    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        FULFILLING THE PROMISE OF PEACE:
                     HUMAN RIGHTS, PEACE AND RECONCILIATION
                         IN NORTHERN IRELAND AND BOSNIA

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

    SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND OVERSIGHT

                                     OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 16, 2010

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 111-127

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

     Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

                                     ______

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    58-307PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2010
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                     HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman
    GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York           ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
    ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American      CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
        Samoa                            DAN BURTON, Indiana
    DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey          ELTON GALLEGLY, California
    BRAD SHERMAN, California             DANA ROHRABACHER, California
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
    BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts         EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
    GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York           RON PAUL, Texas
    DIANE E. WATSON, California          JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              MIKE PENCE, Indiana
    ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey              JOE WILSON, South Carolina
    GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia         JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York         J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
    THEODORE E. DEUTCH,                  CONNIE MACK, Florida
        FloridaAs of 5/6/       JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
        10 deg.                          MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
    JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee            TED POE, Texas
    GENE GREEN, Texas                    BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
    LYNN WOOLSEY, California             GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida
    SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
    BARBARA LEE, California
    SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
    JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
    MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
    BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
    DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
    JIM COSTA, California
    KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
    GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
    RON KLEIN, Florida
                       Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director
                    Yleem Poblete, Republican Staff Director
                                     ------

                  Subcommittee on International Organizations,
                           Human Rights and Oversight

                       RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri, Chairman
    BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts         DANA ROHRABACHER, California
    KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota             RON PAUL, Texas
    DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey          TED POE, Texas
    THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   WITNESSES

    The Honorable Kurt D. Volker, Senior Fellow and Managing Director
      of the Center on Transatlantic Relations, Johns Hopkins
      University's School of Advanced International Studies..........     7
    Mr. Daniel P. Serwer, Vice President, Centers of Innovation, U.S.
      Institute of Peace.............................................    16
    Ms. Ivana Howard, Program Officer Central & Eastern Europe,
      National Endowment for Democracy...............................    22
    Ms. Aideen Gilmore, Deputy Director, Committee on the
      Administration of Justice......................................    33

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    The Honorable Russ Carnahan, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Missouri, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
      International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight:
      Prepared statement.............................................     3
    The Honorable Kurt D. Volker: Prepared statement.................    10
    Mr. Daniel P. Serwer: Prepared statement.........................    18
    Ms. Ivana Howard: Prepared statement.............................    25
    Ms. Aideen Gilmore: Prepared statement...........................    36

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing notice...................................................    70
    Hearing minutes..................................................    71
    The Honorable Russ Carnahan: Material submitted for the record...    72

    FULFILLING THE PROMISE OF PEACE: HUMAN RIGHTS, PEACE AND RECONCILIATION
                         IN NORTHERN IRELAND AND BOSNIA

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2010

                  House of Representatives,
       Subcommittee on International Organizations,
                                Human Rights and Oversight,
                                  Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in
    room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Russ Carnahan
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Carnahan. Good morning. I want to call to order the
    Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and
    Oversight, for the committee hearing this morning, ``Fulfilling
    the Promise of Peace: Human Rights, Peace and Reconciliation in
    Northern Ireland and Bosnia.''
        The chance to live in peace, free from violence,
    discrimination and oppression, intimidation and fear, is a
    fundamental human right. As a global leader, defending and
    supporting peace and human rights is an historic priority for
    the United States and reflects our deep belief in equality and
    rule of law.
        As Members of Congress we represent various communities,
    often hailing from diverse backgrounds. We understand keenly
    the importance of the U.S. role in promoting peace abroad. We
    also understand the solemn responsibility we all have to our
    citizens to help build a secure world and uphold our core
    values.
        Today the U.S. is deeply involved in helping to advance
    peace and reconciliation efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan where
    brave Americans, and our allies, are fighting insurgents and
    working with the local people to stabilize those countries. And
    this week, Secretary Hillary Clinton is meeting again with
    Israeli and Palestinian leaders in order to help negotiate an
    agreement that would lay the framework for a sustainable peace.
        In many other parts of the world, the U.S., along with our
    international partners, have engaged in many types of valuable
    peace-building, peacekeeping, and humanitarian work. This makes
    us stronger and safer at home as well.
        Back in St. Louis, my home city, neighbors look out for
    each other, and this strengthens our community. The U.S. also
    needs strong, safe neighbors where peace is stable and lasting
    and human rights are respected without question, so that we can
    focus instead on growing jobs and rebuilding our economies.
        Where the current critical efforts in which we are engaged
    weigh heavily on all of us in Congress, to deliver effective
    results we cannot and must not forget the communities we made
    to help bring about a lasting peace in protection of human
    rights in Northern Ireland and Bosnia. Both of these countries
    have come a long, long way from their darkest days of conflict,
    and in both the U.S. has played a major role in advancing
    peace-building and reconciliation.
        In Bosnia the U.S. was instrumental in brokering the Dayton
    Peace Accord in 1995 and has consistently been providing
    diplomatic financial and military resources toward the peace
    process. Aid to Bosnia since 1993 totals over $2 billion aimed
    at institution building, policing to fight organized crime and
    terrorism, an independent judiciary, and reconciliation efforts
    among other key programs.
        However, in the last 15 years Bosnia has outgrown the
    Dayton Accord that was intended to and effectively did
    establish a structure to bring about an end to the war. The
    task ahead for Bosnia is to reform its Constitution and
    government institutions and engage in a more serious nation-
    building effort in order to take its rightful place among
    democratic nations in key international and regional
    organizations such as the EU and NATO.
        With elections coming up in Bosnia in October, there is a
    real opportunity for the Bosnian people to take on this
    challenge. The role of the international community, and of the
    U.S. in particular, must evolve and mature and it must be the
    Bosnians themselves who lead the way. But the U.S. in
    coordination with the EU can continue to play an important role
    in supporting them.
        In Northern Ireland the Clinton, Bush, and now Obama
    administrations have been instrumental in procuring and then
    supporting the 1988 Good Friday Peace Agreement. Earlier this
    year, Secretary Clinton helped advance the agreement on
    devolution of policing and justice powers. In addition, the
    U.S. has provided approximately $500 million in aid to Northern
    Ireland since 1986, through the International Fund for Ireland,
    to support dialogue and reconciliation and social and economic
    development in the areas most affected by sectarian conflict.
        The nature of the relationship between the U.S. and
    Northern Ireland is evolving into one that is more focused on
    continuing to promote peace through economic development.
    Secretary Clinton's appointment in 2009 of the first U.S.
    Special Economic Envoy to Northern Ireland reflects this
    principle. And as we know, strong markets abroad mean more
    opportunities to put American workers to work at home producing
    the quality goods and services people want.
        An integral part of this remains to be vigilant in
    supporting ongoing peace and reconciliation efforts in Northern
    Ireland, especially efforts aimed at building confidence within
    and among the communities and respect for Northern Ireland's
    unique history.
        Growing up in Missouri I was always taught the value of my
    word. As Americans, we believe in seeing our commitments
    through. And our troops in the field, past and present, are a
    best example of this belief and commitment.
        We have committed money, resources, and time over many
    years in order to uphold these core values of peace, freedom,
    equality, democracy and human rights. We have a responsibility
    to our friends and our own citizens to ensure these efforts
    advance and endure. We must continue to help fulfill the
    promise of peace.
        I am very eager to hear from our witnesses today. I
    appreciate you being here. And I now want to recognize our
    ranking member, Representative Rohrabacher from California.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Carnahan follows:]

