[Senate Hearing 108-289]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 1:44 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mitch McConnell (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators McConnell, Stevens, Specter, Gregg,
Shelby, Bennett, Campbell, Bond, DeWine, Leahy, Inouye, Harkin,
Mikulski, Durbin, Johnson, and Landrieu.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. COLIN L. POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE
opening statement of senator mitch mc connell
Senator McConnell. Good afternoon. The Secretary has to
leave at 3 p.m., so we will limit our opening statements to
Senator Leahy and myself and the chairman of the full commitee.
Welcome, Mr. Secretary. Let me begin by expressing my
gratitude to the President, his entire cabinet, and our
soldiers and sailors for the quick and decisive victory in
Iraq. Once again, we have affirmed that we have the best
trained, equipped, and disciplined military in the world and
the best leaders on and off the battlefield.
The victory in Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq, and the
challenge now falls upon the coalition to repair damaged
infrastructure, establish democratic institutions, and vest the
principles of freedom and justice in the consciousness and
lives of the Iraqi people. While Congress included $2.5 billion
for these efforts in the war supplemental, the country's
natural resources provide an advantage that will hopefully
sustain and accelerate the reform and recovery process. The
United Nations should immediately end the sanctions against
Iraq so that the profits from these resources can go directly
to the people of that country.
I might just say, Mr. Secretary, I saw a fascinating op-ed
in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago suggesting that one
way to convince the Iraqi people that they are going to benefit
from the oil would be to set up a structure similar to what
they have in the State of Alaska, where every Alaskan gets a
check each year off of the oil revenue that the State secures.
Senator Stevens. Not the oil revenue, but income from a
fund created by a portion of the revenue.
Senator McConnell. In any event, Alaskans get checks.
It is a demonstration of their sharing the wealth, shall I
say.
While some believe that political transition in Iraq alone
will be a harbinger of reform throughout the region, a more
effective catalyst for change comes in the form of a trinity.
First, a quick and successful democratic transition. Second, a
workable road map for security and peace between the
Palestinians and the Israelis that includes new Palestinian
leadership, that, first and foremost, actively combats
terrorism. And third, a bold, new approach to America's support
of political and legal reforms across the region.
If this trinity is realized, the impetus for political
reform throughout the Middle East will be inevitable and
unstoppable. The Arab street will find a voice in democratic
institutions and through responsive leaders chosen by ballots,
not bullets, bullying, or Israel bashing.
The state of political reform in Egypt, including adherence
to the rule of law and the functioning of democratic
institutions, provides a good barometer of democratic change in
the region. I believe that as goes Egypt, so goes the Middle
East.
Shifting to North Korea, the hermit kingdom's ongoing
bluster and its appalling repression of the North Korean people
continue to be a grave concern to everyone. Although attention
to North Korea's nuclear program may have been overshadowed by
military operations in Iraq, I am hopeful the State Department
will continue to focus on the myriad challenges posed by this
nation. From nuclear weapons to narcotics trafficking and a
potential Northeast Asian nuclear arms race, the Korean regime
poses a growing and dangerous threat to its neighbors and to
us. Negotiating with North Korea is no small or easy task. This
is a country that makes France look trustworthy.
Let me make a few comments on the fiscal year 2004 request
for foreign operations. Over $2 billion is requested for four
new accounts that potentially offer more rapid responses to
global crises. It would be helpful to the subcommittee if you
could summarize the objectives of each of these accounts and
provide greater detail on the management of these funds and
overlap, if any, with existing foreign assistance programs.
The funding request has again been reduced for assistance
for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States and assistance for the
NIS by $86 million and $179 million, respectfully, below the
fiscal year 2003 enacted level. While I fully support
graduating countries that receive U.S. aid, I remain concerned
that too steep and rapid cuts may have unintended consequences.
A case in point is Serbia. The recent assassination of the
Serbian Prime Minister has spurred a massive crackdown on
organized crime, some of which is linked to cronies of
Milosevic. It is clear that political, legal, and economic
reforms are still needed in Serbia, and instead of reducing
assistance by $15 million, we should be considering additional
support for programs and activities that actually bolster
necessary reforms.
Let me wrap it up with just a few comments on Burma and
Cambodia. As predicted, we have not seen progress in the
dialogue between the State Peace and Development Council, SPDC,
and Aung San Suu Kyi since her release from house arrest. The
news out of Burma reports no signs of reconciliation, only
continued repression of the people of Burma by the SPDC, brutal
rapes of ethnic girls and women, and unwillingness to meet with
the NLD, the U.N. special envoy, and ethnic nationalities. I
applaud the State Department's recommendation to the White
House that the regime in Burma should not be certified as
making progress or cooperating with the U.S. on narcotics
matters. It is clear that additional sanctions against the
junta in Rangoon are warranted, and I intend to introduce
legislation to this effect in the very near future.
prepared statement
In Cambodia, the attacks earlier this year against Thai
interests in Phnom Penh, including the destruction of the Thai
embassy, and the continuing assassination of opposition
activists, monks, and judges underscores the lawlessness and
impunity that has become the hallmark of the ruling Cambodian
People's Party. In such a climate, talk of a Khmer Rouge
tribunal using Cambodian courts and judges makes no sense. As
parliamentary elections are scheduled in 3 months' time, I
would encourage you to seize every opportunity to strengthen
the hand of the democratic opposition in the run up to the
polls.
With that, let me turn to Senator Leahy.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Mitch McConnell
Welcome, Mr. Secretary. It is always a pleasure to have you appear
before this Subcommittee.
Let me begin by expressing my gratitude to the President, his
entire Cabinet, and our soldiers and sailors for the quick and decisive
victory in Iraq. Once again, we have affirmed that we have the best
trained, equipped and disciplined military in the world, and the best
leaders on--and off--the battlefield.
The victory in Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq, and the
challenge now falls upon the coalition to repair damaged
infrastructure, establish democratic institutions, and vest the
principles of freedom and justice in the consciousness and lives of the
Iraqi people. While Congress included $2.5 billion for these efforts in
the war supplemental, the country's natural resources provide an
advantage that will hopefully sustain and accelerate the reform and
recovery process. The United Nations should immediately end the
sanctions against Iraq so that profits from these resources can go
directly to the people of Iraq.
While some believe that political transition in Iraq alone will be
a harbinger of reform throughout the region, a more effective catalyst
for change comes in the form of a trinity: (1) a quick and successful
democratic transition in Iraq; (2) a workable roadmap for security and
peace between Palestinians and Israelis that includes new Palestinian
leadership that, first and foremost, actively combats terrorism; and,
(3) a bold, new approach to America's support of political and legal
reforms across that region.
If this trinity is realized, the impetus for political reforms
throughout the Middle East will be inevitable and unstoppable. The Arab
street will find a voice in democratic institutions and through
responsive leaders chosen by ballots--not bullets, bullying, or Israel
bashing.
The state of political reform in Egypt, including adherence to the
rule of law and the functioning of democratic institutions, provides a
good barometer of democratic change in the region. I believe that as
goes Egypt, so goes the Middle East.
Shifting to North Korea, the Hermit Kingdom's ongoing bluster and
its appalling repression of the North Korean people continue to be a
grave concern to many of us. Although attention to North Korea's
nuclear program may have been overshadowed by military operations in
Iraq, I am hopeful the State Department will continue to focus on the
myriad challenges posed by this nation. From nuclear weapons to
narcotics trafficking and a potential North East Asian nuclear arms
race, the North Korean regime poses a growing and dangerous threat to
its neighbors and the United States.
Negotiating with North Korea is no small or easy task. This is a
country that makes France look trustworthy.
Let me make a few comments on the fiscal year 2004 request for
foreign operations. Over $2 billion is requested for four new accounts
that potentially offer more rapid responses to global crises. It would
be helpful to the Subcommittee if you could summarize the objectives of
each of these new accounts--the Millennium Challenge Account, the U.S.
Emergency Fund for Complex Foreign Crises, the Famine Fund, and the
Global AIDS Initiative--and provide greater detail on the management of
these funds, and overlap, if any, with existing foreign assistance
programs.
The funding request has again been reduced for the Assistance for
Eastern Europe and Baltic States (SEED) and Assistance for Independent
States (NIS) accounts by $86 million and $179 million, respectively,
below the fiscal year 2003 enacted levels. While I fully support
graduating countries that receive U.S. foreign aid, I remain concerned
that too steep and rapid cuts may have unintended consequences.
A case in point is Serbia. The recent assassination of Serbian
Prime Minister Zoran Djindic has spurred a massive crackdown on
organized crime, some of which is linked to cronies of Slobodan
Milosevic. It is clear that political, legal and economic reforms are
still needed in Serbia, and instead of reducing assistance by $15
million, we should be considering additional support for programs and
activities that the bolster these necessary reforms.
Let me close with a few brief comments on Burma and Cambodia. As
predicted, we have not seen progress in the dialogue between the State
Peace and Development Council (SPDC) and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi since her
release from house arrest. The news out of Burma reports no signs of
reconciliation--only continued repression of the people of Burma by the
SPDC, brutal rapes of ethnic girls and women, and unwillingness to meet
with the NLD, the U.N. special envoy, and ethnic nationalities. I
applaud the State Department's recommendation to the White House that
the regime in Burma should not be certified as making progress or
cooperating with the United States on counternarcotics matters. It is
clear that additional sanctions against the junta in Rangoon are
warranted, and I intend to introduce legislation to this effect in the
very near future.
In Cambodia, the attacks earlier this year against Thai interests
in Phnom Penh--including the destruction of the Thai Embassy--and the
continuing assassination of opposition activists, monks, and judges
underscores the lawlessness and impunity that has become the hallmark
of the ruling Cambodian People's Party. In such a climate, talk of a
Khmer Rouge tribunal using Cambodian courts and judges makes no sense.
As parliamentary elections are scheduled in three months time, I
encourage the State Department to seize every opportunity to strengthen
the hand of the democratic opposition in the run up to these polls.
Thank you again, Mr. Secretary, for appearing before this
Subcommittee and I look forward to your testimony.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Secretary,
I welcome you to the first hearing of the subcommittee this
year. Many people here don't know about the exclusive club that
Secretary Powell and I belong to. We both had the honor of
speaking at the Mitch McConnell Center for Political Leadership
in Louisville, Kentucky. We also, the Secretary and his lovely
wife and my wife and I were married the same year, the same
day, virtually the same hour.
I appreciated, Mr. Chairman, the opportunity that you gave
to both the Secretary and myself. I also appreciate the
Louisville Slugger they gave me. I am not much of a baseball
player, but I have been practicing. I was actually thinking of
changing my career, until realized that was your real motive in
having me come down.
But I know the Secretary has a lot of demands on his time,
and I am one who feels that President Bush made a superb choice
in selecting the Secretary for this job. I think he has been an
invaluable voice for our country.
We have worked hard in this subcommittee to give you the
funds you need. We have exceeded the administration's budget
request for foreign assistance every year. Senator McConnell
and I worked closely to get bipartisan support for that. I hope
that trend continues, because we face a lot of challenges.
The President's fiscal year 2004 budget is a step forward,
but even if we appropriate every dime of it, it is still less
than 1 percent of the total Federal budget. I don't think we
can mount a credible challenge to global poverty, international
terrorism, and all the other threats we face. We need more
resources.
I am concerned about the development assistance account,
which would be cut under this budget. The funding for child
survival and health programs, including funding to combat
infectious diseases, would be cut, and that is wrong. Aid to
Russia would be cut. Aid to our Central American neighbors
would remain a fraction of what it should be. There are a
number of areas, from promoting renewable energy to building
democracy, where we could do much more.
I know that the State Department's leading role in foreign
policy goes back more than two centuries, when one of your
predecessors, Thomas Jefferson, was the first Secretary of
State. I am concerned that that role is under assault,
including by some within the administration. Most recently, it
was challenged by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich,
now a member of the Defense Policy Board. He called the State
Department a ``broken instrument of diplomacy.'' I reject that
view. I believe his attacks against people who work for you are
unfair and misguided.
Like any government agency or congressional bodies and many
private companies, there are things that could be done better,
of course. We all know that. But there are many, many things
that State Department employees do every single day that are
not reported in the news, but they advance U.S. interests, they
help make the world safer, and you and I know that you have
some of the most talented men and women in the world working
for you.
Now, Mr. Gingrich, like some in the administration who
promote unilateralism and favor military force over diplomacy,
claimed the war in Iraq involved 6 months of diplomatic failure
and 1 month of military success. That is a misstatement of
history. Diplomacy achieved important results, including a
unanimous vote in the U.N. Security Council. It was senior
Pentagon officials who engaged in name-calling, such as ``Old
Europe,'' and exacerbated tensions with key allies, making the
State Department's job more difficult.
The war in Iraq has raised serious questions about the
appropriate roles of the Pentagon and State Department in
diplomacy and managing foreign aid programs. Over the past
couple of years, we have seen the steady encroachment by the
Pentagon into areas where the State Department and USAID have
far more expertise, in formulating U.S. foreign policy and
post-conflict reconstruction.
The Defense Department is second to none at fighting wars.
I agree with Senator McConnell on that. We have the best men
and women, the best Navy, the best Army, the best Air Force,
the best Marine Corps in the world. I also point out that a lot
of that, though, began during a time when you, Mr. Secretary,
were Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Pentagon has a
role to play after conflicts end, but the State Department
should have the final say when it comes to foreign policy and
foreign assistance. It is disturbing that key officials in the
administration seem determined to weaken the State Department.
prepared statement
I have a number of questions, and because of the shortness
of time, I will pass on the others to your legislative affairs
people, who I have found to be excellent in getting back to us
with the information we need. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Mr. Secretary, welcome to the first hearing of this Subcommittee
this year. I should begin by pointing out for those here who may not
know, that Secretary Powell and I are both members of a very
distinguished, selective club. We both had the honor of speaking at the
Mitch McConnell Center for Political Leadership in Louisville,
Kentucky.
I very much appreciated that opportunity. And I especially
appreciated the gift of the Louisville Slugger baseball bat with my
name on it. I have never been much of a baseball player, but Senator
McConnell's gift might inspire me to consider a new career--maybe that
was his reason for inviting me down there.
On a serious note, thank you, Mr. Secretary, for testifying today.
I know you have a lot of other demands on your time. But I also know
you agree that without the budget this Committee appropriates, you
would not have the resources to do much of anything.
As I have said before, President Bush made a superb choice in
selecting you for this position. You are doing an excellent job. You
have been an invaluable voice of reason and moderation for the
Administration's foreign policy.
This Subcommittee has worked hard to give you the funds you need.
We have exceeded the Administration's budget request for foreign
assistance every year. I hope this trend continues, because I do not
believe we are yet responding adequately to the many global challenges
we face.
The President's fiscal year 2004 budget request is a step forward,
but even if we appropriate every dime he has asked for it will still
amount to only about 1 percent of the Federal budget. How can we
possibly mount a credible challenge to global poverty, international
terrorism, and all the other threats we face, with so few resources? We
cannot.
I am concerned about the Development Assistance account, which
would be cut. Funding for Child Survival and Health Programs, including
to combat infectious diseases, would be cut. This is foolhardy. Aid to
Russia would be cut. Aid to our Central American neighbors would remain
a fraction of what it should be. And there are many areas--from
promoting renewable energy to building democracy, where we should be
doing far more. We are missing so many opportunities.
Mr. Secretary, this Subcommittee knows well that the State
Department's leading role in foreign policy dates back more than two
centuries, when Thomas Jefferson became the first Secretary of State.
But today that role is under assault, including by some within the
Administration. Most recently, it was challenged by former Speaker of
the House Newt Gingrich, now a member of the Defense Policy Board, when
he called the State Department a ``broken instrument of diplomacy.''
I reject that view, and I believe his attacks against people who
work for you are unfair and misguided.
Like any government agency and many private companies, there are
things that the State Department could do better. I know that you are
working on that. But there are many, many things that State Department
employees do every day, that are not reported on CNN, to advance U.S.
interests and help to make the world safer.
Mr. Gingrich, like those in the Administration who promote
unilateralism and favor military force over diplomacy, claimed that the
war in Iraq involved ``six months of diplomatic failure and one month
of military success.'' That is a misstatement of history.
I believe the Administration abandoned the diplomatic track too
soon. Diplomacy achieved important results, including a unanimous vote
in the U.N. Security Council. It was senior Pentagon officials who
engaged in name-calling such as ``Old-Europe'' and exacerbated tensions
with key allies--making the State Department's job more difficult.
Like everyone in this room, I am glad that Saddam Hussein is no
longer in power. However, had we been more patient, I believe we could
have dealt with Saddam Hussein without damaging relations with
important allies. These were not mutually exclusive goals.
The war in Iraq has raised serious questions about the appropriate
roles of the Pentagon and the State Department in diplomacy and in
managing foreign aid programs. Over the past couple of years, we have
seen the steady encroachment by the Pentagon into areas where the State
Department and USAID have far more expertise--from formulating U.S.
foreign policy to post-conflict reconstruction.
The Defense Department is second to none at fighting wars. It also
has a role to play after conflicts end, but the State Department should
have the final say when it comes to foreign policy and foreign
assistance. It is disturbing that key officials in this Administration
seem determined to weaken the State Department.
Mr. Secretary, I will only have time to ask a few of the many
questions I have today. Those that I do not have time for I will pass
on to your Legislative Affairs staff, who do an excellent job of
quickly getting us the information we ask for. We appreciate that very
much.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Senator Leahy.
Mr. Secretary.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. COLIN L. POWELL
Secretary Powell. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you for your opening remarks and observations, and thank you
also, Senator Leahy, for your comments.
Before beginning my brief oral statement, I would like to
offer a full statement for the record, Mr. Chairman.
Senator McConnell. Without objection, it will be included
in the record.
Secretary Powell. And let me respond to a few of the points
that were made in your opening statements, if I may.
With respect to oil revenue and how to use it in Iraq, the
interesting concept that has been used in Alaska for so many
years is under consideration. We are looking at that. Senator
Stevens has educated me over the years as to the merit of this
approach to the use of oil, a portion of the revenues going
into a fund which then can be used to compensate the people in
a way that they can make a choice as to how the wealth of the
state is being used. I think that is a concept that applies in
the case of Iraq, at least for consideration.
The ultimate judgment, of course, will be up to the Iraqi
people. We made it clear that this is oil that belongs to them,
for them, by them. They will figure out how to use it and we
will help them to get started down the road to responsible
stewardship of this marvelous treasure that the Iraqi people
own.
I am sure, in the course of our questioning I can get into
specific answers on Iraq, the Middle East, the Middle East
peace process and what has happened in the last 24 hours with
respect to the appointment of a Palestinian Prime Minister.
Earlier today, as a result of that appointment and his
confirmation by the PLC, the Palestinian legislature, we
presented the Road Map. Earlier this morning, Ambassador
Kurtzer, Ambassador to Israel, presented the Road Map to Prime
Minister Sharon. Representatives of the courts have presented
the Road Map to the Prime Minister now, first Prime Minister of
the Palestinian Authority, Mr. Mahmoud Abbas. I had an
opportunity to call both Prime Ministers early this morning to
encourage them to do everything in their respective powers to
make sure we get a good start down this path to peace. A new
opportunity is being created. It is an opportunity that must
not be lost, and I was very pleased at the response from both
Prime Ministers, who are anxious to move forward.
Senator, I do share your concerns about Burma and Cambodia,
as well. I will be passing through Cambodia briefly in a few
weeks' time, in a month and a half or so, attending the ASEAN
regional forum meetings there. I won't be there for a very long
period of time, but enough to at least talk to my ASEAN
colleagues about the situation in the country we will be
visiting and also have some conversation with the leadership
there and, once again, express our concerns to them.
Senator Leahy, let me especially thank you for your
comments about the Department of State, and let me express my
thanks to this committee for the confidence that you have
placed in the men and women of the State Department. Just as we
have the finest soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, I can
tell you, we have the finest foreign service officers and civil
servants and foreign service nationals working for the interest
of the United States of America.
When I became Secretary, I had about five reports on my
desk of improvements that people suggested could be made in the
State Department from different task forces and panels. I had
been on one of those panels and had made the recommendations
for that panel, and now I am the Secretary of State to
implement them. So we are always willing to receive helpful,
constructive comment as to how to improve our operation. With
the support of this committee and other committees in the
Congress and the Congress, we have done a lot with respect to
recruiting, with respect to security, with respect to putting a
sense of purpose and morale into our troops, esprit de corps in
all the members of our State Department family.
I send young State Department officers out to the most
difficult places in the world to serve their country, taking
their families with them where there may not be any hospital
care, where there may not be any school for their kids, or
where they are separated from their families for a longer
period of time than the average soldier gets separated from his
family. They go willingly and they go with a smile on their
face because they are happy to serve the American people.
Now, ever since Thomas Jefferson was sworn in as the first
Secretary of State, an uninterrupted line of Secretaries of
State, from number 1 to number 65, have been criticized at one
time or another for being diplomats: for trying to find
peaceful solutions, to building friendships around the world,
to creating alliances. That is what we do. We do it damn well,
and I am not going to apologize to anybody. I am on the offense
for the people who work in my Department, doing a great job,
and if you come after them, come after them with legitimate
criticism and we will respond to that. We are not above
criticism.
But if you come after us just to come after us, you are in
for a fight. I am going to fight back and I am going to protect
my Department and my people. I am also going to defend the
policies of the President, which were attacked even more
vigorously than any sideways attack on the contributions and
the loyalty and the dedication and the courage and the
willingness to serve of the men and women of the State
Department. Hopefully, we can pursue the issue of how the State
Department is functioning in a reasonable manner, with
constructive comments welcomed and open debate taking place.
With respect to what is going on within the administration,
it is not the first time I have seen discussions within the
administration between one Department or another. I have been
in four straight administrations at a senior level, and thus it
has been and thus it has always been, and thus it should be.
There should be tension within the national security team, and
from that tension arguments are surfaced for the President, and
the one who decides, the one who makes the foreign policy
decisions for the United States of America is not the Secretary
of State or the Secretary of Defense or the National Security
Advisor. It is the President. It is our job, my job and Don's
job and Condi's job and the Vice President's job and George
Tenet's job to give the President our best advice, and the
President is the one who decides.
Complicated issues come along. How do you go into a place
like Iraq, which is a military operation that has to be run by
the military. The initial reconstruction period has to be under
the control of the military and there has to be unity of
command and purpose. We fully appreciate and support that. I
have, I think it is now five ambassadors working for General
Franks and for Jay Garner.
But in due course, as a government is set up, the interim
authority being the embryonic state of that government, as it
grows into a fully representative government for the people of
Iraq, slowly but surely, that will shift over. USAID and non-
governmental organizations and bodies of the United Nations and
other international institutions will play a much more
important and significant role during that transition. And so
will the State Department, as we put in place our diplomatic
presence, as we put in place an embassy, and as we get back to
normal sorts of relations.
Now, in this transition, the gears will grind from time to
time and it is my job and Don's job and Condi and the Vice
President to put some oil on those gears to make sure it isn't
a distraction. All of these things are manageable, and what we
have is the finest group of young men and women working for the
security of this nation and our foreign policy interests,
whether they are wearing a suit similar to mine or wearing a
suit similar to the one I used to wear. We are all part of one
team trying to get the job done for the American people.
Mr. Chairman, if I may, I will briefly summarize my
statement because I think you have had a chance to examine it.
It has been before the members of the committee for some time
now.
I am pleased to appear, to testify in support of the
President's International Affairs budget for fiscal year 2004.
Funding requested for the next fiscal year for the Department,
USAID, and other foreign affairs agencies is $28.5 billion. The
funding will allow the United States to target security and
economic assistance to sustain key countries supporting us in
the war on terrorism; it will allow us to launch the Millennium
Challenge Account, a new partnership that I think
revolutionizes the way in which we help the neediest of nations
around the world who are committed to democracy and the free
enterprise system.
The budget will also allow us to strengthen the United
States' commitment and global commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS
and other humanitarian hardships. It will allow us to combat
illegal drugs in the Andean region, as well as bolster
democracy in Colombia. I will be meeting later this afternoon
with President Bush and President Uribe to get a report from
President Uribe on his strategy for going after narco-
traffickers in Colombia.
It will also allow us to reinforce America's world class
diplomatic force. I have often said to this committee that I am
not only foreign policy advisor, but leader and manager of the
Department, and I take that charge seriously. We have done a
great job in starting to hire people again. In the 3 years that
I have been responsible for the budget and in the 25 months
that I have been Secretary of State, over that period, we have
brought in a little over 1,100 new hires over and above
attrition.
We are finally putting blood back into the Department, new
people coming in. Tens upon tens of thousands of young
Americans are signing up to take the Foreign Service exam. I
swore in another class last week. Three weeks ago on a
Saturday, 20,000 Americans assembled to take the Foreign
Service exam at sites all over the country. They want to be a
part of this team. They are proud of what this team is doing
and they want to be a part of it, and as a result of the
generosity and understanding and support of the Congress, we
are now able to hire people.
For those who criticize the Department who were in Congress
in the 1990s, they ought to take a look at the record as to how
they spent part of the 1990s cutting the budget of the
Department of State and prohibiting the Department of State
from hiring individuals that were needed to keep strength and
vitality within the Department.
I hope that you will continue to support me in those
efforts, not only to bring first class people into a first
class force, but also to bring state-of-the-art information
technology to the Department. That was also one of my
commitments. I wanted to make sure that every member of the
Department of State anywhere in the world had access to the
Internet. We are 24/7, instantaneous communications,
instantaneous decision making. We can't be typing out cables on
teletypes any longer. Before I leave as Secretary of State, I
want the entire Department wired so we are talking to each
other electronically and instantaneously through the power of
the Internet in a completely secure, classified manner, and
every member of the Department hooked up.
I also committed myself and to the President that we would
wipe the slate clean and straighten out our overseas building
operation. We have done that, and I think we can all be proud
of the job that General Williams and his great team have done.
Our embassies are coming in on time, under cost, and secure,
and beyond that, they are attractive and we are meeting the
standards that the Congress set for us. I need your continued
support and the support of all Members of Congress for embassy
security and construction and other matters related to the
infrastructure needs of the Department.
The number one priority with respect to our Foreign
Operations budget is to fight and win the global war on
terrorism. This budget furthers this goal by providing
economic, military, and democracy assistance to key foreign
partners and allies, including $4.7 billion to countries that
have joined us in the war on terrorism. Of this amount, the
President's budget provides $657 million for Afghanistan, $460
million for Jordan, $395 million for Pakistan, $255 million for
Turkey, $136 million for Indonesia, and $87 million for the
Philippines.
