
what Tom and I do share and what I admire most about him is his
unwavering dedication to the principles that make America the
exceptional Nation that it is and to making these principles an
integral part of our Nation's foreign policy.
Tom is a consummate professional who lives his conviction
that America's values belong to all Americans and that they are
the responsibility of all Americans to protect and promote. But
it goes beyond that. Tom understands that these principles,
democracy and freedom, rule of law, human rights and dignity,
these are not just ideas that we tilt at rhetorically. They are
the essence of who we are as Americans and for millions and
millions of people across the globe for whom these principles
are still more a dream than a reality, these values are the
difference between prosperity and poverty, liberty and tyranny,
hope and fear, and even life and death.
Tom believes this deeply because he has worked his entire
career with and on behalf of these people who are striving for
democracy and human rights. He has seen their struggles and
heard their dreams firsthand in places like Burma and often at
risk to his own safety in places like Libya and Syria. He has
drawn on all of these experiences to further the highest
calling of all Americans, to serve our Nation and to make it
better.
This is the contribution Tom made most of all in the fight
here in Congress to end torture, and I am forever grateful to
him for that. This is what Tom Malinowski has done and this is
what he will continue to do if confirmed for this post, and
this is why I am so pleased to recommend Tom's nomination to
all of my colleagues on this committee and in the rest of the
Senate.
I thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you so much for your eloquent
remarks.
What we are going to do is start with Tom and then move
down this way. As we discussed, each of you has 4 minutes to
make your case. Just all we want is the lifetime of your
experience boiled down to 4 minutes. But we also want to give
you time to--if you have family here, that will not count
against your time. We will start the clock after you have
introduced your families. So if family is here, please take the
time to do it.
Tom Malinowski, please.
STATEMENT OF TOMASZ P. MALINOWSKI, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEMOCRACY,
HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you so much, Madam Chair and Senator
McCain. I am the one who is grateful to you.
You have met my mom. My daughter----
Senator Boxer. Why don't you stand. All right. You did a
good job. [Applause.]
Mr. Malinowski. That is the best part.
My daughter Emily is watching on the video feed on the Web
site from Colby College, where she is cutting an International
Relations class to see this. So I think that is a good move on
her part.
Chairwoman Boxer, you probably do not remember this, but
you were present the first time I appeared before a
congressional committee. I was 20 years old. I was a student at
Cal-Berkeley.
Senator Boxer. And I was 22.
Mr. Malinowski. Yes. And you had recruited me to come talk
to the House Budget Committee about student financial aid, and
I was absolutely terrified. But you were very encouraging, and
you not only said at the end of the hearing that you would send
my testimony to President Reagan, but that you would put it in
the ``Congressional Record.'' And for a nerdy little kid like
me that was like having a record on the pop charts.
That experience really was one of the things that gave me
confidence to go into this line of work. So in some ways I
might not be here if not for you.
It is obviously a singular honor to be nominated for this
position by President Obama while being introduced by Senator
McCain. Senator, as you can imagine, people who know my
political affiliation sometimes ask me how come I get along
with you so well. I recently thought of an image that sums it
up for me, so if you will indulge me.
It came to me right after a really painful moment in our
recent history, the Boston Marathon bombing. I was watching
with most Americans the TV images of what happened that day,
and I noticed something amazing that you probably saw, too.
Most of the people who were there naturally ran away from the
blast, but there were a few people who did exactly the
opposite. They ran straight for the fire and the smoke. They
had no idea what they would find there or how much danger they
were in. They just knew there were people there who needed
their help, and so they ran straight for the trouble.
That is how I think of you. You run straight at the hardest
problems even when the risks are high and the rewards for you
are very small. You know that this approach to life is better
and more honorable than the alternative, and I thank you for
it.
[Applause.]
Mr. Malinowski [continuing]. Now, I happen to think that
image captures our country at its best moments as well. That is
the America that stood up for the Baltic independence movements
and Burmese democrats and Libyan freedom fighters, the American
that President Obama spoke for at the U.N. just a few hours ago
when he said that we would never stop standing for our
principles in the world, the America that's been debating for
the last few weeks what we should do about the atrocities in
Syria. However that debate comes out, I think the mere fact
that we are having it marks our Nation as exceptional.
It is the America I grew up admiring as an immigrant from
Poland. Here are some of the most proud moments of my life in
that spirit: standing with President Clinton in Warsaw,
celebrating with Poles their admission to NATO; going to
Sarajevo in 1996 and seeing that city restored to life after we
had helped end the genocide in Bosnia; going to Burma just last
year and greeting activists just released from prison who
credited America for their freedom.
And here are some of the toughest moments: hearing people
from still-suffering places ask me: What about us? Refugees
from North Korea, Tibetan Chinese refugees, or the Syrians I
met last year in the Aleppo countryside, who would come out of
their homes when they heard that I was an American to plead for
our help. It is very hard to explain to people in that
situation that we cannot be there for everybody every time. But
those moments when people turn to us and only us are a measure
of our importance and a reminder that the blessings of being
American are inseparable from its burdens.
There are a lot of challenges that I hope we will have a
chance to work on together if I am confirmed. I mention a few
in my prepared testimony, which I hope you can put in the
record. How to counter the global crackdown on civil society.
How to ensure that the Arab Awakening leads to stability and
respect for the rights of all people, including women and
religious minorities, from Egypt to Libya to Bahrain, and of
course in Syria. How to influence the debate under way in
emerging powers like China about the values they will embrace
as they grow in influence. How to preserve fragile gains for
human rights, especially women, in Afghanistan as we draw down;
how to ensure that the decisions we make as a country on issues
like surveillance and detention and targeted killing protect
our security while also enabling us to project our message to
the world about liberty and law. There are so many more.
When we confront hard challenges like these, it is tempting
to say things like, ``we have no good options,'' and ``our
influence is limited.'' If I am confirmed, I am going to try my
best when you call me up here to avoid using such phrases.
After all, our influence is never unlimited. And we never have
good options when a debate comes to the level of a Senate
Foreign Relations Committee hearing, that is a good sign that
there are no easy options.
The job of the State Department official, it seems to me,
is to figure out how to use limited influence to solve the
toughest problems, recognizing that we may sometimes fail but
must always try.
I think we are still the best hope, Madam Chair, for people
struggling for human rights around the world, and that their
success is still our best hope for the world we want.
If confirmed, I look forward to working with you to realize
that hope.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Malinowski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom P. Malinowski
I am grateful to be here as President Obama's nominee to be
Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.
Madam Chairman, you probably do not remember this, but you were
present the first time I ever appeared before a congressional
committee. I was 20 years old and a student at UC Berkeley. You were a
member of the House Budget Committee under Chairman Bill Gray, and you
recruited me to testify about federal funding for student financial
aid. I was terrified. But you were encouraging. And when I was done,
you said you'd send my testimony to President Reagan, and, better yet,
put it in the Congressional Record, which, for a nerdy kid like me was
like having a record on the pop charts. That experience helped give me
the confidence to go into public life. So I might not be here if not
for you.
Three years ago, speaking to the United Nations, President Obama
said that ``part of the price of our own freedom is standing up for the
freedom of others.'' To be asked by the President to help him and
Secretary Kerry give life to that conviction is the greatest honor of
my career.
It is also a singular honor to be nominated for this position by
President Obama while being introduced by Senator McCain. I take this
as a reminder that the cause of human rights unites Americans, no
matter what party we belong to or how much we argue about the issues of
the day. If confirmed, I will do everything in my power to deepen the
bipartisan consensus for America's defense of liberty around the world,
and to conduct myself in that spirit at all times.
Senator McCain, as you can imagine, people who know my political
affiliation sometimes ask me, how come I get along with you so well? I
recently thought of an image that sums up why that is better than any
recitation of what we've worked on together. It came to me in the
instant after a terrible moment in our recent history, the bombing at
the Boston Marathon. Like most Americans, I watched the scenes of what
happened that day on television. And I noticed something amazing: while
most of the people there naturally ran away from the blast, a few ran
right toward it. They could not have known what had happened or how
much danger they were in; they just knew instinctively that somewhere
in the smoke and chaos people needed their help. And that's how I look
at you, Senator. You run straight at the hardest problems, even when
the risks are high and immediate rewards small. You may have noticed
that sometimes, when we run toward trouble, we get in trouble. But you
also know that this approach to life is more rewarding and honorable
than its alternative.
I think that image captures our country in its finest moments as
well. It explains the America that gave so much to rebuild Europe and
Japan after WWII, the America that stood up for the enduring struggles
of Baltic independence movements and of Burmese democrats and of those
seeking freedom in Libya, the America that takes in refugees from
repression and war even when it offends governments with which we must
do business, the America that tries to make peace where it might be
easier to disengage and resign ourselves to perpetual conflict, as
former Senator Feingold will be doing in Central Africa and Secretary
Kerry is doing in the Middle East. It describes us today, debating how
to aid Syrians being killed by a brutal dictator--wherever that debate
leads us, the mere fact we are having it marks our Nation as
exceptional.
That's the America I grew up admiring, as an immigrant from Poland
who'd seen how powerless people behind the Iron Curtain drew strength
from having the world's most powerful country on their side. In my
life, nothing has made me prouder than standing with President Clinton
in Warsaw celebrating with Poles their admission to NATO, the
culmination of what many thought a quixotic American quest to free
Europe's captive nations, or going to Sarajevo and seeing that city
restored to life after America helped end the genocide in Bosnia, or
going to Burma last year and greeting activists just released from
prison who credited America for their freedom. Those moments aside, I
have found nothing harder than hearing people in other, still-troubled
places ask me ``why can't your country help end the repression in
ours?''--whether refugees from North Korea, Tibetan Chinese exiles, or
the Syrians I met last year in the Aleppo countryside, who would come
out of their homes when they learned I was American to plead for our
assistance. How do you explain to someone in that situation the
undeniable truth that we cannot be there for everyone every time? It's
troubling to see their disappointment sometimes morph into resentment
against the United States. But we should remember that such anger is
often nothing more than the flip side of hope that we will do more to
live up to our highest ideals, which are reflected in the world's
expectations of us. It is a measure of our importance, and a reminder
that the blessings of being American are inseparable from its burdens.
All around the world, I think people have this in common: they
don't want to live unnaturally, in fear, denied basic freedom and
dignity. When people are forced to live this way, they eventually
resist. That resistance, as we have seen from the fall of the Soviet
Empire to the start of the Arab Awakening, drives history. And because
of who we are, they expect the United States to stand with them. We
cannot always respond as they wish. But when we vindicate their faith
in us by defending the ideals we share with them, we emerge stronger
and better able to advance our national interests. We gain allies of an
enduring, not transactional, nature. We project confidence in
ourselves. We promote the ascendance of ideas, institutions, and
leaders that make the world more peaceful, prosperous, and welcoming of
American leadership. Even if I didn't care about right and wrong, I
would argue that advancing democratic ideals and human rights is one of
our paramount interests. Our commitment to live by and promote those
values is our comparative advantage, a strategic asset as worthy of
protection as our military strength and economic base. These are some
of the convictions that will guide me if I am confirmed.
There are many challenges I hope we will have a chance to work on
together. Looking ahead, here are a few key questions on my mind:
How can we counter the global crackdown on civil society--the
proliferation, from Russia to parts of the Middle East, Asia, Latin
America, and Africa, of laws and practices aimed at making it
impossible to form and fund independent organizations that hold
governments accountable? By the same token, how can we best ensure that
countries moving away from authoritarianism, such as Burma, continue to
do so?
How can we increase the likelihood that the Arab Awakening will
lead to stability and respect for human rights for all, rather than
conflict, suppression of women and religious minorities, and a return
to authoritarianism? There are distinct challenges in Tunisia, which
has made progress that must be sustained; in Libya, where a society
eager for democracy and partnership with us is threatened by armed
militias; in Yemen, where an inclusive National Dialogue is underway;
in Egypt, where a full return to democracy and civilian rule is vital
to giving everyone in that polarized country a stake in nonviolent
politics; in Bahrain, where we must keep pressing for a political
compromise that avoids deeper instability and protects human rights,
and of course in Syria, where a chance for success in preventing
massacres by Sarin gas should increase our determination to stop mass
murder by bullets, bombs, artillery, and deprivation.
How can we best contribute to the debate underway in the world's
emerging powers about the values they will embrace and project as they
grow in influence? This question is especially important with respect
to China, where more and more people are asking for greater political
openness, freedom of conscience, and respect for the rule of law, but a
significant crackdown on dissent is underway.
As we diminish our military presence in Afghanistan, how can we
ensure that fragile gains for human rights continue? I am particularly
determined that we meet our responsibility to Afghan women, and press
the Afghan Government to do the same, remembering that there is a
strong correlation between advances for security in Afghanistan and
advances for women's rights.
Cyberspace has been key to many recent advances. It is the
strategic space where a growing proportion of the world's people
exchange goods and ideas, and it has been governed by values very
consistent with our own. The multistakeholder model of Internet
governance has helped to preserve, enhance, and increase an open,
global Internet. We have a stake in keeping it that way, and ensuring
that global citizens continue to enjoy the same freedoms online as they
do offline. How can we best continue to promote the multistakeholder
governance model while forging a strategy for cyberspace stewardship
that protects privacy and enhances security?
More broadly, when we face tough questions on issues like
detention, surveillance, and targeted action against terrorists, how
can we continue to protect our security while reinforcing our message
to the world about liberty and law?
Let me close with a final point: When we confront painful human
rights problems around the world, whether in Syria or Zimbabwe or Cuba
or North Korea, it is tempting to say things like ``we have no good
options,'' and ``our influence is limited.'' If I'm confirmed, I will
try my best to avoid such phrases. After all, our influence is never
unlimited. And if a problem has reached the desks of senior officials
in our government, that probably means the solutions are not obvious or
require hard tradeoffs. The job of a State Department official is to
figure out how to use limited influence to address those tough
challenges, building coalitions inside and outside of government,
recognizing that we may sometimes fail but must always try.
It is America's potential, not our past, that gives me confidence
in what we can achieve if we do try. We are and will remain for the
foreseeable future the most wealthy, powerful, creative, resilient,
adaptive country on earth. Despite our domestic challenges and healthy
wariness of foreign entanglements, we are still the best hope for
people struggling for human rights around the world, and their success
is still our best hope for the world we want. If confirmed, I look
forward to working with each of you to help ensure that we continue to
realize that hope.
Senator Boxer. Thank you for your beautiful opening
statement.
Now we will turn to Mr. Keith Harper of Maryland, to be the
United States Representative to the United Nations Human Rights
Council. Welcome, sir.
STATEMENT OF KEITH M. HARPER, OF MARYLAND, NOMINATED TO BE THE
UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS
COUNCIL
Mr. Harper. Thank you, Chairman Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Make sure that you turn on your--and please
introduce any family if you have them with you.
Mr. Harper. Thank you, Chairman Boxer. I do want to
introduce my wife and partner, Shelby Harper, who has supported
me today and always.
Senator Boxer. Welcome.
Mr. Harper. Chairman Boxer and distinguished members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today as President Obama's nominee to serve as the United
States Representative to the United States Human Rights
Council. I am honored to be here today and grateful to the
President and Secretary Kerry for their confidence in
nominating me for this important position.
I have spent many years as an attorney defending the rights
of Native Americans domestically and seeking protections of
indigenous peoples internationally. This experience has
instilled in me a deep and abiding commitment to protecting and
advancing the human rights of all individuals.
The United States has been a vocal and leading champion of
rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
driven not only by the founding values of our Nation, but also
by the conviction that international peace, security, and
prosperity are strengthened when human rights and fundamental
freedoms are respected and protected.
The promotion and defense of these values has been a
cornerstone of the Obama administration's foreign policy. That
commitment is perhaps no more evident than in the
administration's decision to seek a seat on the Human Rights
Council in 2009 and successfully campaign for reelection in
2012. The fact is U.S. leadership on the Human Rights Council
matters. The experience of the last few years demonstrates the
importance of American engagement. Let me provide you a few
examples of the progress made.
Led by the United States, the council created a special
rapporteur on the rights of freedom of peaceful assembly and
freedom of association. The United States played a critical
role in establishing a special rapporteur for Iran. The United
States worked with a broad coalition of international partners,
established commissions of inquiry to investigate gross
systematic human rights violations of the Qadafi regime and
then with respect to North Korea.
The United States leadership was key in addressing the
deteriorating human rights situation in Syria. The council
established a commission of inquiry that is providing
invaluable reporting about ongoing atrocities. Strong U.S.
leadership is vital to the council's continuing success.