        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
    holding this hearing in which I expect to learn a great deal
    from the witnesses, and I am very grateful for you being here
    to share your knowledge with us. I am going to have to admit
    that my knowledge base on the Bosnia question as well as the
    Northern Ireland question is rather dated, and I am anxious to
    have you bring me up to date.
        Let me just note in general that I think the United States
    can be very proud of the role that we have played in my
    lifetime as people that are committed to peace and to freedom
    on this planet, and that we have played an active role in
    trying to attain those goals, those goals that come together,
    peace and freedom.
        It has been at great cost to the American people. The
    American people have spent billions upon billions of dollars
    promoting peace and freedom for other people in the world. We
    have also sacrificed tens of thousands of American lives for
    peace and freedom throughout the world.
        There was an old saying that the fastest drying liquid
    known to all of mankind are tears of gratitude. And quite
    often, I feel that the sacrifice made by our people is not
    deeply appreciated, even by our own people, much less by some
    of the people overseas.
        I personally go in my district to the Los Alamitos Reserve
    Center where many of the Reserve and National Guard units that
    go overseas to Iraq and Afghanistan leave from that location,
    and I always try to see them off and I always try to welcome
    them home. And I know the sacrifice those Americans are making.
    They have given everything. Their families are separated. I
    have three little kids at home and I see these people leaving
    their families for a year, and their little kids are coming to
    hug them good-bye and they don't know if their daddy is coming
    home or mommy is coming home in this case. So we need to be
    very respectful and proud of what America does to help bring
    freedom and peace in this world.
        The question is, is where will we commit and how much money
    can we commit to in the future? I believe that our efforts
    throughout the world have drained our resources and that we are
    now vulnerable. And we have got to prioritize what we are going
    to do overseas or we will not be able to do anything overseas.
    It is the old adage that the person of the country that tries
    to do everything for everybody ends up not being able to do
    anything for anybody.
        In this case, we must look to our allies to play a much
    more significant role, especially in European areas, in that
    region of the world. I would have expected that in Bosnia and
    Northern Ireland and in Kosovo that the European Union and
    NATO, the European Union basically taking the lead, would have
    been able to take the lead in these areas. And I will be very
    interested in finding out how much lead our European allies
    took in these areas.
        So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing. I
    plan to listen to the witnesses and upgrade my data, my mental
    database on this, and maybe learn some lessons about making the
    decisions that will help us in the decisions we have to make in
    the months and the years ahead. Thank you.
        Mr. Carnahan. I want to thank my friend, the ranking
    member. And now I will recognize Congressman Ellison from
    Michigan for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Ellison. That is Minnesota, but close enough.
        Mr. Carnahan. Ouch.
        Mr. Ellison. No problem.
        Mr. Carnahan. So noted.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Are you sure you don't come from
    California?
        Mr. Ellison. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for
    this excellent hearing. It is very important that we be
    focusing on Northern Ireland and Bosnia at this time. Both our
    examples for the United States was able to play a supportive
    role in establishing peace and justice, although in both cases
    the people of Northern Ireland and Bosnia were the ones who
    really carried the heavy lifting for their own people. But more
    must and should be done to build on progress.
        And I look forward to hearing from the panel and the
    witnesses to help bring forth a better quality of life for the
    people of Northern Ireland and Bosnia. And I do have a number
    of questions, and I look forward to hearing the testimony of
    our witnesses.
        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you. I am going to run through some
    quick introductions. First, I want to start to my left,
    starting with Ambassador Kurt Volker. Ambassador Volker serves
    as the senior fellow and managing director of the Center of
    Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins University's School of
    Advanced International Studies. He also serves as senior
    advisor at the Atlantic Council of the United States and is a
    member of its Strategic Advisory Group. Previously Ambassador
    Volker served as Ambassador and U.S. Permanent Representative
    on the Council of NATO. Prior to NATO, Ambassador Volker worked
    as principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and
    Eurasian affairs. Ambassador Volker earned his bachelor's
    degree from Temple University, his master's in international
    relations from the Elliott School of International Affairs at
    George Washington University.
        Next we will hear from Daniel Serwer. He is the vice
    president of the Center of Innovation at the U.S. Institute of
    Peace. At the Institute he oversees work in rule of law,
    religion and peace-making in sustainable economies. He has
    worked on preventing interethnic sectarian conflict in Iraq as
    well as facilitating talks between Serbs and Albanians in the
    Balkans. He has also served as a U.S. Special Envoy and
    coordinator for the Bosnian Federation. During this time, Mr.
    Serwer worked with Croats and Muslims to negotiate the first
    agreements reached at the Dayton peace talks.
        Next we will hear from Ms. Ivana Howard. Ms. Howard serves
    as the program officer for Central and Eastern Europe at the
    National Endowment for Democracy. Through this role Ms. Howard
    manages the NED democracy assistance to six Balkan countries.
    Previously she has trained U.S. soldiers serving in the Balkans
    in language, politics, history and religion. Ms. Howard earned
    a master's degree in public administration from Bowie State
    University in Germany; earned a master's in democracy and human
    rights in southeastern Europe from the University of Sarajevo
    and University of Bologna.
        And finally we will hear from Ms. Aideen Gilmore. She is
    the Deputy Director of the Committee on the Administration of
    Justice, the CAJ, which is an NGO that works to ensure high
    standards in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland,
    particularly relating to international human rights law. Ms.
    Gilmore also worked to establish and now sits on the Board of
    Management of the Human Rights Consortium. The consortium is a
    coalition of over 150 civil society organizations who are
    working for a strong and inclusive Bill of Rights for Northern
    Ireland. Ms. Gilmore earned a bachelor's degree and master's in
    administrative and legal studies from the University of Ulster
    at Jordanstown.
        Welcome to all of you. Thank you for being here today.
        I want to start with Ambassador Volker who has been kind
    enough to come today, even though he is squeezing us in before
    another appointment, so we are going to let him go first.
    Ambassador, we are going to recognize you for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KURT D. VOLKER, SENIOR FELLOW AND
      MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER ON TRANSATLANTIC RELATIONS,
      JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY'S SCHOOL OF ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL
                                STUDIES

        Mr. Volker. Thank you, Chairman Carnahan, Ranking Member
    Rohrabacher, distinguished members. Thank you for giving me
    this opportunity to testify today. I found the topic of this
    hearing very interesting because I had the chance in my career
    to work on both Northern Ireland and Bosnia, and I have never
    taken the time really to look at the lessons learned, and this
    is a good exercise.
        As a diplomat, both as Ambassador of NATO and as the
    Principal Deputy in European Affairs at the State Department, I
    worked on Northern Ireland and also on Bosnia. But actually I
    did my first tour working on Bosnia in 1993 when I was a
    special assistant to the Bosnia peace negotiator for the United
    States. So I followed these issues for some time.
        In the case of Northern Ireland, we see a successful peace
    agreement, a functioning executive and a promising future,
    though of course challenges remain. But in Bosnia and
    Herzegovina, although violence stopped nearly 15 years ago, we
    continue to see great challenges in governance and
    reconciliation. And in Bosnia and Herzegovina today, the future
    remains cloudy. And with these dramatically different results I
    think it is worth looking at some of the lessons learned.
        I am going to outline very quickly what I see as ten of the
    key similarities or differences between the two, so that we can
    see whether there are any lessons that we might apply in our
    work with Bosnia today. First and most obviously is the scale
    of the conflict itself. While the conflict in Northern Ireland
    was indeed terrible, it was not on the same scale as an all-out
    war in Bosnia in terms of numbers killed, in terms of the
    brutality, in terms of displaced persons. And that makes it
    harder in Bosnia to build reconciliation after that scale of
    conflict.
        Second, in Northern Ireland there was a palpable public
    fatigue with the divisions and with separatism in the province,
    and there emerged a public demand for change and
    reconciliation. This is only partially true in Bosnia today.
    And I think that there still remains a great deal of desire for
    separatism in parts of Bosnia.
        Third, Northern Ireland enjoyed a sustained period of
    economic improvement leading up to and extending beyond the
    Good Friday agreement. And I think that was critical because
    that gave the people of Northern Ireland a stake in a
    prosperous functioning territory. In Bosnia we haven't ever
    seen that level of economic development, and I think that is
    held back. So when we look to the future, I think an increased
    focus on what it will take to improve the economy, jobs,
    entrepreneurship is an important factor.
        Fourth is the role of the indigenous NGO community. In
    Northern Ireland, diverse groups ranging from educators to
    businessmen to human rights activists to social workers to
    former police officers all came together across religious lines
    to expose past abuses, build cooperation, and develop the
    structures of a more integrated society. While the NGO
    community in Bosnia-Herzegovina has grown and carries out
    vitally important work, it has yet to achieve a sufficiently
    broad-based impact as we had seen in Northern Ireland. And
    this, therefore, is another area where we can focus in helping
    to sustain and build these indigenous NGOs.
        Fifth is the positive political support and the
    facilitating role played by the two key governments in London
    and in Dublin. They helped create and advance a functioning
    Executive in Northern Ireland. By contrast, the war in Bosnia-
    Herzegovina have largely been caused by the actions of
    neighboring states. And while their later support for the peace
    process grew, reconciliation and unified governance has been
    slow to grow, with only tepid support from the neighbors which
    has been growing over time. It is better today, especially when
    you look at the government in Serbia and its policies, but it
    has not had that emphasis and sustaining support as we had in
    the U.K.--I am sorry, in Northern Ireland.
        Sixth is the quality of the governing agreements, the Good
    Friday agreement, and then the power-sharing that followed
    functions as executive power. The Dayton Accords were essential
    to stop the violence, and the constitutional arrangements that
    followed were necessary, but they have not proved to be
    effective as a governing mechanism.
        Seventh, the engagement of the U.S. in the international
    community was more consistent and sustained in Northern
    Ireland, and had a lot of ups and downs in Bosnia.
        Eighth, the role of the International Commission on
    Decommissioning in Northern Ireland was critical in giving the
    public confidence that the political institutions would work.
    And we have never quite put together a monopoly of force that
    is bringing the arms together, a single defense establishment,
    single leadership over the police establishment in Bosnia.
        Ninth, the international financial assistance provided was
    more effective in Northern Ireland, and that is largely because
    the conditions were more ripe for that to be used well.
        And then, tenth, I want to say specifically about the role
    of the United States. As both our chairman and the ranking
    member mentioned, the United States role was consistent,
    sustained, and important in Northern Ireland. In Bosnia. I
    would argue it has had its ups and downs. We largely stayed out
    in the early days; then we came in in a big way; then we pulled
    back again. We have tried to hand over to the European Union,
    and I think that a more consistent role of the United States is
    important.
        And to address two of the issues raised by the ranking
    member, on the one hand I believe there remains a high degree
    of appreciation for the role of the United States in both
    Bosnia and in Northern Ireland. So I hear what you say about
    appreciating the sacrifices, and I believe there they do.
        The second is that the European Union and the United States
    working together has been the best model in Bosnia. The
    European Union alone has never been able to fully replicate
    what we have been able to do together, so I think the continued
    U.S. role is critical.
        I see I am out of time. So Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, I
    am delighted to answer any questions that follow, but I believe
    that points to some of the areas where we can change and focus
    in the future in Bosnia.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Volker follows:]

        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Ambassador, for your insights,
    unique because of your time spent on both of these areas.
        Next I want to turn to Mr. Daniel Serwer.