In Afghanistan, the funding will be used to fulfill our
commitment to rebuild Afghanistan's road network, especially
the important ring road that really connects the country. And
now that warm weather is there, paving will begin very soon and
I hope we will have most of the work done by the end of the
year.
In addition, we are using funding of this kind to establish
security throughout the country and putting in place an Afghan
police force, border guards, and working with the Pentagon on
the creation of an Afghan national army. Our assistance will be
coordinated with the Afghan government. We want to make sure
the money is seen as going to the central government to empower
President Karzai. We are also working with other international
donors and with the United Nations.
I want to emphasize our efforts to decrease the threats
posed by terrorist states, by terrorist groups, rogue states,
other non-state actors with regard to weapons of mass
destruction and related technology. We have to strengthen our
partnerships with countries that share our views in dealing
with the threat of terrorism and resolving regional conflicts.
The budget also promotes international peace and prosperity
by launching the Millennium Challenge Account. This will be an
independent government corporation. It will have a board that I
will chair with other cabinet officers supervising the work of
the corporation. There is a transition team now in the
Department of State starting to put the corporation together
and we will be briefing the Congress regularly as this work
proceeds.
As President Bush told African leaders earlier this year,
this aid will go to nations that are committed to economic
freedom, democracy, rooting out corruption, making sure that
societies are resting on the rule of law, and which have
respect for the rights of their people. They just need help to
get going, to get started, to get a leg up so that they can
then attract the kind of investment and participate in the kind
of global trading activity needed to generate wealth within
their country.
The President's budget request also offers hope and a
helping hand to countries facing health catastrophes, poverty,
and despair. The budget includes more than $1 billion to meet
the needs of refugees and internally displaced peoples. The
budget also provides more than $1.3 billion to combat the
global HIV/AIDS epidemic, the worst weapon of mass destruction
on the face of the earth today. The President's total budget
for HIV/AIDS is over $2 billion, which includes the first
year's funding for the new emergency plan for HIV/AIDS relief.
The budget also includes almost half-a-billion dollars for
Colombia. The funding will support Colombian President Uribe's
unified campaign against terrorists, and the campaign is also
now directed against terrorists and the drug trade that fuels
the activities of terrorists. The aim is to secure democracy,
extend security, and restore economic prosperity to Colombia.
Our total Andean counter-drug initiative is $731 million, and
that includes restarting the air bridge denial program and
stepped up eradication in alternative development efforts and
technical assistance to strengthen Colombia's police and
judicial institutions.
Mr. Chairman, you talked about the Middle East and why we
have to move forward and bring hope to those people. In our
budget, we have included $145 million for the Middle East
Partnership Initiative. This initiative gives us a framework
and funding for working with the Arab world, to expand
educational and economic opportunities, empower women, and
strengthen civil society and the rule of law.
The peoples and governments of the Middle East face
daunting challenges. Their economies are stagnant, unable to
provide the jobs needed for millions of young people who are
entering the workplace each year. Too many of their governments
appear closed and unresponsive to the needs of their citizens
and their schools are not equipping students to succeed in
today's globalized world.
In the programs these dollars will fund, we will work with
our Nation's groups and individuals to bridge the jobs gap with
economic reform, business investment, and private sector
development. We will close the freedom gap with projects to
strengthen civil society, expand political participation, and
lift the voices of women, and we will bridge the knowledge gap
with better schools and more opportunity for higher education.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to address the issue of
hunger, famine, and food aid. Historically, America has been
the largest donor of assistance for victims of famine and food
emergencies. Thanks to the help of the Appropriations
Committees, Congress provides $1.44 billion in urgently needed
Public Law 480 Title II food aid for fiscal year 2003. Our 2004
food aid request of $1.19 billion will be complemented with a
new famine fund, one of the funds that you touched on, sir, a
famine fund initiative of $200 million. This initiative will
provide emergency food grants for support to meet crisis
situations on a case-by-case basis, giving us that extra
flexibility to respond where needed. I really need this fund.
Too often, I find when faced with a sudden problem, I am
robbing Peter to pay Paul and someone comes up short. This will
give me and the President the needed flexibility to respond to
crises.
prepared statement
Mr. Chairman, that ends my opening remarks and I am now
pleased to take your questions or respond in depth to any of
the particular issues you raise in your opening statements.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Colin L. Powell
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to appear
before you to testify in support of the President's International
Affairs Budget for fiscal year 2004. Funding requested for fiscal year
2004 for the Department of State, USAID, and other foreign affairs
agencies is $28.5 billion.
The President's Budget will allow the United States to:
--Target security and economic assistance to sustain key countries
supporting us in the war on terrorism and helping us to stem
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction;
--Launch the Millennium Challenge Account--a new partnership
generating support to countries that rule justly, invest in
their people, and encourage economic freedom;
--Strengthen the United States and global commitment to fighting HIV/
AIDS and alleviating humanitarian hardships;
--Combat illegal drugs in the Andean Region of South America, as well
as bolster democracy in one of that region's most important
countries, Colombia; and
--Reinforce America's world-class diplomatic force, focusing on the
people, places, and tools needed to promote our foreign
policies around the world.
I am particularly proud of the last bullet, Mr. Chairman, because
for the past two years I have concentrated on each of my jobs--primary
foreign policy advisor to the President and Chief Executive Officer of
the State Department.
I know this subcommittee's specific oversight responsibilities lie
in the area of Foreign Operations, but I also know that you are all
members of the larger Appropriations Committee. In that capacity, I ask
for your strong support for funding for my CEO initiatives. And I would
like to highlight for you three of the most important of those
initiatives.
the ceo responsibilities: taking care of operations
First, we have been reinforcing our diplomatic force for two years
and we will continue in fiscal year 2004. We will hire 399 more
professionals to help the President carry out the nation's foreign
policy. This hiring will bring us to the 1,100-plus new foreign and
civil service officers we set out to hire over the first three years to
bring the Department's personnel back in line with its diplomatic
workload. Moreover, completion of these hires will allow us the
flexibility to train and educate all of our officers as they should be
trained and educated. So I am proud of that accomplishment and want to
thank you for helping me bring it about.
Second, I promised to bring state-of-the-art communications
capability to the Department--because people who can't communicate
rapidly and effectively in today's globalizing world can't carry out
our foreign policy. We are approaching our goal in that regard as well.
In both unclassified and classified communications capability,
including desk-top access to the Internet for every man and woman at
State, we will be there at the end of 2003. The budget before you will
sustain these gains and continue our information technology
modernization effort.
Finally, with respect to my CEO role, I wanted to sweep the slate
clean and completely revamp the way we construct our embassies and
other overseas buildings, as well as improve the way we secure our men
and women who occupy them. As you well know, that last task is a long-
term, almost never-ending one, particularly in this time of heightened
terrorist activities. But we are well on the way to implementing both
the construction and the security tasks in a better way, in a less
expensive way, and in a way that subsequent CEOs can continue and
improve on.
Mr. Chairman, the President's fiscal year 2004 discretionary
request for the Department of State and Related Agencies is $8.497
billion. As you review this funding in the larger committee, I ask for
your support for these dollars.
Let me turn now to your primary oversight responsibility, Foreign
Operations.
the foreign policy advisor responsibilities: funding america's
diplomacy around the world
The fiscal year 2004 budget proposes several initiatives to advance
U.S. national security interests and preserve American leadership. The
fiscal year 2004 Foreign Operations budget that funds programs for the
Department State, USAID and other foreign affairs agencies is $18.8
billion. Today, our number one priority is to fight and win the global
war on terrorism. The budget furthers this goal by providing economic,
military, and democracy assistance to key foreign partners and allies,
including $4.7 billion to countries that have joined us in the war on
terrorism.
The budget also promotes international peace and prosperity by
launching the most innovative approach to U.S. foreign assistance in
more than forty years. The new Millennium Challenge Account (MCA), an
independent government corporation funded at $1.3 billion will redefine
``aid''. As President Bush told African leaders meeting in Mauritius
recently, this aid will go to ``nations that encourage economic
freedom, root out corruption, and respect the rights of their people.''
Moreover, this budget offers hope and a helping hand to countries
facing health catastrophes, poverty and despair, and humanitarian
disasters. It provides $1.345 billion to combat the global HIV/AIDS
epidemic, TB, and Malaria; more than $1 billion to meet the needs of
refugees and internally displaced peoples; and $200 million in
emergency food assistance to support dire famine needs. In addition,
the budget includes a new $100 million proposal to enable swift
responses to complex foreign crises, including support for peace and
humanitarian intervention operations to prevent or respond to foreign
territorial disputes, armed ethnic and civil conflicts that pose
threats to regional and international peace, and acts of ethnic
cleansing, mass killing, or genocide.
Mr. Chairman, let me give you some details.
The United States is successfully prosecuting the global war on
terrorism on a number of fronts. We are providing extensive assistance
to states on the front lines of the anti-terror struggle. Working with
our international partners bilaterally and through multilateral
organizations, we have frozen more than $110 million in terrorist
assets, launched new initiatives to secure global networks of commerce
and communication, and significantly increased the cooperation of our
law enforcement and intelligence communities. Afghanistan is no longer
a haven for al-Qaeda. We are now working with the Afghan Authority,
other governments, international organizations, and NGOs to rebuild
Afghanistan. Around the world we are combating the unholy alliance of
drug traffickers and terrorists who threaten the internal stability of
countries. We are leading the international effort to prevent weapons
of mass destruction from falling into the hands of those who would do
harm to us and others. At the same time, we are rejuvenating and
expanding our public diplomacy efforts worldwide.
assistance to frontline states
The fiscal year 2004 International Affairs budget provides
approximately $4.7 billion in assistance to the Frontline States, which
have joined with us in the war on terrorism. This funding will provide
crucial assistance to enable these countries to strengthen their
economies, internal counter-terrorism capabilities and border controls.
Of this amount, the President's Budget provides $657 million for
Afghanistan, $460 million for Jordan, $395 million for Pakistan, $255
million for Turkey, $136 million for Indonesia, and $87 million for the
Philippines. In Afghanistan, the funding will be used to fulfill our
commitment to rebuild Afghanistan's road network; establish security
through a national military and national police force, including
counter-terrorism and counter-narcotics components; establish broad-
based and accountable governance through democratic institutions and an
active civil society; ensure a peace dividend for the Afghan people
through economic reconstruction; and provide humanitarian assistance to
sustain returning refugees and displaced persons. United States
assistance will continue to be coordinated with the Afghan government,
the United Nations, and other international donors.
The State Department's Anti-Terrorism Assistance (ATA) program will
continue to provide frontline states a full complement of training
courses, such as a course on how to conduct a post-terrorist attack
investigation or how to respond to a WMD event. The budget will also
fund additional equipment grants to sustain the skills and capabilities
acquired in the ATA courses. It will support as well in-country
training programs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Indonesia.
central asia and freedom support act nations
In fiscal year 2004, over $157 million in Freedom Support Act (FSA)
funding will go to assistance programs in the Central Asian states. The
fiscal year 2004 budget continues to focus FSA funds to programs in
Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, recognizing that Central Asia is
of strategic importance to United States foreign policy objectives. The
fiscal year 2004 assistance level for Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and
Tajikistan is 15 percent above 2003. These funds will support civil
society development, small business promotion, conflict reduction, and
economic reform in the region. These efforts are designed to promote
economic development and strengthen the rule of law in order to reduce
the appeal of extremist movements and stem the flow of illegal drugs
that finance terrorist activities.
Funding levels and country distributions for the FSA nations
reflect shifting priorities in the region. For example, after more than
10 years of high levels of assistance, it is time to begin the process
of graduating countries in this region from economic assistance, as we
have done with countries in Eastern Europe that have made sufficient
progress in the transition to market-based democracies. United States
economic assistance to Russia and Ukraine will begin phasing down in
fiscal year 2004, a decrease of 32 percent from 2003, moving these
countries towards graduation.
combating illegal drugs and stemming terrorism
The President's request for $731 million for the Andean Counterdrug
Initiative includes $463 million for Colombia. An additional $110
million in military assistance to Colombia will support Colombian
President Uribe's unified campaign against terrorists and the drug
trade that fuels their activities. The aim is to secure democracy,
extend security, and restore economic prosperity to Colombia and
prevent the narco-terrorists from spreading instability to the broader
Andean region. Critical components of this effort include resumption of
the Airbridge Denial program to stop internal and cross-border aerial
trafficking in illicit drugs, stepped up eradication and alternative
development efforts, and technical assistance to strengthen Colombia's
police and judicial institutions.
halting access of rogue states and terrorists to weapons of mass
destruction
Decreasing the threats posed by terrorist groups, rogue states, and
other non-state actors requires halting the spread of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) and related technology. To achieve this goal, we must
strengthen partnerships with countries that share our views in dealing
with the threat of terrorism and resolving regional conflicts.
The fiscal year 2004 budget requests $35 million for the
Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund (NDF), more than double the
fiscal year 2003 request, increases funding for overseas Export
Controls and Border Security (EXBS) to $40 million, and supports
additional funding for Science Centers and Bio-Chem Redirection
Programs.
Funding increases requested for the NDF and EXBS programs seek to
prevent weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of
terrorist groups or states by preventing their movement across borders
and destroying or safeguarding known quantities of weapons or source
material. The Science Centers and Bio-Chem Redirection programs support
the same goals by engaging former Soviet weapons scientists and
engineers in peaceful scientific activities, providing them an
alternative to marketing their skills to states or groups of concern.
millennium challenge account
The fiscal year 2004 Budget request of $1.3 billion for the new
Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) as a government corporation fulfills
the President's March 2002 pledge to create a new bilateral assistance
program, markedly different from existing models. This budget is a huge
step towards the President's commitment of $5 billion in annual funding
for the MCA by 2006, a 50 percent increase in core development
assistance.
The MCA supplements U.S. commitments to humanitarian assistance and
existing development aid programs funded and implemented by USAID. It
will assist developing countries that make sound policy decisions and
demonstrate solid performance on economic growth and reducing poverty.
--MCA funds will go only to selected developing countries that
demonstrate a commitment to sound policies--based on clear,
concrete and objective criteria. To become eligible for MCA
resources, countries must demonstrate their commitment to
economic opportunity, investing in people, and good governance.
--Resources will be available through agreements with recipient
countries that specify a limited number of clear measurable
goals, activities, and benchmarks, and financial accountability
standards.
The MCA will be administered by a new government corporation
designed to support innovative strategies and to ensure accountability
for measurable results. The corporation will be supervised by a Board
of Directors composed of Cabinet level officials and chaired by the
Secretary of State. Personnel will be drawn from a variety of
government agencies and non-government institutions and serve limited-
term appointments.
In fiscal year 2004, countries eligible to borrow from the
International Development Association (IDA), and which have per capita
incomes below $1,435, (the historical IDA cutoff) will be considered.
In 2005, all countries with incomes below $1,435 will be considered. In
2006, all countries with incomes up to $2,975 (the current World Bank
cutoff for lower middle income countries) will be eligible.
The selection process will use 16 indicators to assess national
performance--these indicators being relative to governing justly,
investing in people, and encouraging economic freedom. These indicators
were chosen because of the quality and objectivity of their data,
country coverage, public availability, and correlation with growth and
poverty reduction. The results of a review of the indicators will be
used by the MCA Board of Directors to make a final recommendation to
the President on a list of MCA countries.
the u.s.-middle east partnership initiative
The President's Budget includes $145 million for the Middle East
Partnership Initiative (MEPI). This initiative gives us a framework and
funding for working with the Arab world to expand educational and
economic opportunities, empower women, and strengthen civil society and
the rule of law. The peoples and governments of the Middle East face
daunting human challenges. Their economies are stagnant and unable to
provide jobs for millions of young people entering the workplace each
year. Too many of their governments appear closed and unresponsive to
the needs of their citizens. And their schools are not equipping
students to succeed in today's globalizing world. With the programs of
the MEPI, we will work with Arab governments, groups, and individuals
to bridge the jobs gap with economic reform, business investment, and
private sector development; close the freedom gap with projects to
strengthen civil society, expand political participation, and lift the
voices of women; and bridge the knowledge gap with better schools and
more opportunities for higher education. The U.S.-Middle East
Partnership Initiative is an investment in a more stable, peaceful,
prosperous, and democratic Arab world.
The timing now is critical. As we work to establish a peaceful and
prosperous Iraq, and as we commit our energy and resources to realizing
President Bush's vision of two states--Israel and Palestine--living
side by side, we must also work to ensure that the Middle East as a
region does not fall farther and farther behind with respect to
economic and political freedom. We need these MEPI dollars to assist us
in laying the broader foundation for a better tomorrow for all.
fighting the global aids pandemic
The fiscal year 2004 budget continues the Administration's
commitment to combat HIV/AIDS and to help bring care and treatment to
infected people overseas. The HIV/AIDS pandemic has killed 23 million
of the 63 million people it has infected to date, and left 14 million
orphans worldwide. President Bush has made fighting this pandemic a
priority of U.S. foreign policy.
The President believes the global community can--and must--do more
to halt the advance of the pandemic, and that the United States should
lead by example. Thus, the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request
signals a further, massive increase in resources to combat the HIV/AIDs
pandemic. As described in the State of the Union, the President is
committing to provide a total of $15 billion over the next five years
to turn the tide in the war on HIV/AIDs, beginning with over $2 billion
in the fiscal year 2004 budget request and rising thereafter. These
funds will be targeted on the hardest hit countries, especially in
Africa and the Caribbean with the objective of achieving dramatic on-
the-ground results. This new dramatic commitment is reflected in the
Administration's over $2 billion fiscal year 2004 budget request, which
includes:
--State Department--$450 million;
--USAID--$895 million, including $100 million for the Global Fund,
$150 million for the International Mother and Child HIV
Prevention; and $105 million for TB and Malaria; and
--HHS/CDC/NIH--$695 million, including $100 million for the Global
Fund, $150 million for the International Mother and Child HIV
Prevention, and $15 million for TB and Malaria.
In order to ensure accountability for results, the President has
asked me to establish at State a new Special Coordinator for
International HIV/AIDS Assistance. The Special Coordinator will work
for me and be responsible for coordinating all international HIV/AIDS
programs and efforts of the agencies that implement them.
hunger and famine
Historically the United States has been the largest donor of
assistance for victims of protracted and emergency food crises.
Congress provided $1.44 billion in USAID-administered food aid for
fiscal year 2003. Our fiscal year 2004 food aid request of $1.19
billion will be complemented with a Famine Fund, as I mentioned before,
which is a $200 million fund with flexible authorities to provide
emergency food, grants or support to meet dire needs on a case-by-case
basis.
supplemental funding
As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, on April 16 President Bush signed
the Supplemental legislation in which the Congress granted the
President over $79 billion, with almost $8.2 billion of that for
International Affairs. I want to thank you and our other oversight
committees as well as the entire Congress for being so responsive. We
have a huge challenge facing us in Iraq and these dollars will go a
long way toward helping us meet that challenge successfully.
summary
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, to advance America's
interests around the world we need the dollars in the President's
Budget for fiscal year 2004 and his supplemental request for this
fiscal year. We need the dollars under both of my hats--CEO and
principal foreign policy advisor. The times we live in are troubled to
be sure, but I believe there is every bit as much opportunity in the
days ahead as there is danger. American leadership is essential to
dealing with both the danger and the opportunity. With regard to the
Department of State, the President's fiscal year 2004 budget is crucial
to the exercise of that leadership.
Thank you and I will be pleased to answer your questions.
Senator McConnell. What we will do now is go to the
chairman of the full committee, Senator Stevens. We will have
5-minute rounds of questions, which will give us the maximum
opportunity to give everyone a chance to participate. Senator
Stevens.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I welcome your statement and the whole
committee respects this budget that has been presented for you.
I heard your comments about your involvement in the
intergovernmental process. If there is a crucible down there, I
am not worrying about you being the one that is being ground
down, Mr. Secretary.
But I obviously support the AIDS/HIV initiative that you
have and I hope that you will keep us informed as much as you
can about the process of the cooperation you are talking about.
RUSSIAN AID
I am concerned about one item here, though. I look across
from several cities in my State and see Eastern Russia. This
budget cuts the Russian aid by more than 50 percent. When the
cuts come in a program like that for Russia, or any program
that affects a country like Russia, it is the rural parts of
the country that are ignored after the cuts take place. The
Russian Far East is very much in need of help. It is still
lagging behind their whole country in terms of coming out of
the processes that have strangled them during the period of the
Soviet days. I want to urge you to take a look again at that.
Alaskans go over to the Russian Far East quite often and we
see the conditions over there and know that they need help. I
think that this cut in the budget that is before us for Russia
is much too deep, Mr. Secretary, and I would like to find some
way to be assured that we can find a way to allocate more money
into the areas where there is a great need for assistance from
us to assure the processes of democracy are working in Russia.
I do appreciate your being here and I hope you will excuse
me, Mr. Chairman. I welcome you here, my friend, and look
forward to working with you.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for your continuing support and the support of the full
committee and I will look at that account again. It is just a
matter of where the greatest needs are and the ability of
Russia to generate its own revenues, especially through its oil
sales, to deal with these problems.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Senator Stevens.
SYRIA
Mr. Secretary, with the liberation of Iraq, there is
renewed attention to its neighbors. We look at Syria with a
little more focus than some of us did in the past, and observe
a two-decade-old occupation of Lebanon and ongoing support for
terrorism. We look at the other neighbor of Iraq--Iran--and we
see a country that aspires to be a nuclear power and a country
that clearly supports terrorist organizations.
On the assumption that you are going to be focusing even
more on both of these countries, could you discuss the
prospects for convincing the Syrians that it might be time to
leave Lebanon and discontinue support for terrorist groups.
Could you also discuss what prospects, if any, there are for
discouraging the Iranians from becoming a nuclear power or to
continue to support terrorism?
Secretary Powell. Mr. Chairman, I will be leaving this
evening for Europe, make a couple of stops in Europe, in Spain
and Albania, and then I will be heading into Syria to have
conversations with my colleague, Foreign Minister Charaa and
President Bashar Assad, on all of the issues that you just
touched on and others, as well.
I think the last several weeks have given Syria a rather
sobering experience as to the changing circumstances in the
region, and there was a great deal of chatter a few weeks back
about whether or not the U.S. Army was going to take a left at
Baghdad and go on up to Syria. That was not the case. The
President did not intend that. But I think that a clear
indication was given that the world was losing patience with
those nations that support terrorism, those nations that
continue to move down a path toward development of weapons of
mass destruction, those nations that do not mean well by their
neighbors and for their neighbors.
We also made it clear to the Syrians that during the course
of Operation Iraqi Freedom, if they continued to allow
unhindered access going into Iraq of Fedayeen or weapons or
equipment that would sustain Baghdad, that was not a wise
policy choice on their part; and if they allowed people to find
haven in Damascus or other parts of Syria when it was clear
that the regime was collapsing, that also was not a wise policy
choice. The Syrians took note of all this, very careful note of
it, and then the President asked me to get in touch with the
Syrians and to go and have a conversation with them.
What I will say to my Syrian colleagues and to President
Bashar Assad is that there are two things that are happening
that have fundamentally changed the circumstances in the
region. One, Iraq. You are about to have a neighbor that is not
a dictatorship anymore, not a regime that oppresses its people.
Quite the contrary, we see people demonstrating. We see people
performing religious pilgrimages that a Muslim leader kept them
from performing for 25 years, and now they are doing it and
they are doing it freely and peacefully.
You are seeing a regime that is about to be put on a
democratic footing that will be representative of all of its
people. You might want to watch how that is happening, because
it fundamentally changes your economic relationship with this
country, your political relationship with this country, and
just your door-to-door relationship with this country. No more
subsidized oil coming your way. No more free oil coming your
way. You ought to take a look at that.
Today, we released the Road Map to both parties, Palestine
and Israel; the Palestinian authority hoping to become a
Palestine state in due course committed themselves to trying
again in the face of enormous difficulty, but trying again to
move down a path of peace.
We are also interested in a comprehensive solution. A
comprehensive solution at the end of the day must include Syria
and Lebanon. And if Syria wants to be a part of that
comprehensive solution, and I believe it does--President Bashar
Assad has said it to me on a couple of occasions--then it has
to review the policies it has been following with respect to
the support of terrorist activities and the control they have
over forces in Lebanon that present a threat to Northern
Israel.
So we will have a good discussion of all of these issues
and I will gauge the willingness of Syria to engage with us. I
am sure these meetings will be candid, straightforward,
friendly, and I hope they will lead to at least the beginning
of a changed point of view. But it is a decision that Syrians
will have to make as to what kind of future they wish to be a
part of and to see take place in their own country.
IRAN
Senator McConnell. We are out of time, but do you want to
touch quickly on Iran?
Secretary Powell. If I may, sir. Forgive me for practicing
my talking points a day before my trip.
We have a similar situation where Iran continues to support
terrorist activities. It is on our list of states that do so
and we have seen even more evidence in recent months of their
pursuit of nuclear technology and ultimately, obviously, a
nuclear weapon. A nation with all that oil doesn't have an
immediately obvious need for nuclear power to generate
electricity. There should be cheaper alternatives, so we have
always been suspicious of their efforts. In recent months we
have evidence to suggest we were correct in our suspicions and
now the whole world ought to be very suspicious.
But there is a churning taking place within Iran. There is
a great deal of foment there. So many of the Iranian young
people are expressing a view that there should be a better life
for them. They are expressing dissatisfaction in different
ways, through demonstrations and through their participation as
best they can in the political process. They want to have a
choice in their destiny and their future and there is some
strain between the political figures and the religious figures
within the country as they try to accommodate what I believe
are the desires of the younger population.
This gives us something to work with. I think we can appeal
to that young population, give them a message, give them the
example of Iraq, of what Iran should also be thinking about and
considering as they see this fundamental change taking place
just across the border, in a nation that was their sworn enemy
for the last 20 years.
So I think we have ways of influencing Iran, as well, not
quite as directly as we influenced Iraq, I might say, or we
might be able to influence Syria, but there are ways to
influence Iran. I think all of them are now taking another look
at their situation and the reality of these new circumstances
as we move forward.
Senator McConnell. Thank you. Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would say, in
following up on that a little bit, the Ayatollahs in Iran make
no secret of the fact that they want very much for a new
government in Iraq to resemble theirs in Iran.
Iran may be slowly changing. The irony would be if Iran
became less of a theocracy, more of a democracy, and the
opposite happened in Iraq.
Secretary Powell. We are going to do everything we can to
make sure that such irony does not occur. I hope that the
people of Iraq, as they continue the process that has now
started to create an interim authority, an embryonic
government, and as it starts to grow into a full government
with free elections, will realize that they do not want to look
like Iran. What has it done for Iran? It is not a model to be
emulated.