Members of the committee, in my estimation there is no
greater honor than to have your President ask you to serve your
Nation. I recognize that I owe much to the opportunities this
country has afforded me. If confirmed by the Senate, it would
be a privilege indeed to serve this country in this new
capacity. If confirmed I will work every day to solidify and
advance the progress in the past 4 years and ensure the United
States remains a leader on the council. I will forcefully
defend our ally Israel from the troubling and continuing bias
and targeting.
I look forward to working with this committee to advance
our shared priorities, to further our national interests, and
to proudly present our stellar human rights record that is core
to who we are as a nation.
I will close by saying ``Wah-Doe,'' which is ``thank you''
in the language of my people, the Cherokee Nation. I deeply
appreciate your consideration of my nomination. I will be happy
to answer any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harper follows:]
Prepared Statement of Keith M. Harper
Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Paul, and distinguished members of
the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
as President Obama's nominee to serve as the United States
Representative to the United Nations Human Rights Council. I am honored
to be here and am grateful to President Obama and Secretary Kerry for
their confidence in nominating me for this important position.
With me here today is my wife and partner, Shelby Harper, as well
as three of our four children, Nailah, Arlo, and Elsa. I want to thank
them for their steadfast support today and always.
I have spent many years as an attorney defending the rights of
Native Americans domestically and seeking protection for indigenous
peoples internationally. I spent the majority of my career at the
nongovernmental organization, the Native American Rights Fund, prior to
leading the Native American Practice Group at Kilpatrick Townsend, an
international law firm. This experience has instilled in me a deep and
abiding commitment to protecting and advancing the human rights of all
individuals, not just Native Americans and indigenous peoples, but also
women and girls, LGBT individuals, human rights defenders, persons with
disabilities, journalists and individuals who are members of many other
groups whose rights are far too often denied around the world.
As an attorney and a litigator, my practice has afforded me the
opportunity to hone my skills as an advocate. Whether in negotiations
or in presenting a case in court or other fora, I have gained skills
and capabilities which should serve me and my country well should I be
confirmed.
The United States has long been a vocal champion of the rights
enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, driven not only
by the founding values of our Nation but the conviction that
international peace, security, and prosperity are strengthened when
human rights and fundamental freedoms are respected and protected. The
promotion and defense of these values has been a cornerstone of the
Obama administration's foreign policy. That commitment is perhaps no
more evident than in the administration's decision to seek a seat on
the Human Rights Council in 2009 and then successfully campaign for
reelection to the Council in 2012. Through its membership on the
Council, the United States has helped it to take action on some of the
world's worst human rights abusers, championed the human rights of the
most vulnerable, worked to address the Council's structural bias and
highly disproportionate focus on Israel, and reached across traditional
blocs and geographic divides to foster widespread support for U.S.
priorities.
It is critical that the Council meet the high standards we place on
it. The criticism of the Council is well known and not without merit: a
persistent, structural anti-Israel bias remains, and some states with
poor human rights records still gain membership or avoid Council
action.
Despite these shortcomings, U.S. leadership at the Council has
demonstrated the importance of engagement and the benefit of working
within the system to effect positive outcomes that advance U.S.
interests. In the past several years there have been numerous examples
of real progress at the Council. For example, shortly after joining the
Council, the United States assembled a cross-regional group of sponsors
to create a Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful
assembly and freedom of association--the first new mechanism focused on
a fundamental freedom at the HRC in 17 years. The United States played
a leading role in the effort to create the Special Rapporteur on the
human rights situation in Iran. The United States worked with a broad
coalition of international partners to create a Commission of Inquiry
to investigate the gross, systematic human rights violations of the
Qaddafi regime against the people of Libya and more recently another
one to focus on the horrific human rights abuses in North Korea.
The United States also worked strenuously to pass resolutions that
protect the fundamental freedoms of expression and belief. In addition,
the United States was instrumental in helping pass the first U.N.
resolution recognizing the human rights of LGBT persons. The United
States has also been the catalyst for efforts to address the
deteriorating human rights situation in Syria: the Council has passed
11 resolutions on Syria and has set up a Commission of Inquiry that is
providing invaluable reporting about ongoing atrocities. As the range
of these issues illustrates, the Human Rights Council is a critical
venue for addressing some of the most persistent threats to human
rights around the world. Strong U.S. leadership at the Council is vital
to its continued success.
In my estimation, there is no greater honor, no greater calling
than to have your President ask you to serve your nation. I recognize
that I owe much to the opportunities this country has afforded me. If
confirmed by the Senate, it would be an honor and privilege to serve my
country in this new capacity. If confirmed, I will work every day to
solidify and advance the progress of the past 4 years and ensure the
United States remains a leader at the Council. I will continue to look
for new partners who share our values and are willing to work across
and outside the traditional voting blocs that have stymied the work of
the Council in the past. I will forcefully defend our ally Israel from
the unhelpful and disproportionate attention it too often receives and
work to ensure our goals and national interests are not derailed by
those who seek to deflect attention from their own records by turning
attention to others. I look forward to working closely with this
committee to advance our shared priorities and values at the Council,
to further our national interest, and to proudly present our sterling
human rights record that is core to who we are as a people and as a
nation.
I deeply appreciate your consideration of my nomination. Thank you
and I will be happy to answer your questions.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so very much.
We turn to Ms. Crystal Nix-Hines of California.
STATEMENT OF CRYSTAL NIX-HINES, OF CALIFORNIA, NOMINATED TO BE
THE UNITED STATES PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED
NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
Ms. Nix-Hines. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, and I appreciate
the leadership----
Senator Boxer. Is your mike on? We want to hear you.
Ms. Nix-Hines. Yes. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, and I
appreciate the leadership that you have shown in our State.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Ms. Nix-Hines. Today with me is my mother, Dr. Lula Mae
Nix. You would not know it, but she is 85 years old.
Senator Boxer. No, you would never know it.
[Applause.]
Senator Boxer [continuing]. Can I have a meeting with her
after this, just to get a few pointers?
Ms. Nix-Hines. She herself was an appointee in the Carter
administration.
Senator Boxer. Fantastic.
Ms. Nix-Hines. And she still serves at-risk communities.
My father passed away in 2008, but I know that he is here
in spirit. He was actually only the second African American in
the State of Delaware to receive his law license, and we are
very proud of him as well.
My husband, David, regrettably is manning the fort in Los
Angeles with our two small children, Julia and Samuel, but they
share my enthusiasm for this position.
I am honored that President Obama has nominated me to
represent the United States at the United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization. I grew up in a home
where public service was considered a duty and a privilege,
more important than wealth and fame. As a beneficiary of those
efforts, I too would like to make a positive contribution in
the world and this nomination offers a unique opportunity to do
so.
Amid the devastation of World War II, UNESCO's founding
members formed a global organization to foster cooperative
projects focused on education, science, and culture. But what
was more like a think tank in 1945 has evolved into an
organization that does concrete work on the ground and fosters
collaboration among its 195 member states.
For the United States, participation in UNESCO furthers
core strategic interests. First, UNESCO allows us to promote
quintessential American values. An agenda that includes
tangible action to promote tolerance and respect, encourage
press freedom, combat extremism, including ethnic and religious
violence, and preserve world heritage reflects who we are and
what will secure a better world.
UNESCO's initiatives to end illiteracy among women and
girls and use mobile technologies to expand educational access
mirror our view of what is necessary to permit a nation to
fully realize its potential. America's partnership in these
efforts creates friends in the world who understand our values
and are equipped to help chart their nation's course.
Second, UNESCO advances our commercial interests. America
has built its success on capitalism and innovation, allowing
companies such as Microsoft and Intel, Google, Pepsi, Procter
and Gamble to lend UNESCO significant support while expanding
their global reach.
Economic benefits also flow from the designation of a U.S.
locale as a UNESCO world heritage site. We currently have 21
such sites in the United States, including the spectacular
Yosemite and Redwood Parks in my home of California, and yours
as well. Economic impact studies have placed the tourism
revenue from a world heritage designation at over $100 million.
That is real money. If confirmed, I would work to expand the
number of U.S. sites with this elite designation.
Third, UNESCO promotes U.S. security interests. The only
U.N. agency with a specific mandate for Holocaust education, to
prevent genocide and mass atrocities, UNESCO is doing really
creative work with youth and other groups to promote conflict
resolution and deter violence. UNESCO's coordination of the
Global Tsunami Warning System and study of coastal erosion
helped curb widespread devastation, including along our own
coastlines.
Now let me address the elephant in the room, the cutoff of
U.S. funding after UNESCO member states admitted the
Palestinians over U.S. objection. The administration has
requested a national interest waiver to resume funding because
Americans' interests will best be served by full engagement
with UNESCO, not retrenchment. We are not a country that turns
tail when decisions do not go our way. We are not a people who
shrink from challenge. We roll up our sleeves and we get ready
for the next round. Returning to full partnership with UNESCO
will best position the United States to advance our strategic
interests and those of our allies, including Israel.
I know firsthand from helping to establish the U.N. war
crimes tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda how
crucial U.S. leadership is. Both through my background in law,
media, government, and my temperament as an intrapreneur, a
person who changes organizations from within, I am well
positioned to help UNESCO and the United States achieve great
things together.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Nix-Hines follows:]
Prepared Statement of Crystal Nix-Hines
Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Paul and distinguished members of
the committee, I am grateful that President Obama has nominated me to
represent the United States at the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Thank you for your
consideration.
I also want to thank Senator Coons for his kind introduction. We
not only grew up in the same home state, but share a common interest in
effecting societal change through public service.
Although regrettably my husband, David, is manning the fort in Los
Angeles with our children, Julia, age 9, and Samuel, age 7, they are
excited about the possibility of living in a new country.
I was raised in a home where public service was regarded as a duty
and a privilege, more important than wealth or fame. My Mom, Dr. Lulu
Mae Nix, who is here today, was an appointee in the Carter
administration and, at 85, still serves at-risk communities. My Dad,
Theophilus R. Nix Sr., was only the second African-American lawyer to
receive his law license in Delaware, and as such, felt a profound
responsibility to open pathways for minorities, women, the
disenfranchised. As a beneficiary of these pioneer efforts, I, too,
would like to effect positive change in the world. If confirmed, this
appointment would afford a unique opportunity to do so.
Amid the devastation of World War II, UNESCO's founding members
formed a global organization to foster cooperative projects focused on
education, science, and culture that sought to ``build peace in the
minds of men and women.'' But what was more like a think tank in 1945
today has evolved into an organization that does real, concrete work on
the ground and facilitates collaboration among its 195 member states.
For the United States, participation in UNESCO has more than a ``feel
good'' benefit. It significantly advances U.S. interests.
First, UNESCO allows us to promote quintessential American values.
An agenda that includes concrete action to promote tolerance and
respect for all; underscores the importance of press freedom; combats
extremism including ethnic and religious violence; and protects world
heritage, represents who we are and what we believe will secure a
better world.
UNESCO's initiatives to end illiteracy among women and girls, and
use mobile technologies to expand educational access, mirror our view
of what is important in a developed or developing society. More than
775 million adults worldwide are illiterate; two-thirds of them are
women. More than 57 million children are not in school. Access to
quality education is essential for a nation to fully realize its
potential. America's partnership in this effort creates friends in the
world who understand our values and are equipped to help chart their
nation's course.
Second, UNESCO advances our commercial interests. America has built
its success upon a capitalist model. We invent, we make, we sell, we
barter, and are integral to the economic system. As a result, companies
such as Microsoft, Intel, Amazon, Google, Walt Disney, PepsiCo, and
Proctor & Gamble, have lent UNESCO significant support, while expanding
their global reach.
Economic benefits also flow from designation of a U.S. locale as a
UNESCO World Heritage site, a program developed with U.S. leadership.
An economic impact study estimates that if the San Antonio Franciscan
Missions in Texas receives a World Heritage designation, it could
generate more than $100 million in tourism revenue, including over
1,000 new jobs. Similar benefits would flow to Poverty Point in rural
northeast Louisiana. The United States currently has 21 World Heritage
sites, including the spectacular Yosemite and Redwood State Parks in my
home of California. If confirmed, I would work to expand the number of
U.S. sites in this elite group.
Third, UNESCO promotes U.S. security interests. The only U.N.
agency with a specific mandate for Holocaust education to prevent
genocide and mass atrocities, UNESCO is doing creative work with youth,
ethnic and religious minorities, and other groups to combat prejudice
and deter violence. UNESCO's coordination of the Global Tsunami Warning
System and study of coastal erosion are integral to curbing widescale
devastation, including along our own coastlines.
Now let me address the elephant in the room: the cutoff of U.S.
contributions to UNESCO which resulted from the 2011 decision by UNESCO
member states to admit the Palestinians as a state, despite our best
efforts to prevent this action. The administration has requested a
national interest waiver to resume contributions because American
interests will best be served by full engagement with UNESCO--not
retrenchment. We are not a country that turns tail when decisions do
not go our way. We are not a people who shrink from challenge. As
Americans, we roll up our sleeves and get ready for the next round. In
this case, that means returning to a full financial and diplomatic
partnership with UNESCO--one that will best position the United States
to advance our strategic and commercial interests, and protect those of
our allies, including Israel.
I know firsthand from helping to establish the International War
Crimes Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda how crucial
U.S. leadership is. Both through my background in law, media and
government, and my temperament as
an ``intrapreneur''--a person who changes organizations from within--I
am well-positioned to help UNESCO and the United States accomplish
great things together.
Thank you. I welcome any questions.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so very much.
Ms. Hamamoto.
STATEMENT OF PAMELA K. HAMAMOTO, OF HAWAII, NOMINATED TO BE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE UNITED
NATIONS AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IN GENEVA
Ms. Hamamoto. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, members of the
committee. I would like to start by taking just a minute to
introduce my family members who are with me here today: my
husband, Kurt Kaull, my brother, David Hamamoto, and my sister-
in-law, Marty Hamamoto. Thank you for being here today to
support me. I appreciate that.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as
President Obama's nominee to be the representative of the
United States of America to the United Nations and other
international organizations in Geneva. It is an honor to be
here and I am grateful to President Obama for his confidence in
nominating me for this important position and for the
opportunity to serve my country and to advance U.S. national
interests in Geneva.
I firmly believe that America is best represented at the
United Nations and in the multilateral arena when we are at the
table, sleeves rolled up, and leading. If confirmed, I am
absolutely determined to continue to strengthen the President's
efforts in Geneva to advance our Nation's objectives and be in
the strongest possible position to support our friends.
I am deeply committed to redoubling our efforts in USUN
Geneva, which represents and advances critical U.S. interests
at a wide range of technical and specialized agencies. These
agencies focus attention on some of the world's most
challenging issues and in many cases those which demand a truly
multilateral approach.
For example, at the World Health Organization efforts to
continue eradicate polio and prevent the spread of other deadly
diseases. At the International Telecommunications Union,
governments and the private sector come together in an effort
to improve international telecommunications networks and
services. The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs assists with the coordination and mobilization of
effective humanitarian action in some of the most difficult and
dangerous conflict zones. The World Intellectual Property
Organization works around the globe to build and maintain an
effective system for the protection and enforcement of
intellectual property rights, on which countless U.S. business
and individuals depend.
Taken as a whole, the breadth of work across so many
different areas by the U.S. mission and its diplomats is truly
staggering. Having grown up in Hawaii, the multinational
melting pot of the Pacific, I have learned how to build
relationships across cultures, and should I be confirmed, I
look forward to building bridges with leaders from many
different countries and working together to make the world a
better place.
I will bring to my new role the cumulative skills,
interests, and experiences that I believe will serve me well as
I lead this unique mission. A strong interest in the energy
sector and clean energy solutions led me to the engineering
program at Stanford University and subsequent experience in the
private sector working on hydroelectric power systems. I took
from that period of my life valuable lessons, not just about
the complexity and potential of energy innovation, but also
about the importance of international cooperation on energy and
environmental issues, lessons that I expect to prove relevant
in my interactions with organizations like the World
Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change.
I also bring to this important position an understanding of
one of America's most vibrant and internationally influential
economic sectors, telecommunications. Having worked in telecomm
development for a number of years, I am keenly attuned not just
to the industry's dramatic expansion and evolution over the
past 25 years, but also to the need to employ relevant
international organizations such as the International
Telecommunication Union to promote and protect an American
vision of that sector as an engine for growth and innovation.
Most importantly, throughout my career I have seen
firsthand the critical importance of effective management and
the efficient use of resources. My time working in the banking
and finance sector cemented in my mind the crucial nature of
active oversight, accountability for resources, and responsible
and transparent reporting. I know that all the members of this
committee share that view that U.S. taxpayer dollars sent to
U.N. agencies, whether in Geneva or elsewhere, must be employed
wisely, accounted for carefully, and must directly contribute
to advancing U.S. goals and priorities at these various
agencies.