     STATEMENT OF MR. DANIEL P. SERWER, VICE PRESIDENT, CENTERS OF
                  INNOVATION, U.S. INSTITUTE OF PEACE

        Mr. Serwer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Carnahan, Mr.
    Rohrabacher, Mr. Ellison. I enormously appreciate your
    attention to this issue. The ideals you set forward in your
    opening remarks are ones I very strongly share. At the same
    time, I have to underline that I share Mr. Rohrabacher's view
    that we need to identify clearly what it is the U.S. can do in
    this situation and not commit to too much. It is an economy-of-
    effort approach that I think is simply a necessity today.
        I am going to propose three things that really count today
    on which the U.S. should focus: The Constitution in Bosnia, the
    educational system, and the High Representative are the three
    issues I want to discuss.
        Constitutional reform, which I have advocated for a long
    time, is going to have to start with a small package, not a big
    comprehensive package. There are only two things that I think
    need to be done right away, even before the process of
    accession to the EU begins. One is to eliminate the
    discriminatory provisions in accordance with the decision of
    the European Court on Human Rights. All Bosnian parties seem
    agreed on this. We need to press them to get it done.
        The second is much more controversial. Bosnia needs a
    strong EU clause; that is, a clause in its Constitution that
    makes the government in Sarajevo responsible for negotiating EU
    membership. That EU clause in my view should also include a
    provision that there would be no entity veto for legislation
    required for EU accession. What does that mean? It means that
    neither entity, neither Federation nor Republika Srspka, would
    be able to exercise a provision of the Constitution that
    currently allows them to block legislation, and they have done
    it many, many times. But for legislation required for EU
    accession, I think they should give up that privilege.
        I want to emphasize that I agree with Ambassador Volker on
    the question of civil society in Bosnia. It needs more
    ``oomph,'' if I can use that technical term. My proposition is
    that immediately after the Bosnian elections in early October,
    the EU and U.S. should be financing a broad discussion of
    constitutional reform in Bosnia from the grass roots up,
    instead of trying to get constitutional reform only through the
    leadership, which is what we have tried several times in the
    past.
        On educational reform I think we need to reactivate the
    OSCE effort to end separate but equal education in Bosnia. All
    Bosnian schools should be appropriate for children of all
    groups. We know from our own history that you can't have people
    taught in ``separate but equal'' schools, and you can't have
    them taught things that encourage hatred of others.
        Let me turn finally to the question of the High
    Representative. I fear that the High Representative today, who
    is the ultimate authority for implementation of the Dayton
    agreements, cannot use the more or less dictatorial powers he
    has had to prevent serious Dayton violations. In particular, I
    regard the threat of holding referenda on any subject as a
    serious threat to the Dayton peace agreements.
        The Europeans have been talking about creating a super EU
    Special Representative. I think we should consider seriously
    going along with that proposition, provided the EU really makes
    this a powerful position with real tools of imposition at its
    disposal and the so-called Bonn powers, the dictatorial powers
    of the High Representative, in reserve in case they need to be
    used. They should be kept until the agreed conditions are in
    place. This kind of Super EU Representative would I think
    ensure European leadership, but should also incorporate
    American support.
        My proposition is that we help to staff the EU Special
    Representative as we have the International Civilian Office in
    Kosovo. There is nothing unusual about Americans working in
    European Union operations. We should do it again in Bosnia. I
    would include in that a strong American deputy to the EU
    Special Representative.
        Just to summarize quickly, the Dayton Constitution needs a
    few reforms right away, more later on. The education system
    needs to eliminate separate but equal. And the international
    community needs to fix its own structure so they are more
    unified, European-led, and strongly American-supported. Thank
    you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Serwer follows:]

        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
        And now I want to turn to Ms. Ivana Howard, and will
    recognize you for 5 minutes.

       STATEMENT OF MS. IVANA HOWARD, PROGRAM OFFICER CENTRAL &
            EASTERN EUROPE, NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY

        Ms. Howard. Thank you Chairman Carnahan, Ranking Member
    Rohrabacher, and Mr. Ellison. I welcome the opportunity to be
    here today and speak to you about human rights, the peace
    process and reconciliation efforts in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
    And on behalf of the National Endowment for Democracy I would
    like to thank you for a continued support and commitment to the
    Balkans.
        I am very humbled to be in the company of these two
    gentlemen who have committed so much of their time and their
    life to Bosnia. I would just like to note that I would provide
    a brief summary of my remarks to the subcommittee and would
    hope that my longer written statement can be submitted for the
    record.
        It is estimated that over $15 billion in international aid
    has been spent in Bosnia over the last 15 years. Mr. Carnahan
    has hinted to the amount that the U.S. has spent, and
    approximately $1.5 billion of that has come from the Support
    for East European Democracy fund approved by U.S. Congress. And
    NED has also been a beneficiary of these funds.
        As we pause to reflect on the international engagement
    since the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords, it is without a
    doubt that the significant investment has produced notable
    results. And I would just like to point out a few because I
    think it is very important for the sake of appreciation as
    well.
        To date, Bosnia has really come a long way. And it remains,
    first of all and very importantly, the only postconflict
    country in modern history in which international intervention
    has secured lasting peace without a major incident of violence
    since 1995. Substantial state-building reforms were also
    achieved as was small but consistent progress in electoral
    processes, civil society, governance and judicial framework.
    Most notably, defense reform succeeded in unifying three
    completely separate and previously warring armies.
        But the most significant recognition of progress achieved
    over the last 15 years was the country's election as a
    nonpermanent seat in the U.N. Security Council starting in
    January 2010.
        Here I would just like to note as a Bosnian American, there
    is great appreciation in the Bosnian community for all the
    efforts and the resources that the United States has put into
    Bosnia. I think I can speak on behalf of my fellow Bosnians
    when I say that, especially because I was in Bosnia in the
    early days of our action, following the signing of the Dayton
    Peace Accords, supporting the NATO peacekeeping mission as a
    freshly out-of-high-school interpreter.
        However, of course, concerns remain and a multitude of
    challenges are still here to fulfilling the promise of peace
    that was made with the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords. I
    am only going to emphasize a few because my colleagues have
    already spoken about the challenge of constitutional reform and
    the continued violation of human rights, or actually minority
    rights, in the Constitution.
        I would like to focus on reconciliation. Punishing those
    guilty of war crimes has been an essential element in
    consolidating peace in Bosnia. The work of the International
    Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, known as the ICTY,
    has made a major contribution to rule of law, democratization
    and reconciliation. The ICTY has provided justice for war
    crimes victims and lent them a voice for the world to hear.
        That being said, there have been major shortcomings in the
    process of transitional justice. And above all, these include
    Serbia's failure to arrest Ratko Mladic, a mastermind and chief
    executive of the Srebrenica genocide. Continued impunity from
    Mladic is a major impediment to the international community's
    efforts for reconciliation in Bosnia.
        In addition, the limited capacity of the ICTY and the
    national courts to prosecute war criminals warrants alternative
    approaches to satisfying truth and justice for all victims. One
    such approach is offered by the Coalition for RECOM, a regional
    collision of NGOs, victims, associations and individuals, which
    advocates for the establishment of an official independent
    interstate commission which would investigate and disclose
    facts about war crimes and other serious violation of human
    rights, including the fate of the 11,000 persons still missing
    in Bosnia.
        I would just like to note that two Presidents in the
    region, that of Croatia and of Serbia, have endorsed this
    initiative, and I do hope others are soon to follow. And to the
    extent that you can, I would like to encourage you to encourage
    other leaders to endorse the process.
        I am not going to elaborate on the issues that have already
    been mentioned, but I will just note why the constitutional
    reform is important for two reasons. The Constitution, as it
    currently is, not only denies equal representation to national
    minorities, but it also discourages hundreds of thousands of
    refugees and displaced persons from returning to their original
    place of residence where they would now be a minority.
        In addition, the system as it is created, which rewards
    political extremism, has not only helped to cement the position
    of ethnically defined political parties, but has also
    suppressed alternative voices from civic groups, moderate
    political parties and the media, which goes to some of the
    concerns that were raised about the civil society. The result
    of this is a vicious circle which creates a dysfunctional and a
    divided country which suffers a serious democracy deficit. At
    best, Bosnia will remain unable to meet the requirements of
    Euro-Atlantic integration, and, at worst, its weak institutions
    will render it vulnerable to political instability and even
    conflict.
        Now, this situation poses a considerable risk to the
    substantial investment that was made by the international
    community, including the United States. It is important to note
    that Bosnia is key to this regional stability and security. And
    another Bosnian implosion or even prolonged stagnation is sure
    to have a ripple effect throughout this still vulnerable
    region.
        In addition, Bosnia has served as a trail-blazer for
    subsequent interventions in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. And
    a failure in Bosnia would seriously question the credibility of
    the more demanding peace-building processes and democratization
    efforts in places like the Middle East.
        In my written testimony I offer several recommendations;
    but here, for the sake of time, I am going to summarize them.
    And I will just maybe reiterate the point that was made by Mr.
    Serwer, is that the process of a constitutional reform in which
    the international community has a role to play should be
    domestically driven and facilitated by the international
    community only by offering expertise and incentives for change.
        Next, and to go to answering the ranking member's question
    about the role of the EU, the U.S. and the EU must continue to
    share the burden of civilization democratization efforts in
    Bosnia. It is often said that Bosnia is a European problem by
    the virtue of geography. However, Bosnia's particular set of
    problems has proven to be too complex to be resolved simply by
    the lure of EU membership. And the U.S., as was pointed out I
    believe by Ambassador Volker, still possesses unrivaled
    credibility in the region, and it remains as such,
    indispensable in forging a common international policy and
    providing the necessary political and technical support to its
    EU partner.
        And finally, again just addressing what was brought up, and
    that is the support to not just formal state institutions, but
    also to civil society organizations, independent media, and
    moderate political parties. Civil society is working for
    moderation, compromise, and dialogue and helping to mitigate
    political conflict. And strengthening moderate political
    parties and objective media can enlarge political space that is
    currently monopolized by the nationalist political elites.
    These democracy-building efforts are really indispensable and
    substantially contribute to political stability and durable
    peace in Bosnia.
        Mr. Chairman, distinguished members, I would just like to
    point out that, as was mentioned, on October 3rd Bosnia is
    holding its Presidential and Parliamentary election. Foreign
    diplomats often say it is up to the Bosnian people to elect the
    kind of leadership to lead them to a better future, but they
    too recognize that fear and uncertainty about the future
    strongly influence voters' choices in favor of ethnically based
    parties. And consequently, as most observers will note, they
    don't see potential for any substantial change to the political
    landscape in what will be the country's tenth poll.
        I have to say I am optimistic about these elections, if for
    nothing then the fact that NED will have supported well over 30
    NGOs, youth movements, media outlets, civic associations
    throughout Bosnia to educate citizens, boost voter turnout,
    hold politicians accountable for their performance and promote
    issues that unite--and this is very important--unite different
    ethnic groups. It is these kinds of programs that NED and its
    grantees are supporting that seek to remove fear as a decisive
    factor in casting one's vote. And I believe these programs will
    make a difference.
        I would like to just thank you once again for demonstrating
    the commitment that you have and I look forward to taking your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Howard follows:]

        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you very much.
        And last but not least, Ms. Aideen Gilmore. I am going to
    recognize you for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF MS. AIDEEN GILMORE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, COMMITTEE ON
                     THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