Senator Leahy. I agree with that.
Secretary Powell. There are much better models about. What
we have to watch out for is what the Iranians might try to do
in the southern part of Iraq, and we have some concerns about
that and we are sharing those concerns with the Iranians,
suggesting it is not in their interest to try to in any way
exercise undue influence within the Shi'ia population in the
southern part of Iraq or try to infiltrate it.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, you know, we talked earlier about this idea
of unilateralism versus multilateralism and there is a
temptation--we are the most powerful nation on earth, we are
the wealthiest nation on earth and we have a worldwide economic
and military reach--to go it alone. You can do that in
individual instances, but at some point it wears thin.
SEVERE ACUTE RESIRATORY SYNDROME
I am thinking, isn't the SARS epidemic an example where to
go it alone just does not work? If we are going to combat SARS,
or terrorism for that matter, there are a lot of other nations
we have got to be involved with--China, France, Mexico, Canada,
countries that disagreed with us on the war in Iraq. No matter
whether they agree or disagree with us on an issue like Iraq,
doesn't SARS illustrate why we have to work together?
Secretary Powell. We do have to stay engaged and I think we
are staying engaged. We are increasingly interconnected with
respect to dealing with transnational problems, whether they
are epidemics, such as HIV/AIDS or SARS, or whether it is
responding to terrorism, and President Bush and his team
understands this fully. I spend a great deal of my time working
with the international community, whether it is regional
organizations, the United Nations, NATO, whatever it might be,
and the number of visitors who come here and the number of
places that I visit.
When you look at this charge, though, that America is too
unilateral, I start to lay down exhibits of our unilateralism
or our multilateralism. I look at Operation Iraqi Freedom, and
everybody says we went off on our own and we split Europe and
Europe wasn't with us. Europe was with us. There were some
nations in Europe who weren't with us, but more NATO nations
were with us than against us. More EU nations were with us than
against us.
Senator Leahy. I understand that. That is not precisely,
though, what I was getting at. I was thinking, like we read in
the paper, Chile may be punished because of----
Secretary Powell. Chile----
Senator Leahy. My point is that there may be issues where
they disagree with us. But on other issues, we have got to work
together, SARS being one.
Secretary Powell. Oh, sure. Sure.
Senator Leahy. Terrorism being an example, too.
Secretary Powell. Chile will not be punished. I met with
the Foreign Minister of Chile the day before yesterday and we
assured her that there might be some delay as we put things in
queue, but the President remains committed to the U.S.-Chile
Free Trade Agreement.
But there come occasions, Senator Leahy, where as the
result of a disagreement or some other disappointment in a
relationship we have with a particular country, without
breaking up the friendship or breaking an alliance, you can
take another look at your policies to see whether those
policies are still the right policies to follow in light of the
disagreement that was just passed through.
Senator Leahy. Let me ask you one other question. We could
go on for hours.
IRAQI NATIONAL CONGRESS
We have talked about Mr. Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi
National Congress, INC, who seems to be favored by some in the
administration, but the Foreign Minister of Jordan warned
against supporting him, saying he had been convicted of fraud
in Jordan, among other things.
Is the INC going to be the dominant party? We have given
them $5 million recently. We have given them tens of millions
of dollars before, we airlifted them in there, and yet we know
from the audits done that some of the money we gave them in the
past was misspent. Is this a fait accompli or are they just one
of the parties?
Secretary Powell. They are just one of the parties. Ahmed
Chalabi spent many years of his life working hard for the
liberation of Iraq and he believes that he should participate
in public life. He has been one of the most effective leaders
of the external opposition and he is now in Iraq and there is
no reason he should not be in Iraq participating in public life
in Iraq.
This Congress provided a great deal of support and
direction as to how this support should be used to the INC.
There were some accounting problems and we controlled the flow
of money while those accounting and accountability problems
were dealt with by our staffs.
But the President has made absolutely clear that the
leadership of the new government in Iraq would be determined by
the people of Iraq, all the people, and we would expect that
the new government would include those who fought so hard in
the external opposition as well as those inside the country who
are now free of Saddam Hussein and his regime and his thugs and
can speak out and present their case to the Iraqi people and
see if the Iraqi people have confidence and trust in these
individuals. So it will be a combination, we are not putting
our bets on any particular individual or any particular group.
It is up to the Iraqi people. The President has made this very
clear.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Senator Leahy.
Senator Shelby.
DEATH OF AMERICAN CITIZENS IN SEOUL, KOREA
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, you may have been briefed,
and I am not sure, on the recent unexplained death of American
citizens in Seoul, Korea.
Secretary Powell. I don't think so.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Matthew Sellers was from Alabama, and
some of his family has contacted me with questions regarding
the discrepancies in the facts and circumstances surrounding
his death. The family has had some contact with State
Department officials at our embassy in Seoul and two letters
have been received from Ambassador Hubbard, but they continue
to feel very strongly that not enough information has been
shared with them about their brother's death and that a full
investigation of this matter is necessary.
So since you are not familiar with it, I will get you some
information on it and ask you to look into it because they are
really concerned that--there are just a lot of unanswered
questions about his death. He was a teacher, an American from
Alabama and had been teaching there for 17 years and he died en
route from one hospital to the other. It is inexplicable. So I
will get you the information.
Secretary Powell. No, it does ring a bell now, Senator.
When you said the name Matthew----
Senator Shelby. Matthew----
Secretary Powell. It didn't click, but Sellers----
Senator Shelby. Maybe my mike wasn't on.
Secretary Powell. I know that the family has been in touch
with Ambassador Hubbard----
Senator Shelby. Right.
Secretary Powell [continuing]. And we are trying to get the
answer and I will look into it again when I get back to the
Department.
Senator Shelby. I appreciate it very much and I know his
family does.
Secretary Powell. In circumstances like that, one always
can't find the answer, but we should do everything we can to
try to find the answer for the family.
Senator Shelby. We appreciate that.
Secretary Powell. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. That was at the request of the family that
I am pursuing this.
KOREA
I would like to ask you to comment where you can,
considering the sensitivities of what is going on the peninsula
of Korea, what can you tell us about what is going on in Korea,
Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Powell. We know the North Koreans have continued
to pursue nuclear weapons technology. We discovered that last
summer and it became clear that they were continuing to pursue
this even though they had agreed not to as a result of the
agreed framework of 1994 signed with the United States, and
even though in 1992, they had entered into an agreement with
South Korea not to have nuclear weapons, but they did anyway.
We thought we had bottled it up with the agreed framework,
only to discover that they popped out somewhere else. There was
another bottle with another genie in it that we discovered with
no cork.
So we confronted them. They first denied it, then they
admitted it. We have been telling them for a number of months,
since last October when this broke out, that the only way we
can deal with this in the future is not to deal with it the way
we did within the past because that didn't work. So we are not
going to get back into an ``agreed framework'' kind of
arrangement where you make promises but you don't get rid of
the capability; and it is ready to pop out again, and
meanwhile, we are giving you aid and light-water reactors and
all kinds of other things.
We also told them that this time, the solution has to
involve your neighbors, not that we don't have a role to play,
and we know you are worried about us attacking you, but it is
your neighbors who are threatened by this capability and their
interests have to be served and they have to be part of the
solution. Why shouldn't they be? This is part of our
multilateral approach to problems, Senator.
So we pressed and pressed and finally persuaded the Chinese
to play a more active role in setting up a multilateral
meeting. It started with trilateral, but even though it was
just trilateral last week, we had the interest of the South
Koreans and the Japanese in the room with Assistant Secretary
Jim Kelly. We briefed them every step of the way, total
transparency with Tokyo and with Seoul. We had a three-way
meeting, the Chinese, the United States, and North Korea.
The Chinese were full participants, not just conveners.
They made it clear that they wanted a de-nuclearized peninsula
and they, for the first time, publicly acknowledged the 1992
agreement between South and North Korea. The Chinese said: ``we
now acknowledge that and why are you violating that, too,'' was
the implication.
The North Koreans, in very typically bellicose fashion,
accused us of everything imaginable and then said, we have
reprocessed all the fuel rods that were in storage. We can't
establish that as a matter of fact with our intelligence
community, but they said they did it. That is their assertion.
That is their position.
Then they told Mr. Kelly that, by the way, we confirmed
that we have nuclear weapons and we told you 10 years ago, in
1993, that we had nuclear weapons, although we can't verify
they told anybody that. With these nuclear weapons, they said,
we can display them, we can make more, or we can transfer them.
And then they said, it is up to you. It depends on the American
reaction. Take your time. Think about it.
So they have essentially laid their programs out and are
anxious to see whether anybody will pay them for their bad
behavior. So we had a good, as we say in the diplomatic world,
candid, direct exchange of views. We briefed our Japanese and
South Korean friends on the way out and we are now examining
the proposal they put on the table which would get rid of all
of this and the missiles that they have and we will examine it.
But we will examine it with the greatest care and only with our
other friends, and then we will see how to deal with it,
whether further meetings are warranted, whether another
proposal is appropriate.
All the options are on the table and available to the
President. We will not be rushed. We will not be panicked. We
are not afraid, we will not be scared into doing something, we
will not be blackmailed, and we will not be intimidated. They
are the ones who have the problem with people who are starving
to death, an economy that is not working, and they are
investing what little wealth they have in fools' gold called a
nuclear capability that will not scare us and will not feed a
single child.
Senator Shelby. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator McConnell. Thank you, Senator Shelby.
Senator Landrieu.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Mr. Secretary, for your leadership. I agree with your
assessment that it would be wise for us to be both a military
superpower and a diplomatic superpower and I really commend you
and all that you have had to handle to really be aggressive in
stepping up our State Department and making sure that our
people have the resources and the tools and the 21st century
tools they need to complete the mission, because both are
important.
Just to note for the record, and, of course, you know I
have supported a strong defense appropriation and we have seen
that increased. Of course, you had a great role to play in a
former role in that regard. But Mr. Chairman, just for the
record to state that our defense appropriation for 2002 is $331
billion, but our diplomatic investments are $23.9, less almost
5 percent. It might be wise for us, whether we can do it this
year--probably not--but over the next few years to think about
at least having our diplomatic budgets match at least 10
percent of our military budgets to keep it in a good
proportion. That conversation, I probably should have with the
budget folks, but I just wanted Mr. Secretary's support----
Secretary Powell. I will mention it to them for you.
Senator Landrieu. [continuing]. That effort because I just
think the principle of it is important for America, that we
intend to be the primary military superpower in the world. We
intend for that to continue, but we will also match that to be
a diplomatic superpower, and in order to do that, I think our
budget has to reflect it.
But these are my questions. One, what is your view of the
dangers, if any--you might not think there are, but if you do--
associated with the premature pull-out in Iraq? I think I agree
with you that this is a very crucial time, that it wasn't just
the time when the bullets are flying, but now that the bullets,
or some, most of the bullets have stopped, what do you think,
or could you describe the dangers associated with a premature
pull-out?
Secretary Powell. I don't believe there will be a premature
pull-out. The President has made it clear that we don't want to
stay a day longer, but we are not going to leave a day too
early. So we will stay as long as it takes to do the job.
But we can share the burden, and as we sit here today, we
and our British friends and other members of the coalition are
soliciting other nations to provide peacekeeping forces and
reconstruction forces and funds so that we are not pulling out
but changing our presence. They don't have to be American
soldiers and British soldiers throughout the country for
whatever time it takes. We can bring in other nations. Other
nations have volunteered; off the top of my head, Italy, for
example. Now that the active part of the campaign is over, they
are prepared to send in up to 3,500 troops, to include the kind
of troops we need, the kind of presence we need, policemen, not
tankers or artillery men.
So we are going to different countries around the world
now, asking what are you able to contribute to this effort, so
that we can remove some of our troops. But that would not be
seen as premature because they are being substituted for with
the kind of troops that can do the job.
Senator Landrieu. But I guess my question--maybe I didn't
ask it as clearly--is I realize that our intention is not to
pull out prematurely, and I most certainly agree with that
assessment. But could you describe, just for the record, what
some of the dangers would be if we did or if we misjudged it?
What could potentially happen if we left too early?
Secretary Powell. My greatest concern would be if we were
to pull out before there was security throughout the country
and there was a sense of stability and the people were
comfortable with their new governmental institutions and
ministries. That the new government has put in place an
adequate police force and a responsible military answerable to
the government to protect the nation, keep it one nation, and
defend it against potential enemies.
So there is a lot of work to be done, and in the absence of
those kinds of institutions and a government that the people
could believe in, trust, and that is functioning to a proper
standard, the worst case you talk about could be total disorder
of the kind we have seen in Lebanon in previous times, and the
last thing we want to see is that kind of collapse of society.
Then we would have, frankly, failed in our mission.
Senator Landrieu. Mr. Secretary, as I was coming in, I
heard--one more question, if I could.
Senator McConnell. And then Senator DeWine.
Senator Landrieu. I will be very, very quick. The chairman
mentioned, and I wanted to support him in this comment about
the potential establishment of a trust fund for the oil
reserves. Being an oil-producing State, we have some experience
with this. I think you referenced Alaska. The Senator from
Vermont, I think, is somewhat familiar with Texas, Alaska,
Louisiana having had some experience, and we don't have to go
into the details of it, the benefits, now, but they are
extraordinary, the benefits to a community that wisely set
aside some of the riches of their oil reserves for the benefit
of the people.
I think that that practice that we have somewhat developed
in the United States could actually be quite applicable for
Iraq, both in a direct benefit as well as the psychological
benefit to ensure them that we are going to try to promote
policies that that oil belongs and should be used for the
development of their people in long-term investments.
prepared statement
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your patience here, but urge
us to pursue that in a pretty aggressive way, because over the
short, medium, and long term, it would be a great advantage to
the country.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, Senator. We are looking at the
various models that we have used to do this so that a portion
of the revenue doesn't get laundered through the government.
Serving the people could mean going directly to the people so
that they can make choices as to where they want the money to
go. As long as the money stays in the country and circulates
and generates growth within the country.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu
December 7, 1941 was a date that changed the world. The Japanese
attacked America, and we were dragged into World War II. After years of
fighting, the United States succeeded in liberating two continents
oppressed by Germany and Japan. On September 11, 2001, the United
States was, once again, attacked because of her virtues as a country
where we are free to practice multiple faiths, women are free to vote,
and we are free to live the dreams so many people around the world only
wish they could experience. Congress and the Administration share a
vision that the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, in
response to September 11th, will create a world where Americans can
live in security. Moreover, the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan and
people around the world will be able to realize their dreams to speak
and pray freely, have access to the classroom and the boardroom, vote
and more. We are already seeing early instances of freedom blossoming
in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, these aspirations will only thrive and
become realities if America makes a long-term commitment to the
promotion of liberty, justice, and civil society. At the end of World
War II, America did not quickly end its presence in Japan and Germany.
In fact, we are still engaged in both countries. The Marshall Plan was
a long-term road-map to re-establish Asian and European economies and
restore Germany and Japan as responsible members of the international
community. The U.S. dedicated $13 billion in aid for the reconstruction
of Europe and Asia or $88 billion in today's dollars. We must make a
similar, long-term commitment to Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East and
Southern Asia. We cannot sustain the successes of Operations Enduring
Freedom and Iraqi Freedom if the United States is not dedicated, once
again, to a long-term commitment in the Middle East and Southern Asia.
A failure to maintain our presence will permit fanaticism and
fundamentalism to re-emerge.
afghanistan
The President's budget request dedicates $657 million for the
reconstruction of Afghanistan. As Secretary Powell's testimony states,
Afghanistan is no longer a haven for Al Qaeda; a transportation system
is being established; a military and police force are being trained to
respect civilian authority and the rights of Afghan citizens; and an
accountable government to the people of Afghanistan is beginning to
send anchor roots into the soil. But, we cannot rest here. Regrettably,
the Administration requested no funding for Afghanistan in fiscal year
2003. Remnants of the Taliban and Al Qaeda still pose threats to Hamid
Kharzai and his government. In fact, numerous assassination attempts
have been made on his life. Moreover, they still pose a danger to our
troops, and our troops continue to conduct operations in Afghanistan.
Certainly, America cannot give the all clear sign in Afghanistan that
the military threat no longer exists.
Nor, can we give the all clear sign that a civil society and
personal freedoms are ready to stand on their own. In particular, women
still face obstacles that prohibit them from full participation in
Afghani society. Dr. Sima Samar was initially named Deputy Premier and
Minister of Women's Affairs in the Kharzai government. Her nomination
was defeated because she was a deemed a threat to the status quo.
Equality for women does not endanger society. Rather, it is a catalyst
for economic growth and a check to ensure justice is not denied. As
Paula Dobriansky, Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs recently
said on April 11, 2003, ``Ensuring women's rights benefits not only
individuals and their families, it also strengthens democracy, bolsters
prosperity, enhances stability, and encourages tolerance. It thereby
helps every society realize its full potential, which is an overarching
goal of our own national security strategy.'' Women captained the
abolition movement to end slavery in the United States. An economic
boom occurred simultaneously with the granting of the right of suffrage
for women in the United States. Afghanistan's economic ascension will
be tied to the increase of rights for its women. Democracy cannot be
said to have been fully established until women have a say in their
government and can take leadership roles in their communities.
Again, we have sewn the seeds of a bright future for Afghanistan.
But, this future will only be realized if America maintains a strong
economic and visible physical presence in Afghanistan.
long-term commitment to iraq
The situation in Iraq differs little from that seen in Afghanistan
last year. An oppressive regime was deposed, but confusion ensued soon
after. Today, electricity, food, and water are still scarce in parts of
Iraq. We must improve this situation in order to convince the Iraqi
people that life without Saddam Hussein is better than life with Saddam
Hussein. Again, we will only be able to convince the Iraqi people a new
type of government is better for them if we make a long-term commitment
to improving their plight. A quick departure will only allow Saddam's
totalitarianism to be replaced with fundamentalism. Such a solution
does not benefit the Iraqi people, the region, Israel, or the United
States.
America must apply lessons learned from Afghanistan to make the
transition more seamless in Iraq. Lt. General Jay Garner (retired)
appears to be a wise choice to head the Pentagon's Office of
Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. Already, he has convened
meetings with Iraqis representing a myriad of religious and political
view-points to discuss the crafting of an Iraqi future based on a
constitution built on the pillars of freedom and self-rule. As one
Iraqi political aspirant said of the meetings with General Garner, ``It
was the first time I entered an open political meeting in Iraq in more
than 35 years. Under Saddam there was no way to speak like this.'' It
is hoped that these meetings will produce a solid foundation to allow
the Iraqis to flourish.
Nevertheless, I am dismayed by comments from the Administration
calling for the earliest possible exit from Iraq. Rather, we need to
ensure our DOD engineers and civil affairs officers are available
beyond the immediate future to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure and advise
Iraqi civilians how to restore the fabric of a civil society. Such a
move should not be feared within Congress, the Administration, or the
Middle East as a heavy handed attempt to establish an American enclave
in the Arab world. We should have no designs on an American colony in
Iraq. But, it is folly to think that the reconstruction effort required
by the DOD and an eventual transition to the Department of State to
promote economic development can be done quickly. A long-term
commitment will prove our sincerity to the fate and well-being of the
Iraqi people. A quick exit will embolden fundamentalists and send a
message to despotic leaders that they only need endure a short war and
presence of American forces before they can return to power and their
old ways.
We must also consider the establishment of a ``permanent fund,''
like the one found in Alaska, that allows the Iraqi people to share in
the riches of its petroleum resources. The people of Alaska receive a
check each year based on the royalties collected from Alaska's oil.
This revenue in the hands of Alaska's citizens has greatly benefitted
the Alaskan economy and its citizens. A similar fund would benefit a
cash starved Iraqi populace and ensure Iraq's oil riches benefit the
people of Iraq and not outside interests.
role of iraqi women
As in Afghanistan and the United States, Iraq will only truly
thrive when its women can participate alongside men in government,
commerce, medicine, and education. Saddam Hussein's regime was brutal
to women. Such treatment cannot be permitted to occur in the new
government. Saddam's regime crushed the voices of women through
violence and intimidation. Under Saddam Hussein, rape was a common form
of political torture. The wives, mothers, and sisters of Iraqi
dissidents were often raped and even killed. Death was the proscribed
punishment for women who ``dishonored'' their families, and
``dishonor'' was interpreted all too loosely.
However, Iraqi women have not always been subjected to torture and
sexual discrimination. Prior to Saddam, Iraq was a country with a long
history of prominent women in positions of leadership. Currently, women
in Kurdish sections of Iraq enjoy freedoms not permitted by Saddam. As
Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky has said,
``Kurish women travel there freely, hold high-level economic and
political positions and have been critical to the region's revival.
Several Kurdish women serve as judges, and two regional government
ministers are women.'' Arab women regularly frequent Kurdish hotels
because there is a no-veil requirement in the Kurdish territories. What
is possible in Northern Iraq is certainly possible throughout Iraq, but
it will not be achievable if the United States does not provide a long-
term stability that fosters and allows women to take a stake in society
without fear of reprisal from Iraqi men.
conclusion
The reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan can change the paradigm
of governance in the Middle East and Southern Asia. However, this shift
will not occur overnight, and it will not form without resources from
nations, especially the United States, wishing to see democracy and
liberty prosper in the region. The commitment must be lengthy, and the
commitment must be made to men and women. While we need not duplicate
the Marshall Plan in its entirety, there can be no doubt that a quick
solution is no solution at all.
Senator Leahy [presiding]. Senator DeWine.
Senator DeWine. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being with us
and thank you very much for your good comments about the men
and women who represent us in the Foreign Service. It has been
my experience, as I am sure it has been for members of the
committee and Congress as we have traveled around the world,
that these are our best and brightest and they are very
dedicated people, and thank you for commenting about them and
thank you for leading them.
I may also say it is always a privilege to deal with
Secretary Armitage, as well. He is a pleasure to deal with, as
well.
Let me say it was good to be at the White House yesterday,
and thank you for your leadership and thanks to the President
for his leadership in regard to the AIDS issue. I want to ask
about that. I want to ask about the new Special Coordinator for
International AIDS Assistance which we are going to appoint at
State. Let me ask you how that is going to work, how that
person is going to coordinate his or her work with HHS, CDC,
NIH. How is that all going to come together?
Secretary Powell. The coordinator will be in the Department
of State, and I am still looking at the best organizational
arrangement, whether it remains a special office or it actually
becomes a bureau. There is a lot of money here and I have to
make sure I have the right kind of organizational structure for
it.
But even though the person is lodged in State, the very
title of ``coordinator,'' or ``special coordinator,'' suggests
that he has a much broader role and I would expect that I would
enter into memoranda of understanding and agreement with
Secretary Thompson and with all of the other agencies of the
administration that have an equity and an interest in how this
money is used.
I don't think there will be any coordination problem, but
this individual will be the one who would have the authority to
allocate the funds to USAID, to HHS, and who would also be
tasked with developing partnerships between government, private
sector, and international organizations, whether it is UNICEF,
WHO, UNDP, as to how the money will be spent.
Senator DeWine. What is the time table on that?
Secretary Powell. As soon as I can and as soon as we have
the necessary authorities and appropriations from the Congress,
we are on it. We are looking through the organizational
arrangement, trying to establish the organizational
arrangements now and we are looking at candidates for the job.
Senator DeWine. Good. Let me turn, if I could, to this
hemisphere, and I appreciate your efforts and so on in this
hemisphere. It is vitally important, particularly meeting with
the President of Colombia. I wish you well in that. I had the
opportunity to travel to Colombia about a month ago and meet
with him and the President is a courageous individual. We need
to hang in there.
Secretary Powell. I was there a couple months ago myself.
Senator DeWine. I know you were. I know you were.
HAITI
Let me ask about Haiti continuing--my impression is, the
situation continues to deteriorate. Assuming the OAS mission is
unable to facilitate a political solution, where do you think
we go from there? Let me just say, I support the
administration's position. We cannot, with the current
political situation in Haiti, we cannot channel money through
the government of Haiti. Let me also add, before you answer the
question, I believe for humanitarian reasons, as poor as the
country is and what I have seen in Haiti, and I have traveled
there many times, I believe we need to consider increasing the
humanitarian assistance through the NGOs. There are a lot of
places we can put that money to do a lot of good down there and
that would be my pitch today----
Secretary Powell. No, I----
Senator DeWine [continuing]. But I would ask you, where do
we go politically, do you think?
Secretary Powell. You hit the key element there, Senator.
This is a country and a people who are desperately in need of
international assistance. We have tried to be as forthcoming as
we can be, subject to the constraints that are placed on us by
a government that simply hasn't been responsive to the needs of
its people. We can't do much more with them until they solve
the political problem.
I followed this matter very closely. You know my history
with Haiti; I am the one that President Clinton sent down there
with President Carter and Senator Nunn, your former colleague,
to talk to General Cedras and have President Aristide come back
in. He did that, and that is going on 9 years ago and there
hasn't been any improvement basically since then. And so I have
always found it difficult to predict what is going to happen
next politically in Haiti. They are just stuck in what I want
to say is a time warp. This is a country that has had the
opportunity to create a democracy longer than any other nation
in the hemisphere or in the world, for that matter, almost 200
years, or over 200, or whatever the amount has been. It is a
long period of time and they haven't been able to bring the
pieces together because of squabbling and quarreling and the
disparity of wealth between those on the hill and those not on
the hill. But I would not know what to say to you honestly
about where it is going next politically, but we have got to
get past the current political crisis.
Senator DeWine. Thank you.
Senator McConnell [presiding]. Thank you, Senator DeWine.
Senator Harkin.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being here today, and thank you for your
tremendous leadership during these very trying times.
I am going to have a question for you here, or a statement
and a bit of a question which I guarantee you none of your
staff ever prepared you for. But I believe it is important and
it is something that requires U.S. leadership.
PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
As you know, Mr. Secretary, I have been a longtime advocate
for people with disabilities, one of the main authors of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. I think it is very important
that any reconstruction supported with U.S. funding be
accessible to people with disabilities and allow them to
equally participate in civic and community life.