If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with this
committee to advance those priorities and to furthering our
national interests at the U.N. agencies and international
organizations in Geneva. Thank you for your consideration.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hamamoto follows:]
Prepared Statement of Pamela K. Hamamoto
Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Paul, and members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as President
Obama's nominee to be the Representative of the United States of
America to the United Nations and Other International Organizations in
Geneva. It is an honor to be here and I am grateful to President Obama
for his confidence in nominating me for this important position and for
the opportunity to serve my country and to advance U.S. national
interest in Geneva.
With me here today is my husband, Kurt Kaull, my brother, David
Hamamoto, and my sister-in-law, Marty Hamamoto, who I would also like
to thank for their support.
I firmly believe that America is best represented at the U.N. and
in the multilateral arena when we are at the table, sleeves rolled up
and leading. If confirmed, I am absolutely determined to continue to
strengthen the President's efforts in Geneva to advance our Nation's
objectives and be in the strongest possible position to support our
friends.
I am deeply committed to redoubling our efforts in USUN Geneva
which represents and advances critical U.S. interests at a wide range
of technical and specialized agencies. These agencies focus attention
on some of the world's most challenging issues, and in many cases,
those which demand a truly multilateral approach. For example, at the
World Health Organization (WHO) efforts continue to eradicate polio and
prevent the spread of other deadly diseases. At the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU) governments and the private sector come
together in an effort to improve international telecommunications
networks and services. The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs (OCHA) assists with the coordination and mobilization of
effective humanitarian action in some of the most difficult and
dangerous conflict zones. The World Intellectual Property Organization
(WIPO) works around the globe to build and maintain an effective system
for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, on
which countless U.S. businesses and individuals depend. Taken as a
whole, the breadth of work across so many different areas by the U.S.
mission and its diplomats is truly staggering.
Having grown up in Hawaii, the multinational ``melting pot'' of the
Pacific, I've learned how to build relationships across cultures, and
should I be confirmed, I look forward to building bridges with leaders
from many different countries, and working together to make the world a
better place.
I will bring to my new role the cumulative skills, interests, and
experiences that I believe will serve me well as I lead this unique
mission. A strong interest in the energy sector and clean energy
solutions led me to the engineering program at Stanford University and
subsequent experience in the private sector working on hydroelectric
power systems. I took from that period in my life valuable lessons not
just about the complexity and potential of energy innovation, but also
about the importance of international cooperation on energy and
environmental issues--lessons that I expect to prove relevant in my
interactions with organizations like the World Meteorological
Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
I will also bring to this important position an understanding of
one of America's most vibrant and internationally influential economic
sectors--telecommunications. Having worked in telecomm development for
a number of years, I am keenly attuned not just to the industry's
dramatic expansion and evolution over the last 25 years, but also to
the need to employ relevant international organizations such as the
International Telecommunication Union to promote and protect an
American vision of that sector as an engine for growth and innovation.
Most importantly, throughout my career I have seen firsthand the
critical importance of effective management and the efficient use of
resources. My time working in the banking and finance sector cemented
in my mind the crucial nature of active oversight, accountability for
resources, and responsible and transparent reporting. I know that all
the members of this committee share the view that U.S. taxpayer dollars
sent to U.N. agencies, whether in Geneva or elsewhere, must be employed
wisely, accounted for carefully, and must directly contribute to
advancing U.S. goals and priorities at these various agencies.
If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with this committee
to advance those priorities and to furthering our national interests at
the U.N. agencies and international organizations in Geneva.
Thank you for your consideration of my nomination, and I will be
happy to answer your questions.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much. Thank you.
The way we are going to do this, Senator McCain, Senator
Rubio has graciously said that you can be the first Republican
to question. So I will question, then I will turn to you, and
then we will turn to Senator Rubio, unless there is a Democrat
who arrives. Is that all right with everybody?
Senator McCain. I am very appreciative of Senator Rubio's
deference to his seniors. [Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. OK, good. I feel the same way.
First let me just say, thank you all for your comments.
What I would like you to do when we ask the question, try
to be succinct so we can get down the line to all of you. But
each of us will have 7 minutes, so we can start my time now.
I will start with Mr. Malinowski. As you know, Vladimir
Putin has presided over a severe crackdown on human rights in
Russia. Laws have been passed that restrict public gatherings,
prohibit foreign funding for Russian civil society
organizations, and they threaten those who disagree with the
government with espionage or treason. Laws have been passed
that severely restrict the rights of LGBT persons in Russia.
So my question to you is, What can the United States do to
advocate? What is the most effective way for us to advocate on
behalf of LGBT individuals and all other Russians who suffer
under Putin's oppressive government? And will you work to
ensure that human rights are always a consistent part of
bilateral discussions between the United States and Russia?
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you so much for giving me an
opportunity to address that, because it will be one of my main
priorities if I am confirmed, Senator Boxer. I spent the last
dozen years working for an organization that has an office in
Russia and that has been subject to some of the restrictions
and harassment that you mentioned. And we have had it easier
than the Russian activists, who face the potential of prison
for merely advocating the values that we share, I believe, with
the vast majority of the Russian people.
The antigay laws I find extremely troubling, as does
President Obama, who as you know has spoken out publicly about
them. I think it is important for the Russian Government to
know that the eyes of the world are going to be upon them
during the Sochi Olympics. There will certainly be people,
athletes, spectators, who come to those games concerned about
this and who will make their voices heard. And how Russia
reacts is going to determine the success of those games and how
the international community views the Russia for a long time to
come.
With respect to the range of other problems, we need to
consistently raise these issues publicly and privately with the
Russian Government, as the Obama administration has been doing.
As many of you know, I have also been a very strong supporter
of the Magnitsky law, which targets the folks responsible for
the worst human rights abuses in Russia. I think that law very
much aligns us with the Russian people in terms of their
concern about the nexus between corruption and abuse of power
in their country. If you ask about the most effective way to
address those problems, I think that is the most effective way.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
Mr. Harper, I really appreciated your comments as far as
our standing by our ally Israel, because it is very disturbing
that the Human Rights Council in the 22nd session--there were
six resolutions that targeted Israel. So I was very pleased
that you mentioned that in your opening remarks.
The Human Rights Council really remains a contradiction. It
is tasked with strengthening the promotion and protection of
human rights, but some of its members are some of the worst
human rights abusers. For example, Venezuela and Ecuador, two
countries who regularly repress freedom of speech and the work
of civil society organizations, are both members. In Uganda
consensual same-sex sexual relations are illegal and punishable
by up to life in prison. Still, Uganda is a member of the Human
Rights Council. So you are going to be hanging out with some
folks you do not agree with.
The credibility of this organization is at stake. I think
you bring to this--just your life story and the way you and
those before you had to fight for recognition and for respect,
I think that is going to help you. So I would ask you, how are
you going to deal with this dynamic of having a council that is
supposed to stand for human rights, but yet members who do not
practice human rights? Give us an insight? This is a difficult
job and I do not know how you are going to answer it, but I am
going to give you this gem.
Mr. Harper. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the
opportunity to address this question. I could not agree more
that this is a continuing challenge of the Human Rights
Council. You have a series of bad actors. We can add to the
list prior council members like Cuba, China, and others who
have terrible human rights records, yet they are elected on the
council.
What I would suggest is that it is hard work, but working
behind the scenes we have actually been able to address this to
a certain degree. There were attempts by Syria, Iran, Sudan,
Nicaragua to get on the council, and through working behind
back channels and incentivizing other states with better human
rights records to run those folks did not make it onto the
council.
So it is an iterative process. It is a continuing process.
It is one that I will assure you I will make a key priority of
mine in getting better actors.
The other thing that we can do is we can disempower by
having greater U.S. engagement with those bad actors. Let me
give you an example. Many of these countries, like Cuba for
example and China and Russia, they do not like the idea of
country-specific resolutions, calling out a specific country
and saying the bad acts are going on there. Despite their
opposition, we have been able to have special rapporteurs in
Iran, Eritrea, Belarus, Burma. We have been able the have
commissions of inquiry in North Korea, in Syria, in Libya.
So despite their opposition, we have been able to, with
U.S. leadership, working with a wide variety of partners, been
able to establish these important mandate holders.
So what I would suggest is that by disempowering those
individuals, by building bridges to other countries, we can
slowly but surely over time have a better Human Rights Council,
one that would better live up to its mandate.
Senator Boxer. Well, thank you very much.
I have questions for the remaining two panelists, but I
will defer until I get the time back and call on Senator
McCain.
Senator McCain. Please go ahead, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. No, no, I'm fine. I am very interested in
hearing from you and Senator Rubio, and then I will ask the
rest of my questions. Go ahead, please.
Senator McCain. Well, thank you.
Mr. Malinowski, would you agree that, regardless of whether
Assad fulfills his pledge to give up his chemical weapons, he
will continue to kill men, women, and children by the tens of
thousands with conventional weapons?
Mr. Malinowski. I wish I could disagree. I fear that that
is likely for the time being. If the chemical weapons accord is
backed by a Security Council resolution and implemented, I do
see it as a step forward. To take chemical weapons off the
table is a good thing for the people who you and I have met in
Syria.
But it does not solve the vast majority of our problems in
that country. It does not stop the killing by bombs, rockets,
and artillery. It does not ease the suffering of Syrians who
are living without food or medicine. It does not ease the
burden on neighboring states of 2 million-plus and growing
refugees. It does not deal with the opportunity that al-Qaeda
and other jihadi groups have to exploit this horrible, cruel
situation to advance their interests.
So there is a lot more that we have to do, from providing
support to the moderate opposition, which is, as we
increasingly see, virtually at war with al-Qaeda in Syria, to
interdict the flow of arms to the regime, to pursue a
negotiated settlement, and to maintain--as President Obama has
committed to do--the credible threat of the use of force. That
is the only reason we got the chemical weapons accord and it
does need to remain on the table with, I hope, the support of
the U.S. Congress.
Senator McCain. Thank you.
Mr. Harper, I was involved as chairman of the Indian
Affairs Committee with the Cobell issue, one of the largest
long-running class action suits against the government in
history. In that case, representatives of several Native
American tribes alleged that the government failed to correctly
account for income from certain Indian trust assets, which is
true.
You served as a principal attorney for the plaintiffs in
that case, is that correct?
Mr. Harper. Yes, Your Honor--yes, Senator McCain. Sorry.
Senator McCain. In that context, you coordinated with the
class counsel, is that correct?
Mr. Harper. I worked with other--I was one of a series of
class counsel, yes.
Senator McCain. In 2011 four Native Americans attempted to
challenge in Federal court the settlement that Congress
approved totaling $3.4 billion; $100 million of that funding
was set aside to cover plaintiffs' attorney fees. This resulted
in delaying the disbursement of these funds for about 6 months.
In connection with that delay, the class counsel, your
associate, sent a letter to 500,000 of his Native American
clients blaming these four individuals for the delay in
payments; is that correct?
Mr. Harper. We had a cocounsel that did prepare a letter
and published a letter without my prior knowledge.
Senator McCain. Is it true that this mass mailer included
the names, mailing address, and telephone numbers of each of
these four individuals and encouraged plaintiffs to contact the
four litigants?
Mr. Harper. It was----
Senator McCain. I have a copy of the letter. I will submit
it for the record.
Mr. Harper [continuing]. It was called an ``Ask Eloise
letter,'' Senator McCain. And yes, it did identify those
individuals and their contact information.
I will say that when we learned of the letter our firm had
discussions with our cocounsel to pull the letter off the web.
Senator McCain. So everything's OK?
Mr. Harper. No.
Senator McCain. Well, your cocounsel refused to respond to
any media requests, said he would not answer any questions
about it, nor would you at the time.
Mr. Harper. At the time we were in active litigation,
Senator.
Senator McCain. So you could not answer for a letter that
mentioned people's names, address, and phone numbers,
encouraging people to call and harass them?
Mr. Harper. I would say, Senator, that the letter was a bad
idea at the time and I continue to think it was a bad idea.
Senator McCain. And you knew nothing about it?
Mr. Harper. Not prior to its publication, I did not.
Senator McCain. You should have known. He was your class
counsel.
Mr. Harper. I agree that I should have known. I should have
been informed, but I was not informed.
Senator McCain. So the dog ate your homework, is that it?
Look, this was a terrible thing to do and you would not even
respond to media requests asking for comment about it.
Why not?
Mr. Harper. The reason I did not respond to media requests,
Senator, is because my views were dramatically different than
what was contained in that letter and----
Senator McCain. Well, that means you cannot respond to the
media about a letter that clearly calls for harassment? You are
talking about human rights here. I think these four people's
human rights were abused. Would you agree?
Mr. Harper. Senator, I think that the letter was ill-
advised.
Senator McCain. Would you agree that their human rights,
their rights as citizens, were abused?
Mr. Harper. Well, the problem with the letter is that their
information was already in the public sphere, but we should not
have actively engaged, nobody involved in the case should have
actively engaged in putting that information out there.
I did not participate in that. I have colleagues--and
nobody in my firm to my understanding participated in that. We
did not have any control over----
Senator McCain. So it was just done by one person in your
firm who was a class counsel, you did not know anything about
it, nor did anybody? He just initiated it on his own?
Mr. Harper. That is correct.
Senator McCain. I do not believe it. I do not believe it.
Mr. Harper. Senator, I will guarantee you we were surprised
when this hit the press, because we were unaware of it prior to
that time. And my colleagues and my firm will advise you of the
same thing. We were unaware of it.
Senator McCain. This guy just woke up one morning and
decided to send a letter out to 500,000 of your clients--
500,000 of your clients, saying: Call these people because they
are holding up your settlement.
The letter is really remarkable. Madam Chairman, I would be
glad to quote from it: ``Who is appealing and why are they
appealing? Your payments are being held up by four persons.''
It went on to name the four people. ``Their reasons vary
slightly, but they're the same one fundamental point. At
bottom, each believes that you are not entitled to the relief
nor the payment of your trust funds that has been provided in
the settlement.''
That is one of the more provocative letters I have ever
seen, identifying people with addresses and their phone
numbers. And you did not know anything about it and nobody knew
anything about it? This guy just got up one morning and sent a
letter under the letterhead of your firm saying that that was
the case, huh?
Mr. Harper. Senator, to correct the record, it was not
under the letterhead of our firm. He is not associated with our
firm. We work as class counsel on the same litigation, but he
was lead counsel. He controlled this entire publication
process. He did not send the letter out; he published the
letter. We did not have prior knowledge of it.
Senator McCain. You have never responded to any questions
from the media since then, correct?
Mr. Harper. I was asked by one media source, as I recall,
about the letter. I thought at the time that what was important
is that if you showed dissension among the litigation team that
was not in the best interests of the clients.
Senator McCain. So do not respond to questions about a
letter of this nature because it might disturb relationships
within the litigants?
Mr. Harper. Senator, we did respond by working with our
class counsel, and asked him to remove the letter, and he did
remove the letter from the Web site.
Senator McCain. After it was received by 500,000 people.
Mr. Harper. Senator, if I could just clarify. It was not
sent out. It was just merely published on the Web site. And we
asked him to take it down and he did after some time take that
down.
Senator McCain. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Harper, I have questions about the attorney's fees and
the fees that you got and the relationships between your firm
and individual tribes. Right now, Mr. Harper, I cannot support
your nomination.
Senator Boxer. I just want to follow up because I was a
little bit blind-sided by this, which is fine. You are an
attorney.
Mr. Harper. Yes.
Senator Boxer. You represented the Native American
community in one of the biggest social justice cases in the
history of the Native American community, is that correct?
Mr. Harper. That is correct.
Senator Boxer. What were you able to achieve? Put aside
this problem, which I agree with the Senator is a problem. Tell
us about this case and about the justice that was delivered to
the Native Americans?
Mr. Harper. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, the Cobell
litigation involved 500,000 individual Indians. I worked on the
case for 16 years since its inception. We represented this
class because of mismanagement of trust funds through the
Department of Interior.
We were ultimately able to achieve the largest settlement,
as we understand it, against the United States, $3.4 billion,
which was supported unanimously in this body and to a
substantial majority in the House. So after many years of
litigation, we were able to obtain this settlement, and justice
for 500,000 individual Indians, and we are in the distribution
process.
Senator Boxer. Well, congratulations on that victory, which
we eventually helped make a reality, which was a big brouhaha
around here.
Now, how many attorneys worked on this case, sir?