        Ms. Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. Chair, distinguished members of
    the committee. Let me begin by thanking you for the opportunity
    and privilege of testifying before you today.
        As has been pointed out, America has played an extremely
    important and influential role in the peace process in Northern
    Ireland, and that support has been greatly appreciated and
    invaluable. Today I would like to present a brief summary of my
    written testimony which I would also like entered into the
    record. The Good Friday Agreement puts human rights and
    equality center stage in peace-building efforts. And in many
    ways Northern Ireland provides a role model for elsewhere on
    how a deeply divided society and seemingly intractable conflict
    can be moved forward when human rights and equality are put at
    its heart. Much has been achieved in Northern Ireland in our
    peace process, and Northern Ireland is now a very different
    place.
        Recently, however, we have made the international headlines
    again for the wrong reasons. This summer we have seen renewed
    violence and public disorder on the streets. Bomb alerts are
    now almost a daily occurrence in Northern Ireland. At best,
    these result in disruption and inconvenience; at worst, they
    have led to injury, including of young children. There have
    also been targeted injuries to and killings of police officers
    and army personnel in recent years.
        Therefore, while a lot of progress has undoubtedly been
    made, CAJ would caution against the rhetoric of recent times
    that the devolution of policing and justice is the final peace
    of the jigsaw in terms of the implementation of our peace
    agreement, thus implying that the peace process is now
    complete.
        I seek to highlight in this short briefing that this is not
    necessarily the case, and urge continued vigilance and support
    for the protection of human rights and equality in Northern
    Ireland as a means of embedding and sustaining the peace.
        There are three key issues in particular I believe that
    need to be addressed.
        The first is ongoing inequalities and socioeconomic
    disadvantage in some of those areas that were most impacted by
    the conflict. The peace process has seen much investment and
    development, much of it coming from the United States. However,
    recent figures show that the historically poorest areas in
    Northern Ireland are in many cases no better off, and, in some
    cases, are relatively worse off than they were during the
    conflict.
        Inequality and deprivation is also apparent, with Catholic
    areas featuring disproportionately. Also of note is the extent
    to which the deprivation is concentrated in areas that bore the
    brunt of the conflict in terms of highest number of deaths and
    injuries.
        These statistics tell us two worrying things. The first is
    that the prosperity that has been experienced in Northern
    Ireland from the late 1990s has bypassed these poorest sections
    in our society. The second is that if the areas which
    experienced the worst levels of violence are not feeling the
    benefits of the peace process, at least in social and economic
    terms, this is not a recipe for long-term stability.
    Opportunities exist to do something about this. There has been
    much focus in recent times on economic investment in Northern
    Ireland. What has been missing and what is needed is
    accompanying analysis on how that investment can best be used
    to target social need. If the people in those disadvantaged
    communities do not feel the economic benefit of the peace
    process, they will feel left behind, and CAJ fears what the
    cost of that isolation could be.
        The second issue is the need to develop a mechanism to deal
    with our past. The publication of the Bloody Sunday report and
    the subsequent debate have made it clear that Northern
    Ireland's past remains to be addressed. It has become clear
    that a line cannot be drawn under the past. Too many people
    have been affected by it and too many have unanswered
    questions.
        The approach taken to the past to date has been piecemeal
    and unsatisfactory, leaving many victims of the conflict from
    right across the community feeling left behind. Some mechanism
    will have to be developed to deal with our past if its horrors
    are not to undermine our future. The debate simply cannot be
    abandoned. Leadership is required by government, by political
    parties and by all of us in Northern Ireland to grasp the
    nettle of the past if we are truly to build a shared future.
    Your support in encouraging this leadership would be
    invaluable.
        The third and final issue is delivery on a specific Bill of
    Rights for Northern Ireland. The protection of human rights and
    the commitment to a Bill of Rights to reflect the particular
    circumstances of Northern Ireland were fundamental parts of the
    agreement and central to efforts of building a shared and
    peaceful future in Northern Ireland. Regular polling shows
    consistently high levels of support from the two main
    communities for a strong and inclusive Bill of Rights.
        In the history of our divided society, rarely have there
    been such high levels of agreement right across the community,
    and this is an opportunity that needs to be seized. The new
    U.K. Government has said that they will not legislate for a
    specific Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland, as required by
    the agreement; rather, they will consider incorporating
    additional rights for Northern Ireland within a section of a
    wider British Bill of Rights.
        We believe this approach is deeply problematic for two
    reasons. Firstly, it disregards the unique context of the Bill
    of Rights debate in Northern Ireland and instead wants to
    append it to a very different debate on a U.K.-wide Bill of
    Rights. Secondly, the agreement was directly concerned with
    protecting rights to reflect the principles of mutual respect
    for the identity and ethos of both main communities and parity
    of esteem. However, the U.K. Government approach of developing
    rights in a British context directly undermines this. It also
    ignores the fact that the very issue of nationality and
    identity is and always has been an issue of division and
    inequality in Northern Ireland.
        The Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs has clearly stated
    that the Irish Government is strongly of the view that a
    specific and substantial Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland is
    a central and crucial element of the agreement. Overall, the
    approach to be taken is seen by many as a retrograde step that
    risks undermining existing and hard-fought human rights and
    equality protections from our peace agreement.
        In closing, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
    Northern Ireland is a very different place and that so much has
    been achieved cannot be questioned. The support and
    encouragement of America has been a crucial factor in getting
    us to where we are today. My plea to you today is to maintain
    your support to ensure that peace is maintained and sustained.
    In particular, ensure that investment is used in a way that
    will help address the deep-rooted inequality and deprivation in
    those communities still bearing the scars of the conflict.
    Encourage leadership from the political parties in Northern
    Ireland and the U.K. and Irish Governments to develop a
    holistic process to help us deal with our past; and to help
    move on from the past and build a shared and peaceful future
    highlight to the U.K. Government the importance of delivering
    on the agreement and embedding a strong and inclusive specific
    Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I look
    forward to taking your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Gilmore follows:]