As we begin this crucial period in Iraq and Afghanistan,
where these two peoples are rebuilding their futures, I know a
lot of voices will be heard, and you are reaching out to
different sectors of society in both of those countries. It is
my hope that the administration would give some thought to
reaching out to the disability community, and there are going
to be a lot of people, obviously, that already are disabled in
those countries for natural reasons or because of the effects
of war, and I am just hopeful that as we begin this
reconstruction, that we begin to impress upon them our hope and
our, maybe more than hope, but our strong support for ensuring
that their institutions are accessible.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, Senator, and you are right, my
staff did not prepare me for that question, but I didn't need
it. It is a very good observation and I will try to find the
right way to insert it into our thinking. My son, you may
recall, was retired from the Army with 100 percent disability,
and so I became very knowledgeable about 15 years ago what it
is like to be in a wheelchair and on crutches and on a cane, or
to drive a car with one leg that doesn't really work and what
the access means. He is now fully functional, although still
carries some of the consequences of his injuries.
But if you look at the Financial Times today, you will see
two pictures of him and one of me, and both of us are being
criticized.
So I have more than a passing interest or awareness of this
subject.
Senator Harkin. I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary, and in
following up on that, I had spoken with Mr. Armitage about this
about a year ago. In June, the United Nations in New York will
convene a meeting of member nations to draft an international
convention on the rights of individuals with disabilities.
This, I think, is the second such meeting. The first meeting
was last year, and that is why I called Mr. Armitage at that
time.
Again, I would like to urge the administration and your
leadership to take a role in the drafting of this convention,
just as former President Bush took the lead role in helping us
get the Americans with Disabilities Act through the Congress
and signing it into law. So I would hope that we would really
be forward on this and that you would send instructions down to
be heavily involved. Since we have had 13 years of experience,
some ups and downs, but good experience in how to deal with
this, I think the United States should take a big leadership
role on this important issue.
If I could just ask you, as a personal favor or
professional favor, or whoever is in charge of this in your
office, if I could be in touch with them or if they could be in
touch with me, I would sure appreciate that.
Secretary Powell. I will make sure that happens, Senator.
Thank you.
Senator Harkin. I appreciate that very much.
HUMAN SHIELDS
Last, if I have any time left, I have a constituent in Iowa
who was born in my State, but his parents came from Kuwait. He
happened to be back there visiting during the time of the first
Gulf War. He was one of about 100 people that were used as
human shields. Fortunately, he lived and he came back, a young
man. He wasn't going to take this sitting down and he sued and
he got a judgment against the government of Iraq. They had a
lot of problems in getting the money for the judgment. That
recently happened with the finding of some money in the Federal
Reserve Bank in New York, by the way.
He and his attorneys have told me they have had a difficult
time with the State Department on this, and now there is about
50--I could be off a little bit, but there are about 50
similarly situated people who are suing because they were used
as human shields and other things like that, but they are U.S.
citizens and they have gotten judgments, but there doesn't seem
to be any money or something. They have got money against
assets held by Iran. I hope that the State Department will look
at that as a possible source of meeting the judgments rendered
in favor of these claimants.
Last, I have another constituent who is one of the Iranian
hostages and they sued, but because of the Algiers Accord, they
can't get fulfilled. We have got to work this out. That was
never a treaty. It was blackmail, pure and simple, by the
government of Iran at that time in order for us to get our
hostages back, and because of that Algiers Accord, we can't
permit our citizens the right that they ought to have--like we
can sue governments, we can't sue the government of Iran to go
after them for unlawful, illegal incarceration for all those
days they were held.
Secretary Powell. This is a very complex issue, Senator. In
the Iranian case and the Algiers Accord, because of that
accord, if we were to start paying claims using frozen Iranian
assets, because of the nature of that accord, the Iranians
would have then a recourse in international law and the cost of
this might come back to the U.S. taxpayer.
With respect to Kuwaiti issues, there are frozen Iraqi
assets and there are also compensation claims being paid out of
the oil for U.N. Oil for Food Program for victims. But the real
solution to this whole problem is the Victims of Terrorism Fund
that we would like to see created, and we are still working
with OMB and other agencies of the administration to get that
one moving.
Senator Harkin. One last thing, Mr. Chairman. I don't think
our taxpayers ought to be paying for it. If they have got
assets and they have got money, they ought to pay for it.
Secretary Powell. If it flows through, if there are assets
that are not protected in some way by other agreements that the
U.S. Government has entered into and if we break those
agreements, then there really are significant foreign policy
implications to such--you know, walking away from agreements
that have been entered into.
Senator McConnell. How much time do you have remaining, Mr.
Secretary?
Secretary Powell. Mr. Chairman, it is almost 3. I am at
your pleasure, sir, but I do have to get to the White House in
due course for President Uribe, but whatever you want.
Senator McConnell. If you have got a few more minutes,
Senator Durbin, in an example of exquisite timing----
Secretary Powell. He does that all the time, I have
noticed.
Senator McConnell. Yes, arrived at just the right time to
get in one quick round.
GLOBAL AIDS
Senator Durbin. If I could, and I will be very brief, I
only have two questions. One relates to the global AIDS
situation. Thank you for your leadership and thanks to the
President. I think it is an extraordinary commitment by this
administration and I hope that we can read into the statement
this week by the President that the administration is committed
to the approach on global AIDS that has been successful and
proven, to urge abstinence as the first goal; fidelity, to be
faithful, as the second goal; and the third goal, if necessary,
to use condoms and other protection to avoid spreading the
disease. Is that a fair statement of the administration's
belief in how we should approach this global AIDS crisis?
Secretary Powell. Yes, sir, and I think the President spoke
to that yesterday in the White House, and the example he is
using is how Uganda went after the problem.
Senator Durbin. Exactly, a success story.
Secretary Powell. And we have got a very fine booklet that
USAID has put out that describes the Ugandan experience. I
would be delighted to send one up to you, Mr. Durbin.
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
Senator Durbin. My last question is unrelated to that. How
important is it to the credibility of the United States and to
your personal credibility as Secretary of State for us to
actually find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
Secretary Powell. Well, I think we will find them and I
think it will be very, very helpful in not only making the case
that we went in under, but I am the one who made the case
before the United Nations on the fifth of February.
But it is important to remember a couple other aspects to
this. When Resolution 1441 was passed by a vote of 15 to zero,
every country that voted for that resolution accepted the fact
that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction as a result of 12
years of avoiding answering the questions, as a result of all
those years of stiffing the inspectors. So they were found
guilty of possession of weapons of mass destruction on the
eighth of November when 1441 was passed.
Also remember that some of the things we are looking for
were not actual weapons but answers. You had x-number of liters
of anthrax or botulinum toxin. You have never accounted for it.
What happened to it? Now, we may never find that botulinum
toxin. We are still trying to find out what happened to it. And
the Iraqis said, we are not going to tell you. We are not going
to show you anything. We are not going to answer the question.
Any reasonable person should assume at that point that they
were hiding something.
Now that our troops are there and we have exploitation
teams around the country and as more and more individuals are
being found or turning themselves in to be interviewed, I think
we will be able to queue our efforts a little more effectively
and find the infrastructure.
We are quite sure that they had facilities that might be
called just-in-time factories for the development of chemical
weapons. In other words, they might be making another product,
but with just a few adjustments to its manufacturing process,
it is making a chemical or biological weapon. Some promising
leads have turned up, so I am quite confident we will be able
to make the case and make it in a way that will be convincing
to the world.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, and thank you Mr. Chairman.
Senator McConnell. Mr. Secretary, I am going to exercise
the chairman's prerogative and ask the final question and then
we will leave the record open for written questions for you and
your staff to respond to.
BURMA
Clearly, one of the most outrageous and repressive regimes
in the world is Burma. Nobody pays any attention to it. It
abuses its people. It doesn't honor the results of the election
that the National League for Democracy and Aung San Suu Kyi won
in 1990. What, if anything, could we or any of our allies do to
try to bring about the recognition of the election that was
fairly won some 13 years ago in Burma?
Secretary Powell. Mr. Chairman, your characterization of
Burma is absolutely correct. It is a despotic regime and we
condemn its policies, we condemn the manner in which they have
kept Aung San Suu Kyi away from the political process and
participation in civil society and civil life. But it has been
difficult to find a solution to crack the rule of this ruling
regime. We must continue to work within the U.N. framework,
continuing to work with our ASEAN partners. I am sure that when
I attend meetings later this spring, in June, in the region
with our ASEAN partners and----
Senator McConnell. Do any of the ASEAN partners care about
this?
Secretary Powell. They do, but they are at a loss, also, as
to what to do. They care. Most of them are moving in the right
direction, the direction we want them to move in, of democracy
and representative government. But they have not yet generated
the collective political will to apply the kind of pressures
that might change the nature of this regime or this regime
itself.
Senator McConnell. I know you have a lot on your plate, but
I would encourage you to pay some attention to this if you have
any time at all because it truly is an outrageous regime.
Secretary Powell. I shall, sir.
Senator McConnell. Thank you so much for being here.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator McConnell. There will be some additional questions
which will be submitted for your response in the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell
Question. What is the status of the State Department's review of
U.S. assistance programs to Egypt?
Answer. We are reviewing all of our assistance programs in the
Middle East beginning with our program in Egypt. The review is focused
on ensuring that we are reaching as many Egyptians as possible with our
aid; that our programs deliver assistance efficiently; that our funds
promote the reforms targeted by the Middle East Partnership Initiative;
and that we improve our measurement of results.
We have completed a review of activities comprising the majority of
the total U.S. Government economic assistance program for Egypt. The
areas reviewed so far include economic reform, education reform,
infrastructure, environment, and democracy and governance. We expect to
complete the review by late June. We anticipate that, as part of this
review, we will be spending a larger portion of our assistance
resources on programs that encourage economic, educational, and
political reform. The Egyptian government supports these new areas of
focus.
Question. How will democracy programs in Egypt be conducted in a
manner free from the Egyptian government's oversight and interference?
Answer. The United States emphasizes the importance of a strong
commitment to the rule of law, transparency, and good governance
through its U.S. Agency for International Development Mission. A six-
year, $32.5 million grant, for an NGO Service Center, supports
strengthening the institutional capacity of local Egyptian NGOS in the
areas of internal governance, sound financial management, and
advocating for citizens' interests and participation in civic action.
This NGO Service Center is helping citizens to bring street lighting to
slum areas, introduce garbage collection, advocate for the rights of
children and those with special needs, obtain documentation essential
for voter registration, and help women become important and active
members of society.
During its September 2002 conference, Egypt's National Democratic
Party adopted a policy document that advocated for movement toward a
more open, democratic society with increased public participation. We
support the strengthening of democratic institutions in Egypt and are
working with reformers--both in and outside of the government--to
ensure that our assistance furthers that objective.
As part of our on-going review of assistance programs to Egypt, we
are examining new mechanisms to assist non-governmental organizations,
to ensure that the most active and effective civil society advocates
are represented in U.S. programming.
Question. How will the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI)
program ensure that U.S. assistance programs in the region will no
longer be ``business as usual,'' and how will MEPI be coordinated with
ongoing State and USAID education and health programs?
Answer. The Department of State and USAID have established a common
set of Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) goals and objectives
for Arab education reform: to expand access and enhance quality of
basic formal education and higher education, especially for girls, so
that Arab youth are empowered and prepared to participate in the global
marketplace. The MEPI expands the reach of USG-directed education
reform programs, especially in making greater resources available in
countries that lack an AID presence.
Building on pilot projects and through the development of country
strategies, the MEPI will achieve increases in critical thinking
skills, literacy (especially important for girls and women), English
language skills, parental and community involvement, and early
childhood education.
Further, the MEPI will narrow the gap in educational attainment
between men and women, and expand partnerships between United States
and Arab universities involving private sector and civil society
partners.
These objectives guide MEPI education funding decisions; provide a
basis for AID mission program reviews; and set the foundation for
outreach and future competitive proposal processes.
The MEPI education goals and objectives also help establish common
ground between the U.S. Government and our Arab partners. Enhanced
funding for MEPI gives us leverage in forging bilateral and regional
consensus on Arab education reform efforts. Moreover, the resources we
bring to partnering relationships both test the commitments made by
education officials and allow flexibility in supporting educators who
may have the will, but not the tools, to foster innovation.
The MEPI builds on existing education development programs in the
Middle East and North Africa. Health issues, by contrast, are beyond
the scope of the MEPI, and will continue to be managed bilaterally
through AID Missions and U.S. Embassy officers as appropriate.
Question. How can the United States assist Abu Mazen and Minister
of State for Security Affairs Mohammed Yusuf Dahlan in cracking down on
Hamas and other extremist organizations operating in the West Bank and
Gaza?
Answer. We have made clear to the Palestinians that they must keep
a clear endpoint in sight as they take security steps: disarmament and
dismantlement of groups that oppose a two-state solution and employ
terror or violence to achieve their aims. This will not be easy, and
will require the assistance of Israel, the United States, regional
states, and others in the international community.
As Abu Mazen takes steps to consolidate control over the
Palestinian security forces, the United States is ready to provide
specific assistance through security channels.
saddam hussein's support of terrorism in west bank/gaza
Question. Has any information been uncovered in Iraq that provides
new insights on cooperation between Saddam Hussein's repressive regime
and terrorists on the West Bank and Gaza?
Answer. On April 14, U.S. military forces in Baghdad arrested
Muhammad Zaydan (a.k.a. Abu Abbas), the leader of the Palestinian
Liberation Front and suspected planner of the Achille Lauro hijacking
in which one American citizen was killed. Abu Abbas' group is known to
have infiltrated operatives into the West Bank during the current
intifada. His arrest was a clear example of Iraq's harboring of
Palestinian terrorists. Abu Abbas' interrogation has just begun and the
full extent of his terrorist activities will not be evident until it is
complete.
More time will be required to fully exploit thousands of documents
seized during and subsequent to the war before a complete picture
emerges of possible Iraqi links to Palestinian terrorists.
syria
Question. Is the Administration considering keeping the oil
pipeline that runs from Iraq to Syria closed until such time that Syria
ceases its support of international terrorists, particularly Hizballah?
Answer. he Administration's policy regarding future Iraqi commerce,
including oil, is that Iraqis will ultimately hold responsibility for
making decisions about what they trade and with whom.
Regarding Syria, the Secretary has publicly conveyed our strong
concerns about Syria's support for Palestinian rejectionists and
Hizballah. As the Secretary outlined in his testimony, a new strategic
dynamic is emerging in the region and Syria stands at a crossroads: it
can make choices that will lead to improved relations with the United
States or it can decide to continue current behavior and face further
isolation. The Administration retains the full range of diplomatic,
economic, and military options to confront states such as Syria that
harbor terrorist groups and are developing weapons of mass destruction.
We will continue to measure Syria's progress by its actions, not its
words.
Question. To what extent is Iran hampering reconstruction and
democratic reform in Iraq?
Answer. We are concerned about Iranian attempts to influence the
outcome of the political process in Iraq, and to encourage the Shia to
not cooperate with Coalition efforts to move this process forward. We
expect the Iranians to support, or at the very least not obstruct the
effort to establish a legitimate, stable, and representative government
in Iraq. A stable Iraq at peace with its neighbors is vital for the
future stability of the Middle East and is in the interest of all the
states in the area, including Iran.
Question. Does Iran today possess the independent capability to
produce its own nuclear weapons?
Answer. We do not believe Iran currently possesses the capability
to produce independently a nuclear weapon. However, we are gravely
concerned by Iran's ambitious efforts to acquire an indigenous
capability to produce weapon-grade fissile material that we assess
would be used to manufacture nuclear weapons. Unless these efforts are
stopped, Iran might be able to produce its first nuclear weapon by the
end of this decade. We are using all the diplomatic tools available to
us to prevent that from occurring.
The February visit of IAEA Director General ElBaradei to Iran with
his senior safeguards staff, followed by monthly IAEA inspections since
then, has helped raise awareness, and growing concern, in the
international community about Iran's nuclear program. The Iranian
regime only recently publicly acknowledged an ambitious (and extremely
costly) pursuit of indigenous nuclear fuel-cycle capabilities,
including enrichment and ``spent fuel management''--a euphemism for
reprocessing. The IAEA has noted that Iran's nuclear program appears
significantly more advanced than they had realized previously. It is
highly unlikely that Iran could have achieved such an apparent state of
technical progress in its gas centrifuge enrichment program without
having conducted experiments with nuclear material, an activity that
Iran denies. Such experiments would be a serious violation of Iran's
safeguards obligations. The IAEA is thus examining Iran's nuclear
activities and seeking answers to the many unresolved questions. We
look forward to a detailed report on the inspection results to date
from Dr. ElBaradei to the mid-June IAEA Board.
Question. The fiscal year 2003 Foreign Operations bill includes a
provision authorizing funds ``to support the advancement of democracy
and human rights in Iran.'' What democracy and human rights programs
does the State Department intend to support?
Answer. The State Department welcomes this authorization to expand
our current efforts across the Middle East to foster greater democracy
and respect for human rights to such a critical country as Iran. We
believe it is expressly in the interest of the United States to include
Iran in our current efforts to help get information to people
throughout the region seeking political reform.
Iran is unique in the risks the Iranian people have taken to call
upon their government for change. The Iranian government has ignored
the call for constructive reform and chosen instead to continue
pursuing destructive policies, including support for terrorism and
pursuit of WMD.
We see a variety of opportunities for outreach programs, but
because of the repression inside Iran against social activists, we will
look largely to external non-governmental organizations to implement
the programs, such as the International Republican Institute and the
National Democratic Institute, as well as the media, and the Internet.
The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) has begun
programming fiscal year 2003 Human Rights and Democracy Fund (HRDF)
money and is considering projects that would include Iran. The Middle
East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) is seeking ways to work with
nongovernmental organizations, such as developing a website with
practical guidance on running election campaigns. Through DRL and MEPI
democracy and rule of law programs, we will explore pilot projects to
see what works and then build from there.
Meanwhile, we have recently launched a State Department website in
Farsi that will give the Iranian people direct access to information
about U.S. policy on Iran, including key policy statements, translation
of the Iran Human Rights report, and excepts from Patterns of Global
Terrorism.
We hope for a continuation of this authority in fiscal year 2004.
We would also encourage expanding this authorization to Syria and
Libya, other countries sorely in need of help for proponents of
democratic and human rights reform.
Question. Do you anticipate additional funds will be needed in the
fiscal year 2004 foreign operations bill for relief and reconstruction
in Iraq?
Answer. The funds requested by the President in his wartime
supplemental request were arrived at following a comprehensive, seven-
month interagency process. In the process of formulating this request,
we were forced to make assumptions regarding the post-conflict
situation, such as the amount of damage Saddam would do to his own
infrastructure. We were also unsure of the state of the Iraq's civilian
infrastructure after more than two decades of Saddam Hussein's misrule.
We tried to capture all the costs in the supplemental, and we are
grateful for Congress' support for the President's request. However,
some important factors are still unknown at this time, including the
state of Iraq's infrastructure, its ability to finance its own
reconstruction and humanitarian needs, the costs that may be incurred
related to reprisals and the extent of refugee/IDP returns. The State
Department, through USAID, as well as the military's Civil Affairs
teams are working very hard right now to develop assessments of the
situation on the ground.
We have begun the process of lifting our own sanctions against Iraq
since the regime that was the target of these sanctions is no longer in
power. We are also working in the Security Council for an immediate
lifting of U.N. economic sanctions. This will allow the United Nations,
contractors, and the Iraqis to bring in the goods they need to rebuild
Iraq. It will also allow the Iraqis to start producing and selling oil
to help fund their relief and reconstruction needs.
Question. What steps has the State Department taken to secure debt
forgiveness for Iraq from Russia (estimated at $7.6 billion) and France
(estimated at $2.25 billion)?
Answer. We have been working closely with Treasury colleagues on
ways to address Iraq's debt. In the immediate term, we have told other
creditors not to expect Iraqi debt payments, in order to not divert
attention or resources from the immediate priorities of establishing a
stable Iraqi government, meeting Iraq's urgent humanitarian needs, and
beginning reconstruction.
Overall, Iraq's debt is a medium-term, not short-term problem. We
need first to obtain reliable data on Iraq's debt and evaluate Iraq's
debt sustainability and capacity to pay.
We have held informal bilateral discussions with visiting foreign
government officials. USG officials also discussed the question of how
to proceed with Iraq's debt at the spring World Bank/IMF meetings and
in the G-7. In April, the Paris Club, of which both France and Russia
are members, held its first discussion of Iraq. Creditor countries
discussed the likelihood of an eventual multilateral debt treatment for
Iraq, without coming to any strong conclusions.
We want a multilateral approach, which will maximize the debt
relief to Iraq and give the country breathing room to proceed with
rebuilding after the decades of Saddam's misrule while spreading the
cost of that relief fairly among different creditors. The Paris Club,
which has already begun data reconciliation and preliminary discussions
of Iraq debt, is the forum that is best suited to provide maximum
relief.
An eventual debt treatment should be based on objective, economic
criteria and should include appropriate conditionality. Until Iraq is
ready for a multilateral debt treatment, a process that could take
about two years, creditors should understand that it is unrealistic for
them to expect to be paid. A formal ``deferral'' of debt is not
necessary, as long as countries do not try to coerce payment.
Question. How does the State Department intend to promote dialogue
between the SPDC and the NLD in Burma at the upcoming ASEAN meeting in
June?
Answer. The United States has long been a supporter of the efforts
of the National League for Democracy and other members of Burma's
democracy movement to bring democracy and national reconciliation to
their country. We also strongly support the efforts of United Nations
Special Envoy Razali Ismail to foster dialogue between Daw Aung San Suu
Kyi and the Burmese regime; national reconciliation is key to the
future security and prosperity of the Burmese people. We have
encouraged and will continue to encourage Burma's neighbors to support
and work with Ambassador Razali.
Burma's political and economic problems threaten not only the
livelihood of the Burmese people but also regional prosperity and
stability. Three obvious examples are narcotics, refugees, and
infectious diseases. In fact, in the international community, it is
Burma's neighbors who suffer most directly from Burma's misguided
policies. ASEAN was formed to preserve regional stability, and the
ASEAN countries invited Burma to join the organization in the hopes
that Burma would adopt international norms. We will work with ASEAN
toward this goal.
Question. In February, Assistant Secretary Lorne Craner forcefully
articulated the SPDC's lack of interest and political will in
continuing negotiations with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and suggested State's
interest in additional sanctions against the junta. What sanctions are
you contemplating, and how closely do you coordinate policy toward
Burma with our allies--in particular the British?
Answer. The Administration has considered a full range of measures
both positive and negative to encourage the military regime in Burma to
take appropriate steps toward dialogue and national reconciliation. We
already have in place an extensive array of sanctions, including an
arms embargo, a ban on all new U.S. investment in Burma, the suspension
of all bilateral aid, the withdrawal of GSP privileges, the denial of
OPIC and EXIMBANK programs, visa restrictions on Burma's senior
leaders, and a vote against any loan or other utilization of funds to
or for Burma by international financial institutions in which the
United States has a major interest. We have also maintained our
downgraded diplomatic representation at the Charge d'Affaires level
since 1990. We are keeping our options open and believe multilateral
efforts are most effective. U.S. efforts are closely coordinated with
cial Envoy Razali, our allies and friends through frequent
communication and meetings.
Question. A better coordinated approach is needed between those who
manage Burma policy at the State Department on a day-to-day basis and
those on Capitol Hill who follow Burma closely. This is an issue where
there should be no policy differences between the Hill and the State
Department. Please have those at the State Department involved in Burma
brief the Hill on developments in Burma, as well as the State
Department's intent to support the NLD and the U.N. special envoy's
mission to bring about dialogue between the SPDC and the NLD.
Answer. We have frequent contact with interested parties in the
Congress on this issue, including briefings, and will continue to do
so. We remain strong supporters of the efforts of U.N. Special Envoy
Razali to foster dialogue between Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the Burmese
regime.
Question. Is additional assistance required in the fiscal year 2004
foreign operations bill to meet the basic needs of refugees from Burma
in Thailand?
Answer. The President has requested $6.5 million for Burma-
earmarked ESF funds in fiscal year 2004. We believe this amount will be
adequate to provide for the basic needs of refugees from Burma in
Thailand.
We anticipate spending $3.0 million of fiscal year 2003 earmark
funds on humanitarian-related projects coordinated by NGOs that provide
health and educational services to refugee and exile communities on the
Thai-Burma border. In addition to the ESF funds for Burma, Migration
and Refugee Assistance funds provide food and health assistance to the
136,000 Burmese refugees in ten camps along the Thai-Burma border. In
fiscal year 2003 the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration has
made grants of more than $5 million to NGO providers in Thailand as
well as funding 25 percent percent of UNHCR and 21 percent of ICRC
appeals worldwide.
cambodia
Question. Where is the Government of Cambodia securing the $50
million in damages it owes to the Government of Thailand and Thai
businesses as a result of riots in Phnom Penh in January?
Answer. Cambodian demonstrators broke into and burned the Thai
Embassy on January 29, 2003, then moved on to methodically attack other
Thai businesses, including the Samart and Shinawatra telecommunications
firms. The demonstrators also burned down the Royal Phnom Penh Hotel
and vandalized the Juliana Hotel. Damage to the embassy and Thai
businesses has been estimated at about $50 million, although business
claims for compensation are subject to negotiation with the Cambodian
government. In its Aide Memoire of January 30, the Royal Thai
Government (RTG) set as a condition for restoration of normal relations
the full compensation for all losses incurred by the RTG, its
diplomatic personnel and Thai nationals. The Cambodian government paid
$5.6 million as recompense for the Thai embassy. The funds were
reportedly derived from Phnom Penh municipality revenue surpluses.
Private claims are under negotiation; unconfirmed reports indicate
future tax credits are being offered.
Question. Given the failure of the Cambodian Government to protect
the Embassy of Thailand from rioters, has the State Department
considered suggesting a more secure venue outside of Cambodia for the
upcoming ASEAN meeting in June?
Answer. No. As Secretary Powell stated at the April 30 hearing, he
plans to attend meetings in connection with the ASEAN Regional Forum
and ASEAN Post Ministerial Conference, which are being held in Phnom
Penh in mid-June with Cambodia as chair. Responding to direct requests
from the United States and other missions, the Cambodian government has
taken steps to improve security. The concrete steps taken to date
include the provision of more security personnel for some embassies,
closer coordination on embassy security issues, and stricter
enforcement of regulations regarding the holding of public
demonstrations. We continue to press for more action on safety. We note
that Cambodians held the ASEAN summit last November without security
problems.
Question. Does the State Department find any inconsistencies in its
support for a Khmer Rouge tribunal that relies upon Cambodia's corrupt
legal system and its repeated condemnation of the lawlessness and
impunity that reigns in Cambodia today?