Mr. Harper. There were upward of 10 at any given time.
Senator Boxer. Did you get paid on a contingency fee? In
other words, you worked for 16 years. Did you get payments
through all that period or your payments came after the
victory?
Mr. Harper. The payments came on the contingent fee at the
end. There were some fee awards by the court from the
defendants in between, but they were only small parts of the
overall case.
Senator Boxer. I got it.
Mr. Harper. Most of the fees were at the end.
Senator Boxer. Now, this letter, which I have not seen but
is going to be in the record here, that Senator McCain talks
about, did you sign the letter?
Mr. Harper. No, I did not.
Senator Boxer. Did you know about the letter?
Mr. Harper. I did not know about it until after its
publication.
Senator Boxer. When you knew about it and you saw it, what
did you do?
Mr. Harper. We, my colleagues at the Kilpatrick law firm,
got together. None of us, as I recall, knew about the letter
prior to its publication. I think we all disagreed with the
approach, and we asked that--well, one of my colleagues asked
that the letter be withdrawn. I think over a certain amount of
days it was ultimately withdrawn from the Web site.
Senator Boxer. OK. And you disagreed with this letter?
Mr. Harper. Absolutely.
Senator Boxer. And you thought it was a bad idea?
Mr. Harper. I think it was absolutely a bad idea.
Senator Boxer. And you helped get it down off the web?
Mr. Harper. I did not have direct talks, but it was through
our firm.
Senator Boxer. And it was a different firm that signed the
letter, the lead counsel?
Mr. Harper. The individual that signed the letter was a
solo practitioner that worked with our firm, but was separate
from our firm.
Senator Boxer. He was not part of your firm.
Mr. Harper. He was not part of our firm.
Senator Boxer. You did not know about this letter? You did
not approve this letter?
Mr. Harper. I did not approve the letter.
Senator Boxer. When you found out about it, you did not
think it was the right thing to do?
Mr. Harper. Absolutely, I did not think it was the right
thing.
Senator Boxer. The reason you did not talk to the press is
because there was ongoing litigation and you did not want to
make a comment in the middle of this?
Mr. Harper. In ongoing litigation, Madam Chair, the
important thing is to focus on what is in the best interests of
your client. And to show dissension among the legal ranks would
not have been in the best interests of our client.
Senator Boxer. I understand.
Is it true that there was a limit on the amount you could
receive percentagewise on this case?
Mr. Harper. There was an agreement not to appeal awards
between 50 and 99 million on fees, and the court awarded at the
highest end of that.
Senator Boxer. Well, I am really sorry that you faced these
questions, because in my opinion you were not involved in this
letter. And you get paid for your work, like most people in the
private sector get paid for their work. You also were involved
in a case that was historic in terms of its benefits to the
Native American community that I represent so proudly in our
State, because we have so many Native Americans in our State,
many of whom struggled, got shorted, did not get the respect
they deserved.
So I am sorry that you were subjected to these types of
questions. It is Senator McCain's total right to do that, and I
hope that we can work together to persuade him that he should
not hold up your nomination, because, frankly, I think your
presence in this position is going to be very helpful to our
country.
I call on Senator Rubio.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Mr. Malinowski, I wanted to talk to you about what I am
increasingly concerned is an emerging very serious human rights
crisis around the world that involves religious liberty. It
goes beyond religious liberties. There is this article here
from the 22nd of this month, National Post, Matthew Fisher:
``It's open season on Christians in Syria and across the Muslim
world.'' It talks about 78 Christians were slaughtered Sunday
by twin suicide bombers at a church.
Less than 24 hours earlier, a gang of Islamic militants
from somalia murdered at least 68 workers, including two
Canadians, at a mall in Kenya, where they allegedly shouted for
Muslims to get out of the way so they could specifically kill
Christians. Coptic Christians in Egypt, as we know, are facing
struggles. Same thing in Syria.
So I ask that in the context of just in general this is an
emerging crisis around the world. Then in particular these
blasphemy laws that we see taking root in some countries. In
Pakistan, for example, according to media reports, 17 people
are on death row for having been convicted in blasphemy laws.
Another 20 are serving life sentences.
So I want to get your take in general on how you intend and
the administration intends to use our platform in the world to
call increasing attention to this, not just applied to
Christians. We know that other religious minorities face these
struggles around the world.
In particular, we have a provision in the law, this
designation of a country of particular concern. The last time
the administration did that was in August 2011. And while that
designation is permanent once it is given, the sanctions that
are tied to that designation expire after 2 years.
So the second part of my question is, I am hoping we can
get you to commit to work with the Ambassador at Large for
International Religious Freedom to annually issue these
designations and renew those sanctions.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you so much, Senator Rubio. We could
spend the whole hearing talking about the issue that you just
raised, and of course we do not have time to focus on each
individual case. But you are absolutely right, it is a trend. I
think it is a trend because we have a region that is in turmoil
and in times of turmoil, the forces of destruction--people who
are out for themselves and their own power--often take
advantage of sectarian mistrust, religious mistrust, to advance
their ends. We have seen this in a number of countries that are
emerging from the Arab Spring, and across South Asia and the
Horn of Africa.
It will absolutely be a priority for me. I can give you
that promise, whether it is responding to the horrible attack
in Pakistan that we just saw in the last couple of days,
whether it is, in the midst of everything else happening in
Egypt, making sure that we convey to the Egyptian Government
that it has to protect the Copts from the violence that has
been unleashed against them, whether it is challenging the
blasphemy laws, as you mentioned, in Pakistan. My understanding
is the State Department has raised repeatedly the need to avoid
abuse of the blasphemy laws, and I will certainly make that a
priority in my engagement with the government of Pakistan if I
am confirmed.
With respect to the CPC designations, that is something
again I am going to have to look at if I have a chance to go
in. But I certainly agree that designations need to be made as
part of a dynamic process. We do need to be looking at it,
maybe not even every year, but on a real-time basis as the need
arises. And the designation should carry with it some
consequence.
Senator Rubio. Just not to belabor the point, but the
blasphemy laws being abused, I think having these laws alone
would be an abuse. They are impossible to have, laws like that.
They are used for purposes of retribution, personal vendettas,
and everything beyond that.
And by the way, it is not just countries that are involved
in the Arab Spring. We see it, they exist in Saudi Arabia, they
exist. And then we have seen this attack on religious liberties
on every continent. But we see it in Africa. We have had
hearings here, we have brought that up. We have seen it in
Asian countries as well.
So we are deeply concerned about that, and I hope that
becomes a human rights priority for this administration and for
all of us. I think it is something we should raise as a
priority.
I did want to ask you briefly. Thursday is going to mark
the 1-year anniversary of American citizen Saeed Abedini's
imprisonment by Iranian authorities. With the announcement
today that Secretary Kerry will be discussing other issues with
the Iranians, I hope that issue will become a linchpin of those
conversations. This is a particularly egregious case and I hope
that we can count on you to be a voice as well with regards to
those abuses.
I do not want my time to run up. I have a couple of other
questions.
Ms. Nix-Hines, I wanted to ask you, pretty straightforward:
Do you support reestablishing U.S. funding for UNESCO without
first an overturning of the recognition of the Palestinian
Authority as a member?
Ms. Nix-Hines. Thank you, Senator Rubio. I would like to
respond to that question as well as talk to you a little bit
about the religious persecution issue as well since that is
something that is a priority for UNESCO as well.
But first to your question, the administration does support
a waiver, getting a national interest waiver in order to permit
the United States to continue funding UNESCO. I guess because I
am a lawyer, I look at things in terms of a balancing test.
When you really look at it and you look at all the equities in
favor of continued engagement with UNESCO as a full partner, it
tips decisively in favor of continued engagement, when you look
at all of our commercial interests in terms of World Heritage,
when you look at the importance of the U.S. Government really
being involved in a leadership capacity in terms of education
and promoting conflict resolution and tolerance, the great
leadership that we have been able to play in the International
Oceanographic Commission in terms of early warning systems for
tsunamis and coastal erosion, it is absolutely essential that
the U.S. Government continues to be at the table as a full
partner, where we can support our allies, including Israel, and
that we can continue to help frame the global agenda.
Senator Rubio. I think you have answered my question. You
support the administration's position on the waiver.
Mr. Harper, I wanted to ask you. The question has already
been asked about the Rights Council, the fact that several
notorious human rights abusers are members, perennially run for
seats on the council. You have already been asked about the 19
Human Rights Council special sessions that have focused on the
alleged Israeli human rights violations, which I personally
believe is a disproportionate focus on Israel.
I think all of these things call the U.N. Human Rights
Council's credibility into question. But I wanted to ask you
very specifically, should Congress condition U.S. contributions
to the United Nations on certification that no U.N. agency or
affiliated agencies grant any official status, accreditation,
or recognition to any organization which promotes or condones
anti-Semitism?
Mr. Harper. Senator, I have thought long and hard about
that question. It is a difficult question because whenever you
make membership contingent on a particular issue, then that
becomes something in which our enemies can actually cause our
disengagement. I think what we have shown in the last few years
on the Human Rights Council is that our engagement is helpful.
You brought up the special sessions regarding Israel. Prior
to U.S. engagement, there were five special sessions on Israel.
Since we have joined the council there has only been one
special session and it occurred after we have joined it. There
has not been one since.
So U.S. leadership on these questions, United States
leadership, American leadership, has mattered and it has caused
us to be able to defend Israel in a far better way than if we
were not on the council. So we are able to address anti-
Semitism better, we are able to address attacks on Israel
better, the bias against Israel, as you rightly point out, in a
much more comprehensive and effective way if we are on the
council.
Senator Rubio. Well, again, it is not just against Israel.
What I pointed to was, you are right about U.S. engagement
having an influence, but U.S. money also has influence. I just
would ask you to consider, since you said it is an issue you
need to think about some more, why the United States should
even be funding agencies or organizations that recognize
entities that espouse anti-Semitism, which goes beyond being
anti-Israel.
I have one more quick question. I know I am a minute over
time, but it also involves Mr. Harper. Well, it involves the
Human Rights Council. On July 22nd is the first anniversary of
the death of Mr. Oswaldo Paya Sardinas. He was killed in a car
crash in Cuba. This issue came up at the council, I believe
last week. Cuba tried to block his testimony--the testimony of
his widow; I apologize--backed by China.
The United States stood up and actually spoke in favor of
her being allowed to continue to testify, and that is
important. As a result, on September 10 the organization U.N.
Watch has presented a petition at the U.N. Human Rights Council
calling for an international and independent investigation into
the alleged murder of Mr. Paya.
So if confirmed, what steps would you take to support the
establishment of a commission of inquiry based on this
petition, and what steps would you take to raise international
attention at the council about Cuba's poor human rights record
in general?
Mr. Harper. Thank you, Senator. I could not agree more that
Cuba continues to have one of the worst human rights records.
My understanding is that there have been numerous occasions
when our representatives in Geneva have raised this issue on
the council. I will be an advocate to raising these issues to a
greater degree at the council in a number of different forums.
Let me give you a couple of examples. Under item four of
the council agenda, we can give statements that outline
specific wrongdoers and the actions that they have taken. With
respect to Mr. Paya, I would agree that we should have a U.N.
body look into it in greater detail.
Senator Rubio. Do you agree with the petition asking for
the establishment of a commission of inquiry?
Mr. Harper. Well, I would have to look specifically at what
the best mechanism is, but on the principle of whether or not
we should look into it in greater detail, I completely agree
with you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator Rubio.
Ms. Nix-Hines, UNESCO is committed to the realization of
everyone's right to an education, and this is very significant,
especially for women and girls around the world. Last week I
was proud that this committee unanimously approved a bill I
wrote with Senator Landrieu named after a young Pakistani
heroine Malala. We all know Malala.
The bill pays tribute to her vision by saying that the
United States must be committed as we give funding for
scholarships to make sure that 50 percent of those scholarships
in Pakistan are awarded to women. It just shows you the depth
of the concern of this committee as far as the way women and
girls are being treated.
So if confirmed, will you fight to ensure that gender
equality remains a top priority at UNESCO, and will you also
commit to fighting for equal educational opportunity for women
and girls?
Ms. Nix-Hines. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, and thank you for
the great work that you're doing in this area.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Ms. Nix-Hines. As you know, 775 million adults are
illiterate around the world. Two-thirds of them are women. Over
57 million children are not going to school. In order for
countries to advance to the next level, educating women and
girls is absolutely essential.
UNESCO is doing really great work in this area. It is the
Secretariat for the Education for All initiative and it is
playing an important role in working with local governments to
design programs to increase educational opportunities for women
and girls using mobile technologies so that they can really
open up opportunities for women and girls, putting materials on
the Internet so that others can have greater opportunity to
have educational resources. It is absolutely one of my highest
priorities.
Senator Boxer. Good. Thank you.
Ms. Hamamoto, I am very concerned, as we all are, about the
humanitarian crisis in Syria. Today more than 2 million Syrians
are refugees in neighboring countries. More than 5 million are
displaced within Syria. I was very proud that today President
Obama said he is providing an additional $333 million in
humanitarian aid for those affected by this crisis. I sat down
with the Ambassador from Jordan to the United States and she
was eloquent and she tried to be calm about it, but the
situation is just terrible for the neighboring countries right
now.
We do remain the largest contributor of humanitarian aid,
providing nearly $1.4 billion to date. But it is clear that the
international community must do more. According to Save the
Children, nearly 4 million Syrians, including more than 2
million children, are at risk of malnutrition and lack of
critical food resources.
How can the United States encourage other countries to
continue to increase humanitarian aid to Syria, to ensure that
innocent Syrians are not further victimized by this protracted
conflict?
Ms. Hamamoto. Thank you, Chairman Boxer. I agree the
situation in Syria, with respect to the humanitarian crisis, is
obviously very troubling and something that we are very, very
focused on. The efforts that the U.S. mission has been making
through Geneva have been focused on coordinating and supporting
the relief efforts through a broad range of international
organizations and U.N. agencies that have very specific
technical expertise in the area of humanitarian aid and are
making sure that our support, our financial support, is being
used most effectively.
We are engaging with other host governments and trying to
really increase their level of involvement, their level of
engagement, and of course financial support, so that we, as you
mentioned, being the world's leading humanitarian donor, are
doing it with broader support. We have had some success at
doing that.
Senator Boxer. Well, I am going to count on you to take it
to these countries, because they all have things to say. You
know, they all lament. Everyone laments it and we see the
refugees and the displaced people and the children and the
suffering. And some of these countries are just paying an
enormous price. The stability of their own nations are at
stake.
So I think it is important to take it to--the United States
cannot do everything. We cannot do everything.
Ms. Hamamoto. Absolutely.
Senator Boxer. We may not even be able to pass a budget.
No, we should pass a budget and we will pass a budget. But the
point I am making is we certainly cannot do everything.
So you need to take it to these countries. You need to be
unequivocal and say: ``You cannot voice all these emotions
about what is happening and not come with a check, you cannot.
It disqualifies you.'' I mean, period, end of quote. Whatever
they have to do, they have to do it.
So I think you are right, we are starting to do more, but
we have to do better. I know that you will take it to them and
I think that is very key.
Look, I want to thank everybody here. I want to thank my
colleagues who have come and gone. We have had a couple of
difficult questions and challenges to you. That is typical of
what happens at these hearings, and I think it is better that
we know where people are--what people are thinking and worried
about at this stage, rather than we do not find out about it
until we get you down to the floor.
So we are going to keep the record open and I am going to
ask some more questions, basically on a couple of issues that I
think are obviously hanging over this hearing. It will give you
a chance to answer them. I am just saying I think the best way
to handle these questions is with total transparency and we can
move past some of these issues that have been raised.
I think on the issue of the waiver, clearly the
administration has a position. It may not reflect the position
of the Congress. To my knowledge, it has to be done through the
Congress. Am I right on that? So you cannot deny that there are
problems here on these issues. So you have to, I think, in
addressing some of these issues where Congress has to act say
it is going to be up to the Congress to make this decision at
the end of the day as to what happens.
For you in working in your private sector world, from what
I know about it--and this is the first I have heard of it from
your answers--I think you have a very good way to explain that
this was something that was done that you disapproved of and
the minute you learned of it you suggested it be taken down. So
I think there are ways to answer these questions.
But we will work with you, because I have to just say I am
very proud of all of you. I think that you bring to these
positions such depth in your own life stories and also your
work that you have done, each and every one of you, whether it
was in the private sector, the public sector, nonprofit world.
I think you bring the right combination of skills.