        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Ms. Gilmore.
        And I want to first inquire of Mr. Volker about your time.
        Mr. Volker. I think if I leave by 10:30 or 10:35 I should
    be fine.
        Mr. Carnahan. Okay. I think we will maybe start with some
    questions for you to accommodate your time. And again thank you
    for squeezing this in this morning.
        Mr. Volker. Thank you for your consideration.
        Mr. Carnahan. I thought your overview in comparison to some
    of the similarities and differences were very well done. And I
    guess I wanted to really focus on your last point about the
    U.S. role, because I think it has been a concern, particularly
    with regard to Bosnia, that, as you described, there have been
    times when we have been all in and other times when it seems
    like that has been on the back burner, and how you think,
    especially at the end of these elections in October, you know,
    how we can reengage in a strong way from our perspective, but
    also with regard to the EU, and, really, regardless of how the
    elections turn out.
        Mr. Volker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I began working on
    Bosnia in 1993, as I said. That was in the early days of the
    war. Beginning in the Clinton administration, we had a major
    effort to engage in the negotiating process. We didn't back it
    up with force. We signed an agreement May 1st of 1993. Bosnian
    Serbs disregarded it, acted without it, the Parliament rejected
    it, and we did nothing. Two years later we had the massacre in
    Srebrenica and then we finally got in for real.
        And that is the kind of lesson that I took about U.S.
    engagement. You have to get in and you have to be steady. And I
    think that is a lesson, even looking ahead. We are not in that
    same situation now. It is not good in Bosnia, but I don't see
    conflict on the horizon immediately. But in order to prevent
    that, we need to be engaging proactively.
        The EU is trying to reduce its presence in the near term.
    They have about 700 peacekeeping forces. They want to reduce
    that. They want to see the Office of the High Representative
    brought down and replace that with an EU High Representative.
        I think that we need to see more progress in Bosnia before
    we pull back. I think that the problem--I even thought that the
    S4 handover to the EU was premature. We shouldn't have done it
    when we did.
        We need to see a stronger civil society, as everyone here
    has mentioned. We need to see greater responsibility by the
    leading political parties for their own political framework. We
    need to see constitutional change so that we have an effective
    form of governance.
        So I would suggest that I think the United States and EU
    need to join together in the wake of elections to then put
    these things on the table and try to urge, encourage, press the
    parties to make progress in a number of areas so that we can
    get to the point where it doesn't depend as much on the
    international community. But I am afraid that if we slide into
    just reducing our activities and our engagement, including the
    EU, without that kind of progress we are going to face greater
    dangers in the future that could be prevented.
        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you. And then just one follow-up with
    regard to Northern Ireland.
        With regard to the debate about the Bill of Rights and what
    the new British Government is doing, to Ms. Gilmore's point
    about the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland and how to
    recognize that going forward.
        Mr. Volker. You know, in our country of course we have a
    Bill of Rights and we cherish it. It provides a clear statement
    of the rights of all individuals. I think two things are
    essential when you apply this idea of a Bill of Rights outside
    the United States in a territory like Northern Ireland. One of
    them is it needs to be clear that it is reinforcing equality
    and protections for all people in the province. If it is not
    seen that way, then it is not doing it is job. So I think we
    need to make sure that it is getting that sense of confidence.
        The second thing is that it needs to fit into a political
    context of what else has been going on. I mean, this is not the
    first step in a peace process in Northern Ireland. There has
    been a lot going on already. So we need to make sure that it is
    reinforcing what is there as well.
        And if I could add a third point, and I do believe this is
    what the British Government has tried to do, is to be as
    transparent and patient in the process as possible, so that you
    put proposals out, you allow for comments, you discuss them,
    you don't rush them. And if it is not going to produce the
    desired results, then you don't rush ahead, but you try to
    actually build that sense of confidence and protection in the
    communities that can help the province advance.
        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you very much. And I am going to
    recognize our ranking member, Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. And then we will go for a second round
    with the rest of the witnesses.
        Do we have military forces? We still have them in Kosovo,
    but are there U.S. military forces still active in Bosnia?
        Mr. Volker. There is a very small number. The EU has a lead
    military presence which is about 700. NATO has a headquarters
    in Bosnia and Herzegovina. And I spoke with someone yesterday;
    they said it was about 160. A fraction of that is U.S., so it
    is really very, very small.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Do we actually have people carrying guns
    in somewhat combat operation?
        Mr. Volker. No combat operations. The principal functions
    of the NATO headquarters are to provide assistance with defense
    reform for the Bosnian Government and also to provide
    protection of documents and materials that are useful for the
    ICTY evidence. That is being digitized, and a demand for a
    protection of those documents will diminish over time.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. And what about how much is this--how much
    has Bosnia, this operation now, we have one witness who
    suggests it is $15 billion. Do you have a guesstimate as to
    from then--from start to now?
        Mr. Volker. I don't. I know the USAID figure is about $1
    billion in assistance. But of course military operations are
    vastly more expensive, and I don't have a figure to offer for
    that.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Do we know how much the operation in terms
    of the limited military presence that you just described is
    costing the American people?
        Mr. Volker. I don't have a figure on that either. But if
    you are--as a guesstimate, you are looking at about 40 people
    with some logistical support that is coordinated through NATO.
    I can't see that that is going to be costing very much,
    especially considering that they be deployed in Europe anyway.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. My guess, not very much is still in the
    millions.
        Mr. Volker. It may be, but it may also be millions that we
    would be spending somewhere else. It may not be incrementally
    above.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I can assure you with this Congress today,
    if it wasn't being spent there, it would be spent somewhere
    else, but it doesn't necessarily justify it. There seems to be
    a change in attitude in Serbia from being, in the worst days,
    perpetrators of horrendous crimes, especially in the Bosnia
    area, to now being--Serbia being led by people who really would
    like to have a peaceful democracy. And they have recently, I
    understand, their government has permitted the indictment of
    Serbian leaders who participated in crimes during that time
    period.
        How do you assess Serbia's role at this point?
        Mr. Volker. I agree with you. I think that the recent
    arrests of paramilitary personnel who carried out atrocities in
    Kosovo is a very encouraging step. I think the Serbian
    Government has shown much greater interest in integration with
    Europe and coming to terms at least with the ethnic cleansing
    and the wars of the past, if not the issue of Kosovo
    independence. So I think that is very encouraging, and I think
    that is something that we should be supporting and encouraging
    to move ahead.
        If I may address two other thoughts. One of them is what
    you highlighted in your earlier question, was the military
    presence of the United States. And I don't believe the military
    presence is the important factor right now. There is no
    conflict going on, and I think it is unlikely that new conflict
    will arise in any short order.
        What is necessary are the kinds of things that I think the
    other panelists and I discussed of support for civil society,
    constitutional reform, and getting the parties to take more of
    a lead in organizing better governance in Bosnia. The second
    thing----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. And how much does that cost?
        Mr. Volker. That is diplomat engagement. It may provide
    some additional assistance. We had CDAC. I don't have a figure
    to offer you as to what we are doing and where we need to go,
    but I think in the tens of millions of dollars is probably
    about what I would expect.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. And what is the population of Bosnia?
        Mr. Volker. The population of Bosnia.
        Ms. Howard. There hasn't been an official census since
    1991, but the estimate is about 4.5 million. The previous
    population was 4.4. And it is very difficult to estimate at
    this point because the issue of census is very contentious.
        Mr. Volker. And if I could just add a final point. One of
    the things that has made the most difference in Central and
    Eastern Europe and the Balkans over the past two decades has
    been the vision of a Europe that is democratic, market-
    economic, and secure and integrated. That has helped Poland,
    Hungary, Czech Republic and so on. That vision still applies
    but has never been realized in the Balkans.
        And I think the European Union has become much more passive
    about this, and I think we have been passive about encouraging
    the European Union, NATO, others, to keep pressing that. I
    think that vision remains very powerful and is ultimately the
    way to see a prosperous region that doesn't depend on external
    support.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me ask finally, my time is about up
    now as well, just one last question. The vision of having an
    envelopment by the European Union of this unsolved situation
    then becoming solved, how does the possibility of that compare
    to perhaps a vision that the peoples of the former Yugoslavia
    perhaps could find some sort of reconciliation and become part
    of an entity again of their own, rather than having to think of
    this as a greater European, you know, involvement to end that,
    but instead perhaps--because I understand the Croatians, for
    example, are in a very good relationship with the Serbians
    right now.
        And I remember years ago when I went to Croatia, when there
    was people slaughtering one another, and I couldn't figure out
    how they could tell the difference what a Croatian was and what
    a Serbian was. How do you know who to aim your gun at? And I
    guess that is sort of true in Northern Ireland as well.
        But right now I understand that the Serbians and the
    Croatians are working together, and perhaps a vision of a
    greater cooperation--and of course we have noted the change of
    a--the wonderful change that we have seen in Serbia--what about
    the idea of a vision of these states working together as a
    solution, as compared to going to the EU?
        Mr. Volker. Sir, if I may, a great American poet wrote,
    ``Good fences make good neighbors.'' And I think that is what
    we are seeing. As long as they are independent and confident,
    then they can work together. And I don't see any prospect of
    regional-only cooperation. I see the prospect of growing
    cooperation within the framework of being part of a mainstream
    of Europe. And I think that they do go hand in hand.
        The European Union has the ability to push for reforms and
    for progress, which the people and governments of the region
    may find difficult but be willing to do if they can be assured
    of access to that greater European family. That has always been
    the tradeoff. If it is just the countries in the region alone,
    they are going to act very independently because the worst
    atrocities in Europe since World War II took place there just
    15 years ago, and that level of confidence isn't going to be
    there without the European Union.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. Thank you.
        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Ambassador. And I am going to
    excuse you and honor your time, and again thank you.
        Mr. Volker. Mr. Chairman, thank you for having me. Ranking
    Member, thank you.
        Mr. Carnahan. I want to turn next to Ms. Gilmore and follow
    up and say I really think you hit the nail on the head in
    describing some of these very complicated issues in the span of
    5 minutes. That is remarkable in itself. But I really want to
    get into some more detail about the issue of people feeling
    left behind, whether it is the disadvantaged communities,
    whether it is victims, and what are the most concrete steps
    that you think can be taken in order to address that. Because
    to me, when people don't feel the benefits of that peace
    process clearly, it can lead to despair, to violence, and
    undoing so much of the good work that has come about.
        But I think we are missing the boat if we can't focus and
    address the needs of some of those communities that are being
    left behind. So if you could address that, please.
        Ms. Gilmore. The life of socioeconomic deprivation in those
    communities that bore the brunt of the conflict and in which we
    are seeing renewed violence, in my mind could be quite easily
    addressed by implementing some of the measures either that we
    have in place or that were promised as part of the agreement.
    And even looking at it in sort of economic terms, the levels of
    investment that are coming into Northern Ireland need to be
    targeted. We have an antipoverty strategy, we have a statutory
    equality duty which requires all government policy to be
    assessed for its impact across a range of grounds. And in terms
    of the resources that are coming into Northern Ireland, or even
    the resources that we currently have, if those analyses were
    being properly carried out and properly targeted, then we
    should start to see some impact in these deprived communities.
        So we need to look at how we break the cycle of long-term
    unemployment, for example, and if new businesses and new job
    opportunities are coming into Belfast or coming into other
    parts of Northern Ireland, how we can start to offer employment
    opportunities in those areas where long-term unemployment is a
    problem.
        Likewise we need to just invest more in the social aspect