Answer. We remain committed to the establishment of a credible
Khmer Rouge Tribunal inside Cambodia that relies upon U.N.
participation, which sends a powerful message to the Cambodian people
that the international community cares about their suffering and that
those responsible will be held accountable. Given international
involvement, we expect that the Tribunal will exercise its jurisdiction
in accordance with international standards of justice, fairness, and
due process. We also expect that passage and implementation of this
agreement will meet the standards set out in U.N. General Assembly
resolution 57/228 of December 18, 2002, to ensure a credible tribunal.
With many of the perpetrators very advanced in age and some having
died without being held accountable, this may be the last opportunity
for the people of Cambodia to see justice for the egregious crimes of
the Khmer Rouge regime.
We continue to speak out strongly against political violence,
corruption, and the climate of impunity in Cambodia. To help end this
climate of impunity, we seek to promote the rule of law. The U.N.-
Cambodia agreement presents a unique opportunity to seek justice for
the people of Cambodia and to advance the rule of law. We recognize,
however, that achieving a credible process will not be easy given the
state of the judiciary in Cambodia today. After the July election, we
will be joining other U.N. member states in seeking strong
international support to help successfully implement the KR Tribunal.
According to the U.N.-RGC agreement, should the RGC change the
structure or organization of the Extraordinary Chambers or otherwise
cause them to function in a manner that does not conform with the terms
of the agreement, the United Nations reserves the right to cease to
provide assistance, financial or otherwise, pursuant to the agreement.
Question. Does the State Department acknowledge--as former forestry
monitor Global Witness asserts--that CPP is securing much needed
funding for elections through illegal logging?
Answer. The Administration has long made clear its views on the
responsibility of the Cambodian authorities to prevent illegal logging,
most recently through an April 25 State Department Spokesman's
Statement.
We have reason to believe that officials receive illegal logging
revenues. However, we have no independent confirmation that the CPP is
securing such funding for the elections. Corruption is a severe problem
in Cambodia, as is illegal logging. Moreover, the State Department is
concerned about the lack of serious election campaign finance
regulation in Cambodia and other election abuses; the National Election
Committee must show the world that it can properly regulate the
elections. Aside from the overall election regulatory framework, our
chief concerns regarding elections are to work to eliminate politically
motivated violence, coercion and intimidation, and to seek equal access
to the media for all political parties.
Question. Is Indonesia waging an effective war against terrorism,
and does President Megawati have the political will necessary to clamp
down on Islamic fundamentalists?
Answer. Since the terrorist attacks in Bali on October 12, 2002,
the Indonesian government has waged a very effective campaign against
terrorist networks on its soil. In the past six months, the Indonesian
National Police have arrested over 60 suspected members of the Jemaah
Islamiyah terrorist organization, which is believed to be responsible
for the Bali atrocity and numerous other attacks. About 20 of those
arrests have occurred within the past two weeks, which indicates that
the Indonesian authorities remain committed to tracking and dismantling
terrorist groups. Although the threat of terrorism in Indonesia still
exists, the progress of the Indonesian police has disrupted ongoing
planning of attacks and has eroded--but not completely eliminated--the
ability of terrorist groups to carry out those attacks.
In addition, the trial of Jemaah Islamiyah's purported spiritual
leader, Abu Bakar Ba'asyir, began on April 23. Ba'asyir is charged with
seeking to overthrow the Indonesian government by violent means, and
faces severe punishment for treasonable offenses if he is found guilty.
His indictment also accuses him of approving a series of bombings of 38
churches in Indonesia in 2000, which resulted in 19 deaths. So far,
there has been minimal public outcry against Ba'asyir's arrest and
trial, which demonstrates the Indonesian people's rejection of
terrorist tactics.
We continue to emphasize to President Megawati and the Indonesian
government that the fight against terrorism is an ongoing endeavor, and
must not be allowed to flag in the wake of these important arrests and
prosecutions. The vast majority of the Indonesian public opposes
terrorist violence, and will support the Indonesian government's
efforts to clamp down on individuals and organizations that attempt to
use violence to further political goals.
Question. What has been the response of the State Department to
Indonesian politician Amien Rais's comments last month that President
Bush should be tried by the United Nations as a war criminal?
Answer. The State Department does not make a practice of responding
to every criticism of U.S. policy voiced by individual Indonesian
politicians. However, the State Department has complained to the
Indonesian government on numerous occasions, particularly during the
recent hostilities with Iraq, about intemperate, inaccurate, and in
some cases reprehensible remarks made by various political figures
about President Bush and the United States. Those complaints have been
registered both with the Indonesian Embassy in Washington, and directly
with Indonesian government authorities in Jakarta.
Question. Two students recently received three year jail terms for
burning photographs of President Megawati and Vice President Hamzah
Haz. Do these draconian sentences indicate a backsliding of political
and legal reforms in Indonesia?
Answer. The two students were sentenced under Article 134 of the
criminal code. The sentences are inconsistent with internationally
accepted human rights norms as well as treaties signed by the
Government of Indonesia. Public opinion in Indonesia is divided, with
some criticism of the government for prosecuting these cases, along
with assertions that the students' actions are not appropriate in the
Indonesian cultural context.
The open discussion of these cases in the Indonesian media
indicates that Indonesia's transition to democracy is generally on
track, although by no means complete. The outcome of Indonesia's
experiment with democracy has profound implications for our strategic
interests in preserving regional stability and strengthening respect
for human rights and the rule of law. The U.S. Government will continue
to assist Indonesia with its effort to create a just and democratic
society.
Question. Two students recently received three year jail terms for
burning photographs of President Megawati and Vice President Hamzah
Haz. How will crackdown on freedom of expression impact election
campaigning in the run up to parliamentary and presidential polls next
year?
Answer. With substantial U.S. Government assistance, Indonesia has
made considerable progress in its political reform efforts, and is on
track to hold its first direct Presidential election and its next
Parliamentary elections in 2004. The eve of an election year is
bringing predictable political struggles to Indonesia, and members of
the public are exploring avenues to voice their discontent with
government policies. This is all part of the democratic process, and
should be seen as evidence of continued growth rather than portents of
instability.
To date, we have not seen a pattern of suppression of the public's
freedom of speech or expression.
Question. Two students recently received three year jail terms for
burning photographs of President Megawati and Vice President Hamzah
Haz. Has President Megawati issued any public statements condemning the
sentences?
Answer. President Megawati has not made any public comments on the
sentences.
Question. Is the State Department concerned that Thailand has
exercised extra judicial executions in its campaign to crackdown on
drugs?
Answer. We are deeply concerned by the wave of killings that has
accompanied Thailand's anti-drug campaign, which began on February 1,
2003. We have had numerous discussions with senior Thai officials in
both Bangkok and Washington on this topic. In these discussions, we
have urged that all these cases be thoroughly and credibly
investigated, and that criminal charges be brought against any
suspected perpetrators. We welcome the Royal Thai Government's public
declaration that all violent deaths will be thoroughly investigated,
and that government officials who break the law will be held
accountable for their actions.
Question. Has Thailand been a cooperative partner in the war on
terrorism, and how concerned are you with terrorist activity in
southern Thailand?
Answer. Thailand continues to cooperate closely with the United
States on all aspects of counterterrorism, including intelligence, law
enforcement and counterterrorism finance. Thailand was an active
supporter of Operation Enduring Freedom, and Thai military engineers
are currently doing reconstruction work in Afghanistan. Thailand has
hosted several U.S.-Thai military exercises with significant
counterterrorism components. It has also established an inter-agency
financial crimes group to coordinate counterrorism finance policy.
Recently, Thailand indicated its willingness to join a critical border
security program called the Terrorist Interdiction Program.
Despite recent advances in the global war on terror against both
al-Qaida and Jemaah Islamiyah, the terrorism threat remains
significant, and we must remain vigilant. As a major transportation
hub, Thailand remains vulnerable to the activities of terrorists and
their operatives. We are confident of the Royal Thai Government's
commitment to the counterterrorism effort and continue to encourage
Thailand and its neighbors in Southeast Asia to strengthen their
ability to respond to terrorist threats.
Question. What is our exit strategy for Plan Colombia, and do you
foresee continued substantial foreign assistance requests for Colombia?
Answer. United States policy towards Colombia supports the
Colombian Government's efforts to strengthen democratic institutions,
promote respect for human rights and the rule of law, intensify
counter-narcotics efforts, foster socio-economic development, address
immediate humanitarian needs, and end the threats to democracy posed by
narcotics trafficking and terrorism. We will measure the success of our
programs by their effectiveness in reducing illegal drug cultivation
and terrorism, and fostering improvements in all areas of Colombian
life.
It would be misleading to attempt to provide an expected time
schedule for full achievement of United States objectives in the
country; Colombia's deep-seated internal conflict dates back almost 40
years. Realization of U.S. policy goals will require a concerted
Colombian strategy and effort--backed by sustained U.S. assistance over
a period of years--to establish control over its national territory,
eliminate narcotics cultivation and distribution, end terrorism, and
promote human rights and the rule of law.
The Uribe administration has demonstrated a serious commitment to
pursuing these objectives with a variety of counterdrug, humanitarian,
and security measures. President Uribe has already demonstrated
impressive progress towards achieving Plan Colombia goals. The GOC
appears to be largely on track to fulfill its financial obligations
under Plan Colombia and has taken measures to increase the percentage
of GDP destined for security expenditures. The most recent CNC figures
showing a decline in the amount of coca cultivation is encouraging.
Nevertheless, Colombia will continue to need substantial U.S. help and
support if it is to succeed in accomplishing its objectives. We are
only halfway through the Plan Colombia timetable, and we would expect
to continue significant assistance to Colombia at least through 2006.
Over the longer term, and with continued progress towards achieving the
goals that the Colombians and we have set for ourselves, we would
expect to drastically reduce our financial support to Colombia.
Question. Does the State Department believe that Colombia is
capable--politically, monetarily, and technically--of sustaining Plan
Colombia, absent U.S. funding?
Answer. Plan Colombia is a six-year program originally instituted
by then-President Andres Pastrana in October 1999. From the outset, the
United States government praised and supported this comprehensive
effort to address Colombia's many, inter-related problems and, with
Congressional support, has committed itself to help the Government of
Colombia sustain Plan Colombia with training, equipment and funds. We
are now about halfway through the Plan. Despite the Government of
Colombia's remarkable progress in implementing the Plan, Colombia will
need continuing United States assistance.
Colombian President Alvaro Uribe took office in August 2002; he
immediately endorsed and expanded upon Plan Colombia. Politically,
President Uribe has maintained public support for Plan Colombia and his
own more stringent fiscal measures. Soon after his inauguration, Uribe
imposed a one-time tax on the assets of the wealthiest segment of
Colombians. Colombian authorities expect this tax to yield the
equivalent of 1.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), between $800
million and $1 billion. The Colombian 2003 budget also calls for
increased government defense expenditures, which would increase
military, and police spending. The Uribe Administration convinced the
Colombian Congress to enact extensive, longer-term tax and pension
reform packages and is moving ahead with a referendum on reducing
government operating costs.
Monetarily, Colombia will continue to need substantial United
States help and support if it is to succeed in defending its democracy
and the rule of law from narcotraffickers while improving human rights
and promoting development--all goals of Plan Colombia. In 2002
President Uribe promised President Bush that his government would,
consistent with the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act, establish
comprehensive policies to eliminate narcotrafficking as well as to
reform the Colombian military and police. Uribe has delivered on his
promise to furnish significant additional financial and other resources
to implement those policies and reforms.
The Colombian government's national security strategy, will set out
the Uribe Administration's plans to dedicate even more Colombian
resources to improving security while fighting the drug trade.
President Uribe has repeatedly stressed that Colombia is undertaking
these commitments to ensure the effectiveness of joint efforts with the
United States Government to achieve our common goals in combating
narcotics trafficking and terrorism.
We have used U.S. assistance to give technical support, in the form
of equipment, advisors and training to support Plan Colombia. It will
take more time to train enough pilots, soldiers, judges, agricultural
experts, and others that Colombia will need to staff Plan Colombia
completely with Colombians, but we are well on the way.
Question. Reports indicate that while aerial spraying may be
working in Colombia, increased coca growth is appearing in neighboring
countries, including Bolivia (20 percent above 2001 levels) and Peru (5
percent above 2001 levels).
What is the State Department's strategy for curtailing this spill-
over effect, and have Bolivia and Peru requested increased
counternarcotics assistance?
Answer. We are very pleased that the recently-released CNC ``Major
Narcotics Producing Nations'' report shows a 15 percent decrease in
coca cultivation in Colombia for 2002, including an 80 percent
reduction in the principal production area of Putumayo. This success in
Colombia will increase the pressure to cultivate coca elsewhere,
especially in Peru and Bolivia where there is a past history of coca
cultivation. As long as coca is a good cash crop, people will farm it
wherever it provides the most profit for the least risk and effort.
This is the reason our attack against cocaine is based on a regional
and global strategy.
Although our major attention and resource focus during the last
three years has been Colombia, we have continued major and long-term
programs in Bolivia and Peru to combat the immediate problem of coca
cultivation and build permanent, professional capacity in each country
to combat all facets of drug trafficking from raw resources to final
product. We have smaller programs to improve the drug fighting
infrastructure and regional cooperation (especially in controlling
cross-border smuggling) in other countries neighboring Colombia and
within the major drug trafficking transit corridors.
While there were increases in coca cultivation in Peru and Bolivia
this last year, both countries are still well below their peak
productions--over 70 percent less than in the mid-1990s. Because of
past eradication success, the actual coca cultivation increase in 2002,
while of continuing concern, is not as large as might appear based on
percentages: a total 7,100 hectares increase for both countries
combined, compared to a regional total of over 205,000 hectares. We are
maintaining our fiscal year 2004 funding requests at the fiscal year
2003 levels for Peru and Bolivia, focusing on firming up the political
support for counter-drug policies rather than program expansion. We
will continue serious eradication and counter-drug institution building
in both countries with the current fiscal year 2003 budget and fiscal
year 2004 budget request.
Question. Did Armenia offer support to Operation Iraqi Freedom, and
have they offered any assistance in the post-Saddam period?
Answer. Armenia has been and continues to be concerned about the
situation in Iraq because of the sizeable ethnic Armenian population
there. There are reportedly 30,000-40,000 ethnic Armenians living in
Iraq, and between 7 and 12 Armenian churches in Iraq. Ambassador Ordway
is in close contact with officials of the Armenian government to
discuss contributions Armenia can make in the reconstruction of Iraq.
Question. There have been numerous discussions between the
proponents of the CANDLE project for Armenia and the State Department.
Given declining funding levels for Armenia and the costs associated
with this project--between $40 and $70 million--does the State
Department intend to support this project?
Answer. The State Department is continuing discussions with the
sponsors of the proposed CANDLE project. We previously requested a
number of items from the CANDLE sponsors, including evidence of support
from the Government of Armenia, commitments of funding from other
donors and/or investors, and commitments of funding for ongoing
operating costs. When these items are provided, the State Department
will be in a position to consider providing additional funding for this
project. Declining funding levels for Armenia will definitely play a
part in our decision whether to provide further funding for this
project.
Question. How might Aliyev's incapacitation impact negotiations
over Nagorno-Karabakh?
Answer. A peaceful, mutually acceptable resolution of the conflict
over Nagorno-Karabakh will require that both sides make politically
difficult compromises. This will require strong leadership in both
Armenia and Azerbaijan capable of selling an agreement to the two
countries' publics.
Both President Aliyev in Azerbaijan and President Kocharian in
Armenia have made clear that they are committed to the peace process.
We believe that they play key roles in the search for peace.
Question. Has there been any notable progress in negotiations
between Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh over the conflict?
Answer. Momentum generated at the Key West peace talks in April
2001 waned in 2002. This February, presidential elections were held in
Armenia. Parliamentary elections will be held there in late May,
followed by presidential elections in Azerbaijan in October. The
political atmosphere surrounding these elections has caused both sides
to adopt conservative approaches to the peace process, which will
likely continue through the fall.
The OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs (United States, Russia, and France)
continue to promote negotiations between the parties. The Co-Chairs
instituted an additional level of talks in 2002 between Special
Representatives of the two Presidents. These talks supplement the Co-
Chairs' visits to the region and meetings between the Presidents. The
Co-Chairs are working to lay the groundwork for serious negotiations as
soon as the two sides are ready to move forward. We believe the period
following the elections in Azerbaijan will provide an important new
opportunity to make progress in the peace process.
Question. What are the next steps in engaging North Korea on a
multilateral basis, and given past deceptions, how does the State
Department determine whether the North Korean regime can be trusted to
negotiate in good faith?
Answer. The Administration is actively considering next steps in
light of our discussions in Beijing and our subsequent, ongoing
consultations with South Korea, Japan, China, and other key concerned
states and parties. Precisely whether and/or how we proceed on further
multilateral talks remains to be determined, but we have not excluded
the possibility of a further round of talks in Beijing, at which we
would deem essential the participation of Japan and South Korea.
As to whether the North would negotiate in good faith, the United
States seeks the verifiable and irreversible termination of North
Korea's nuclear weapons program. We will not negotiate rewards or
inducements to obtain this or North Korea's necessary compliance with
the NPT, the North-South Denculearization Declaration, or its other
international obligations. If North Korea acts to terminate its nuclear
weapons program the United States is prepared to consider a bold
approach that would create a fundamentally new relationship, to the
extent North Korea is prepared to address other long-standing American
concerns in the areas of WMD and missile proliferation, its
conventional force posture, and human rights and humanitarian matters.
north korea
Question. How can North Korea be compelled to comply with its
obligations under any agreement, and how can the North's compliance
with agreements be adequately verified?
Answer. Any resolution of the nuclear issue must include the views
of North Korea's neighbors, particularly the ROK and Japan. We are
working with the international community to apply multilateral pressure
to change North Korea's behavior and to ensure that North Korea
responds to the international community's demands that it irreversibly
and verifiably dismantle its nuclear weapons program and comply with
its international obligations.
Verification will be an essential component of the elimination of
North Korea's nuclear weapons program. The International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) is a logical partner to verify full dismantlement of
North Korea's nuclear weapons program and establish an on-going
monitoring program. If needed, the IAEA can access technical support
from appropriate states to address any unique challenges that may
arise.
Question. What more can the United States do to safeguard the human
rights and dignity of the people of North Korea, including those
seeking refuge in China?
Answer. I share your concern about the repression and suffering of
the North Korean people and am committed to keeping human rights and
humanitarian concerns high on our agenda with North Korea. During talks
in Pyongyang in October 2002, Assistant Secretary for East Asian and
Pacific Affairs James A. Kelly highlighted United States concerns about
the deplorable human rights record of the North Korean regime.
Assistant Secretary Kelly also raised these concerns in the talks on
North Korea in Beijing April 23-25. Assistant Secretary of State for
Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Lorne W. Craner has also raised
concerns about North Korean refugees in the context of our human rights
dialogue with China held in Beijing in December.
The involuntary return of some North Koreans in China to the DPRK
is a matter of deep concern to this Administration. State Department
officials in Washington and Beijing have expressed on multiple
occasions our concern to the Chinese, and have pressed them not to
return any individual to North Korea against his or her will. We
consistently urge China to adhere to its international obligations
under the 1967 Protocol on Refugees and allow UNHCR access to this
vulnerable population in order to assess the status of these
individuals.
In April, the United States, in close coordination with the EU,
South Korea, and Japan, co-sponsored a resolution addressing the human
rights situation in North Korea at the 59th session of the U.N.
Commission on Human Rights (CHR). The resolution called on the
Government of the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea to
respect and protect the human rights of its citizens. The resolution,
the first such on North Korea, passed by a vote of 28 to 10, with 14
abstentions.
Finally, the United States has been a significant donor of food aid
to North Korea through the World Food Program's annual appeals. On
February 25, I announced an initial donation of 40,000 tons of food
assistance and that we are prepared to contribute as much as 60,000
additional metric tons of such aid this year. I am concerned about
monitoring and access to all those in need in North Korea; we have
conveyed this directly to the North Koreans. Additional food aid
donations will be based on need in North Korea, competing needs
elsewhere in the world and improvements in food aid monitoring in North
Korea. Recognizing the deep and urgent need of the North Korean people,
President Bush has made clear his determination that our food aid will
not be used as a political tool.
Human rights and humanitarian concerns in North Korea will continue
to have a prominent place in our North Korea policy, including our
multilateral discussions on North Korea with South Korea, China, Japan,
and others.
afghanistan
Question. To what extent is Iran hampering reconstruction and
democratic reform in Afghanistan?
Answer. We do not believe Iran is hampering reconstruction in
Afghanistan. However, we see continuing efforts to channel support to
people inside Afghanistan working against the central authority. We
have made clear that this is unacceptable.
To date, Iran has pledged support for the Government of Afghanistan
and has played an active role at donor meetings. On December 22, 2002,
Iran signed, with Afghanistan and Afghanistan's other five neighbors,
the Kabul Declaration on Good Neighborly Relations that commits the
nations to constructive and supportive bilateral relationships based on
the principles of territorial integrity, mutual respect, friendly
relations, cooperation and non-interference in each other's internal
affairs. At the Tokyo Conference in January 2002, Iran pledged $560
million (a mixture of grants and loans) over six years towards Afghan
reconstruction. Since then, Iran has been actively engaged in the
rehabilitation of the road from Islam Qala on the Iranian border to
Herat in western Afghanistan and in the repair of electricity
transmission lines, and has signed an agreement with Afghanistan and
India to provide greater access to the Iranian port of Charbahar.
Iran has also worked positively with Afghanistan to support
regional narcotics interdiction efforts and has provided $3 million to
support alternative livelihood assistance in provinces where the Afghan
Government is destroying poppy crops.
Question. What preparations are taking place to support national
elections in Afghanistan scheduled for June 2004, and are there any
discussions taking place to postpone the elections in order to better
prepare for the polls?
Answer. The United States supports the Afghan Government's
commitment to holding the elections in June 2004, as called for in the
Bonn Accords. We have budgeted $22 million in ESF for fiscal year 2003,
and requested $30 million for fiscal year 2004, to support the Bonn-
related activities. A modest portion of these funds will support the
elections process.
Under the Bonn Accords, the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan
(UNAMA) is charged with helping prepare for Afghan elections. UNAMA is
preparing a budget for registration and elections, and initial
indications point to costs well in excess of $100 million. This budget
remains mostly unfunded. Registration is nonetheless expected to begin
in August 2003, and we are working closely with Afghan and U.N.
officials to rally other donors to fill the anticipated funding gap.
UNAMA also is supervising a national public education campaign, and the
International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES) is completing an
assessment of logistical requirements for the elections.
Question. What steps has Pakistan taken to rout Afghan terrorists
from their soil, and is there any indication that these terrorists are
in contact with active or retired Pakistani intelligence officers?
Answer. Pakistan is a key ally in the war against terrorism and
continues its active measures against extremists and terrorists.
President Musharraf has given Pakistan's full commitment to the United
States to track down and apprehend Taliban and al-Qaida leaders.
Since the fall of 2001, Pakistan has apprehended more than 500
suspected al-Qaida/Taliban operatives and affiliates, including
September 11 plotter Ramzi bin-al-Shibh and al Qaida operational
commander Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. It has moved against terrorists and
extremists through its own legal system, and has committed its own
security forces--and taken casualties--to pursue Taliban and al-Qaida
in its border regions. We are pleased with this excellent and
continuing cooperation.
We are aware of reports that some retired ISID intelligence
officers, who are believed to have been strong Taliban supporters
continue to speak in support of the Taliban. We are unaware, however,
of any Government of Pakistan policy to support the Taliban or any
other terrorists. We continue to discuss Pakistan-Afghan relations with
President Musharraf and Prime Minister Jamali, and have received their
assurance that Pakistan supports the Karzai government and is actively
working to strengthen both the Afghan government and the two nations'
bilateral relationship.
Question. What is the long-term economic impact of SARS on the
China and Hong Kong economies, economic stability in China and Hong
Kong?
Answer. The long-term impact of the SARS outbreak on the economies
of China and Hong Kong will depend to a large extent on the duration of
the crisis and, in the case of China, the geographic scope of the
spread of SARS. So far, certain areas of China, such as Beijing and
Guangdong, have had the highest incidence of SARS; other areas of the
country have reported relatively low numbers of SARS cases, but China's
capacity for disease surveillance in rural areas is relatively weak.
Thus, it may be some time before the full extent of China's outbreak,
as well as its effectiveness in containing it, is understood.
SARS has already delivered a strong short-term shock to both
economies, especially in the tourism and travel sectors. Private
economic estimates suggest SARS could cut China's GDP growth in 2003 by
0.5 to 2 percentage points. For Hong Kong, with an economy more
dependent on travel and tourism, analysts have cut their estimates for
2003 GDP growth by as much as 1 to 3 percentage points.
However, most economists continue to assess that this shock will
not lead to a broader and deeper economic crisis, unless the SARS
epidemic continues to spread in the coming weeks and months.
The number of cases continues to grow in Mainland China, including
in the rural areas, where public health infrastructure is weakest.
However, China is now taking aggressive steps to contain and control
SARS, including restricting travel, closing schools and other public
places, and quarantine of those infected with SARS. The WHO and U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services through its Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), at China's request, have fielded a small
number of technical assistance teams throughout the country to provide
epidemiological investigation and containment guidance. The WHO and CDC
also has a team in Hong Kong. The United States and a number of other
countries are now finalizing emergency assistance packages to help
China control SARS. A number of private U.S. companies also are
providing financial assistance and donating supplies to assist this
effort.
Question. Given the firing of senior Beijing officials and the
SARS-related rioting that recently took place near Tianjin, what are
the political implications of SARS on the Chinese government's
authority?
Answer. The SARS-related protests and disturbances that are taking
place in China seem to be symptoms of the Chinese people's
dissatisfaction with the way the SARS outbreak is being handled at the
local level. However, President Hu Jintao and Chinese government senior
leaders may very well feel as though their political legitimacy and
credibility among the Chinese people are at stake. The April 20
dismissals of Health Minister Meng Xuenong were designed to demonstrate
to the public that China's leaders at senior levels will be held
accountable for any missteps in the fight against SARS.
Severe restrictions on travel, the forced quarantines of suspected
and real SARS cases, and the creation of SARS-only clinics will
continue to test the government's relationship with its citizens, many
of whom deeply distrust the government. More protests are likely. The
Chinese government, however, may fear that not implementing draconian
measures will further the SARS virus' spread and could lead to a
potentially fatal loss of public confidence in its leadership.
Consequently, it appears willing to risk relatively small-scale local
protests against its policies to achieve the larger goal of stamping
out SARS.
Question. How might the initial response to SARS impact the new
leadership of President Hu Jintao?