So I will be your advocate and we will work with you as we
write some questions, and I hope to work with my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle to make sure that their questions
are also addressed. And I would urge you to respond as quickly
as you can so we can get some of these answers into the record
immediately.
I just want to wish you the best of luck. I thank you. I
want to thank your families for believing in you, for being
here with you today. Families, you are signing up, too. I
always say that when I meet people in the Foreign Service, in
the diplomatic service, in the military service to this
country: The family signs up, and without the family support I
could not do what I do and you would not be able to do what you
do. So to all of you, I wish you the best, and we will try to
move these nominations quickly through the process.
Thank you very much. We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Addition Material and Questions and Answers
Submitted for the Record
Responses of Tomasz P. Malinowski to Questions Submitted
by Senator Robert Menendez
Question. What are your expectations for the scheduled Presidential
elections in Afghanistan in 2014? What can the United States Government
do to ensure those elections are free and fair, and ensure a peaceful
transition to power? I was a cosponsor of S. Res. 151 which passed the
Senate by unanimous consent in July 2013. This resolution urged the
Secretary of State to condition financial, logistical, and political
support for Afghanistan's 2014 elections based on the implementation of
reforms in Afghanistan including--
(A) increased efforts to encourage women's
participation in the electoral process, including
provisions to ensure their full access to and security
at polling stations;
(B) the implementation of measures to prevent
fraudulent registration and manipulation of the voting
or counting processes, including--
(i) establishment of processes to better
control ballots;
(ii) vetting of and training for election
officials; and
(iii) full accreditation of and access for
international and domestic election observers;
and
(C) prompt passage of legislation through the
Parliament of Afghanistan that codifies the authorities
and independence of the IEC and an independent and
impartial election complaints mechanism.
Can you please provide a status report on the
implementation of each of these reforms?
Answer. I support the objectives outlined in S. Res. 151, and if
confirmed, I would urge the Government of Afghanistan to take the steps
called for in the resolution. As Secretary Kerry stated, ``Afghanistan
will go far if the elections next year are free and fair.'' A peaceful
political transition through such an electoral process is critical to
Afghan stability and democratic development, as well as to sustaining
international support for Afghanistan.
Afghans have taken key steps toward holding democratic elections in
April 2014. Voter registration and candidate registration are underway,
two key electoral laws have been adopted that establishes the legal
electoral framework and an independent Electoral Complaints Commission,
elections commissioners and complaints commissioners have been
appointed, and Afghan security ministries, in close coordination with
the Afghan National Security Council, are working with the Independent
Elections Commission (IEC) to prepare for the elections. Complementing
their operational plan, the IEC established a Fraud Mitigation Strategy
that includes fraud deterrence measures and fraud detection measures
which are built on international best practices and lessons learned
from previous Afghan elections.
I understand that the Department of State and USAID are working
closely with Afghan partners to implement measures to combat fraud and
encourage broad participation, including a strong focus on promoting
women's participation in the process as voters, candidates, campaign
workers, and searchers. The Independent Election Commission's Gender
Unit is engaging the Ministry of Interior to develop a plan for
recruitment, training, and locating of female searchers around the
country.
I understand the United States is also encouraging Afghan
authorities to uphold the right to freedom of expression, including for
the independent media when reporting on electoral developments, to
ensure a fair electoral process for election candidates, to allow for
the operation of robust domestic and international election observation
missions, to ensure the political independence of the election
administrators, and to allow election disputes to be resolved
transparently and fairly.
The Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework (TMAF) provided a set of
benchmarks to be met by the Afghan Government, including the
establishment of a comprehensive election timeline and an electoral
legislative framework. If confirmed, I will continue to encourage the
Afghan Government to continue implementation of the new laws and
strengthen the electoral process, including where it affects women.
If confirmed, I am committed to working with members of the SFRC
Committee to support Afghan aspirations for free and fair elections in
Afghanistan.
Question. Post 2014, what is the U.S. Government doing now to curb
the human rights abuses we know will come again from the Taliban and
other extremist groups as the United States pulls out, especially those
addressed against Afghan woman and girls, and human rights defenders?
Answer. In July 2012, the international community and Afghanistan
adopted the Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework (TMAF), which
outlined specific benchmarks and deliverables for the Afghan Government
to meet--with a key focus on human rights and women's rights. Among
other things, Afghanistan agreed under the Tokyo Framework ``to improve
access to justice for all, in particular women, by ensuring that the
Constitution and other fundamental laws are enforced expeditiously,
fairly, and transparently; [and] ensure that women can fully enjoy
their economic, social, civil, political and cultural rights.'' In
addition, the Afghan Government committed to demonstrated
implementation of both the Elimination of Violence Against Women (EVAW)
law and the National Action Plan for Women (NAPWA). These commitments
reflect the demands of ordinary Afghans--women and men--who want to
make sure that they never again lose the rights that were stolen from
them by the Taliban.
If confirmed, I will press the Afghan Government to meet its
commitments, including by enforcing laws designed to protect women's
rights, resisting efforts to gut these laws, holding accountable those
responsible for rape and domestic violence, and continuing to integrate
women into the country's police forces while giving them the support
and protection they need.
I will also support funding for programs to strengthen women's role
in Afghan society through and beyond 2014. The U.S. Embassy in Kabul
adopted a ``gender strategy'' that highlights the need to mainstream
gender issues into all of our policies and programs through the
transition and transformation decade. The new ``PROMOTE'' project is a
multiyear USAID program that aims to increase women's contributions to
Afghanistan's development by strengthening women's rights groups,
boosting female participation in the economy, increasing the number of
women in decisionmaking positions within the Afghan Government and
helping women gain business and management skills. The Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) supports programming that
works with local community, tribal, and religious leaders to promote
the rights of women. Other efforts include providing technology to
women's rights groups to strengthen their monitoring and advocacy
skills. Furthermore, as we prepare for the 2014 security transition,
the United States is supporting the development of a professional and
effective Afghan National Security Force, including training in human
rights and encouraging remediation to prevent future abuses.
Negotiations with the Taliban should not sacrifice the hard-won
women's rights gains made in the last 12 years. President Obama and
President Karzai reaffirmed their support for an Afghan-led peace
process in January. The two Presidents also reiterated that any outcome
of reconciliation must preserve the three redlines: the Taliban and
other armed opposition groups must end violence, break ties with
al-Qaeda, and accept Afghanistan's Constitution including its
provisions that protect the rights of women and minorities. If
confirmed, I will work to ensure human rights remain a top priority in
our diplomatic relationship with Afghanistan and its people and
assistance efforts.
Question. With the pending drawdown in troops in Afghanistan, what
are the implications for countries in Central Asia? We are witnessing
increased repression of religious minorities and civil society. What
specifically are the opportunities for advancing the protection of
civil society, the press and religious minorities in the region?
Answer. The drawdown of international troops from Afghanistan will
not diminish America's interest in Central Asia. Respect for religious
freedom and mutual respect of all religions make a society stronger,
more stable, more prosperous, and more harmonious. These are universal
values that also serve national and international interests of
stability and security. As the security transition in Afghanistan
unfolds, it will be all the more important to underscore to the leaders
of Central Asia that respect for human rights and allowing their
citizens to express dissent peacefully is essential to combating
violent extremism and to their long-term stability and prosperity. If
confirmed, I will urge governments in Central Asia to improve their
respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms including those of
assembly, association, speech, and religion, and will listen to and
support civil society in the region.
The United States has benefited from our partnership with Central
Asian states, particularly their contributions to our common effort to
promote stability in Afghanistan. That partnership serves the interests
of our friends in the region and it can and should endure so long as
these governments abide by international standards. At the same time,
as President Obama said in his September 24 address to the U.N. General
Assembly: ``We're far more likely to invest our energy in those
countries that want to work with us, that invest in their people
instead of a corrupt few; that embrace a vision of society where
everyone can contribute--men and women, Shia or Sunni, Muslim,
Christian, or Jew. Because from Europe to Asia, from Africa to the
Americas, nations that have persevered on a democratic path have
emerged more prosperous, more peaceful, and more invested in upholding
our common security and our common humanity.''
Question. We are seeing a growing trend in countries like Russia
and Uganda to criminalize lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
persons, which is resulting in horrific acts of violence. How can the
United States best combat this trend?
Answer. Promoting and protecting the human rights of LGBT persons
is a key foreign policy priority of the United States. I am very
concerned about ongoing violence and official and societal
discrimination against LGBT persons--particularly laws that criminalize
consensual same sex conduct between adults or restrict the rights of
LGBT persons and their supporters to freedom of expression,
association, and peaceful assembly--in too many places around the
world. I agree with administration officials, from President Obama to
Secretary Kerry to ambassadors at embassies around the world, who have
made clear that universal human rights apply to all persons, regardless
of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Ensuring the protection of human rights for LGBT persons will
require continued engagement on a variety of fronts. State Department
personnel, in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL),
throughout the Department, and at posts around the world, regularly
raise the human rights of LGBT persons in their bilateral
conversations. If confirmed I will also work with like-minded partners
in various multilateral fora to advance LGBT rights. These include the
U.N. General Assembly, where, on the margins, Secretary Kerry will
participate in the first-ever Ministerial event specific to the rights
of LGBT persons, and the U.N. Human Rights Council, where the United
States lobbied successfully on behalf of the first-ever U.N. resolution
on the rights of LGBT persons in June 2011. I will also continue to
strongly support assistance to organizations promoting and protecting
the human rights of LGBT persons. Through the Global Equality Fund, the
United States has provided to date more than $7 million to support
civil society organizations working to advance the human rights of LGBT
persons in more than 50 countries. As the U.S. Government continues to
support this work, I will, if confirmed, work to ensure that we deepen
our impact, respond effectively to emergent situations, and confront
long-term challenges, including discriminatory legislation.
Question. Over the course of many years, the UNGA Third Committee
has
adopted, by consensus, a human rights resolution on Burma. Considering
allegations of ethnic cleansing of Rohingya, continued arrests, forced
relocations, land confiscation, conflicts in Kachin and Shan State, and
the attack on United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights Tomas
Quintana: Has the administration or our EU allies given thought to what
will be included in this year's UNGA resolution? What are your views on
the need for and potential content of such a resolution? Exercising
diplomatic efforts, how will you, with our EU partners, make certain
that the resolution accurately reflects the situation on the ground?
Answer. I believe such a resolution should not only acknowledge the
progress that Burma has made so far, but should also continue to
address human rights problems and underscore the need for the
government to make continued progress over the long term. When the
United Nations human rights system last addressed the human rights
situation in Burma at the Human Rights Council in March 2013, the
resolution addressed the violence against the Rohingya, forced
relocations, land confiscation, and the situation in Kachin State, as
well as continued arrests of activists.
If confirmed, I will work closely with the EU, which will likely
sponsor the resolution again this year, to ensure that this year's
resolution accurately reflects our concerns. If confirmed, I am also
committed to working with the Government of Burma and other interested
parties to achieve a resolution that can repeat the EU's achievement of
a consensus resolution in 2012 that addressed serious human rights
concerns.
I also believe that the resolution should welcome the government's
continuing efforts to improve the human rights situation in Burma and
pursue political and economic reform as well as call for measures to
address our continuing concerns, including the violence against Muslims
in Rakhine State and other areas of Burma, the ongoing ethnic conflicts
in Kachin and Shan States, as well as issues such as new arrests of
activists and the need for continued legal reform, including reforms
necessary to ensure that conditions are favorable for free and fair
elections in 2015. If confirmed, I will work with the EU and other
parties with the goal of achieving another resolution and do my best to
see that the resolution reflects these concerns.
Question. Amidst a crackdown against Tibetans, Uyghurs, human
rights defenders, netizens, and others, the human rights situation in
China and Tibet worsens. A September 18, 2013, Washington Post
editorial said, ``Mr. Xi's turn to repression has gone almost entirely
unremarked upon by the Obama administration, which has concentrated on
cultivating relations with the new leader.'' Other than maintaining its
annual bilateral human rights dialogue with the Government of China,
what are the tangible measures that the U.S. Government could take to
seek to improve the human rights situation in Tibetan areas of China in
particular and China more broadly?
Answer. I am deeply concerned about the ongoing crackdown against
ethnic minority groups in China, including Tibetans, Uighurs, and
Mongolians, as well as public interest lawyers, Internet activists,
journalists, religious leaders, and others who question or challenge
official policies and actions in China.
Regarding Tibet, if confirmed, I will urge Chinese authorities to
resume substantive dialogue with the Dalai Lama or his representatives,
without preconditions, as the best means to alleviate tensions in
Tibetan areas and resolve longstanding issues. I will also strengthen
our engagement with likeminded partners around the world to coordinate
and jointly pursue holding the Chinese Government to account for
counterproductive policies in Tibetan areas which have led to a cycle
of repression and over 120 Tibetan self-immolations since March 2011.
If confirmed, I will seek to ensure that programming places a
substantive emphasis on improving the capacity of grassroots civil
society organizations in Tibetan areas to advocate for the protection
of their unique cultural, linguistic, and religious identity. I will
explore new avenues to engage directly with Tibetan and Chinese
scholars on innovative policy prescriptions for ensuring that Tibetans
feel that their voices are being heard and are able to enjoy the
universal rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom to
worship their religion freely, to which they are entitled under China's
international human rights commitments.
With regards to the situation in China more broadly, if confirmed,
I will work to ensure that human rights remain a critical facet of the
United States-China bilateral relationship. The U.S.-China Human Rights
Dialogue (HRD) is an important part of an overall human rights
strategy. It is not, however, a substitute for consistent high-level
engagement from across the U.S. Government. If confirmed, I will make
every effort to ensure that human rights continue to be raised in high
profile dialogues such as the U.S.-China Strategic & Economic Dialogue
and the U.S.-China Legal Experts Dialogue. I strongly believe that the
promotion and protection of human rights in China is in our national
interest and, as such, should be an integral part of every conversation
we have with Chinese officials, including at the President's and
Secretary's level. I will also look for opportunities to speak directly
to the Chinese people, particularly through new innovative platforms
online, and to listen to their views about these issues. I will urge
Chinese officials to listen to the increasingly vocal grievances
emerging from Chinese society on a range of issues--from environmental
degradation and food safety to consumer protection and corruption--and
use these concerns as an entry point to emphasize the important role
the rule of law, free flow of information both online and offline, a
robust civil society, and respect for religious and cultural
differences can play in China's efforts to establish a sustainable
development model and deal with a range of problems facing the country.
Question. The Cuban Government has been engaged in an increasingly
brutal crackdown on peaceful democracy activists on the island with
more than 6,000 documented detentions and arrests. Much has been made
of purported reforms in Cuba, yet the regime continues to detain and
brutalize its own people. If confirmed, what concrete steps will you
take to support these activists and civil society generally in Cuba?
Answer. I believe that it is in our national interest to support
the Cuban people's desire to determine their future freely. If
confirmed, I would work to implement as effectively as possible U.S.
policy of support for civil society, including programmatic efforts
that advance human rights and fundamental freedoms, democratic
principles, and a strong and independent civil society. The Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor implements annual programming to
support the efforts of activists on the island. These programs are
similar to what the United States does around the world to promote
democratic values, independent civil society, and human rights.
I agree that the purported reforms that have occurred in Cuba have
done little to end the oppression of the Cuban people. However, to the
extent that they give us opportunities to enhance our support for human
rights and democracy activists, we should take advantage of them. For
example, following January changes to travel requirements for Cubans
leaving the island, Department officials met with a number of Cubans
who are working for positive change in Cuba, including bloggers and
free Internet advocates such as Yoani Sanchez, Orlando Luis Pardo Lazo,
and Eliecer Avila; Damas de Blanco spokeswoman Berta Soler; Christian
Liberation Movement leader Rosa Maria Paya; human rights activists
Guillermo ``Coco'' Farinas and Elizardo Sanchez; and multiple Afro-
Cuban activists including Manuel Cuesta Morua, although prominent
activist Oscar Elias Biscet has been denied permission to travel.
Similarly, Cuban Government policy changes that permitted activists
access to cell phones and other electronic media have made it easier
for us to support Cuban citizens working for freedom.
If confirmed, I will also work to increase multilateral pressure on
the Cuban Government, including by calling for an independent
international investigation of Oswaldo Paya's death.
Question. As Assistant Secretary, if confirmed, how will you
attempt to create a broader dialogue in the Middle East regarding human
rights, respect for religious minorities, and the need for an inclusive
political dialogue? Please specifically address how you will further
U.S. encouragement of political reform and respect for human rights in
Bahrain and Egypt?
Answer. It is in our national interest to see a Middle East and
north Africa that is peaceful and prosperous; and we will continue to
promote democracy, human rights, and inclusive economic growth, because
we believe these practices achieve peace and prosperity.