    of those communities. Many of them are sort of the very
    communities that experienced the brunt of the conflict and they
    haven't seen the same level of regeneration and investment. We
    have a number of regeneration initiatives that have been
    proposed and master plans for redevelopment of some of these
    areas, and it is important that the communities themselves
    participate in discussions about what they want their
    communities to look like.
        The point has been raised about the importance of civil
    society and a strong civil society. And in Northern Ireland we
    actually do have a very strong civil society, but it is
    bringing a civil society voice and bringing those people into
    the room by giving them a say in how to improve their
    communities that is important.
        Mr. Carnahan. And what does that engagement look like now?
    Because I guess even if you have great engagement, if you don't
    have follow-on results, I think that even adds to the despair.
    So how do you judge that level of engagement now in terms of
    what is going on?
        Ms. Gilmore. I think it has been problematic to some
    extent, because we have a model or method of consultation where
    communities are consulted about the kinds of change they would
    like to see in their areas. But you don't see the results of
    that consultation coming through. There's no follow-through. I
    think what is needed more is a model of participation, if you
    like, active community participation in decisions because, as
    you have sort of hinted at, the risk is that you build people's
    expectations up, so you tell them they have a voice in their
    community. But if they don't then see the follow-through, that
    results in even more disillusionment among those communities.
        Mr. Carnahan. Okay. Thank you.
        I am going to yield to Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. So how much have we spent in Northern
    Ireland?
        Ms. Gilmore. I think, Mr. Chair mentioned that it was $500
    million.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. $500 million over a 10-year period. You
    know, I remember the frustration over the years with what was
    going on in Ireland, and I spent a lot of time and a lot of
    focus on it. As many Americans, I have a sort of a natural
    attachment to Ireland and the people of Ireland. My middle name
    is Tyrone. However, it is not from County Tyrone, I am afraid.
    I am afraid my mother named me after Dana Andrews and Tyrone
    Powers, who were the movie stars of the year that I was born.
    But I do enjoy the Irish culture and have studied the Irish
    culture.
        What I noted was the greatest--and correct me if I am
    wrong--really, the greatest strides toward peace happened when
    women in Ireland put their foot down and worked together to try
    to create a peace there, and I believe that was back in the
    1970s. Can we really make a difference from this level, or does
    it really have to come from within? And as I say, I believe
    these two women received Nobel Peace Prizes back in 1976, which
    they rightly deserved.
        Ms. Gilmore. I think both levels are needed. Both
    approaches are needed. It is very important to have the
    grassroots movement and participation in building
    constitutional reform, for example, in building peace. And I
    think, without question, the strong and vibrant civil society
    that existed in Northern Ireland, the likes of the women's
    movements, human rights organizations, strong community
    associations really helped to maintain some sense of normality
    in a very violent conflict, and then were absolutely
    instrumental in helping to build the peace and help then
    maintain the peace.
        And in things like constitutional reform then and
    development of bills of rights and things, I think it is very
    important that you have that grassroots investment. But it is
    clear as well that you need the higher level of political
    intervention. I think that is very much the lesson in Northern
    Ireland in relation to, for example, specifically, the
    relationship with the United States, I think, the support that
    was given to the British and Irish Governments in their efforts
    to drive forward a peace process by the American administration
    and Congress was essential.
        But also, it was the influence that was exerted on our
    local political parties as well, and it is the support in
    driving them forward and making them aware that this wasn't
    just about them, that there were people around the world who
    were interested in seeing peace delivered and peace sustained.
    So I think it has to be a combination of political leadership
    and fundamentally grassroots participation.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me ask a you specific question about,
    because we just had this Bloody Sunday report, et cetera,
    during the time of conflict, there has been really criminal
    behavior on the part of two parties, not just one. I mean, the
    British Government certainly stepped over the boundary, and
    there is no doubt about that. But there is also no doubt that
    the British Government was facing a group of people who were
    also stepping over the bounds of acceptable resistance. They
    were murdering innocent people in pubs and elsewhere with
    bombs, et cetera.
        Do you believe that we should be, now, the position should
    be, we finally put an end to this, and we should just have,
    forget the past, we should just, at this point, not forget the
    past, but just a general amnesty for people who are on both
    sides of this rotten conflict where people were doing bad
    things to innocent people?
        Ms. Gilmore. I think that was the hope when our agreement
    was reached and it is arguable that perhaps, it wouldn't have
    been possible to reach agreement on how to deal with our past
    at the time our peace agreement was reached, and maybe that is
    why it wasn't addressed. So the agreement sought to draw that
    line and say, the past has been terrible, let's move on, build
    our future.
        But Northern Ireland has a very, very small society: 1.7
    million people, very small, local close-knit communities, and
    lost over 3,500 lives with tens of thousands injured. And in
    such a small geographic location with such small close-knit
    communities, everybody felt the impact of the conflict in some
    way, physically and mentally and emotionally. And for those
    people, the past is very much present, and the trauma that they
    went through is still very much part of their lives.
        And you can't turn around to victims of conflict and say,
    you must forget about what has happened to you and move on to
    the future. People have questions that they want answered
    across all sides in terms of what happened to their loved ones
    and what happened to their families. And I think we are
    increasingly seeing the need to provide some answers to
    questions to give some people closure, because they are not
    going to invest in the future if they haven't been able to deal
    with the past.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I think answering questions and bringing
    closure to people's consciousness about their loved ones who
    are no longer with them is really an important factor.
        I think that necessarily establishing a concept of justice
    may or may not be. You know, in the Civil War of the United
    States, we had tremendous slaughter on both sides. And yet, I
    think President Lincoln's, one of his most famous words were
    ``charity for all and malice toward none.'' Is that the right
    quote? And I think that is the way you end conflicts, is that
    eventually people understand that bad things are done on both
    sides. This isn't necessarily a case like, in Bosnia, for
    example, where you actually had leaders deciding that they are
    going to systematically go out and slaughter people in order to
    terrorize the whole population.
        I think that--and you can correct me if I am wrong--that in
    the Northern Ireland situation, it was basically where you had
    people who are out of control and both in the constabulary area
    and both in the, I say private sector for lack of a better
    term, for what was going on among the IRA, so perhaps people
    need to be held accountable for what they do officially, and
    are--but perhaps people should be forgiven if they have lost
    control and the crimes are committed during conflicts.
        Ms. Gilmore. I think there are three key elements that any
    process to deal with the past should comprise. I think it has
    to be a mixture of truth, justice and then forgiveness and
    reconciliation.
        Not everybody in Northern Ireland wants justice. Some of
    them just want the truth about what happened. And you know, the
    reality is so much time has passed now. Key witnesses will be
    dying, and information is gone. So I think people realize that
    actually the reality of prosecutions is getting further and
    further away the further we get from our conflict.
        But I think the important thing is that you take a victim-
    centered approach so that whoever is engaging with the process
    to deal with the past, if they are a family who want justice,
    that they at least have an option of pursuing that route. If
    they are a family who just wants truth, that they have the
    option of pursuing that route if they want forgiveness, too. So
    it is providing the options and focusing on the people who have
    actually been impacted by the conflict.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Truth and justice. That is interesting.
    Thank you very much.
        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
        And I wanted to turn to our other witnesses, Mr. Serwer,
    and wanted to see if you would elaborate on actions that can
    and should be taken in Bosnia after the elections. You
    mentioned a bottom-up approach that the EU and the U.S. could
    help facilitate. Describe what you think that would look like
    in an ideal situation and how that would work well. And then I
    want to follow up with Ms. Howard on that as well.
        Mr. Serwer. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        I hope you won't mind if I go back to two formalities I may
    have skipped when I first spoke. One is that I should have said
    these are my personal views, and the other is that I have a
    full text that I hope I can submit for the record.
        Mr. Carnahan. Without objection.
        Mr. Serwer. Thank you. I think when it comes to
    constitutional reform, the two efforts that have been
    undertaken, one led by the U.S. Institute of Peace and another
    led by the State Department, have been entirely top-down. The
    people of Bosnia have been completely left out of the picture.
        My view is that the U.S. and EU should take relatively
    small amounts of money and sponsor throughout Bosnia town
    meetings for discussion of constitutional reform. In the
    meanwhile, the EU should lay out the criteria that the Bosnian
    constitution is going to have to meet. I don't think we should
    lay out specific amendments to that Constitution as we have
    done twice in the past and failed twice in the past.
        The EU can tell the Bosnians, your Constitution is going to
    have to do this, it is going to have to do that. The court has
    already told them they have to get rid of the discriminatory
    provisions. That would be an adequate basis for town hall
    meetings all over Bosnia, and an effort to generate a truly
    grassroots discussion and grassroots pressure for
    constitutional reform, which has been completely lacking,
    except really in the Bosniak community and sometimes in the
    Croat community--where the grassroots effort is for a third
    entity, which in my view would not be the right direction.
        We do this kind of thing, in the U.S. all the time. It
    shouldn't be hard to picture what kind of discussion we could
    generate in Bosnia.
        But I wanted to also comment, if you will allow me, on a
    couple of things Kurt said because I might differ a little bit.
    I am not completely encouraged by Belgrade's current attitude,
    either on Bosnia or, in particular, on Kosovo.
        On Bosnia, the official position is a strong ``one Bosnia''
    position. But, frankly, Belgrade is doing everything it can to
    support the efforts of Republika Srpska to continue to
    establish de facto autonomy and even independence.
        A second point I would like to disagree on a little bit.
    Kurt suggested that conflict was very unlikely. I think it is
    not imminent, but I think we would be making a grave mistake to
    ignore the possibility of resurgent conflict in Bosnia. In
    particular, the calling of a referendum on the High Rep powers
    or on the independence for Republika Srpska, in my view, would
    be viewed by the Bosniaks, and many Croats and Serbs who were
    loyal to the Sarajevo Government as well, as a casus belli. And
    I think we need to be sure that we can prevent the holding of
    the referendum in Republika Srpska alone, which is a territory
    ethnically cleansed and with a population that does not
    represent the views of those who lived there before the war.
        Finally, I would like to make the point that I think what
    we need is not so much U.S. re-engagement. I think the embassy
    thinks it has been engaged the whole time. The people in the
    High Rep's Office think they have been engaged the whole time.
    But we have been engaged across too broad a front of issues,
    and you lose your focus when you engage on too many issues.
        Our embassy in Sarajevo has 9 political officers. This is a
    very large political section in an embassy of a country of 4.5
    million people. I have proposed specifically that a third of
    those political officers be given over to the EU Special
    Representative if, in fact, we can have a super EUSR, one with
    real powers at his or her disposal.
        I also think that Europeans should start cutting their
    bilateral embassies there. There is a cacophony of
    international voices in Sarajevo. We need a unity of
    international voices in Sarajevo. And that doesn't mean
    disengaging. That means unifying and sharpening our focus.
        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
        Ms. Howard, to my question that I presented to Mr. Serwer,
    in terms of how, what he described in terms of that bottom-up
    engagement, how you think that, as a practical matter, would
    work, and what kind of impact you think that would have
    compared to prior reform efforts.
        Ms. Howard. Speaking of unity of voices, it is always great
    to see someone who agrees so much with you, but then there is
    not much for me to add. But I will try definitely.
        I absolutely can agree that this has to be a bottom-up
    approach. I even said that in my testimony last year to the
    U.S. Helsinki Commission, that it has to be a domestically
    driven process.
        Previous processes, I think one of the reasons that have
    contributed to their failure has been that they have really
    been top-down and that they were only discussed with a handful
    of politicians, which not only then made them vulnerable to
    manipulation in public, because to this day quite a few
    Bosnians, citizens, don't even know what is contained in those