Answer. China's initial response to the SARS outbreak seriously
damaged its international reputation and cast doubt on the willingness
and ability of Hu Jintao and China's senior leaders to responsibly
manage and contain the health crisis. Following the dismissals of
Minister of Health Zhang Wenkang and Beijing Mayor Meng Xuenong from
their posts on April 20, senior leaders, and President Hu in
particular, have been much more active and forthcoming about the
seriousness of the outbreak. They have provided daily updates on new
cases and are showing a commitment to containing the outbreak. While
these efforts have offset some of the damage done to the image of
China's leaders, containing the outbreak is still the greatest
challenge facing the Hu administration. It remains to be seen whether
SARS is a challenge they can overcome.
Question. What leverage does China have over North Korea to
continue multilateral dialogue, and are you confident that China will
exert the appropriate amount of pressure on the North Korean government
to continue this dialogue?
Answer. As a member of the United Nations Security Council
Permanent 5 and as the neighbor, donor of aid, longtime ally, and
largest trading partner of the DPRK, China has considerable influence
with the North Korean government. We are cooperating well with the PRC
on this matter, and China has consistently indicated its support for a
non-nuclear Korean peninsula and has engaged seriously with the DPRK
regime to emphasize to Pyongyang that its nuclear activities are
unacceptable to the PRC and the international community. The recent
multilateral talks in Beijing would not have happened without China's
efforts to get the DPRK to the table. China's role as a full
participant in those talks is a demonstration of the seriousness with
which China now views the North Korean nuclear issue. We are confident
that China's strong interest in and stated commitment to a non-nuclear
Korean Peninsula will ensure that Beijing keeps appropriate pressure on
the DPRK to reverse its present course, comply with its commitments,
and address the serious concerns of the international community.
Question. What is the State Department's strategy for promoting
democracy, human rights, and rule of law in China?
Answer. While we remain seriously concerned about human rights
abuses in China and about several recent events such as the execution
of a Tibetan without due process and the arrest of a number of
dissidents, we have seen signs of incremental progress in the last year
overall. Our strategy is to advance democracy, human rights, and rule
of law through bilateral and multilateral channels, and through
projects that advance long-term democratic and legal reform.
When we resumed the bilateral human rights dialogue in October
2001, we made clear that dialogue alone was not sufficient and tangible
results would be required. During the December 2002 round of human
rights discussions, the Chinese agreed to invite without preconditions
the U.N. Special Rapporteurs on Religious Intolerance and Torture, the
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and the leaders of the
Congressionally-chartered U.S. Commission on International Religious
Freedom. Since the October 2001 round of talks, China has released ten
political prisoners, including China's ``Godfather of Dissent'' Xu
Wenli and seven prominent Tibetan prisoners. In addition, the Dalai
Lama's brother and personal representatives traveled to Tibet and
Beijing for talks in July and September respectively. The President and
the State Department have spoken out repeatedly against the persecution
of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang, reminding the Chinese that the War on
Terror should not be used as an excuse to crack down on those who
express their political and religious views peacefully.
As for projects to promote reform, the Department made
approximately ten grants for a total of $7 million dollars in fiscal
year 2002. We support legal reforms to protect citizens' rights at the
grassroots, strengthen the provision of legal services to women,
promote worker rights and the rule of law, and help realize judicial
independence. We are funding programs to expand electoral democracy and
increase transparency and public participation in politics. We are also
supporting NGO's that define themselves as advocates for interest
groups for the disenfranchised. In 2003, we will expand our efforts and
continue to seek out cutting-edge programs.
Question. Has any evidence been uncovered in Iraq that indicates
the transfer of Kolchuga radar system took place?
Answer. At this time, we have no confirmed evidence that Kolchugas
are in Iraq. The question of whether Ukraine transferred Kolchugas to
Iraq remains open.
Question. What support has Ukraine provided to Operation Iraqi
Freedom?
Answer. Ukraine's deployment of a nuclear-biological-chemical (NBC)
protection battalion to Kuwait was a welcome contribution to coalition
forces. President Kuchma's personal support for the deployment was
instrumental in obtaining Rada approval. Ukraine also provided heavy
transport aviation for the coalition. We are currently discussing with
senior Ukrainian officials possible Ukrainian participation in a post-
conflict stability force.
Question. The Ukrainian Government continues to deny United States
democracy-building NGOs the ability to register in Ukraine.
What steps has the State Department taken to ensure that the
Ukrainian Government registers these NGOs, and what difficulties do
these NGOs encounter working in Ukraine?
Answer. We are pleased that the Government of Ukraine recently
registered the Institute for Sustainable Communities, an NGO involved
in development of civil society. We are disappointed, however, that the
government has not renewed the registration of International Democratic
Institute or International Republican Institute projects, despite
repeated promises over the past year to act on their application. We
continue to raise our concerns about this issue at every opportunity
and all levels of the government. While NDI and IRI have continued to
operate effectively, their unregistered status has led to difficulties
related to personnel and other administrative issues and renders them
and their Ukrainian partners vulnerable to various forms of government
pressure and harassment.
Question. Has the Ukrainian Government demonstrated a more firm
commitment to the rule of law through greater respect and protection of
human rights or transparent and fair resolution of business disputes
involving foreign companies?
Answer. The Government of Ukraine has improved its human rights
record in some areas, but serious problems persist, especially with
respect to harassment and intimidation of journalists. Over the past
several years, the Government of Ukraine has taken steps to improve the
administration of justice, including the enactment in 2001 of the Law
on the Judicial System and the Law on Enforcement of Foreign Court
Decisions. Passage early this year of a forward-leaning Civil Code was
undermined by concurrent passage of a retrograde and contradictory
Economic (Commercial) Code. The judiciary continues to depend on the
executive branch for funding, which limits its independence. In late
January, the Government again expressed a commitment to resolve a
number of long-standing disputes involving U.S. companies, but concrete
progress in this area remains slow.
Question. What role is Russia playing in the reconstruction of
Afghanistan, and what assistance has Russia provided to the Afghan MOD?
Answer. The Russian Government has pledged USD 46 million in
military spare parts, vehicles, aircraft and supplies, but as yet
nothing has actually been delivered yet. The Russians also were
prepared to provide a combat search and rescue support during OEF.
However, no emergencies requiring Russian assistance materialized.
Question. What is the status of the withdrawal of Russian military
bases in Georgia?
Answer. At the Istanbul OSCE Summit in 1999, Russia and Georgia
agreed that Russia would withdraw forces in excess of agreed levels by
the end of 2000 (this task was completed by Russia on time); that
Russia would disband its military bases at Vaziani and Gudauta by July
1, 2001; and that Russia and Georgia would reach agreement on the
duration of the Russian presence at two remaining bases, Akhalkalaki
and Batumi.
Vaziani was disbanded and transferred to Georgia on time; while the
Russian regular military unit at Gudauta has been withdrawn, Russian
``peacekeeping'' forces remain at the base.
At this point Russia and Georgia need to resolve two key remaining
issues: the duration of the Russian presence at the Akhalkalaki and
Batumi bases, and the status of the Russian presence at Gudauta,
including related transparency steps.
In the most recent Georgia-Russia Ministerial-level meeting on
these issues in February, the two sides exchanged ideas on Gudauta, but
there was no movement on the question the duration of the Russian
presence at the two other bases. Russia insists that, absent large
financial support, it will need 11 years to close the two bases.
Georgia insists Akhalkalaki and Batumi should be closed within three
years.
We are encouraging the two parties to intensify their efforts to
resolve these remaining issues.
NATO Allies have made clear that we will not submit the Adapted
Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty for ratification by
parliaments until key Istanbul commitments--on the CFE flank, Georgia,
and Moldova--are fulfilled. Good progress is currently being made in
Moldova with regard to withdrawal of Russian military equipment and
munitions; NATO Allies now regard the flank reduction commitment as
having been met.
Question. Given declining foreign assistance to Russia, what are
the State Department's plans for continuing democracy and rule of law
programs in that country?
Answer. Russia has made remarkable progress in economic reforms,
but still faces challenges it its democratic development. FREEDOM
Support Act (FSA) funding is slated to decline beginning in fiscal year
2004, but democracy and human rights programs will continue for several
years to come. During this time, we will increasingly focus on
democracy and rule of law to ensure that we consolidate and sustain the
progress made over the past decade. We will seek to advance structural
changes that are needed to create a hospital environment for Russian
civil society.
FSA technical assistance programs have played a vital role in
advancing progress toward rule of law in Russia, including supporting
every aspect of the development of the new criminal procedure code,
which has drastically changed the roles for Russian judges, prosecutors
and defense attorneys. Our focus is now on helping the Russian bar
consolidate the gains it has made, particularly by sponsoring
professional education events to help the bar hone its advocacy skills.
In addition to FSA democracy programs, we will continue to support
civil society development and democracy via National Endowment for
Democracy, Embassy Democracy Commission, U.S.-Russian citizen contacts,
and professional and student exchanges.
Question. What is the State Department doing to end harassment of
foreign aid workers in Russia by their intelligence services?
Answer. The U.S. Government is deeply troubled by a pattern of
harassment by Russian special services of Americans (and others)
involved in cooperative programs in Russia. This is inconsistent with
the spirit of the broader U.S.-Russia relationship. We have firmly
urged senior Russian Government officials, including the Foreign
Minister and the Director of the Federal Security Service, to put a
stop to such activity--much of which we believe stems from Soviet-era
thinking in the security service bureaucracies.
Official harassment includes but is not limited to: groundless
allegations against the Peace Corps; harassment of the coordinators for
U.S. Government assistance in the Russian Far East and for the Library
of Congress funded Open World exchange program; and the denial of re-
entry to the AFL-CIO Solidarity Center field representative, an OSCE
Mission to Tajikistan staffer, and several missionaries.
Recently the Russian Government informed us it has relented on its
decision to deny transit to the OSCE Mission to Tajikistan staffer, an
American citizen. We continue to press Moscow to re-think its other
decisions of this type, emphasizing these are damaging to Russia's
image abroad and working against President Putin's pledges to build a
strong, open civil society and robust democratic political system.
Question. What steps has the State Department taken to ensure that
Russia more fully complies with international human rights laws in
Chechnya?
Answer. We remain concerned by continuing, credible reports of
violations of human rights and humanitarian law in Chechnya by Russian
federal forces, forces of the Kadyrov administration, and Chechen
separatist fighters. The most serious include arbitrary detentions of
civilians, disappearances, and extrajudicial executions. These
incidents are continuing--and in some respects reportedly have
increased--despite President Putin's injunction to stop the large-scale
security sweeps that used to result in such abuses. We continue to
press the Russian government, including in our private meetings and
through our vote for the Chechnya resolution at the UNCHR this spring,
to put an end to these abuses and to investigate and bring to account
the persons responsible, as well as to work for a durable political
settlement.
Some Chechen separatist fighters have carried out terrorist attacks
against civilians, including the assassination of local government
officials. Some Chechen group seized a theater in Moscow last October
and carried out a suicide truck bombing of the main government building
in Grozny in December. We have called on the Chechen separatist
leadership to repudiate, in word and in deed, terrorist acts and
individuals, be they Chechen or international. The evidence so far
suggests they have much more to do in this area.
On the political side, we are encouraging the Russian Government to
follow through with public commitments it has made in relation to the
March 23 constitutional referendum in Chechnya. We hope this will
initiate a political process including democratic elections for
institutions of self-government acceptable to the people of Chechnya,
and ultimately lead to a political solution of this long and tragic
conflict.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Question. Mr. Secretary, I mentioned Mr. Gingrich's speech in my
opening statement. There are hundreds of former Congressmen in this
town. They give speeches every day. You know why this one caught my
attention? Because I believe that his sentiments are shared by senior
officials in this Administration.
These officials favor force over diplomacy. They believe in going
it alone. They believe that alliances and international institutions
impede, rather than promote, U.S. interests. They believe that the
Pentagon, not the State Department, should be handling key aspects of
foreign policy.
Mr. Secretary, why are the State Department, and the idea of
multilateralism, under such attack in this Administration?
Answer. This Administration is fully engaged multilaterally on a
host of issues around the world. From HIV/AIDS and SARS to
transnational terrorism, we are working closely through regional
organizations, the United Nations, and other international agencies. We
are actively developing a reconstruction effort in Iraq that will
include the contributions of many nations, and as the interim authority
grows into a full representative government for the people of Iraq,
international institutions will play an important and significant role
there.
Question. Only a couple of years ago, Condoleezza Rice was saying,
and I quote: ``We don't need to have the 82nd Airborne escorting kids
to kindergarten.''
We all know that Dr. Rice was exaggerating for effect. But, I agree
with her basic premise: we don't want the Defense Department, whose
mission is fighting wars, too deeply involved in nation building.
Despite that, the White House and the Pentagon wanted all the
reconstruction funds for Iraq to be controlled by the Pentagon. I and
others here did not support that, but we gave the discretion to the
President to apportion the funds. Who's in charge over there? General
Garner? General Franks? I have a Defense Department chart that shows
who is responsible for which pieces of the reconstruction program. The
State Department isn't even mentioned. Do you have any role yet, or is
the State Department just an observer?
According to the AP, the President is expected to declare the end
of major combat in Iraq by the end of this week. Shouldn't the State
Department then assume responsibility for the relief and reconstruction
phase?
How much of the $2.4 billion has been spent, if any, and by which
agencies? How much of it do you expect to be managed by State and
USAID? What is--or will be--the U.N.'s role?
Can anyone compete for U.S. aid contracts, or are you going to
punish companies from countries that didn't agree with us at the United
Nations?
Answer. The situation on the ground in Iraq remains unstable; as
such, there is no question that General Franks, as the military
commander, is the governing authority and will remain so until
stability is established and we are prepared to start handing off to
civilian authorities. Creating a stable environment means, as a first
step, ensuring that Saddam's entire ruling infrastructure and security
apparatus is dismantled and disarmed, including irregulars and
paramilitary forces, locating and securing WMD, and eliminating any
residual terrorist infrastructure.
The establishment of a secure and stable environment still remains
the key task in meeting Iraqis' immediate humanitarian needs. Therefore
continued coordination with military forces, including civil affairs
units and the Army Corps of Engineers, is of vital importance.
With respect to the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian
Assistance (ORHA), there are currently dozens of State Department
employees working with General Garner, including five Ambassadors.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Ryan Crocker has supported General
Garner and Presidential Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad's efforts in the two
regional political conferences that have started the process of
establishing an inclusive, representative Iraqi Interim Authority. The
State Department's Bureaus of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA), International
Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL), Economic and Business
Affairs (EB) and Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) have been
actively involved with ORHA for some time in a wide range of efforts,
including supporting Iraqi efforts in the reconstruction of the
criminal justice sector, the development of a prosperous, market-based
economy and the establishment of democratic processes. Along with
USAID, the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and
Migration (PRM) is heavily involved in assisting United Nations, other
international organization, and NGO humanitarian efforts on behalf of
the Iraqi people.
As we transition from immediate security and humanitarian
priorities, to institution building and the establishment of an
economic and political process out of the interim authority, the State
Department will play a greater role, as will other civilian government
agencies.
Most of the $2.4 billion appropriated for Iraq Relief and
Reconstruction has not yet been allocated to individual agencies as
assessment missions are still ongoing. We expect that USAID will
control the largest portion of these funds for reconstruction along
with State Department for remaining humanitarian needs, once allocated.
We are also calling upon the United Nations to play a vital role in
Iraq. We have introduced a Security Council Resolution that establishes
the position of a U.N. Special Coordinator to coordinate participation
by the U.N. and other international agencies in humanitarian assistance
and economic reconstruction, and assist in the development of a
representative government. The Coordinator will also support
international efforts to contribute to civil administration, to promote
legal and judicial reform and human rights, and to help rebuild the
civilian police force. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done,
and U.N. expertise will be instrumental. As a practical matter, the
Coordinator will serve as a principal point of contact for the United
Nations in working with the Coalition and the Iraqi people.
Reconstruction contracts funded by U.S. taxpayers will be let in
accordance with all relevant federal procurement regulations. USAID has
been allowed to waive a provision of law in order to allow foreign
firms to compete for reconstruction subcontracts, and we have worked
hard to ensure that our coalition partners and others are aware of
these opportunities. All the information needed to compete for these
projects is posted on the Internet at www.usaid.gov.
Saddam's regime continually put political favoritism and personal
enrichment above the needs of the Iraqi people when making its
procurement and contracting choices. The United States and our
coalition partners will not do the same. We are confident that a new,
representative Iraqi authority will not do so either.
Question. Mr. Secretary, the Administration used the possession of
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by Saddam Hussein as the primary
justification for going to war. We seemed certain that Saddam Hussein
had large numbers of WMD.
Yet so far, no such weapons have been found.
With all of the looting that followed after the fall of Baghdad, I
am concerned that these weapons may now be outside of Iraq in the hands
of terrorists.
Is there any credible information that these weapons have been
smuggled out of Iraq? If so, could that pose an even greater threat
than Saddam Hussein? Do we believe that they are still inside Iraq?
Have they been destroyed?
Or, did we have bad information to begin with about the existence
of these weapons?
Follow up
What happens if we haven't found anything in 6 months? 12 months?
What conclusions should we reach--that they are in someone else's
hands? That they never existed? That Osama Bin Laden or other terrorist
network has them?
Answer. Iraq is now being disarmed. Coalition forces are engaged in
searching for and securing WMD assets. What is emerging is that
capabilities are more dispersed and disguised than we thought. All
sources of information are being pursued. Even though we have no firm
evidence that WMD has been smuggled out of Iraq, we will continue to
watch carefully and act upon any information or indications we receive.
We are confident that WMD will be found. On-site inspection of
suspect sites for hidden materiel is a daunting task. We are searching
an area the size of California. And we are not talking about finding
something as large and as stationary as an ICBM silo. Chemical and
biological munitions can be hidden anywhere and production facilities
could be set up in a building the size of a small house--or a basement.
Likewise, Iraqi missiles, though larger, are mobile systems that are
easily concealed. Recall also that the Iraqis had years to prepare
underground and other facilities for the express purpose of hiding
their WMD and missiles from U.N. inspectors.
We are also beginning to get cooperation from Iraqi scientists and
former officials as well as computer files and documents that provide
the clues and keys. We are interviewing some of these people and
continue to seek others. With their help, we will find Iraq's WMD. And
while some individuals are, indeed, proving helpful, we are talking
about a cultural change. People have to be certain that the climate of
fear and intimidation is truly gone for good before they will be
willing to talk about the past.
The inspection process will take time to ferret out the Iraqi WMD.
But be assured that it will do so. We are working closely with our
Coalition partners, deploying multinational teams of experts to search
Iraq.
Rather than set artificial deadlines, we are committed to staying
the course until the job is done. Coalition forces continue to follow
up leads, examine suspect sites and interview Iraqi scientists. We are
confident that WMD will be found and we will ensure that it is
eliminated.
Question. The Supplemental contains $10 million for
``Investigations and research into allegations of war crimes by Saddam
Hussein and other Iraqis, and for a contribution to an international
tribunal to bring these individuals to justice.''
We specified ``international tribunal'' because the Iraqi judicial
system is corrupt, bankrupt, and lacks credibility. This is the same
reason why we have supported international tribunals to prosecute
Serbian, Rwandan, and Sierra Leone war criminals.
However, we hear that the Administration is proposing an Iraqi
tribunal to try accused war criminals. Why the different approach?
Doesn't this risk the kind of ``victors justice'' that has been
discredited in the past?
Answer. We believe that members of Saddam Hussein's regime who are
responsible for crimes committed against Iraqi citizens should be held
accountable before an Iraqi-led process, that could include tribunals
and truth and reconciliation commissions. It is our policy to encourage
and help states to pursue credible justice rather than abdicating their
responsibility or having it taken away. Based on our consultations with
Iraqi jurists and lawyers inside and outside Iraq, we believe there are
qualified Iraqis who are ready and willing to accept the mandate of
justice. Our goal is to help create the conditions that will allow them
to make the essential decisions, while at all times providing the
necessary international support and expertise. We believe this approach
has the best prospects both to ensure accountability for the crimes of
the previous regime and to help re-establish the rule of law in Iraq.
Question. The Defense chapter of the Supplemental contains $25
million for aid to foreign countries to combat terrorism. This is a
foreign aid program which should be funded by this Subcommittee and run
by the State Department, not the Pentagon. I am also told that the
Pentagon is seeking legislative authority to manage similar programs,
with even more funding, in fiscal year 2004. Aren't you concerned about
this? Should the Pentagon make its own foreign policy and manage its
own foreign aid budget? As a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs,
doesn't this divert the Pentagon from its primary war fighting mission?
Answer. The Global War on Terrorism and combat operations in
Afghanistan and Iraq require that we be responsive and adapt quickly to
circumstances in extraordinary ways. It is in our interest to assist
our foreign partners as they engage in operations against terrorists
that threaten the United States and our friends and allies. The $25
million in the Defense chapter of the President's Emergency Wartime
Supplemental will be used to assist key foreign partners in improving
capabilities to conduct counter-terrorist combat operations. The State
Department has and will continue to work closely with the Pentagon as
we press on in our fight against terrorism. Indeed, the legislation
requires the concurrence of the State Department before proceeding. I
want to assure you, however, that I have no plans to relinquish any of
State's foreign policy prerogatives and authorities.
israel loan guarantees
Question. The roadmap lays out a path to a peaceful settlement of
the conflict. Are the terms of the roadmap negotiable? When Israeli
officials say they disagree with various provisions in the roadmap, how
do you respond?
Every U.S. Administration, including this one, has said it opposes
the settlements, but the construction continues, as does the violence.
What settlement activity is currently going on? Do you expect the
settlement expansion to continue, despite the language in the
supplemental?
Answer. Regarding the roadmap.--The roadmap is a framework for the
broad steps Israel and the Palestinians must take to achieve President
Bush's vision of peace, and thus offers a way for both sides to restart
direct negotiations. There are obligations and difficult choices ahead
for both sides. We have presented the roadmap to both sides and now
look forward to their contributions on how best to move ahead on
implementation.
Regarding Israeli settlements.--Settlement activity is simply
inconsistent with President Bush's two-state vision. As President Bush
stated, ``as progress is made toward peace, settlement activity in the
Occupied Territories must end.'' This view has been made abundantly
clear to the Government of Israel. In addition, consistent with the
legislation that authorized the loan guarantees for Israeli, Israeli
expenditures on settlements must be deducted from the loan guarantees.
complex emergency fund
Question. Among the increases is $100 million for an emergency fund
for ``complex foreign crises.'' Isn't this essentially a blank check?
What limits would there be on the use of this fund? Could it be used
for weapons? Since you have asked for this authority ``notwithstanding
any other provision of law,'' what is to prevent the fund from being
used to supply weapons to an autocratic government that violates human
rights?
Answer. The fiscal year 2004 budget requests a new $100 million
U.S. Emergency Fund for Complex Foreign Crises (``Fund'') to provide
the President the necessary flexibility to respond quickly and
effectively to a wide range of unforeseen complex crises. At present,
no contingency account exists for these types of crises, and we
frequently are forced to cut ongoing programs to meet urgent needs.
Such crises may include: peace and humanitarian intervention operations
to prevent or respond to foreign territorial disputes; armed ethnic and
civil conflicts that pose threats to regional and international peace;
and acts of ethnic cleansing, mass killing, or genocide. The Fund may
not be used for natural disasters, as existing contingency funding is
already available to meet crises related to those situations.
As proposed, the ``notwithstanding'' language of the Fund gives the
President broad flexibility to provide whatever type of assistance
would be needed to meet the requirements of a particular situation,
including defense articles and services. In each case, however, it is
the President who must make the determination that a complex emergency
exists and that it is in the U.S. national interest to furnish
assistance in response. Reserving this decision for the President
ensures that any provision of assistance under the Fund's authority
will be consistent with longstanding U.S. policies supporting
responsible arms transfers and respect for human rights.
development assistance
Question. Despite the $2.5 billion increase above the fiscal year
2003 level, the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request would cut
funding for the Development Assistance account by $14 million. This
account funds everything from agricultural research to children's
education to environmental conservation to democracy building. It funds
the bulk of our programs to alleviate poverty. How do you justify
cutting these programs?
Answer. The $2.5 billion increase represents a commitment by the
Administration to lay a sound foundation for improving the lives of
impoverished people. This includes $1.3 billion for the Millennium
Challenge Account that will increase and better target development
assistance and programs to alleviate poverty.
In fiscal year 2003 the Development Assistance account and the
Child Survival and Health Programs fund were requested as a single
account, and the combined total of the fiscal year 2004 request level
for these two accounts remains the same. However, within this straight-
lined level, there is a significant increase in the HIV/AIDS program,
which in turn requires offsetting reductions in other sectors. The
reduction of the Development Assistance account therefore reflects a
nominal shift of funds to the Child Survival and Health Programs Fund
to reduce the impact of decreases in the Child Survival, Maternal
Health and Infectious Disease programs. Effective programs in these
areas are also key elements in our programs to alleviate poverty.
development assistance follow up
Question. The total amount requested for Development Assistance for
fiscal year 2004 is $1.345 billion. That is less than my tiny State of
Vermont spends on public education. Do you believe that this is enough
for the richest, most powerful country in the world to spend on
combating global poverty?
Answer. The $1.345 billion requested for Development Assistance is
only one component of the entire program to address global poverty. The
total amount requested for USAID and other related economic assistance
programs is, in fact, nearly $11 billion.
In addition to Development Assistance, global poverty issues are
also addressed with funding made available through other accounts. For
example, the Economic Support Fund focuses additional funds primarily
in the Middle East, and separate accounts address similar issues in
Eurasia and Eastern Europe. The Public Law 480 Title II program
alleviates food security issues throughout the world.
As part of the fiscal year 2004 request, the Administration is also
launching a major new initiative, the Millennium Challenge Account. The
MCA, when fully funded in future years, will be a major component of
the United States contribution towards global development, and will
increase its core development assistance by 50 percent.
The MCA will serve as an incentive to poorer countries to adopt
sound policies that provide their citizens an escape from poverty.
Countries that rule justly, invest in their people, and promote
economic freedom will energize individual initiative, mobilize domestic
capital, attract foreign invest, and expand markets. These conditions
in turn will enable these countries to become part of the global
market, a key to economic growth and poverty reduction.
millennium challenge account
Question. (a) Mr. Secretary, $1.3 billion of the President's fiscal
year 2004 budget request is for the first installment of the new
Millennium Challenge Account. I support this, although I do not agree
with the Administration's plan to create a new corporate bureaucracy to
manage it. Why not establish a bureau at USAID with flexible
authorities to manage these funds?