For example, in Egypt, a full return to inclusive democracy and
civilian rule is vital to giving everyone in that increasingly
polarized country a stake in nonviolent political participation. My
understanding is that the administration has made clear its concerns
about decisions made by the interim authorities that are inconsistent
with this goal, including imposition of the emergency law, political
arrests, and violent suppression of demonstrations. Likewise, the
administration has been clear that the use of violence by nonstate
actors must stop immediately. The President has said that we will
continue support for Egypt in areas like education and assistance to
independent civil society, but the delivery of certain military systems
will depend upon Egypt's progress in pursuing a more democratic path.
If confirmed, I will work with the U.S. mission in Egypt and our
Egyptian partners on the ground to press for greater respect for
freedoms of religion, expression, and media. Amplifying the voice of
Egyptian civil society is one way to encourage lasting change in Egypt.
A prosperous, stable, and secure Bahrain that remains a strong
security partner depends on a political dialogue that leads to
reconciliation and reform, as well as the protection of human rights
and accountability. A robust policy must include continued direct and
candid engagement with the government and civil society, support for
Bahrain's national dialogue process and for civil society, opposition
to violence and extremism by all sides, assistance policies that
reinforce our message and avoid U.S. complicity in violations and
abuses, and regional and international engagement. If I am confirmed, I
intend to make Bahrain a top priority, and to work closely with the
Congress to address these challenges.
______
Responses of Keith M. Harper to Questions Submitted
by Senator Robert Menendez
Question. In March 2012, the U.N. Human Rights Council adopted a
resolution on Sri Lanka, which demonstrated strong international
support for accountability for abuses committed in Sri Lanka's armed
conflict. Since passage of the resolution, has the Sri Lankan
Government implemented any of the recommendations of its own Lessons
Learnt and Reconciliation Commission? In what ways, if any, has the
Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and other U.N.
human rights envoys assisted Sri Lanka in implementing these steps?
Answer. The United States introduced both the March 2012 and March
2013 U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) resolutions on Sri Lanka, both of
which called on the Government of Sri Lanka (GSL) to implement the
constructive recommendations of its own Lessons Learnt and
Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) and to address outstanding issues
related to accountability, reconciliation, and democratic governance.
The resolutions also encouraged the Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights (OHCHR) and relevant special procedures mandate-holders to
provide the GSL with advice and technical assistance on implementing
the LLRC recommendations and addressing these issues.
For the most part, the government has failed to make progress on
the LLRC recommendations. For instance, one of the most fundamental
recommendations was to ``phas[e] out the involvement of the Security
Forces in civilian activities and use of private lands by the Security
Forces with reasonable time lines being given.'' However, the military
maintains a heavy presence in the north and is in fact involved in many
aspects of civilian affairs. Moreover, despite LLRC recommendations,
there have been no credible investigations or prosecutions of those
implicated in violations of international human rights or international
humanitarian law committed during the conflict.
In August 2013, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navanethem
``Navi'' Pillay visited Sri Lanka to assess the GSL's progress on
accountability, reconciliation, and democratic governance. After
meeting with representatives of civil society, government officials,
and religious leaders, she submitted a report to the U.N. Human Rights
Council at the September 2013 session. While she acknowledged the
progress the GSL has made regarding development and resettlement of
internally displaced persons (IDPs), she expressed alarm at
restrictions on freedom of the press and expression, the erosion of the
rule of law, and violence against religious minorities. She extended
the offer of technical assistance to the GSL to help them address these
issues.
Additionally, eight U.N. special procedures mandate holders have
requested visits to Sri Lanka, including the Special Rapporteur on
Freedom of Expression, the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Association
and Assembly, the Working Group on Enforced Disappearances, and the
Special Rapporteur on Internally Displaced Persons. The GSL has only
set dates for one of these visits; we understand the Special Rapporteur
on IDPs will visit Sri Lanka in December 2013. The United States has
consistently encouraged the GSL to respond to all the outstanding visit
requests from special procedures mandate holders.
Question. At the Human Rights Council, the United States has
highlighted severe rights violations in China, including the acute
situation in Tibetan areas. On September 17, 2013, Ambassador Donahoe
informed the Council that China ``limits religious freedom,
particularly in Tibetan and Uighur areas.'' Will you also speak
publicly about the systemic rights violations in China and specifically
Tibetan areas of China?
Answer. If confirmed, I will speak publicly about my concerns for
the deteriorating human rights situation in China, particularly in
Tibetan and Uighur areas, including with regard to freedom of
expression and of thought, conscience, and religion. I will also raise
U.S. concerns with Chinese officials, including the increasingly severe
government controls on Tibetan Buddhist religious practice; government
policies that undermine the preservation of Tibetan language; and
intensive surveillance, arbitrary detentions, and disappearances of
Tibetans, including youth and Tibetan intellectual and cultural
leaders. The United States is also deeply concerned by ongoing reports
of discrimination against Uighurs and other Muslims, and is concerned
by policies that unduly restrict the religious practices of ethnic
Uighur Muslims, including bans that prevent some women from wearing
headscarves and some men from growing beards. Chinese authorities have
also prevented religious education in some areas.
The United States will continue to call on the Chinese Government
to engage in substantive dialogue with the Dalai Lama or his
representatives, without preconditions, as the best means to alleviate
tensions and to resolve the longstanding grievances of Tibetans. The
United States will continue to urge the Chinese Government to address
the problems underlying tensions in Tibetan and Uighur areas, and to
reexamine existing, counterproductive policies that exacerbate rather
than resolve existing grievances. The United States will continue to
call on the Chinese Government to permit Tibetans, Uighurs, and all of
China's citizens to express grievances freely, publicly, peacefully,
and without fear of retribution. The United States will also continue
to call on the Chinese Government to clearly distinguish between
criminal acts and peaceful expressions of political dissent or
religious belief.
The promotion and protection of human rights in China is in the
U.S. national interest and, as such, should be an integral part of U.S.
public diplomacy and of U.S. interactions with Chinese officials. I
understand that the administration intends to raise these issues during
China's upcoming Universal Periodic Review, scheduled for October 22,
and if confirmed I will continue to raise these issues and to work
though the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and at the
HRC during my tenure.
Question. In a statement last year, High Commissioner for Human
Rights Navi Pillay said that ``social stability in Tibet can never be
achieved through heavy security measures'' and called upon China to
accede to the requests by several Special Rapporteurs to Tibet and
consider the recommendations made to it by various international human
rights bodies. If confirmed, will you work with the High Commissioner
to push for access of U.N. mandate holders into Tibet?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to urge Chinese officials to
permit High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay to visit China,
including Tibetan areas, as well as to accept the 12 outstanding visit
requests by U.N. Special Rapporteurs on key issues such as human
rights, expression and arbitrary detention. I will also continue to
press the Chinese Government to allow journalists, diplomats, and other
observers unrestricted access to China's Tibetan areas.
Question. What steps will you take to raise greater international
attention to the widespread human rights abuses perpetrated by the
Cuban Government? Will you pursue a resolution that censures the Cuban
Government for its efforts to stifle free expression, political
dissent, and independent civil society activities within its borders?
Answer. If confirmed, I will redouble U.S. efforts to highlight
Cuba's poor human rights record at the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC).
U.S. leadership on the HRC has reduced Cuban influence on the Council
both before and since Cuba's membership term expired on December 31,
2012. For example, while Cuba sat on the Council, the United States
regularly mitigated or blocked Cuba's attempts to curb the independence
of the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights. If
confirmed, I will lead a robust effort to do so. The United States also
rallied a cross-regional group of countries to create a special
rapporteur on freedom of assembly and association in 2010, despite
Cuba's objections. In September 2013, the United States led a
successful resolution that renewed the special rapporteur's mandate.
The United States also supports the calls for an independent
investigation by Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or
arbitrary executions Haynes into the deaths of Cuban activitists
Oswaldo Paya and Harold Cepero. If confirmed, I will continue the
United States efforts to garner international support for this
investigation.
If confirmed, I would also welcome the opportunity to meet with
Senator Menendez to discuss opportunities to draw more international
attention to Cuba's abysmal human rights record.
Question. In Cobell v. Salazar, you served on the class counsel
team representing a class-action lawsuit brought by Native Americans.
The parties reached a settlement in the case in 2009. On January 20,
2010, a letter signed ``Class Counsel'' was published on the Indian
Trust Web site which released the names, addresses, and phone numbers
of four individuals who were appealing the Cobell settlement. The
letter asserted that the four appellants were responsible for the delay
in concluding the settlement and the disbursal of funds. The letter
encouraged class members to contact the four appellants.
Were you involved in drafting the January 20, 2010, letter,
and did you review it prior to its publication? Once the letter
was published, did you renounce the letter, which allegedly led
to the harassment of the appellants, including the receipt of
death threats by at least one? At the time of its publication,
what was your reaction to the letter?
Answer. I was not in any way involved in the drafting the January
20, 2012, ``Ask Elouise'' letter nor did I review the letter prior to
its release.
After learning of the letter's release, I expressed my misgivings
about publishing the letter, especially the contact information of the
appellants, to both other class counsel and other professionals at
Kilpatrick Townsend. I urged my colleagues to facilitate removing the
letter and to avoid posting material that could be construed to suggest
harassment of appellants. On or around January 21, I was informed by
colleagues that discussions about removing the letter from the Web site
would be held with one of the appellant's attorneys who had objected to
the letter. I understand from GCG that on January 22, 2012, the
litigation consultant for lead counsel requested that GCG remove the
letter from the Web site. On or about January 22, I was further told by
a firm colleague that the letter was removed from the Web site.
Additionally, my colleagues and I checked the Web site at that time and
there found no link to the letter. Thus, at the time of my testimony on
September 24, 2013, I was under the impression that the letter was
indeed not on the Indian Trust Web site.
At the time of the letter's release, we were in active litigation.
Although I personally did not support the letter, I was told by a firm
colleague that the class representatives, at the time, did support it.
Accordingly, I was duty bound to not comment in a manner contrary to
the letter and therefore could not express my reservations publicly
about the re-publishing of the contact information of appellants.
Further, during my multiple discussions with class members in open
and public forums--which I estimate to be more than 20 sessions--class
members frequently raised the question of how to interact with
objectors or appellants. I consistently made clear that, in
interactions with objectors or appellants, there should be no
harassment of any kind, and instead respectful dialogue.
Question. The $3.4 billion settlement in the Cobell case included
an agreement by class counsel of which you were a member that they
would not argue they were entitled to greater than $99.9 million in
fees. This binding commitment was repeated to Congress and to class
members. Class counsel, nevertheless, went forward and petitioned the
U.S. District Court for $223 million in fees, which the Court rejected.
What is the reason for the request for additional fees?
Answer. The class representatives, our clients, decided that
consistent with the Agreement with Defendants, there would be an
express request for $99.9 million in fees. In accordance with our
clients' position, the Petition for Fees specifies that ``Plaintiffs
hereby assert a fee of $99.9 million for Class Counsel's work through
December 7, 2009.'' The Petition went on to explain that the Court had
the discretion to award more under the controlling law, but that both
Plaintiffs and Defendants agreed not to appeal if the award was between
$50 and $99.9 million. The Petition also stated, consistent with client
direction, that in comparable cases, awards ranging around $223 million
would be consistent with controlling law. The Court ultimately awarded
the $99 million amount asserted by plaintiffs in the petition for fees.
As I understand it, the class representatives, and particularly Ms.
Elouise Cobell, believed that it was critically important and
consistent with the best interest of the class to seek a fee award in
accord with fee awards for non-Indian class actions of similar size and
complexity. She expressed concern that otherwise attorneys would be
reluctant to represent Native American plaintiffs without financial
means who are deprived of their rights by the federal government or
other entities. This was unacceptable to Ms. Cobell and she was
particularly sensitive to this point because, as she made clear on the
record, she had grave difficulties finding lawyers to bring the Cobell
case in the first place.
Question. Plaintiffs in the Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine trust
settlement assert that you and your colleague's legal fees were
excessive and unreasonable. How do you respond to their concerns?
Answer. Chief Joseph M. Socobasin, Vice Chief Clayton Socobasin,
and Elizabeth Neptune--who was on Council during the litigation and the
designated liaison to the Kilpatrick Townsend firm--sent a letter on
October 1, 2013, to ``Indian Country Today'' to ``clarify that we were
very happy with the Kilpatrick Townsend's representation of the Tribe
in the tribal trust case and were satisfied with the results of the
case.'' Further, they clarified that ``[a]t no time during the case
were our Tribal leaders pressured to settle the case by Mr. Harper or
his colleagues at Kilpatrick Townsend.''
With respect to legal fees, in their letter the Tribal Leaders
stated that the ``contingency arrangement was established in 2007'' and
that they ``felt it was fair and the only option for our Tribe at the
time.'' In conclusion, the Tribal Leaders specified that ``Our Tribal
Council was very satisfied with the settlement and with the legal
representation we received from Kilpatrick Townsend.''
______
Response of Crystal Nix-Hines to Question Submitted
by Senator Robert Menendez
Question. The United States is withholding its assessed and
voluntary contributions to UNESCO due to the General Conference's
October 2011 decision to admit Palestine as a member. How do you regard
the recent UNESCO decision to admit Palestine? How would you assess
UNESCO's progress toward improving upon the issues that led to the
United States withdrawal from the organization from 1984 to 2003?
Finally, how would you in your role as Ambassador seek to resolve these
issues that have constrained the United States full participation in
UNESCO?
Answer. I share the administration's perspective that the October
2011 vote by UNESCO Member States to grant the Palestinians membership
was premature since final status issues, including the issue of
Palestinian statehood, can only be resolved through direct negotiations
between the parties.
I also agree with the administration that obtaining a national
interest waiver from Congress is crucial to give the United States the
discretion necessary to continue to provide contributions that enable
the United States to maintain its vote and influence within the United
Nations and any of its specialized agencies. It is important to
preclude the possibility that the Palestinians or their allies could
force a contribution cutoff and diminish American influence within
these agencies.
In my view, the most effective way to wield U.S. influence in
international organizations is from within. By withholding our
contributions, not only do we cut off support for important programs
that advance U.S. interests, we weaken our ability to promote our
priorities, risk losing altogether our voting rights, and effectively
empower others to determine how and when America engages. We also harm
our ability to fully support and defend the interests of our allies,
including Israel.
A strong U.S. presence at UNESCO allows us to promote
quintessential American values, serves U.S. commercial interests, and
advances U.S. security interests. By maintaining a strong financial and
strategic partnership with UNESCO, the United States can play an
important leadership role in a UNESCO agenda that includes concrete
action to: expand literacy and access to education, particularly for
women and girls; combat extremism including ethnic and religious
violence; promote Holocaust education for the prevention of prejudice
and mass atrocities; advance press freedom and safety for journalists;
develop early warning systems for tsunamis and other environmental
challenges; and protect the world's natural and cultural heritage. If
confirmed, as Ambassador, I would leverage strong U.S. engagement with
UNESCO as a powerful forum to address these and other shared global
challenges of vital concern to the United States.
Just as the world has changed dramatically since 1984, so has
UNESCO. Former President George W. Bush recognized this when he
determined it was in the interest of the United States to rejoin the
organization. At the time, he stated that UNESCO ``has been reformed,
and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human
rights, tolerance, and learning. . . . As a symbol of our commitment to
human dignity.''
Through the U.N. Transparency and Accountability Initiative, the
State Department has found that UNESCO continues to enact reforms that
promote efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability. This progress is
further evidenced by the recently released 2013 update to the
Multilateral Aid Review, in which the U.K. Government has assessed that
UNESCO is making reasonable progress in key areas of reform. As U.S.
Ambassador to UNESCO, I would make it a top priority to encourage a
culture of accountability and high performance at UNESCO. From my prior
experience at the State Department in helping to establish the U.N. War
Crimes Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, I know how
critical U.S. leadership is, and, if confirmed, I will work diligently
to ensure that UNESCO maximizes its effectiveness and impact.
______
Response of Pamela K. Hamamoto to Question Submitted
by Senator Robert Menendez
Question. Critics of the United Nations cite perceived
inefficiencies within U.N. offices, duplication of U.N. mandates, and
mismanagement of U.N. funds. In your role as Ambassador to the United
Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva, how will you
work to improve accountability, efficiency, and prioritization of U.N.
programs? Can you assess the current capacity of the U.S. mission in
Geneva to deal with the task of monitoring the many programs and
agencies operating there?