    packages that were proposed to Bosnian political leaders to
    adopt this constitution. And so this is one problem.
        And the second problem is that often in these processes,
    the emphasis is placed on reaching a political deal and
    basically negotiating it down to the point of least common
    denominator and not so much focusing on what will make the
    country truly functional, a truly functional democracy, because
    to obtain long-term stability and prosperity, this it what we
    need to have, is a functional country.
        So, in terms of how does this look in the future, I mean, I
    can't provide a recipe that would work because I think that
    really then maybe I wouldn't be sitting here if this were so
    easily obtainable and possible.
        But I will agree with Mr. Serwer that the role of the
    international community should be in providing incentives,
    first of all, by tying some of these reform processes through
    the prospect, which has to be a tangible and achievable
    prospect, of EU and NATO membership. That is one.
        And second is to provide expertise, because, and this is
    the extent to which the international community should get
    involved, because to provide ready-made solutions is, like Mr.
    Serwer said, is really not desirable.
        I think that civil society has a great role to play in this
    process immediately following elections. I am certain that
    there will be an opportunity created and momentum for change. I
    am not talking about necessarily political change and the
    outcome of elections. I am just saying about an opportunity to
    change the way that the current system is working or actually
    not working.
        I can say specifically, for example, in the case of the
    National Endowment for Democracy, that we are working with some
    of the civil society organizations to open up this process, and
    something that very much looks like what Mr. Serwer is
    proposing, and that is a series of town hall meetings,
    consultations with civil society and the media and getting
    everybody involved and getting this to be an all-inclusive
    process, in which people can, not only be fully aware of what
    these packages contain and what these processes contain, but
    can also contribute to it, because after all, this is the only
    way that this new system, if it were to be devised, can have a
    popular legitimacy, which it doesn't have currently because the
    international document fashioned in Dayton is, not only was it
    never subject to ratification by the Bosnian Parliament, but it
    remains to be only an English language original. It has never
    been translated into the languages spoken in the region.
        Just to one point, I don't know if this has answered your
    questions or if I should elaborate more, but I would also touch
    on this issue of security. It is in my written testimony. I
    haven't had a chance to mention it. I would also be very
    careful in dismissing a possibility of violence and conflict. I
    am certain that if it were to happen, which I am not predicting
    that it will, but if it were to happen, it would not be at the
    scale that we have seen in the early 1990s.
        But we cannot just estimate that this is not a possibility
    or yes a possibility, because there has not really been a
    systematic attempt to assess what is the true security threat
    in Bosnia. There have been several major incidents of violence,
    not necessarily interethnic violence, but they could have had a
    potential to spread out.
        One of the most recent ones I would like to point out is
    the June 2010 bombing of the police station in Bugojno, in
    which one police officer died and six were wounded. And this
    was the most serious and the largest security threat Bosnia has
    faced since the 1990s. It could very well spiral out of
    control. And as Ambassador Volker has pointed out, there are
    very few soldiers on the ground that would be able to contain
    this type of violence.
        Mr. Carnahan. One other thing I wanted to follow up on is
    the work reaching out to young people in Bosnia. I had a chance
    on my last visit to go to one of the local universities and
    talk with a very diverse group of students there. And they
    seemed very progressive and, you know, very concerned about
    their future. And I would just be really interested in your
    comments about where you think young people are to the extent
    of their involvement in these elections and to the extent you
    think they would be involved and engaged in some kind of a
    bottom-up process on reform.
        Ms. Howard. I have to say I am very optimistic but also
    very pessimistic.
        The reason for pessimism, let me start with bad news first,
    is something that also Mr. Serwer has touched upon, and that is
    the educational system, which is deeply divided, deeply
    segregated. And what it is producing is new generations of
    people who do not know each other. They don't understand each
    other. They are taught to hate each other in some cases, or
    simply do not understand.
        I think it is unacceptable to have something as we have in
    Bosnia, well over 50 schools which are considered to be two
    schools under one roof, or as Mr. Serwer has mentioned,
    separate but equal type of system in which children of
    different ethnic backgrounds are being taught separately and
    are attending classes separately. I think, in the long term,
    this is going to produce generations that might not be able to
    live together.
        However, at the same time, I do have a lot of hope and
    optimism about the generations that are now coming of voting
    age and are university students, like you mentioned yourself,
    those that in some ways were touched by the war but, on the
    other hand, did not, perhaps, were not indoctrinated by some of
    this, the educational system that I have just described.
        Civil society has, many observers have said this, has
    engaged in pre-election processes to the extent it has never
    done before. I find it is very encouraging to see how
    innovative civil society, especially youth organizations, have
    been to try to emphasize accountability of politicians and try
    to basically stop them from hiding behind the curtain of
    territorial issues and ethnic issues, as they have done in
    2006.
        For example, I would just point out, you may find it
    interesting, that they have even borrowed from the United
    States' experiences and have developed a Bosnian version of a
    Politifact Web site in which they are looking at the statements
    made by politicians back in 2006 and basically fact-checking
    them for consistency, for the level of--it has been a highly
    contested Web site among the parties, as is to be expected,
    which do not like to be so deeply scrutinized. But I do really
    believe that this is going to contribute to--as I mentioned in
    my testimony, NED has supported quite a few efforts to get out
    the vote.
        As in most countries in the region, youth apathy is at a
    very high level. Very few youth vote. We, of course, believe
    always that it is the youth that brings the voice of
    moderation, as you yourself said, and that increasing youth
    voter turnout would actually contribute in creating a more
    moderate political climate in Bosnia. And I am really hopeful
    about that.
        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you. I apologize. I am over my time.
        But I want to recognize the gentleman from Minnesota.
        Mr. Ellison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And good morning. Thank you all for your very insightful
    and informative presentations. I had some lengthy conversation
    with members of my Bosnian community in Minnesota and then even
    in New York. I happened to be in New York, and they sat me down
    and talked for quite a long time. I took a lot of notes.
        Obviously, the questions that they asked me to ask you are
    going to be informed by their own experiences, but I did
    promise them that I would ask the experts. So, here are some of
    the questions they asked me to ask you, and I am just going to
    read them as they came to me.
        I recently met with a group of--well, that is my
    statement--i recently met with a group of Bosnian Americans.
    According to them, there were recent elections in which Bosnian
    Muslims won the elections but were later ruled invalid. Is
    there any truth to this statement, and can you tell me any more
    about it? Do you know anything about this?
        Ms. Howard. I can't think of what this could be referring
    to because the latest election--Bosnia had a general election.
    Presidential and parliamentary were in 2006, and the local
    elections were in October 2008. I was in Bosnia at the time of
    the local elections, held now almost 2 years ago, and to my
    knowledge, I don't remember them being contested. They have
    been ruled free and fair. The 2006 elections have been ruled
    free and fair by the OSCE with some small irregularities.
        The local elections were not observed by the internationals
    but have also been deemed to be free and fair. And I don't know
    if there is something that I am missing, but to my knowledge,
    this seems to not be----
        Mr. Ellison. I appreciate you telling me that. That is the
    feedback I will share with them. But they also talked,
    described at length a situation where they had some parties
    that were contesting in the election, and that somehow the
    election authority invalidated one particular party that ended
    up with more votes. And this was, I think this was around the
    area of Sandzak. Are you familiar with this area?
        Ms. Howard. I can address that. I think I do--they were the
    elections for the National Minority Councils in Serbia which
    were held on June 6. And indeed, yes, those elections were
    contested. There were three, so to say, players or groups that
    were participating in these elections in the Sandzak area.
    Sandzak area is basically a part of southwest Serbia that is
    largely inhabited by a Bosniak community. And the group that
    has won the most seats in these elections has not been able to
    constitute the Minority Council as they were supposed to.
        There are various versions of why this happened, and it is
    a highly contested issue indeed. And I think in that case, I
    think the only thing that I would point out, it is an area in
    the Balkans right now that we should be closely watching, that
    an area for which we should encourage the Government of Serbia
    to approach a bit more constructively and provide the kind of
    support that the leaders and the civil society need over there.
        And in addition, I would also expect and hope that the
    religious leaders, especially the Islamic leaders in the
    region, would be encouraged to provide voices of moderation to
    those in Sandzak in order to resolve this issue and avoid any
    escalation of it.
        Mr. Ellison. Is there anything the United States should or
    should not do? I mean, maybe we should just stay out of it. But
    do you have any advice for how we might approach it?
        Ms. Howard. Well, at this point, I think, just in terms of
    encouraging the voices of moderation and encouraging the
    Government of Serbia to approach this issue in a constructive
    manner and to basically negotiate with all the parties involved
    to make sure that this does not escalate to the point at which
    we do need to get involved in a way in which I think you mean.
    But at this point, I think only in diplomatic means, just
    encourage these.
        Mr. Ellison. Okay. Thank you. That is very helpful. I
    appreciate your perspective.
        Another question they asked me is whether you all can share
    your views about the educational system. You have already
    touched on it quite a bit. Some of the people who I met with
    who are Bosniaks said that they were not allowed to learn about
    their heritage, their legacy. Could you address this issue?
        Mr. Serwer. Yes, there are parts of Bosnia in which that
    might well be true. There are other parts of Bosnia in which
    Serbs wouldn't be able to learn about their heritage. This is a
    very difficult subject. It is not easy to fix a school system
    after war.
        But what many Bosnian children are being taught today is
    encouraging ethnic tension and strife. And what we really need
    to do is work for schools in which all Bosnians, of whatever
    ethnicity, will feel comfortable.
        USIP, my institute, has in fact sponsored a good deal of
    work on the history of recent developments in the Balkans. That
    work has been supported also by National Endowment for
    Democracy and The Balkan Trust.
        There are common narratives that can be taught. And if
    there aren't common narratives, sometimes there are parallel
    narratives that can be taught. It is important to learn your
    own narrative and important to learn somebody else's narrative.
        We can't get at this problem bilaterally as the United
    States. The OSCE is responsible for the international efforts
    for education in Bosnia, and I think we should reactivate the
    OSCE and provide it with strong support to eliminate ``separate
    but equal'' and the teaching of narratives that can only
    encourage future conflict.
        Mr. Ellison. Forgive my ignorance. I don't know what OSCE
    stands for.
        Mr. Serwer. I am sorry. OSCE is the Organization for
    Security and Cooperation in Europe. It is the Helsinki
    Agreement organization, to speak in Cold War terms about it.
        Mr. Ellison. Okay. That is fine.
        Ms. Howard.
        Ms. Howard. I would only add, because civil society was
    mentioned several times, that civil society is really trying
    very hard to provide, to supplement and address these
    deficiencies in the educational system by providing some other
    innovative methods. One of them is this approach to historic
    reconciliation by teaching common narratives or even providing
    multi perspective historic lessons. Another one is by, for
    example, using documentary films about human rights in schools.
    One NED grantee, for example, has used animation to devise a
    digital interactive map about what happened in Srebrenica day
    by day, which is now widely available online and in digital
    form to citizens not only in Bosnia but also Serbia. And this
    organization, Youth Initiative Human Rights, who is also
    grantee, I believe, of USIP, is now going around schools in
    Bosnia and Serbia as well to educate their peers on what
    happened.
        So, until there is a better educational system in place,
    formal educational system, civil society is really trying to do
    the best that they can to address some of these deficiencies.
        Mr. Ellison. Mr. Chair, I have got two more questions. Do I
    have time to ask those?
        Mr. Carnahan. I think we are good on time. Go ahead. We
    missed you on some earlier rounds, so we will give you some
    extra.
        Mr. Ellison. So, is there the political wherewithal to help
    supplement these better educational approaches that you all are
    proposing? Because my question is, I love your ideas, and I
    think they are good. But I guess my question is, they do
    require somebody to implement them, and do the people who have