Answer. The MCA is a truly new approach. First, it is selective,
targeting those countries that ``rule justly, invest in the health and
education of their people, and encourage economic freedom.'' Second,
the MCA establishes a true partnership in which the developing country,
with full participation of its citizens, proposes its own priorities
and plans. Finally, the MCA will place a clear focus on results. Funds
will go only to those countries with well-implemented programs that
have clear objectives and benchmarks.
A new institution is the best way to implement and highlight this
innovative and targeted approach. The existing agencies that might
administer the MCA--State and USAID--both have many other bureaucratic
mandates and priorities. The MCA will complement the assistance they
provide to address key U.S. priorities, such as humanitarian crises,
failed states, infectious disease, and regional challenges. Unlike the
MCA, such assistance cannot be based solely on country performance or
business-like partnerships.
Because of its unique mandate, the MCA will need flexible personnel
and program authorities to carry out this targeted and innovative
concept. If it is to respond to developing country priorities, for
example, it cannot be earmarked to fund specific areas. The MCA should
start with a clean slate--an innovative, flexible, narrowly targeted,
and highly visible Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC)--that can
give it the best chance to succeed and show that this approach works.
Question. (b) This was supposed to be new money, yet both the Child
Survival and Health account, and the Development Assistance account,
are being cut in the President's budget. How do you explain this?
Answer. For fiscal year 2004, the Administration has requested
$1.495 billion for the Child Survival and Disease Program and $1.345
billion for the Development Assistance account, for a total of $2.840
billion for both accounts. This request is identical to the total
Administration request for the two accounts in fiscal year 2003. In
addition, the President is making new requests in fiscal year 2004 of
$450 million for the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and $200 million
for the Famine Fund, which will also contribute to child survival.
Question. (c) I also have questions about eligibility for the
Millennium Account. Countries must show that they are taking serious
steps to combat corruption, support health and education, and good
governance. That makes sense. But a country like Brazil would not be
eligible for the MCA because its per capita income is too high. Brazil
is a country of 100 million people of immense importance to the United
States, where a small percentage of the population is very rich and the
vast majority is desperately poor. Shouldn't we look at ways to use the
MCA to promote better policies in regions of a country with such
serious needs, and of such importance to the United States, as Brazil?
Answer. The MCA is a targeted program, designed to spur economic
growth in the poorest countries. We recognize that some countries with
per capita GDP above the MCA cutoff still have large pockets of
poverty. Such countries also have greater wealth and more access to
international capital and investment. They are better able to address
challenges on their own. Brazil, for example, attracted $71.9 billion
in foreign direct investment over the last three years. Investor demand
for Brazil's April 29 bond issue was more than seven times the $1
billion actually sold. MCA beneficiaries are not able to attract such
funds.
Eligibility for the MCA is not the full measure of our relationship
with any country. The United States has many initiatives, in the trade
as well as the aid arena. Brazil is the third largest beneficiary under
our Generalized System of Preferences for tariffs and would benefit
from successful conclusion of FTAA negotiations, which it co-chairs
with the United States. We will continue to make available select USAID
funding, as well as OPIC and EXIM financing. (EXIM's third highest
country exposure is with Brazil.) Brazil recently received about $1
billion in World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank loans for
human development and social support programs, and other international
financial institution funds will also remain available.
Question. We have given hundreds and hundreds of millions of
dollars in aid to Pakistan since September 11. Yet al Qaida and Taliban
fighters continue to find sanctuary in Pakistan, and to launch attacks
against U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Can't this be stopped?
Answer. Pakistan is a key ally in the war against terror and
continues to take active measures against extremists and terrorists.
The Government of Pakistan is fully committed to tracking down and
apprehending Taliban and al-Qaida leaders. Pakistan's success in
disrupting imminent attacks against our interests has saved United
States and Pakistani lives.
Since the fall of 2001, Pakistan has apprehended over 500 suspected
al-Qaida and Taliban operatives. Pakistan has committed its own
security forces--and taken casualties-in pursuit of terrorists in
Pakistan's major cities and border regions. We are supporting Pakistan
in these actions, and United States and Pakistani forces work closely
together in our efforts to eliminate the Taliban and al-Qaida threat.
President Karzai visited Islamabad on April 23 and held what we
understand were very productive discussions on these issues. He and
President Musharraf have reportedly agreed on new measures to enhance
their cooperation on security issues. We are hopeful this type of
cooperation will also reduce the number of terrorist attacks and save
lives.
Question. The Karzai government is increasingly seen as incapable
of wielding authority outside of Kabul. Aren't you concerned? Shouldn't
the U.S. military be showing more muscle against the warlords, to back
up the central government and keep Afghanistan from sliding backwards?
Answer. The United States takes seriously the need for the Afghan
government to extend its central authority throughout Afghanistan.
Improving the capacity of the Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan
(TISA) and enhancing its authority outside of Kabul are fundamental
aspects of our policy. We are actively seeking ways to increase our
assistance through TISA ministries and finding ways to better link our
local programs to and through TISA. Provincial Reconstruction Teams
have been deployed to Gardez, Bamiyan and Konduz. Other PRTs will
follow to Mazar e-Sharif by early June (led by the UK), and then
Jalalabad, Parwan, Kandahar, and Herat. One of the objectives of the
PRTs is to extend TISA authority by linking TISA to local government
through reconstruction projects. These teams have State and USAID
officers as well as potential assignment of USDA and HHS officers.
Afghan National Army (ANA) units are also deploying to the same areas
as the PRTs. In addition, we are working with the Germans to extend
police training from Kabul to all eight PRT areas of operation.
The United States also remains actively engaged with our Coalition
partners in rebuilding and training an Afghan National Army and
National Police Force to increase security throughout the country and
to build the foundations of a stable Afghanistan under central
authority. The key to expanding central authority over regional
commanders and various warlords in the near-term is the Disarmament,
Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) program. Japan is the lead
nation for DDR and is supported by the U.N. Assistance Mission to
Afghanistan. Significant progress in DDR implementation has been made
over the last few months. President Karzai has announced a start date
of 22 June. The United States is currently reviewing ways and methods
where we can help this essential program move ahead and succeed. The
best approach to Afghan security is to stay the course of developing
indigenous security institutions and promoting disarmament under
international auspices.
Question. The President's fiscal year 2004 budget request would cut
funding for the former Soviet Union from $755 million to $576 million.
Aid to Russia would fall from $148 million to $73 million. I know of
many programs to promote legal reform, improve health care, combat
organized crime, improve market-based agriculture, clean up toxic
pollutants, and other initiatives that will be shut down because of
this cut. Does that make sense to you?
Answer. Part of the apparent large cut in the overall fiscal year
2004 request for FREEDOM Support Act (FSA) assistance reflects a shift
in funding for educational and professional exchanges from the FSA
account to the ECE account in the Commerce, State, Justice
appropriation request.
The lower request level also recognizes, particularly for Russia,
progress already achieved on reform, especially economic reform.
Programs in this area will likely be phased out over the next several
years.
We realize that Russia continues to face challenges in democratic
development. We are developing a strategy to phase out FSA assistance
to Russia over the next several years that will seek to ensure a legacy
of sustainable institutions to support civil society and democratic
institutions. During this time, we will increasingly focus on democracy
and rule of law to ensure that we consolidate and sustain the progress
made over the past decade. We will seek to advance structural changes
that are needed to create a hospitable environment for Russian civil
society.
FSA technical assistance programs have played a vital role in
advancing progress toward rule of law in Russia, including supporting
every aspect of the development of the new criminal procedure code,
which has drastically changed the roles for Russian judges, prosecutors
and defense attorneys. Our focus is now on helping the Russian bar
consolidate the gains it has made, particularly by sponsoring
professional education events to help the bar hone its advocacy skills.
In 2001, an interagency task force identified health as one of the
three priority areas for FSA assistance in Russia. Russia has one of
the highest rates of increases in infection of HIV/AIDS. Multi-drug
resistant TB is another serious problem, particularly in prisons.
Funding for health programs has increased over the last two years and
we plan to continue these programs for some years to come.
Some anti-crime activities that had been funded under FSA, such as
programs to combat organized crime and money laundering, will likely
continue, perhaps at different levels, with alternate funding sources.
Our strategy is not yet complete, so we don't have all the answers.
But we are determined to help Russia preserve the remarkable gains she
has made since 1992 and to complete the transition into a market-based
democracy.
Question. Mr. Secretary, I have long felt that the United States--
under Republican and Democratic administrations--has failed to devote
anywhere near enough time and effort to build a strong relationship
with our southern neighbor, Mexico. I thought that would change with
the election of President Fox, who is by far the best hope Mexico has
had in recent memory. President Bush seemed to feel the same way, but
what we have seen amounts to little more than photo ops. Now we hear
that since Mexico did not support the United States in the U.N.
Security Council, President Bush is not taking President Fox's phone
calls. Why haven't we made more of this opportunity to build closer
relations with Mexico, and what can we expect in the coming year or
two?
Answer. Our bilateral relations with Mexico and the Fox
administration remain close and cooperative. We have taken advantage of
the opportunity for closer relations presented by a democratically-
elected government in Mexico which shares our commitment to the rule of
law, human rights, and free markets.
The Bush and Fox administrations have, over the past two years,
worked closely together to combat transnational crime in all its
aspects, including terrorism, trafficking in illicit drugs and in
people. Our law enforcement relationship with Mexico has never been
better. Similarly, our cooperation on border security is excellent, as
demonstrated by the April 23-24 meetings between Homeland Security
Secretary Ridge and Mexican Governance Secretary Creel in San Diego. We
very much hope to see proactive cooperation from Mexico in resolving
issues currently in dispute, including Mexico's water debt to the
United States and its use of non-tariff barriers to impede U.S.
agricultural exports to Mexico.
We were indeed disappointed that the Fox administration did not, in
the face of Iraqi intransigence on disarmament, support a successor
resolution to UNSCR 1441. We certainly hope that Mexico will support us
when resolutions regarding the lifting of sanctions and other post-
conflict actions to benefit the people of Iraq are put before the
Council.
Question. Mr. Secretary, I admire Colombian President Uribe and I
want to support him. I think his Minister of Foreign Affairs and
Minister of Defense are superb. Colombia is now the third largest
recipient of United States aid.
We are spending over half a billion dollars a year in Colombia. We
are spraying hundreds of thousands of acres of coca. Over the past
three years, we have given the Colombian military all kinds of new
aircraft and equipment. It is now going to cost hundreds of millions of
dollars a year just to operate and maintain the aircraft. Are we going
to be paying for this? What's the end game?
Answer. U.S. assistance pays for much of the operations of the
rapidly expanding military and national police air programs that
support counter narcotics activities. However, one of the principal
central objectives of U.S. counter-drug assistance is to develop the
capability of both the Colombian Army Aviation Brigade and the
Colombian National Police Air Wing to operate and maintain their
programs without the support of USG-funded contract pilots, mechanics
and technical personnel.
For the military, after an extensive recruiting and training
program, we will have sufficient pilots for all three types of
helicopters by mid-2003. We are providing these pilots the operational
experience and professional guidance for them to mature into command
pilots, a process that averages two years. We have trained a total of
127 military helicopter pilots, 29 of whom have advanced to Pilot in
Command or Instructor Pilot status. As this pool of aviators matures,
we will draw down the number of civilian contract pilots.
Training of mechanics takes years to impart the necessary skills
and practical experience, but we are making progress and are steadily
increasing the number and skills of military helicopter mechanics. Many
observers are not aware of the youth of the Colombian Military Aviation
Brigade--it had only one helicopter as recently as six years ago. Our
progress must be measured against the tremendously increasing needs of
this growing program.
For the national police, the primary and overriding goal has been
to bring illicit coca and opium poppy cultivation under control as
quickly as possible. This last year's 15 percent reduction in coca
cultivation is a strong indication that we have turned the corner. At
present, there are no available Colombian police spray pilots, and
hence the use of civilian contract pilots is required. However, our
program hires Colombian pilots to the maximum extent possible, and we
are now identifying potential CNP pilots as candidates for 2003 spray
plane training.
The Colombian National Police Narcotics Directorate (DIRAN) Air
Service has been established for a significant period, is essentially
self-sufficient in pilots and has an effective maintenance capability
requiring only some civilian contractor assistance.
Question. For fiscal year 2003, we modified the human rights
conditions so the Administration can now provide 75 percent of the
military aid immediately. Only 25 percent is subject to the conditions.
I supported this for one reason, and it was not because the human
rights situation is improving. In fact, according to a February report
of the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner:
``There was `a significant increase in reports of violations
attributed directly to members of the [Colombian] security forces, as
compared to the year 2001.' These reports included torture, excessive
use of force and executions.
``The U.N. human rights office `was unable to observe any
significant progress in terms of trials, whether criminal or
disciplinary, of public officials responsible for serious human rights
violations . . .'
`` `The Colombian armed forces continued to tolerate and in some
cases collaborate with paramilitary forces. Paramilitaries continued to
expand operations in areas where the presence of the Colombian armed
forces was high.' ''
The reason I agreed to change the conditions was because I know of
the tremendous pressure you are under to continue military aid. You can
now disburse 75 percent of the aid immediately. But that means we
expect the State Department to insist on full compliance with the
conditions before releasing the remaining 25 percent of the aid. We
want to see significant progress on human rights, which we have not
seen in the past. Do you agree?
Answer. We recognize that Section 564, Division E of the fiscal
year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act (Public Law 108-7) revises
previous law, allowing obligation of 75 percent of the funds for the
Colombian Armed Forces prior to certification. We appreciate your
decision and believe it is fully consistent with U.S. policy to
strengthen democratic institutions, promote respect for human rights
and the rule of law, intensify counter-narcotics efforts, and end the
threats to democracy posed by narcotics trafficking and terrorism in
Colombia.
The Administration takes the Colombia human rights certification
process very seriously and will review all evidence pertaining to the
human rights conditions when deciding whether conditions found in
Section 564(a) have been met. As in the past, we will insist on full
compliance will all human rights conditions prior to making his
determination and certification.
In recent years the Colombian Armed Forces has taken a number of
necessary steps to improve its human rights record and sever military-
paramilitary ties. Nevertheless, both we and the Government of Colombia
recognize that serious problems remain, and we use every opportunity to
engage Colombian government and military officials on concrete measures
they should take to improve their human rights performance.
Question. The President's fiscal year 2004 budget request contains
only $100 million in Foreign Operations funds for the Global Fund to
Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. That is $150 million less than we
appropriated in fiscal year 2003. What kind of message does that send?
Answer. In his State of the Union address in January, the President
announced an historic five-year, $15 billion Emergency Plan for AIDS
Relief, including a $1 billion pledge to the Global Fund, bringing the
total U.S. commitment to the Global Fund since its inception to $1.65
billion--nearly one-half of all money pledged to the Fund to date. The
$100 million request for the Global Fund in the fiscal year 2004
Foreign Operations request contains only half of President Bush's total
request, $200 million, for the Global Fund in fiscal year 2004. The
other $100 million is contained in the budget request for the
Department of Health and Human Services.
This $200 million, if approved by Congress, will be the first
installment of the $1 billion that the President has pledged to the
Global Fund for fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008, as contained
in his Emergency Plan. The United States has been the most consistent
financial supporter of the Global Fund and has made the longest-term
pledge, providing a benchmark for other donors. The election of
Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy G. Thompson as the Fund's
Board Chair is another sign of the U.S. government's support, and its
commitment to ensuring that the Fund is accountable and sustainable.
The President's five-year, $15 billion Emergency Plan for AIDS
Relief is the most aggressive initiative yet proposed to fight HIV/
AIDS, and will include the largest AIDS treatment program to date. The
Emergency Plan will, if approved by Congress, continue U.S. government
funding to the Global Fund and to HIV/AIDS programs in more than 50
countries, and focus about $9 billion in new money on 14 of the
hardest-hit of these countries in Africa and the Caribbean. The goals
of the Emergency Plan are to prevent 7 million new infections, provide
treatment for 2 million people, and provide care and support for 10
million people, including children orphaned by the disease and HIV-
positive people in the 14 focus countries.
Question. Mr. Secretary, last August several Americans were killed
and injured in an ambush near the Freeport gold mine in Papua,
Indonesia. There is credible evidence that elements of the military
were responsible, and that the military continues to obstruct efforts
to investigate that crime. Because of this, the Administration has not
resumed the IMET program with Indonesia.
I do not believe we should cut off all relations with the
Indonesian military. But if we are going to give them aid or training,
they should show that they want to reform. No one, including former
U.S. diplomats who know the Indonesian military, says they have any
interest in reform.
Can we be confident that the Administration will not resume IMET
until there is a thorough investigation and we know whether the
military was involved in the assassination of the Americans, and that
those responsible will be punished?
Answer. We are under no illusions about the Indonesian military's
poor human rights record, and IMET is not a reward for the military's
past behavior. Whether we proceed with IMET or not, we will be
relentless in our pursuit of justice for the murder of American
citizens. Unrestricted IMET does, however, provide exposure for foreign
civilian and military personnel to alternative value systems in
settings where they are challenged to think for themselves. It also
enhances future access for the United States. As we have indicated
earlier, we will consult with the Congress before proceeding with
obligation of these funds.
Due to our concerns about human rights abuses and stalled military
reforms, U.S. interaction with the military is limited in scope. IMET
will help provide education to key Indonesian military officers in
areas directly related to reform and professionalization of the
military.
We see IMET as a precursor to reform. Without knowledge and
training, there is little chance of developing sufficient numbers of
reform-minded officers to make a difference in the larger institution.
We must also be realistic; IMET is a long-term program that will
require many years of continuity to achieve significant results by
annually sending a handful of officers to U.S. schools. The importance
of a $400,000 IMET program has been exaggerated both by proponents and
opponents; we can, at best, expect gradual results. In the past, IMET
graduates have been the most likely pool of reformers in Indonesia.
The FBI is continuing its investigation and we continue to assign
it the highest priority in our policy concerns with the Indonesian
government. Indonesian Government actions in this case are an important
factor in our evaluation of future military assistance programs for
Indonesia, along with other factors such as U.S. national security
interests, counter terrorism cooperation, respect for human rights,
civil-military relations, political developments in Indonesia, and the
regional strategic environment.
Question. Mr. Secretary, as you know, the Mexico City policy
requires private non-governmental organizations to agree not to spend
their private funds to advocate for safer abortions even where abortion
is legal, if they also receive funds from USAID.
When President Bush reimposed these restrictions on his first day
in office, he said the Mexico City policy was necessary to reduce
abortions. It has now been two years since the President imposed these
restrictions. What evidence do you have that this policy is reducing
abortions.
Answer. In restoring the Mexico City policy, the President said
that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or to
advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad. He also
stated that one of the best ways to prevent abortion is by providing
quality voluntary family planning services.
The President has demonstrated support for family planning by
consistently requesting $425 million dollars for international family
planning and reproductive health activities in fiscal years 2002, 2003,
and 2004, a level that was higher than funding levels in the previous
five years before he took office.
While reliable data on the incidence of abortion is absent in many
countries, there is evidence that abortions have declined where family
planning services are made available. For example, in Russia, because
of limited contraceptive availability, abortion had been used as the
major method of family planning. However, the recent increased
availability of modern family planning methods has contributed to a
greater than one-third drop in the abortion rate. Similar results have
been seen in Hungary, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, South Korea, Kazakhstan,
and Ukraine.
famine in africa
Question. Mr. Secretary, there is an ongoing famine in sub-Saharan
Africa that has placed approximately 40 million people at risk of
starvation. During consideration of the last 2 appropriations bills, I
joined with other Senators to add more than $1 billion in food aid to
deal with the situation--only to see the House, working with OMB,
significantly reduce these funding levels in conference.
Humanitarian NGOs, the UN, and even people in the Administration
say there simply is not enough food aid to deal with the crisis. And,
if something is not done soon, the situation in Africa will get even
worse.
It will be months before fiscal year 2004 food aid is available. In
the interim, what does the administration plan to do to address this
crisis?
Answer. The Administration has allocated over 1.2 million metric
tons of food aid over the past year to southern Africa, Ethiopia and
Eritrea, valued at $713 million. Approximately 450,000 metric tons of
this food is currently en route to Ethiopia and Eritrea, the two
countries of most concern in the coming months. Additional large
contributions to sub-Saharan Africa are also in the planning stages,
for delivery in the region near the end of the fiscal year. These
commodities have been resourced by USAID through the funding mechanisms
of Public Law 480 Title II, the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, and
through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 416(b) authority.
USAID's Office of Food for Peace (FFP) will pre-position food
stocks in the United States and Africa using current resources for use
in the interim period in question. In addition, FFP maintains an
unallocated budget reserve, which will be tapped near the end of the
fiscal year to ensure that the flow of food aid remains constant and
directed to the areas of most concern.
USAID has given top priority to the food aid crisis in sub-Saharan
Africa over the past year, and has provided close to half of all the
food aid provided to the region. USAID will continue this high level of
attention to the region over the foreseeable future.
Question. What is the Administration's position on membership in
the International Coffee Organization (ICO)? Beyond ICO membership,
what is the Administration's plan to address the collapse of coffee
prices around the world that has devastated the economies of developing
nations?
Answer. The Administration is currently reviewing the issue of
whether the United States should rejoin the International Coffee
Organization (ICO). As part of this review, the Department of State has
reached out to industry, the NGO community and Members of Congress.
Formal review under the United States Trade Representative-led Trade
Policy Review Group process will be initiated in the near future.
In response to the hardships faced by coffee producers because of
the on-going coffee crisis, the Administration believes that it is
essential to promote the development of alternative economic
opportunities over time, while supporting initiatives to help producers
improve coffee quality and develop new markets more immediately.
Over the medium term, economic diversification will be the key to
resolving this problem. In the case of Central America, one of the
hardest hit regions, we are negotiating a free trade agreement that
will provide a host of alternative development opportunities. Progress
in the WTO on reforming agricultural trade would greatly assist the
rural areas of developing countries around the world.
Meanwhile, we are taking steps to alleviate the coffee crisis
through a range of USAID assistance programs to both small and medium
producers in coffee-exporting regions around the world. USAID
activities support coffee and diversification efforts in over 25
countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia. The main objectives of the
USAID programs are to assist farmers that cannot effectively compete in
the coffee sector to diversify their activities and identify other
sources of income and employment and create sustainable small holder
coffee systems that provide significant income, employment and social,
where the potential exists for the production of high quality coffee.
USAID is also actively coordinating with the World Bank and the
Inter-American Development Bank. USAID co-wrote a paper with the IDB
and the World Bank in 2002 that outlined a strategy to address the
coffee crisis in Central American by increasing the ability of
efficient producers to compete more effectively while encouraging
inefficient producers to exit the coffee sector for other activities in
which they are better able to compete.
USAID investments in Latin America & the Caribbean will total over
$63 million to address the coffee crisis through humanitarian relief,
agricultural diversification and improved competitiveness within the
coffee sector. In addition, a regional Coffee Quality Program will
invest $8 million dollars to improve product quality and marketing, and
to establish business linkages in Central America and the Dominican
Republic. Over the next five years, USAID/Colombia will invest $7
million to promote specialty coffee as an alternative to illicit drugs.
Question. Mr. Secretary, I want to ask you about the free trade
agreement you are negotiating with Central America. I recently met with
Nicaraguan President Bolanos, who I have great respect for. I am
concerned about how this agreement may affect Nicaragua's fragile
democracy.
Nicaragua will need substantial assistance to get through a
difficult transition to free trade. Without help, free trade applied
too quickly could throw hundreds of thousands of poor subsistence
farmers out of work. The free trade agreement should include a bold and
imaginative program of aid to help them adjust to a new economy without
destroying their democracy. We should also enlist the cooperation of
the World Bank, the IM and the Inter-American Development Bank. I'm
prepared to work with you on this. I'd appreciate it if you would keep
me informed about how you plan to do this.
Answer. Preparing Nicaragua and the other countries of Central
America to take fullest advantage of the free trade agreement in
addition to the transition to free market economies is part of the
USG's strategy for the actual negotiations. Representatives from State,
USAID, USTR, Commerce and other departments participate in the
interagency CAFTA trade capacity building (TCB) working group, which
identifies country-specific TCB needs and organizes donor coordination
to respond to those needs. This working group is also reaching out to
NGOs, international financial institutions (including both the World
Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank), and the private sector
as appropriate. The working group also meets with the Central Americans
during the trade talks to assess progress and identify other needs
under TCB. The next round of talks will take place May 12-16 in
Guatemala.
USAID has several mechanisms, including its Program Supporting
Central America Participation in the FTAA (PROALCA), that may be
tailored for CAFTA needs. PROALCA intends to open a new $4 million
window for technical assistance which may be used by Nicaragua as well
as other Central American countries. Under the Opportunity Alliance,
USAID is supporting the re-orientation of agriculture programs toward
more trade-related activities, such as non-traditional agricultural
exports.
Question. In territory controlled by the LTTE, there are innocent
civilians, including children, who have lost limbs or suffered other
serious injuries and disabilities as a result of the conflict. This is
what the Leahy War Victims Fund was designed to address. Can't we
permit USAID to meet with representatives of the LTTE to discuss ways
to make this assistance available through reputable NGOs?
Answer. The United States intends to provide substantial
reconstruction and humanitarian assistance in Sri Lanka, through
international and local NGOs of our choice, including to benefit people
in LTTE controlled areas of the North and East. Assistance will be
provided consistent with U.S. law and will include funding from the
Leahy War Victims Fund. The LTTE has been designated as a foreign
terrorist organization pursuant to section 219 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, as amended, and pursuant to Executive Order 13224, but
such designations would not preclude U.S. government officials from
meeting with the LTTE.
The United States does not negotiate with terrorist organizations
and has never engaged with the LTTE. We are currently considering,
however, directly informing the LTTE and the government our plans for
providing assistance to persons residing in LTTE-controlled areas.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Question. Is the United States committed to a long-term presence in
Afghanistan to establish peace and security?
Answer. Yes. President Bush made clear in a Joint Statement with
President Karzai on January 28, 2002 that a lasting and permanent
solution for Afghanistan's security needs must be based on
strengthening Afghanistan's own capabilities. Nothing has changed in
the intervening months. The United States contributed over $900 million
in assistance to Afghanistan last year, and with continuing
Congressional support, we will match that level again this year. This
money is going to support projects for health, education, refugees,
agriculture, infrastructure, empowering women, as well as security.
Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) led by the United States are
combining military presence, civil affairs workers, and representatives
of the Karzai government to extend the benefits of security to all
regions of Afghanistan. Following our lead, other coalition members
plan to take the lead on PRTs of their own.