Answer. The United States has been a driving force for reforms
across the U.N. system, and over the past 10 years, Geneva-based
organizations have adopted a number of reforms designed to make their
organizations more transparent, accountable, and efficient. However,
the United States must remain consistently engaged to strengthen these
reforms further and advance even more comprehensive reform agendas.
There is need for greater cooperation and coordination among U.N.
system organizations to reduce duplication and mandate overlap.
Organization heads must engage more productively in existing
coordination mechanisms, such as the U.N. System Chief Executives Board
for Coordination (CEB) and the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). If
confirmed, I will work with like-minded members to insist that
organization heads look for opportunities to evaluate mandates on a
routine basis. Using this approach, the Secretariat could regularly
identify possible operational improvements and/or programmatic shifts
among and within mandates, measure actual performance against intended
results to be achieved, and discuss how individual and groups of
mandates serve the overall goals of the organization.
The United States is a primary driver urging U.N. agencies to
enhance their oversight arrangements, by adequately resourcing internal
audit, investigations, and evaluations functions and establishing
independent, expert audit committees. If confirmed, I will continue to
push and build on these efforts.
I am not in a position now to assess the current capacity of the
U.S. mission in Geneva to monitor the many programs and agencies
operating there. I understand, however, that through daily engagement
and active participation as members of the executive boards and
governing bodies of these organizations, the United States works to
ensure U.N. agencies have robust program monitoring and evaluation
practices in place and that they employ sound strategic plans, budgets,
and program results frameworks.
If confirmed, I will continue to be a leading advocate for budget
discipline, efficient and effective program implementation, and proper
prioritization of programs at the United Nations. The Obama
administration has pressed the United Nations and specialized agencies
to contain budget growth and to demonstrate a sustained effort to
identify offsets without reducing operational effectiveness or program
impact, while also protecting those programs most important to U.S.
interests.
If confirmed, I will continue to work diligently with other
countries in Geneva and across the U.N. system to ensure that U.S. tax
dollars are well spent and that these organizations live up to both
their founding principles and values.
______
Responses of Tomasz P. Malinowski to Questions Submitted
by Senator Barbara Boxer
Question. Last Sunday, two suicide bombers walked into a crowd
gathered outside a Christian church in Pakistan and detonated their
explosives, slaughtering over 80 people--including over 40 women and
children. These innocent people were targeted simply because of their
faith.
If confirmed, how will you work to advocate for the
protection of minorities in Pakistan? What leverage does the
United States have on this front?
Answer. Continuing sectarian violence in Pakistan is concerning and
has brought heartache to Sunnis, Shia, Christians, and members of other
communities across the country. Last Sunday's church attack drew
widespread condemnation in Pakistan, including from the Prime Minister,
the National Assembly, and a range of religious and political leaders.
But, condemnation must be matched with the resolve to work for change.
The Government of Pakistan has indicated it will increase protection at
churches and other places of worship in the wake of the Peshawar
bombing. It should also bring the perpetrators of sectarian attacks to
justice and end any remaining ties between elements of the security
services and militant groups.
If confirmed, I will engage the government and civil society of
Pakistan to put an end to violence against and persecution of religious
minorities, and to seek to alter the legal structures that embolden or
enable it, including the blasphemy law. I will also use the tools
Congress has provided for diplomatic leverage on religious freedom.
Pursuant to the authorities mandated by Congress, I will regularly
review and consider country conditions and make recommendations on
Country of Particular Concern (CPC) designations. I will also continue
to use private diplomatic engagements and creatively explore public
diplomacy and programming initiatives to promote religious freedom and
tolerance in Pakistan.
Question. The U.S. Government is continuing to work to facilitate
peace negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan Government. If
confirmed, how will you help ensure that the rights of women and girls
are addressed in the negotiation process? What actions will you take to
ensure that other entities within the State Department and the U.S.
Government use their influence to insist on women's participation in
the peace process, including on the High Peace Council?
Answer. In January, President Obama and President Karzai reaffirmed
that Afghan-led peace and reconciliation is the surest way to end
violence and ensure lasting stability of Afghanistan and the region.
The two Presidents also reiterated that as a part of the outcome of any
peace process, the Taliban and other armed opposition groups must end
violence, break ties with al-Qaeda, and accept Afghanistan's
Constitution including its provisions that protect the rights of women
and members of minorities.
In my meeting with President Karzai during my last trip to
Afghanistan when I was at Human Rights Watch, we spent almost the
entire hour discussing the human rights implications of negotiations
with the Taliban on Afghan women (see my Washington Post op-ed: http://
www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/08/13/
AR2010081305220.html). Any peace that is attempted to be made by
excluding more than half of the Afghan population--women--is no peace
at all. This issue has been a personal interest of mine and if
confirmed, I will work within the State Department and the broader U.S.
Government to ensure that as peace talks gain traction women are
meaningful participants in all levels of the process and that the human
rights of women are not a bargaining chip in peace negotiations with
the Taliban.
If confirmed, I will press the Afghan Government to actively engage
civil society, including women's rights advocates, in peace and
reconciliation efforts and to consider seriously their recommendations
on improving the peace process. The High Peace Council, as the lead on
reconciliation must ensure that the voice of women remain central in
negotiations. If confirmed, one of my goals is to ensure that women's
voices and views are reflected in the peace talks.
Question. Several leaders in Latin America have passed legislation
or other measures limiting freedom of association, including Ecuadorian
President Rafael Correa. How can the United States help civil society
organizations confront challenges in countries like Ecuador, Venezuela,
and Bolivia?
Answer. I am deeply concerned about the increasing threat to, and
steady decrease of, space for civil society organizations (CSOs) around
the world, including in countries like Ecuador, Venezuela, and Bolivia.
If confirmed, I will direct assistance to at-risk CSOs, and urge
like-minded governments and private donors to do the same. One avenue
would be through the multilateral Lifeline fund, which the Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor established in cooperation with
other like-minded governments to assist embattled civil society
organizations.
I will speak out against legislation in countries that threaten
CSOs, and work with like-minded partners to contain the spread of such
legislation.
If confirmed, I will provide strong support to exchange programs
that support civil society organizations, including the State
Department's International Visitor Program through which the Department
supports the work by CSOs.
I will encourage our embassies to visibly support all CSO
representatives, especially those under siege who cannot travel outside
their countries, including by meeting with them regularly, inviting
them to embassy events, and publicly defending their work.
Finally, if confirmed, I will work with my colleagues in the
Department to counter efforts to weaken the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights, which we did successfully before and must be prepared
to do again.
Question. Advancing the human rights of LGBT people around the
world is a priority of the Obama administration. Although the United
States has taken various public steps to engage on the issue of LGBT
rights abroad, LGBT people continue to be targeted for violence solely
because of who they are in places such as Uganda, Cameroon, Brazil,
South Africa, and Russia.
What steps will you take to continue and enhance current
efforts to advance LGBT rights and help protect LGBT people
from violence?
Answer. Promoting and protecting the human rights of LGBT persons
is a key foreign policy priority of the United States. I am very
concerned about ongoing violence and official and societal
discrimination against LGBT persons--particularly laws that criminalize
consensual same sex conduct between adults or restrict the rights of
LGBT persons and their supporters to freedom of expression,
association, and peaceful assembly--in too many places around the
world. I agree with administration officials, from President Obama to
Secretary Kerry to Ambassadors at embassies around the world, who have
made clear that universal human rights apply to all persons, regardless
of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Ensuring the protection of human rights for LGBT persons will
require continued engagement on a variety of fronts. State Department
personnel, in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL),
throughout the Department, and at posts around the world, regularly
raise the human rights of LGBT persons in their bilateral
conversations. If confirmed I will also work with like-minded partners
in various multilateral fora to advance LGBT rights. These include the
U.N. General Assembly, where, on the margins, Secretary Kerry will
participate in the first-ever Ministerial event specific to the rights
of LGBT persons, and the U.N. Human Rights Council, where the United
States lobbied successfully on behalf of the first-ever U.N. resolution
on the rights of LGBT persons in June 2011. I will also continue to
strongly support assistance to organizations promoting and protecting
the human rights of LGBT persons. Through the Global Equality Fund, the
United States has provided to date more than $7 million to support
civil society organizations working to advance the human rights of LGBT
persons in more than 50 countries. As the U.S. Government continues to
support this work, I will, if confirmed, work to ensure that we deepen
our impact, respond effectively to emergent situations, and confront
long-term challenges, including discriminatory legislation.
______
Response of Pamela K. Hamamoto to Question Submitted
by Senator Barbara Boxer
Question. Israel: It is no secret that Israel is often unfairly
singled out at the United Nations. If confirmed, will you make it a
priority to fight discrimination against Israel and to press for
greater inclusion of Israel in all U.N. activities in Geneva?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue the administration's efforts
to normalize Israel's status at the United Nations, including
vigorously opposing one-sided, biased resolutions, ending Israel's
institutionalized unfair treatment, and fighting efforts to
delegitimize Israel throughout the United Nations.
U.S. officials meet regularly with host governments and U.N.
officials to make known our opposition to these biased resolutions and
unfair treatment. The United States consistently opposes any texts or
actions that criticize Israel unfairly in any U.N. body or specialized
agency, and I will maintain that position.
Additionally, The United States continues to work to promote full
and equal Israeli inclusion in international bodies, including the
consultative groups in the U.N. system that act as organizing venues
for determining candidates and coordinating policy approaches. The
United States has helped gain Israeli membership in the Western Europe
and Others regional group (WEOG) for several U.N. committees in New
York, and the ultimate goal is Israeli membership in all WEOG
groupings, including in Geneva. The United States believes it is
essential for Israel to be included, as it is the only country not to
belong to a regional group in Geneva, and I share that belief. If
confirmed, I will coordinate closely with Israel and with WEOG members
to press for Israel's membership in the group.
______
Responses of Tomasz P. Malinowski to Questions Submitted
by Senator Marco Rubio
Question. How will you work to ensure that U.S. security assistance
to countries such as Egypt and Bahrain avoid U.S. complicity in human
rights violations and create an incentive for these governments to take
irreversible steps toward a more democratic and inclusive future?
Answer. Preventing U.S. assistance from being used in support of
human rights violations is a policy priority. Our processes to
implement the Leahy Law, supervision of foreign military sales, end-use
monitoring, licensing for commercial weapons sales, and management of
State-funded military grant assistance programs, are among the most
reliable and important ways of ensuring that we do not support human
rights abuses in any country. As someone coming from a position in
which I long advocated for the importance of human rights in U.S.
foreign policy, if confirmed, I will commit to working with Congress to
ensure the Department continues to use the tools we have available to
support U.S. human rights policy, including in our dealings with Egypt
and Bahrain. I will also work to ensure our assistance is used to
support broader policies designed to improve conduct and to hold
governments to account for their actions.
In Bahrain, due to our concerns about human rights abuses, the U.S.
Government continues to withhold the export of lethal and crowd-control
items intended predominantly for internal security purposes. For
certain other items related exclusively to external defense,
counterterrorism, and the protection of U.S. forces, we are making
export decisions on a case-by-case basis. Our policy does not support
the transfer of equipment or training to Bahraini security forces that
could be used inappropriately against peaceful protesters in the
country.
In Egypt, we will continue support in areas like education that
directly benefit the Egyptian people, but are not proceeding with the
delivery of certain military systems. Our support will depend upon
Egypt's progress in pursuing a more democratic path. We will also
maintain our firm commitment and support to democratic institutions and
an independent Egyptian civil society.
Important decisions related to security assistance also depend on a
clear understanding of the facts. The Bureau of Democracy, Human
Rights, and Labor has a critical role to play in bringing accurate
facts about the human rights situation to bear on our policies and our
assistance relationships. If confirmed, I will work with our U.S.
missions to continue to advance our human rights policies, including in
Egypt and Bahrain.
Question. In Bahrain, the government continues to carry out a
crackdown that includes harsh repression of demonstrators, the
detention of journalists, and the imprisonment of credible opposition
members. Now the U.S. Ambassador and other U.S. diplomats have been
sanctioned by the Bahrain Cabinet for meddling in internal Bahraini
affairs. The United States has multiple interests in Bahrain, most
prominently the Fifth Fleet, and it has tried to engage the ruling
family in Bahrain as friends. However, repeated promises from the
government have fallen short of actual performance.
Do you agree that the current course of U.S. policy in
Bahrain is failing?
What new strategy would you recommend the United States
pursue to promote progress on human rights and rule of law
there, given our other interests as well?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to make Bahrain a top priority, and,
in cooperation with the Congress, I will review all of the options
available to continue improving our policy toward Bahrain given the
inevitability of new and unforeseen challenges to come.
The United States has a number of interests at stake in the
stability of Bahrain and well-being of its people. The events that have
unfolded since March 2011 have made clear that a prosperous, stable,
and secure Bahrain that remains a strong security partner depends on a
political dialogue that leads to reconciliation and reform, as well as
the protection of human rights and accountability. During the past 2
years the Bahraini Government has made some progress on a variety of
human rights-related issues. But there have also been significant
setbacks and there is much more work to be done.
Therefore, if confirmed, I will work to ensure that the United
States is fully engaged supporting reform and enhanced protection of
human rights. A robust policy must include direct and candid engagement
with the government and the political opposition; support for civil
society undeterred by government objections (for example, the statement
the Department of State issued on September 19 following the arrest of
opposition leader Khalil Marzooq); opposition to violence and extremism
on both sides of the country's political divide, a clear-eyed public
posture on the issues and concerns at hand; assurance that our
assistance policies reinforces our message and avoid U.S. complicity in
abuses; and regional and international engagement. As part of this
effort, I would work within the Department and other U.S. Government
agencies to ensure that our government speaks consistently about these
issues with a united voice.
Question. Chinese activists and bloggers have recently been the
targets of a crackdown by the government. How will you endeavor to make
U.S. concerns about such actions more central to the United States-
China relationship?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that human rights
remain a critical facet of the United States-China bilateral
relationship, raised in all appropriate senior-level meetings and
dialogues, including during the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic
Dialogue, the Human Rights Dialogue, and the Legal Experts Dialogue. I
will also look for opportunities to speak directly to the Chinese
people, and to listen to their views, about these issues. I will
emphasize that China's adherence to universal rights is important not
only to our bilateral relationship, but to China's long-term peace,
prosperity, and stability.
I will urge Chinese officials to listen to the increasingly vocal
grievances emerging from Chinese society on issues such as
environmental degradation, consumer protection, and corruption--and use
these concerns as an entry point to emphasize how the rule of law, free
flow of information both online and offline, a robust civil society,
and respect for religious and cultural differences can aid China's
efforts to achieve sustainable economic development and a harmonious
society. I strongly agree and would like to echo DRL Acting Assistant
Secretary Uzra Zeya's public comment following the 2013 U.S.-China
Human Rights Dialogue that while the U.S. and Chinese Governments often
do not agree about human rights, this is clearly not an area of
disagreement between the American and Chinese people.
I am particularly concerned over the recent crackdown against
activists and bloggers, including the arrest of long-time activist and
scholar, Xu Zhiyong, and other supporters of the New Citizen's Movement
for advocating for fiscal transparency and fighting official
corruption--in line with President Xi's own highly visible
anticorruption campaign. The new legal interpretation in China that
justifies charges of ``defamation'' and up to 3 years in prison for
spreading ``defamatory rumors'' online is another source of deep
concern. I believe such efforts are undermining China's stated
objective of upholding the rule of law and building a modern,
information-based economy and society. Ultimately, controls and
restrictions on the freedom of expression, the free flow of
information, and the innovations associated with them bear significant
economic and social costs and negatively affect China's growth and
stability.
Question. What is your opinion about the utility of the annual
U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue and would you modify that mechanism at
all to make it more prominent, perhaps including your regional
counterpart as well or officials from other U.S. agencies?
Answer. The promotion of human rights is a critical component of
U.S. foreign policy and the U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue (HRD) is
an important part of an overall human rights strategy. It also presents
an opportunity to engage Chinese counterparts in an extended, in-depth
discussion of key human rights concerns and individual cases. It is
not, however, a substitute for consistent high-level engagement from
across the U.S. Government. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that
human rights continue to be raised in high profile dialogues such as
the U.S.-China Strategic & Economic Dialogue and the U.S.-China Legal
Experts Dialogue. I strongly believe that the promotion and protection
of human rights in China is in our national interest and, as such,
should be an integral part of every conversation we have with Chinese
officials, including at the President's and Secretary's level. The rule
of law, an independent judiciary, a robust civil society, the free flow
of information and respect for universal human rights and fundamental
freedoms are key to China's ability to deal with domestic and global
challenges and be a reliable international partner.
At the recent U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue Acting Assistant
Secretary Uzra Zeya raised, both publicly and privately, individual
cases and our concerns over China's continued failure to abide by its
international human rights commitments. I am committed to continuing
these important efforts and supporting the Dialogue and ensuring that
it continues to include a broad cross section of agencies so that a
consistent message on human rights is delivered to Chinese officials.
It is my understanding that Senior Department officials, such as
Deputy Secretary Burns, former Under Secretary Otero, and others have
participated in the Dialogue in the past, and I am committed to
continuing to involve senior officials in the Dialogue. I strongly
believe that the HRD is an opportunity to put into practice the Obama
administration's commitment to involve all elements of the U.S.
Government in promoting international human rights.
Finally, I consider the Human Rights Dialogue as a means to an end,
but dialogue in and of itself does not constitute progress. If
confirmed, I will make every effort to link specific outcomes to our
continued engagement with Chinese officials through such forums as the
Human Rights Dialogue.
______
Responses of Keith M. Harper to Questions Submitted
by Senator John McCain
Question. How long did you serve as ``co-class counsel'' on Cobell?
Answer. The Cobell class was certified on February 4, 1997, and so
I began to serve as class counsel on that date.
Question. On what date did you first learn about the January 20,
2012, ``Ask Elouise'' letter?
Answer. I learned of the January 20, 2012, ``Ask Elouise'' letter
on January 20, 2012, after it was released.
Question. Did you receive a draft or have prior knowledge of the
January 20, 2012 letter before it was published?
Answer. No.
Question. As coclass counsel, was it your responsibility to review
documents and communications to plaintiffs including the January 20,
2012, ``Ask Elouise'' letter, prior to transmission or publication?
Answer. No. Lead counsel--who is a solo practitioner not part of
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP (``Firm'')--was responsible for
determining who among the litigation team were responsible for which
tasks. Under this arrangement, the principal attorneys each had their
own areas of responsibility. The ``Ask Elouise'' letters were not part
of my responsibilities.
Lead counsel did not circulate the January 20, 2012, ``Ask
Elouise'' letter either to me or, to the best of my knowledge, to any
of the lawyers in the Firm prior to its publication.
Question. How did you become aware of the January 20, 2012 ``Ask
Elouise''
letter?
Answer. I became aware of the ``Ask Elouise'' letter on January 20,
2012, after the letter's public release, when a lawyer representing one
of the appellants sent an e-mail in objection.
Question. When the letter became public, why did you reportedly
refuse to respond to press inquiries concerning the letter?
Answer. At the time of the letter's release, we were in active
litigation. Although I personally did not support the letter, I was
told by a Firm colleague that the class representatives, at the time,
did support it. Accordingly, I was duty bound to not comment in a
manner contrary to the letter and therefore could not express my
reservations publicly about the re-publishing of the contact
information of appellants.
Question. What is your understanding of how the January 20, 2012,
``Ask Elouise'' letter was transmitted to plaintiffs? By mail, online,
print publishing, e-mail, or other?
Answer. At the time of the September 24, 2013, hearing, my
understanding was that the letter was posted on January 20, 2012, on
the Internet site www.indiantrust.com and that it had not been mailed
or e-mailed to the entire class of 500,000 individuals. I have since
confirmed that the letter was not e-mailed or mailed to the entire
class of 500,000 individuals. Rather, I have now been informed that it
was e-mailed by the claims administrator at the direction of lead
counsel's litigation consultant, on January 20, 2012, to a listserv
comprised of those who had requested periodic electronic updates on the
litigation. It was also posted on the indiantrust.com Web site at
approximately that same time.
Because I was not responsible for managing postings to the Web
site, or distributions to the listserv, I did not understand the
precise manner in which the letter was posted and distributed until I
was informed by colleagues after the September 24, 2013, hearing.
Question. Is it correct that you would not receive attorney's fees
under the Cobell settlement legislation until the appeal discussed in
the January 20, 2012, ``Ask Elouise'' letter was resolved?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Is it correct that one of the appellants identified in
the January 20, 2012, ``Ask Elouise'' letter appealed the settlement
because she determined that plaintiff attorneys were seeking excessive
attorney's fees?
Answer. No.
Question. What is your connection to the Web site, ``Indian Trust
Settlement'' (www.IndianTrust.com)?
Answer. My connection to the Web site was, and remains, of limited
scope.
The Web site www.indiantrust.com is owned by a litigation
consultant to the lead counsel. Lead counsel and the litigation
consultant maintained custody and control of the Web site content at
all times while the case was in active litigation, which ended in
December 2012. During that time, the Web site published material
relevant to the case, such as court filings. I and other class counsels
worked on briefs and other materials, which were filed by paralegals or
the litigation consultant. After filing these documents, the litigation
consultant to lead counsel published them to the Web site.
I understand that the Web site is presently administered by the
Garden City Group (GCG), the official claims administrator for the
Cobell case, though the litigation consultant maintains ownership.
Question. On what date was the January 20, 2012, ``Ask Elouise''
letter (www.indiantrust.com/elo/1_20_12) removed from the Indian Trust
Settlement Web site?
Answer. After learning of the letter's release, I expressed my
misgivings about publishing the letter, especially the contact
information of the appellants, to both other class counsel and other
professionals at Kilpatrick Townsend. I urged my colleagues to
facilitate removing the letter and to avoid posting material that could
be construed to suggest harassment of appellants. On or around January
21, I was informed by colleagues that discussions about removing the
letter from the Web site would be held with one of the appellant's
attorneys who had objected to the letter. I understand from GCG that on
January 22, 2012, the litigation consultant for lead counsel requested
that GCG remove the letter from the Web site. On or about January 22, I
was told by a Firm colleague that the letter was removed from the Web
site. Additionally, my colleagues and I checked the Web site at that
time and there found no link to the letter. Thus, at the time of my
testimony on September 24, 2013, I was under the impression that the
letter was indeed not on the Indiantrust Web site.
After I was informed on September 24, 2013, that the letter was
still available through an Internet search, my law partners requested
that GCG delete the letter so that it would be unavailable through an
Internet search. I have been told that GCG did so on September 24,
2013.
Question. Why was the January 20, 2012, ``Ask Elouise'' letter
removed from the Web site when it was and was it removed under your
request or direction?
Answer. After I was informed on September 24, 2013, that the letter
was still available through an Internet search, my law partners
immediately requested that GCG delete the letter so that it would be
unavailable through an Internet search. I have been told that GCG did
so on September 24, 2013.
Question. What is your interpretation of the cap on fees, expenses,
and costs in the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 for Cobell v. Salazar?
Answer. While Congress considered capping fees as an amendment to
the Claims Resolution Act, it ultimately decided not to do so. The
class representatives, our clients, did have an agreement with
defendants that neither side would appeal any fee award between $50 and
$99.9 million. In addition, under this same agreement, Class
representatives agreed not to affirmatively assert counsel be paid more
than $99.9 million in attorneys' fees.
Question. Were you part of a petition to federal courts for $223
million in attorney's fees in the class action lawsuit, Cobell v.
Salazar?
Answer. The class representatives, our clients, decided that,
consistent with the Agreement with Defendants, there would be an
express request for $99.9 million in fees. The Petition for Fees
specifies that ``Plaintiffs hereby assert a fee of $99.9 million for
class counsel's work through December 7, 2009.''
The petition went on to explain that the Court had the discretion
to award more under the controlling law, but that both plaintiffs and
defendants agreed not to appeal if the award was between $50 and $99.9
million. The petition also stated, consistent with client direction,
that in comparable cases, awards ranging around $223 million would be
consistent with controlling law. I was one of the counsel who signed
this petition on behalf of our clients. The Court ultimately awarded
the $99 million amount asserted by plaintiffs in the petition for fees.
As I understand it, the class representatives, especially Ms.
Elouise Cobell, believed that it was critically important and
consistent with the best interest of the class to seek a fee award in
accord with fee awards for non-Indian class actions of similar size and
complexity. She expressed concern that otherwise attorneys would be
reluctant to represent Native American plaintiffs without financial
means who are deprived of their rights by the federal government or
other entities. This was unacceptable to Ms. Cobell and she was
particularly sensitive to this point because, as she made clear on the
record, she had grave difficulties finding lawyers to bring the Cobell
case in the first place.
Question. Are you associated with a petition for additional fees
related to the Cobell settlement? If so, for how much?
Answer. No.
Question. Approximately how many hours did you bill your clients
for work in relation to Cobell at Kilpatrick and Native American Rights
Fund (NARF)?
Answer. As a partner with Kilpatrick, I worked a total of 4,837.7
hours on Cobell through June 30, 2013.
I am no longer at NARF and I do not have access to this
information, however, NARF's court filings indicate I worked 19,671
hours on the Cobell case.
Question. Approximately how much in fees have you collected to date
in relation to Cobell?
Answer. On July 27, 2011, District Judge Thomas Hogan awarded
plaintiffs $99 million in attorney's fees. Of that amount, Judge Hogan
awarded approximately $85 million to be distributed, after all appeals
were final, to class counsel. Class counsel included Dennis Gingold,
Thaddeus Holt, and Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP. The remainder of
approximately $14 million was set aside because other counsel who had
worked on the case in times prior were seeking their own award, which
in aggregate amounted to approximately $14 million. The Court later
ordered that these fee issues be mediated but thus far the mediation
has not been fruitful.
Question. What fees did you secure from tribal governments for work
on the class action lawsuit, Cobell, or any other lawsuit against the
federal government for mismanagement of tribal trust assets? Please
identify each tribal government, the type of fee, and the rate that was
negotiated for each.
Answer. We did not receive any payment for fees from tribal
governments for work on the Cobell case. As for tribal trust lawsuits,
the Firm received the fees as follows for our four tribal clients:
Ak-Chin Indian Community (AZ) agreed to pay the Firm hourly fees on
a monthly basis so there was no contingency fee.
Tohono O'odham Nation (AZ) agreed to pay discounted hourly fees on
a monthly basis plus a 6 percent contingency fee at the end of the
case. The amount of that fee paid to the Firm at the end of the case
was $1,425,000 (this was in addition to the fees paid each month since
2006).
Initially, in 2006, the Passamaquoddy Tribe of Maine agreed to pay
fees in an identical manner as the arrangement with Tohono O'odham.
However, within a few months of our engagement, the Tribe asked us to
change the arrangement so it would not have to pay the discounted
hourly rates on a monthly amount. Accordingly, we modified the
agreement consistent with the client wishes so that compensation for
attorneys' fees was exclusively through a contingency fee. Unlike other
clients, the Passamaquoddy Tribe made no payment of fees on a monthly
basis throughout the litigation, thus the contingency fee agreed to was
15 percent. This is well below the standard of 30-40 percent for
comparable contingency fee arrangements. When the case settled, the
amount paid to the Firm was 15 percent of the settlement or $1.8
million. In an October 1, 2013, letter to ``Indian Country Today,''
Passamaquoddy Chief Joseph Socobasin on September 24, 2013, confirmed
that the Tribe ``was very happy with the settlement representation
prepared by Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton Firm.''
The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (AZ) has not given
the Firm permission to disclose the specifics of its fee arrangement.
However, we can disclose that they paid monthly fees with a contingency
at the end similar to Tohono O'odham.
Question. In your negotiations with tribal governments over fees
referenced above, were tribal governments made aware that the
defendant, the federal government, would be responsible for covering or
directly paying their fees to you?
Answer. Yes. Two tribes--the Passamaquoddy Tribe and the Tohono
O'odham Nation--agreed to have the funds directly paid to the Firm.
This was not unusual and indeed the model used in other cases such as
the Osage litigation (represented by another Washington, DC-based law
firm). The Tribes had full ability to opt for nondirect payment to the
attorneys. The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, for example,
decided to keep the terms of counsel fees confidential and therefore
did not seek direct payment to counsel. For the tribes that did
authorize direct payment, they did so expressly. Both the Passamaquoddy
Tribe and the Tohono O'odham Nation expressly authorized direct payment
to our Firm in tribal council resolutions approving the settlements.
Question. Please identify which tribes you negotiated fees
referenced in the above questions between 2008 and 2010?
Answer. None of the fees negotiated for tribal trust cases were
negotiated in this timeframe. All were negotiated in 2006 or early
2007.
Question. Did you negotiate Cobell fees at different rates for
different tribes? Why is there a variance in rates?
Answer. No. Cobell fees were not negotiated for or with tribes. The
fee in Cobell was determined by the court and paid out of the common
fund. Therefore, all plaintiffs in the Cobell case, irrespective of
tribal affiliation, were treated the same.
______
Responses of Keith M. Harper to Questions Submitted
by Senator John Barrasso
Question. On September 24, 2013, you testified before the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations that one of your cocounsel in the class
action lawsuit, Cobell v. Salazar, published an ``Ask Elouise'' letter
which identified four individuals who challenged the settlement
agreement between the parties in this case and provided the personal
contact information of those individuals. You testified that you
thought the letter was a ``bad idea.'' You further testified that when
your law firm learned of the letter, your law firm had discussions with
the cocounsel to pull the letter ``off the web.''
On what date did your law firm learn of this letter?
Answer. To the best of my knowledge, no one at my Firm knew of the
``Ask Elouise'' letter until it was posted to the www.indiantrust.com
Web site on January 20, 2012, by Lead Counsel.
On what date did you learn of this letter?
Answer. On January 20, 2012, after it was released.
How did you learn of this letter?
Answer. I became aware of the ``Ask Elouise'' after the letter's
public release, when a lawyer representing one of the appellants sent
an e-mail in objection.
Besides having discussions with cocounsel, what other
actions did you take to ensure the letter was no longer
available on the web?
Answer. After learning of the letter's release, I expressed my
misgivings about publishing the letter, especially the contact
information of the appellants, to both other class counsel and other
professionals at Kilpatrick Townsend. I urged my colleagues to
facilitate removing the letter and to avoid posting material that could
be construed to suggest harassment of appellants. On or around January
21, I was informed by colleagues that discussions about removing the
letter from the Web site would be held with one of the appellant's
attorneys who had objected to the letter. I understand from Garden City
Group (GCG) that on January 22, 2012, the litigation consultant for
Lead Counsel requested that GCG remove the letter from the Web site. On
or about January 22, I was further told by a Firm colleague that the
letter was removed from the Web site. Additionally, my colleagues and I
checked the Web site at that time and there found no link to the
letter. Thus, at the time of my testimony on September 24, 2013, I was
under the impression that the letter was indeed not on the Indian Trust
Web site.
After I was informed on September 24, 2013, that the letter was
still available through an Internet search, my law partners requested
that GCG delete the letter so that it would be unavailable through an
Internet search. I have been told that GCG did so on September 24,
2013.
What other actions did you take to ensure class members did
not threaten or harass the four named individuals in the
letter?
Answer. Upon learning of the letter, I urged my colleagues that we
should remove it from the Web site and that we should not post any
further material that could be construed to suggest harassment of
appellants.
Further, during my multiple discussions with class members in open
and public forums--which I estimate to be more than 20 sessions--class
members frequently raised the question of how to interact with
objectors or appellants. I consistently made clear that, in
interactions with objectors or appellants, there should be no
harassment of any kind, and instead respectful dialogue.
Question. In the class action lawsuit, Cobell v. Salazar, the
Agreement on Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Costs states that the
Plaintiffs' motion for class counsel's attorneys' fees, expenses, and
costs shall not assert that class counsel be paid more than $99.9
million. On December 17, 2009, before the Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs, Mr. Thomas Perrelli, then Associate Attorney General at the
U.S. Department of Justice, testified that ``every dollar of attorneys'
fees will actually come out from individual class members'
distribution.'' The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 further provides that
nothing in the section relating to attorneys' fees affects the
enforceability of the Agreement on Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Costs.
Despite the $99.9 million limit in this Agreement, did the
class counsel and plaintiffs seek fees, expenses, and costs in
excess of that amount?
Answer. The class representatives, our clients, decided that
consistent with the Agreement with defendants, there would be an
express request for $99.9 million in fees. In accordance with our
clients' position, the Petition for Fees specifies that ``Plaintiffs
hereby assert a fee of $99.9 million for Class Counsel's work through
December 7, 2009.'' The petition went on to explain that the Court had
the discretion to award more under the controlling law, but that both
plaintiffs and defendants agreed not to appeal if the award was between
$50 and $99.9 million. The petition also stated, consistent with the
direction of the client, that in comparable cases, awards ranging
around $223 million would be consistent with controlling law. The Court
ultimately awarded the $99 million amount asserted by plaintiffs in the
petition for fees.