Meanwhile, our contributions to Disarmament, Demobilization and
Reintegration (DDR) and the training of the Afghan National Army (ANA)
are beginning the long-term process of shifting power from regional
commanders to a well-equipped, professionally trained military. Eight
battalions already are trained and deployed throughout Afghanistan, and
the people of the country have welcomed them.
To underscore our long-term commitment to Afghanistan, a series of
high-level officials, including the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary
of Health and Human Services, the President's special envoy to
Afghanistan, and the Deputy Secretary of State, have visited
Afghanistan in the last month, and the Secretary of Agriculture is
scheduled to visit later in 2003.
These efforts are having a visible impact on Afghanistan and are
laying the groundwork for a new constitutional government and elections
next year. With Congress' support, we will continue to build a
democratic Afghanistan and help the Afghan government bring the
benefits of peace and security throughout the country.
Question. Are we dedicating enough funds to the reconstruction of
Afghanistan? ($896M to date, not including fiscal year 2004 request)?
After all, the Marshall Plan had a price tag of $88B in today's
dollars. Can we expect future supplementals and money in the fiscal
year 2005 request to fund Afghan reconstruction? Do you still support a
funding goal of $8B for Afghanistan, as you have previously stated?
Answer. Assistance from the United States and other donors has been
sufficient to address Afghanistan's key needs in a timely fashion. We
provided over $900 million in assistance per year in fiscal year 2002
and fiscal year 2003 (including supplemental packages each year).
Last year, a key priority was humanitarian assistance, and over
one-third of our assistance was directed to assist returning refugees
and help avert famine. This year, the humanitarian crisis has eased,
permitting us to direct much of our assistance toward rebuilding
infrastructure and the Afghan government's institutions and security
capabilities. At the same time we are funding ambitious health,
education and agricultural projects and supporting preparations for a
constitutional assembly this fall and elections next June.
The Administration has requested almost $700 million for 2004 (not
counting funds to be expended by the Department of Defense), which,
together with resources from other donors, should be sufficient to
address anticipated funding needs. We are developing the fiscal year
2005 request, though final decisions have not been made.
In late 2001, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank
estimated Afghanistan's cumulative five-year funding needs (to be
funded by all donors) to be in the range of $8 billion to $12 billion.
This remains a reasonable estimate, and we have worked closely with
Afghan leaders to help raise funds from international donors.
Question. What are we doing to ensure Afghan women will have a
direct role in society to vote, work, go to school, and serve in the
new government? Would you support a call to require that a set
percentage of aid be directed toward the advancement of Afghan women,
or be conducted by women led relief organizations?
Answer. Life for women under the Karzai government represents a
dramatic improvement over the serious and systematic abuses of the
Taliban regime. Some women, primarily in Kabul, have begun discarding
the burqa, the head-to-toe veil that had been rigidly enforced by the
Taliban. Women are once again permitted to work outside the home, and
female civil servants and teachers have returned to work. Girls flocked
to the schools when they re-opened in March 2002, and it is estimated
that of the 3 million new students this past year, 35 percent were
girls. The Ministry of Education is hoping that girls will make up 50
percent of the students soon, and estimates that numbers were up when
schools opened again in March 2003. Within the Afghan government, the
Ministers for Public Health and Women's Affairs, as well as the Chair
of the Human Rights Commission, are women, and many more women serve as
Deputy Ministers, Office Directors, and in mid-ranking governmental
positions. As Afghans write a new constitution and devise a new legal
system, we are impressing upon them the importance of upholding and
respecting internationally recognized human rights standards, including
the rights of women.
Afghanistan established a Commission to Combat Trafficking in
Persons and created a Human Rights Commission with well-known human
rights champion Sima Simar as its chairperson. The United States
provided start-up funding and technical assistance to the Ministry of
Women's Affairs to refurbish the building, provide technical advisors
to the Ministry, and establish a women's resource center with internet
access, computer training, and print and video materials on human
rights at the Ministry.
The United States, through USAID, provided over one million
textbooks in 2002, many of which benefited Afghan schoolgirls. The
United States has helped rebuild and rehabilitate more than 230 schools
to date, and plans to do an additional 1,000 more and provide training
for teachers, most of whom are women, as part of a package of $61
million of support for primary education over the next three years.
The U.S. government is supporting the Ministry of Women's Affairs
in its efforts to open a network of women's resource centers in each of
Afghanistan's 32 provinces. Such centers will provide a safe place
where women will receive training in a range of subjects, including
human rights, political participation, and job skills training. USAID
is funding the construction of 14 provincial centers, and grants by the
U.S.-Afghan Women's Council will fund educational programs in these
centers. Education is fundamental to progress for women.
These projects specifically target and benefit women, while others,
such as school rebuilding efforts, benefit all Afghans, including women
and girls. For that reason, and because of the need for flexibility in
a fluid situation, establishing earmarks or set percentages of aid
would hinder rather than help our efforts to assist Afghan women, as
would mandating aid delivery to specific organizations.
Question. What is the proper mix of funds to fight HIV/AIDS on a
global level--how did State and HHS determine what to contribute to the
Global Fund versus bilateral assistance from the United States to
selected countries? The budget only contains $100M for the Global Fund.
Is the United States still committed to the Global Fund? The G-8 has
not met its original goals for the Global Fund, either.
Answer. We believe that the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS
Relief, as the largest, single commitment in history to an
international public health initiative involving a single disease,
contains the proper mix of funds for this Administration to address the
HIV/AIDS pandemic on a global scale. The President's $15 billion
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) calls for spending, over 5
years:
--Approximately $5 billion for continuation of existing programs in
nearly 50 countries;
--An additional $1 billion for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS,
Tuberculosis and Malaria; and
--About $9 billion for the President's new 14-country initiative.
The Plan seeks to prevent 7 million new infections, treat 2 million
HIV-infected people, and care for 10 million HIV-infected individuals
and AIDS orphans. To accomplish these goals, implementation of the Plan
will be based on the Ugandan model involving a layered network of
medical centers and the ABC (Abstinence, Being Faithful, and, when
necessary, Condom use) approach to stemming the tide of HIV/AIDS.
PEPFAR increases financial and technical assistance to both
bilateral and multilateral activities. Bilateral programs and the
Global Fund complement each other's contributions to the fight against
HIV/AIDS and should both receive increased support. Bilateral programs
are vital for technical assistance and capacity building. The projects
financed by the Global Fund usually build upon the foundations
established by bilateral programs.
The United States is firmly committed to the Global Fund. The $100
million request for the Global Fund in the fiscal year 2004 Foreign
Operations Appropriations budget request contains only half of
President Bush's total request, $200 million, for the Global Fund in
fiscal year 2004. The other $100 million is contained in the fiscal
year 2004 budget request for the Department of Health and Human
Services.
The President's announcement of a $1 billion pledge to the Global
Fund brings the total U.S. commitment to the Global Fund since its
inception to $1.65 billion--nearly one-half of all money pledged to the
Fund to date. The United States has been the most consistent financial
supporter of the Global Fund and has made the longest-term pledge,
providing a benchmark for other donors. The election of Secretary of
Health and Human Services Tommy G. Thompson as the Fund's Board Chair
is another sign of the U.S. Government's support, and its commitment to
ensuring that the Fund is accountable and sustainable.
The President looks forward to the G8 Summit in Evian as an
opportunity to urge other governments and private donors to join us in
increasing efforts to combat this disease both domestically and
internationally.
Question. Is the Administration committed to realizing its new plan
for $15B over 5 years? Will cuts be made to other foreign aid programs
in order to pay for the AIDS initiative, or will the commitment to
fighting AIDS be in furtherance of our commitment to international
development?
Answer. The Administration is fully committed to implementing its
new plan for $15 billion over 5 years to the global effort against HIV/
AIDS as an additional component of our international development
activities. Of the $15 billion, roughly $10 billion is new money for
the President's new fourteen-country initiative and increased support
of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, in
furtherance of our commitment to international development, with the
remaining funds allocated for the continuation of existing programs.
Question. Is the United States committed to a long-term presence in
Iraq to establish peace and security? Wouldn't a short-term departure
only allow the forces of fanaticism and fundamentalism to re-emerge?
Answer. The United States is committed to helping the Iraqi people
establish a whole, free nation at peace with itself and its neighbors,
and governed by the rule of law. As President Bush has said, the United
States will remain in Iraq as long as necessary to achieve these
objectives, but not a day longer.
Question. What are we doing to ensure Iraqi women will have a
direct role in society--to vote, work, go to school, and serve in the
new government? Would you support a call to require that a set
percentage of aid be directed toward the advancement of Iraqi women, or
be conducted by women-led relief organizations?
Answer. The United States recognizes the vital role Iraqi women
will play in the creation of a unified, free Iraq. We are committed to
equal rights for all Iraqi citizens. This includes the full
participation of women in social, political and economic life,
including in reconstruction efforts and in Iraq's future government.
Iraqi women participated in the first two political conferences
held by the Coalition, and the conference statements affirmed the
importance of the role of women. Given the difficult circumstances
under which the first conferences were held, we were unable to reach
out to sufficient numbers of Iraqi women to secure their participation.
Serious efforts are currently underway to identify larger numbers of
Iraqi women to participate in future meetings and to take part in the
rebuilding of Iraqi institutions and the drafting of new laws.
Despite a brutal dictatorship, Iraqi women have continued to make
great strides in education and in professions over the past decades. We
want to ensure that this progress continues and that Iraqi women will
make the contributions that their talent, ambition and dedication to
their country's future will enable.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483, introduced by the
United States, the UK, and Spain calls for the establishment of ``the
rule of law that affords equal rights and justice to all Iraqi citizens
without regard to ethnicity, religion, or gender.''
We do not support the establishment of a set percentage of aid to
be directed to any particular issue or group of organizations. We do
not believe that this is necessary to achieve our goal of equal rights
and the participation of women in the rebirth of Iraq and its
institutions. Supporting the educational, political, economic and
social development of women and girls is a key, identified priority in
many of the relief and reconstruction programs that the USG supports
through funding to the United Nations, other IOs, NGOs and independent
contractors in the areas of education, democratic governance, civil
society and legal reform. We are also committed to ensuring that as
Iraq makes the transition to a free market economy that women, as well
as men, are provided with the training and support necessary to thrive
in this new business environment.
Question. Secretary Powell, you have served as both Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs and now Secretary of State. Is the Administration pursuing
the proper path with DOD in the lead? How long should DOD be in the
lead? Is there a transition plan for State and USAID to takeover the
more traditional roles of foreign assistance and economic development?
Is there an effective liaison system in place for DOD to call upon
State's expertise when necessary?
Answer. The President has determined that the Department of Defense
has the lead for our activities in post-war Iraq. The State Department
has supported DOD's lead strongly. First, during the activities of the
Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) and, now,
within the framework of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA).
Both State and USAID have provided, and will continue to provide
expertise to this DOD-led effort, detailing of personal on-the-ground
to ORHA and CPA to fulfill the U.S. objective of assisting the Iraqi
people to establishing a free and democratic nation that is a
responsible member of the international community.
State and USAID will continue to carry out the President's wishes,
cooperating with and supporting the DOD in every way possible to reach
a successful conclusion in Iraq.
Question. How will you judge when the violence has stopped and the
Palestinian Authority has lived up its end of the bargain? Who will
determine when safety has been achieved? Russia? The EU? The United
Nations? How will be power be shared between the United States, United
Nations, EU, and Russia?
Answer. We've always said that we are prepared to send in U.S.-led
monitors if this would prove useful to the parties, to observe and
coordinate with both sides, to look into claims or charges that one
side might make against the other. We're not talking about an armed,
interpositional force, but a coordinating group on the ground, which
could grow into a larger group over time that could serve a monitoring
function. We have been in close consultation with Palestinian leaders
to develop a plan for assisting the Palestinians with security, and the
United States, working with other interested friends in the region and
from the Quartet will assist the Palestinians in that regard. We have
been clear that any monitoring arrangement would be U.S. led and have a
U.S. face.
Question. How will you judge when the violence has stopped and the
Palestinian Authority has lived up its end of the bargain? Who will
determine when safety has been achieved? Russia? The EU? The United
Nations? How will be power be shared between the United States, United
Nations, EU, and Russia?
Answer. We've always said that we are prepared to send in U.S.-led
monitors if this would prove useful to the parties, to observe and
coordinate with both sides, to look into claims or charges that one
side might make against the other. We're not talking about an armed,
interpositional force, but a coordinating group on the ground, which
could grow into a larger group over time that could serve a monitoring
function. We have been in close consultation with Palestinian leaders
to develop a plan for assisting the Palestinians with security, and the
United States, working with other interested friends in the region and
from the Quartet will assist the Palestinians in that regard. We have
been clear that any monitoring arrangement would be U.S. led and have a
U.S. face.
Question. As we begin to tackle the issues of ``winning the peace''
in Iraq and continue our efforts in Afghanistan as well, I hope that
the U.S. Government's programs will devote attention to improving the
status of women. Women are so important for caring for children and
educating them. In addition, women should have equal access to
participation in politics and in business and the work place, as well.
If I were to select one area for emphasis, it would be education. What
are our plans for reconstituting the educational systems in Iraq and
Afghanistan and for encouraging equal access to schooling for women and
girls?
Answer. In Iraq, the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) has awarded a contract to Creative Associates International to
address immediate educational needs and promote participation of the
Iraqi people in a sustainable, effective and decentralized educational
system. The U.S. Government's goal is to ensure that children will be
able to start the new school year in September 2003 in a system
dedicated to education, not propaganda. Equal opportunity for girls is
an urgent goal of a reformed educational system.
The rehabilitation of schools is critical, including ensuring
sufficient electricity, water and sanitation facilities, and sufficient
equipment and supplies to facilitate learning. We also recognize the
importance of ensuring proper compensation to teachers for their
efforts. In support of our efforts to build the foundations of a
democratic society in Iraq, it is important that we work with Iraqis to
ensure that such values as pluralism and equality are taught in
schools.
We will also support community awareness and social mobilization
programs which highlight the importance of children returning to, and
staying in school, with a particular emphasis on ensuring that girls
offered are full and equal opportunities.
In Afghanistan, girls' education has improved dramatically under
the Karzai government, no small achievement after the serious,
systematic discrimination of the Taliban regime. Girls flocked to the
schools when they re-opened in March 2002, and it is estimated that of
the 3 million new students this past year, 35 percent were girls. The
Ministry of Education is hoping that girls will make up 50 percent of
the students soon, and estimates that numbers were up when schools
opened again in March 2003.
The United States, through USAID, provided over fifteen million
textbooks in 2002, many of which benefited Afghan schoolgirls. The
United States has helped rebuild and rehabilitate more than 230 schools
to date, and plans to do an additional 1,000 as well as provide
training for teachers, most of whom are women, as part of a package of
$61 million of support for primary education over the next three years.
The U.S. government is supporting the Ministry of Women's Affairs
in its efforts to open a network of women's resource centers in each of
Afghanistan's 32 provinces. Such centers will provide a safe place
where women will receive training in a range of subjects, including
human rights, political participation, and job skills training. USAID
is funding the construction of 14 provincial centers and will provide
funding for the centers, including health education programs, daycare,
etc. ($5 million of the fiscal year 2003 funds to be obligated by
Summer 2003). Education is fundamental to progress for women and,
moreover, for Afghanistan as a whole.
Question. After all the commitment and even heroic actions by our
troops, first in Afghanistan and now in Iraq, will we have the wisdom
and steadfastness to follow through on our commitment to promoting
democracy? How well are we doing with our previous efforts? Why are
funds for the promotion of democracy in Eastern Europe (``SEED funds'')
being cut, just when we need examples of U.S. determination and
perseverance and good models for the democratic development of
Afghanistan and Iraq?
Answer. Since 1989, the Support for East European Democracy (SEED)
Act has promoted important U.S. national interests and strategic goals
in North Central and South Central Europe. Indeed, many SEED-funded
programs have provided excellent role models and experienced personnel
as we set up similar programs in Afghanistan and Iraq.
With the graduation of the northern tier countries, the SEED
program has shifted its focus southward. This region could still pull
in our allies and ultimately the United States to uphold vital
interests, as the past conflicts in Bosnia-Herzegovina (Bosnia) and
Kosovo and more recent insurgencies in southern Serbia and Macedonia
demonstrated. SEED assistance provides a defense. It funds important
peace implementation programs that have laid the foundation for longer-
term development through the rise of democratic institutions and market
economies. It also supports the region in its drive for integration in
Euro-Atlantic institutions, as witness the historic November 2002
invitation to seven more SEED-recipient countries to join NATO, and the
December 2002 invitation to eight to join the European Union.
To facilitate continued reform and transition in Southeastern
Europe, SEED assistance supports innovative models, technical
assistance, and training. SEED funding fosters civil security and rule
of law in these transitional societies, increases adherence to
democratic practices and respect for human rights, and promotes broad-
based economic growth. Many in the region have made important progress
toward achieving the objectives of the SEED program: development of
democratic institutions and political pluralism and of free market
economic systems. All the recipients are now democracies, and all are
experiencing economic growth. Extensive SEED investments during recent
years have successfully helped the region overcome crises, so that in
fiscal year 2004 we can continue to reduce the overall request while
maintaining the momentum of the reforms underway. The Department's
fiscal year 2004 budget request shifts $10 million in funding for
educational and cultural exchanges to support the above efforts from
the SEED account to the Educational & Cultural Exchange account under
the Commerce-Justice-State portion of the budget.
against stonings
Question. Here in the Senate I have sponsored a resolution, Senate
Concurrent Resolution 26, against executions by stoning. If passed, it
would simply ask you to work with the international community to
promote international standards of human rights and to encourage the
repeal of laws permitting stoning.
Will the State Department devote attention to this egregious
violation of human rights, which affects women so disproportionately?
What can our diplomacy do to encourage the Nigerian government to save
Amina Lawal and other women who may be sentenced to death by stoning in
parts of Nigeria where shari'a law is in effect?
Answer. Thank you for this important question. I can assure you
that we are devoting attention to this issue, which as you say, affects
women disproportionately. Stoning is an exceptionally cruel form of
punishment that violates internationally accepted human rights
standards and norms.
We are closely monitoring the case of Ms. Lawal, and those of other
Nigerian men and women facing similarly harsh sentences. We have
repeatedly told the Government of Nigeria that it must adhere to its
commitments under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which ban
cruel and unusual punishments and prohibits death sentences in all but
the most severe crimes.
The good news to date is that Nigeria's Minister of State for
Foreign Affairs has said repeatedly that there is ``no way'' a stoning
sentence would be carried out in Nigeria. He has given public
assurances that the Supreme Court would ``supersede'' the Shari'a
system if necessary to stop the execution of a stoning sentence. Also,
in his last National Day address on October 1, Nigerian President
Obasanjo noted that no stoning sentence has ever been carried out in
Nigeria. He told the Nigerian people that none ever would. And,
Nigeria's Attorney General has said that harsh Shari'a punishments
violate Nigeria's Constitution and international commitments.
That said, DRL is monitoring these cases closely because there has
not been a final resolution in Nigeria to the Lawal case, and stoning
has not been banned. The Nigerian constitution does not provide for
federal intervention in cases active in state courts; only through the
appeals process will federal issues of the constitutionality of harsh
Shari'a sentences be aired.
Please know that we will do what we can to help Amina Lawal and
others facing this fate, and to encourage an end to this cruel
practice.
wmd threats outside the fsu
Question. The threat of weapons of mass destruction is perhaps the
greatest concern in our war against terrorism and was a major reason
for our incursion into Iraq. However, our nonproliferation efforts to
date against biological and chemical weapons, as well as nuclear
devices, have been limited to the countries of the former Soviet Union.
Last year an effort to expand the authorization of Nunn-Lugar
legislation was scuttled in the House.
Is the State Department working with the Departments of Defense and
Energy to obtain authorization to expand our counter-proliferation
efforts to include countries beyond the states of the former Soviet
Union? How successful and sustained have our nonproliferation efforts
been and what are the obstacles to such expansion and fully effective
implementation?
Answer. The Nunn-Lugar ``Cooperative Threat Reduction'' (CTR)
Program is only one part of U.S. nonproliferation activities. While CTR
is currently limited by law to the states of the former Soviet Union
(FSU), the Departments of State and Energy have nonproliferation
program authorities to operate globally and are doing so. In addition
to these authorities, the President has requested for fiscal year 2004
that the Congress give him authority to use up to $50 million in CTR
funds outside the FSU. Although almost all the countries in the world
have become parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and a
large majority have adhered to the Chemical Weapons Convention and
Biological Weapons Convention, we face significant nonproliferation
problems. But while the news has been grim from South Asia, Iran, North
Korea and, until recently, Iraq, we have also achieved important
successes.
Beyond the FSU, the State Department runs two important global
programs. One is the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund (NDF), which
tackles tough, urgent problems, such as the removal of highly enriched
uranium from Vinca, Serbia to safe storage in Russia, and destruction
of WMD-capable missiles in Eastern Europe. The NDF also has developed
and deployed an automated system, ``Tracker,'' that already enables
nine countries and 63 ministries to inventory and account for weapons-
sensitive exports/imports, and its use is expanding. NDF is working
towards building an international consortium to support Tracker.
Second, our Export Control and Related Border Security Assistance
Program (EXBS) runs programs in 35 countries, aiming to help our
partners control the flow of dangerous technologies and amaterials in
the most dangerous parts of the world. Our EXBS Program draws on
expertise from a number of agencies, and coordinates closely with
efforts by the Departments of Energy and Defense to strengthen other
countries' controls on transfers of WMD and missile-relevant
technologies.
We have important partnerships with key governments to prevent the
spread of these technologies, through the Missile Technology Control
Regime (MTCR), the Australia Group (AG) for chemical and biological
weapons technologies, the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Zangger
Committee for nuclear transfers, and the Wassenaar Arrangement for
sensitive weapons technologies (including shoulder-fired anti-aircraft
missile systems, MANPADS). We are constantly working to make these
nonproliferation regimes more effective.
Another important partnership is with the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA), whose safeguards program aims to ensure that
civilian nuclear facilities remain civilian, and provides critical
assurance that nuclear material in civil nuclear programs is not
misused for non-peaceful purposes and that covert nuclear activities
are not being pursued. We are prepared to back tough safeguards with
increased funding.
At the same time, we must continue to focus significant effort on
the still sizable residual stocks of dangerous materials from the
massive WMD establishment of the former Soviet Union. The
Administration has accelerated funding for a number of projects. The
Departments of Energy, Defense and State have collaborated under the
CTR and other authorities to improve security at Russian storage
facilities, to consolidate stored fissile materials, to stop new
production and to purchase or down-blend nuclear material from former
nuclear weapons to reduce supply. The State Department provides the
diplomatic lead for several threat reduction programs of the Defense
and Energy Departments. We are also responsible for the U.S.
Government's involvement in the International Science Centers in Russia
and Ukraine, which employ former Soviet weapons scientists in peaceful,
commercial projects--to reduce the temptation for those scientists to
hire themselves out to proliferators.
Question. Student Visas and security.--In the aftermath of 9/11, we
have significantly tightened security procedures for people visiting
our country for temporary purposes. At the same time, we must strike a
balance that will allow free travel and exchange of visits which are so
characteristic of American society. With regard to the issuance of
visas for foreign students, I have found the need for better
coordination between the Department of State and the new Department of
Homeland Security. Since February of this year, men from certain high-
risk mid-East countries who fail to register their departure will find
their student visas canceled. However, Homeland Security has not yet
proposed any method for reviewing or waiving the ineligibility of those
put into the NSEERS automated system for such violations. I hope you
will work with Secretary Tom Ridge to remedy this apparent blind spot
in our visa adjudication process.
Answer. The DHS NSEERS regulations, 8 CFR 264.1(f)(8), state that
if an alien fails to fulfill the departure control requirements upon
leaving the United States, he or she will thereafter be presumed
ineligible under section 212(a)(3)(a)(ii) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act for admission to the United States. In an INS [DHS]
memorandum of December 20, 2002, the agency provided field guidance
relating to returning NSEERS violators citing factors that can be used
at the Port of Entry to allow applicants to overcome this regulatory
presumption of ineligibility. With DHS concurrence, the State
Department provided subsequent guidance to all Embassies and Consulates
transmitting these factors to consular officers to use in determining
whether NSEERS violators can be issued visas. The instructions to posts
stated that Consular Officers ``can issue visas to aliens entered into
lookout as NSEERS violators, provided that the applicant can
demonstrate good cause for the violation and/or reasonable assurances
that the applicant will comply with these requirements in the future.''
The instructions further stated that ``Although Conoff cannot guarantee
any applicant that this procedure will ensure an applicant with NSEERS
violations will be admitted to the United States, these procedures are
consistent with the DHS guidelines and should in most cases be
sufficient to allow the alien to be admitted to the United States.''
Question. Do you believe that we are dedicating enough to the
Foreign Operations budget to effectively carry out our national
diplomatic goals?
Answer. Yes. The requested fiscal year 2004 Foreign Operations
budget that funds programs for the Department of State, USAID, and
other foreign affairs agencies is $18.8 billion. This represents a 16
percent increase over the fiscal year 2003 funding level and does not
include the fiscal year 2003 emergency wartime supplemental of $7.5
billion.
Today, our number one priority is to fight and win the global war
on terrorism. President Bush recently identified the battle of Iraq as
a part of this larger war. The budget furthers this goal by providing
economic, military, and democracy assistance to key foreign partners
and allies, including $4.7 billion to countries that have joined us in
the war on terrorism.
The budget also promotes international peace and prosperity by
launching the most innovative approach to U.S. foreign assistance in
more than forty years. The new Millennium Challenge Account (MCA), an
independent government corporation will redefine ``aid.'' As President
Bush told African leaders meeting in Mauritius recently, this aid will
go to ``nations that encourage economic freedom, root out corruption,
and respect the rights of their people.''
Moreover, this budget offers hope and a helping hand to countries
facing health catastrophes, poverty and despair, and humanitarian
disasters. Such funding will combat the global HIV/AIDS epidemic, meet
the needs of refugees and internally displaced persons, and provide
emergency food assistance to support dire famine needs. In addition,
the budget includes a new proposal to enable swift responses to complex
foreign crises.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator McConnell. Thank you all very much. The
subcommittee will stand in recess to reconvene at 2 p.m.,
Thursday, June 5, in room SD-192. At that time we will hear
testimony from the Honorable Andrew S. Natsios, Administrator,
Agency for International Development.
[Whereupon, at 3:06 p.m., Wednesday, April 30, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., Thursday,
June 5.]