    the power, are they willing to support these kinds of
    approaches?
        Mr. Serwer. Mr. Ellison, I am afraid the short answer to
    your question today is not the people currently in power. They
    have not been willing and have, in fact, built a system of
    separate but equal quite intentionally. I have some hope that
    the early October elections, October 3, will bring to power a
    government that has different attitudes on the constitutional
    and educational issues.
        I think a great deal depends on how the EU and the US treat
    these issues and what expectations we lay down for the
    Bosnians. If we are clear that separate but equal is not a way
    you get into the European Union; if we are clear that the
    entity veto process in the Bosnian constitution is not
    acceptable for a member of the European Union, the Bosnians
    will adjust to those expectations.
        In addition, frankly, there are some political parties more
    open to that adjustment than others. I hope to see more of them
    in power and fewer of those who have become really stalwart
    defenders of separation.
        Mr. Ellison. Some of the people I talked to demonstrated a
    lot of confidence in the political party connected to Mr.
    Djindjic. Are you familiar with this? They felt that that
    political party was more open. Are they viable? I mean, do you
    agree with that assessment?
        Mr. Serwer. Mr. Djindjic's party is a party in Serbia, not
    in Bosnia, and it has no clear equivalent in Bosnia.
        I think it is fair to say the Bosnian Serb population is
    right now heavily dominated by ethno-nationalist parties, which
    do not share the commitment to the EU and to democracy that Mr.
    Djindjic demonstrated. Even his own party in Serbia today, I
    would say, does not share entirely his vision, in particular on
    the subject of Kosovo.
        Mr. Ellison. Okay. And my last question is, for these
    folks, and I, again, I talked to them in Minnesota and in New
    York, and as you know, there is a large Bosnian community in
    St. Louis and also in Chicago, and actually Bosnian Americans
    are really getting to be quite a political entity on their own.
    What role do you see for Bosnian Americans, or maybe the
    Bosnian diaspora, writ large, in helping to facilitate and
    improve quality of life in Bosnia? Because a lot of them have
    expressed interest; I mean, many of them, you know, their feet
    might be in New York, but their hearts are back there. So do
    you have any recommendation on what Bosnian community members,
    how they might make a positive contribution?
        Ms. Howard. Well, several. One is very simple, and if I can
    just say it so simply, send money. Because I will agree with
    Ms. Gilmore is that the economy is very important in bringing
    peace and stability. And at this point, in a so dysfunctional
    and divided country, it is very difficult to attract foreign
    direct investment. And Bosnia has really suffered economically
    because of its unstable political situation. So remittances
    for--from their families living abroad.
        And I would only just mention one large other community
    that we shouldn't forget, and that is Atlanta, which I think
    also has a sizeable community there.
        But I do think that this is definitely one way of helping.
    The other way, and this is where things can be a bit sensitive
    sometimes with the diaspora, and they can play a very
    constructive role, but again, also play a very dangerous role
    in their rhetoric and these messages that are being sent back
    to their families and either supporting reconciliation, but
    also not necessarily providing a very constructive voice
    because we have, as we know, I think, in many diasporas, this
    is the case, diasporas can be a bit more radical sometimes than
    their counterparts living in the country and actually being
    directly touched by the situation.
        So, in that sense, the community here should remain
    engaged, both, like I said, financially, but also they should
    really continue to care, to encourage their representatives
    here in the United States to remain engaged and I think just be
    constructive and recognize that it is a very fragile situation
    there, and that their voices can contribute and should not,
    definitely, try to add to the fires of this nationalist
    rhetoric.
        Mr. Ellison. I will let them know.
        And Ms. Gilmore, forgive me for not asking you many
    questions. I didn't talk to my northern Irish community much in
    preparation for this meeting. But I learned a lot from what you
    shared with us and I thank you for it.
        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
        And I am going to use your question though to give to Ms.
    Gilmore later. But we may have another member joining us we
    will try to get in.
        We expect some votes on the floor coming up. But we are
    going to try to go to Mr. Rohrabacher next, and we may be
    hearing some bells going off soon, but we still have a few more
    minutes.
        Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. What language do they speak in Bosnia, and
    is it different than is spoken in Serbia and Croatia? Do the
    Bosnian Serbs and the other Bosnians speak a different
    language?
        Ms. Howard. It is a very tough question to answer. I have
    to say, before the falling apart of Yugoslavia, the language
    was called Serbo-Croatian, and these languages are considered
    to be dialects.
        But I think that today the most, how would I say it,
    broadly accepted answer to this question would be that there is
    a Bosnian Croatian and Serbian language. And the differences
    between these languages I always like to say are the same as
    differences between Irish English, British English, and
    American English. But I think that it is to understand if you
    understand the nuances and the historical background of what
    happened, it is fully understandable that each of the self-
    defining groups likes to have language as part of their
    identity. And regardless of what one might think of what the
    true differences between these languages are, we should really
    respect that desire by ethnic groups to have their own
    language.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Correct me if I am wrong. But it is really
    hard to tell someone from Northern Ireland and from southern
    Ireland by their accent. At least it is hard for me. I am down
    at the pub, and I can't really tell who I should be telling
    what joke to on either side of me because I can't tell which
    one's from Northern Ireland and which one's from southern
    Ireland. Isn't that the case as well? I mean, there is not
    really much a difference there.
        Ms. Howard. Well, you can tell by dialect whether someone
    is from Serbia or Croatia. In Bosnia, it is much more difficult
    to say. There are some slight differences and nuances, but
    people have--it all depends on where one went to school, for
    example.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, my guess is there is probably less
    distinction between those people than there is, in terms of
    their language, than there is between someone who comes from
    Mississippi and New York. And that is just a thought. And of
    course, I think the people of Mississippi did have a fight with
    the people of New York one time about 150 years ago, and it was
    pretty bad, and it was pretty tough.
        So, but when people speak the same language, it seems to me
    that opens up doors, especially with the Internet. And you were
    discussing how the Internet may be playing a positive role. If
    you have people speaking the same language who can confront
    each other over the Internet and confront ideas and also, not
    only confronting ideas, but view alternatives through the
    Internet that they couldn't necessarily talk out among
    themselves, that offers some hope there.
        I am going to ask you some specific questions from my
    knowledge base here. Now, in Srebrenica, Bosnia, that is an
    area of Bosnia that this ethnic cleansing took place. That is
    correct?
        Ms. Howard. Srebrenica?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Right. Srebrenica. Got it. I am
    getting the pronunciations here. In Srebrenica, what is the
    population of Srebrenica?
        Ms. Howard. I really don't know at this point, I have to
    say, and it is also difficult to say what it was pre-war
    because what we have to understand is that Srebrenica was a
    protected enclave where refugees and displaced persons from
    other areas have all converged.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I remember the history, yes.
        Ms. Howard. So it is very difficult. I don't know what the
    current population is.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, we know that thousands of people
    were slaughtered there, and that----
        Ms. Howard. Close to 8,000.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. One of the great crimes against humanity
    happened there.
        But today, it is basically a Serbian area, but you
    mentioned this other area in Serbia that is Bosnian. What is
    the population of that area?
        Ms. Howard. I really would have----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Is there some reason why the people
    who are Bosnians who want to be part of Bosnia but live in
    Serbia can't be part of Bosnia, and the Serbians who want to be
    part of Serbia can't be part of Serbia, rather than simply
    trying to create everybody who happens to live within a certain
    boundary has an education that eliminates their ethnic
    identification?
        Ms. Howard. Well, it is a very, of course, complicated
    issue.
        And I think one of the first things that comes to mind is
    that these areas are not ethnically pure. Even when we have a
    majority in a certain area, and this is an issue that I think
    in any discussion on territorial swap between Serbia and Kosovo
    always is brought up, is that these areas that would be
    attached or detached are simply not ethnically pure. And then
    there is the question of what happens to those who are not of
    the majority.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, the only question is whether or not
    the overwhelming number of people in a given area want to be or
    do not want to be part of a government.
        Now I will have to admit that what I am talking about is a
    theory of bringing peace that is not in vogue. And in fact,
    what is in vogue is more of the centralized approach; let's get
    everybody in the EU. Let's try to get--instead of having
    recognition of these ethnic differences, let's try to go in to
    centralization rather than decentralization as a solution.
        And because, in Kosovo and in Serbia, there is also a
    situation where you have got a lot of people on the northern
    side of the river are all Serbs, but they have got to live in
    Kosovo, and there is a valley in Serbia that is made up almost
    all of Kosovars who would rather be in Kosovo.
        And why aren't we pursuing the possibility of eliminating
    conflict by actually having trades in what you call sovereignty
    of a given territory because the people there don't want to be
    part of that country?
        Mr. Serwer. Mr. Rohrabacher, maybe I can try an answer to
    this question.
        Mr. Carnahan. Excuse me, if I may, I am going to ask you to
    make your answer as short as you can because we are short on
    time, and we want to have some time for Mr. Crowley.
        Mr. Serwer. Okay. The short answer is, you end up having to
    move very large numbers of people at very high expense and
    probably having to force people to move.
        And it would really be catastrophic for the region as a
    whole. If this process starts in one place, it will spread and
    unquestionably lead to violence.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, if you are not moving, you are part
    of a country you don't want to be part of, as compared to
    trying to say that the vast majority of people of an area want
    to be part of another country. I mean, this is like, and I will
    have to tell you, when I have Indian representatives here, and
    I respect the Government of India, and I think the Indians
    should be our best friends. And I recognize the challenge that
    they have had in keeping their country together. But there is
    the people of Kashmir may not want to be part of India.
        And I would think the solution to a lot of these problems
    that we have been talking about is actually giving people in an
    area who represent the vast majority of opinion of a given
    area, give them a referendum and let them decide. And then that
    seems to be a way that you are going to calm people down,
    rather than you are saying it is going to make--it is going to
    create such a disruption of the status quo that violence will
    be more likely. I think it may be a disruption to the status
    quo that makes reconciliation and peaceful living much more
    likely.
        So we will see. I mean, that is just an idea to explore
    that I don't think that people have actually looked at.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
        And next, I want to----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. By the way, Mr. Chairman, one last
    thought. That may go for Northern Ireland, too. It may say that
    there are counties in Northern Ireland that would like to be
    part of greater Ireland rather than part of Great Britain.
    Perhaps if there is a county there that votes that way, maybe
    they should be permitted to go in that direction, too. Just a
    thought.
        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
        I want to recognize a member of our full committee for
    joining us on the subcommittee today, Joe Crowley from New
    York, who is also co-chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on Irish
    Affairs.
        Welcome.
        Mr. Crowley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me thank you from the outset for holding this hearing
    today, both yourself and Mr. Rohrabacher, both friends of mine,
    and I am very pleased that they are both giving this attention
    that I think it deserves on all fronts, but particularly as it
    pertains to the North of Ireland and the progress of peace
    there.
        I am thrilled that we are having this hearing today on the
    peace process that was established earlier this year or
    furthered earlier this year through the Hillsborough Castle
    Agreement.
        It is no secret that the devolution of policing and justice
    was one of the most challenging pieces of the puzzle that has
    yet to be fully completed. And it is a tribute to all those who
    were involved, including, I believe, Secretary Clinton, that
    the agreement came to fruition.
        Most importantly, devolution of policing and justice
    represents a victory for all those who support the peace
    struggle for change and reconciliation in the north.
        I believe that an essential next step forward is to
    establish a strong and binding bill of rights for the North of
    Ireland as envisioned in the Good Friday Agreement and advanced
    by the Saint Andrew Agreement, a bill of rights particular to
    the circumstances of the north, and I would like to go into a
    little bit more of that, would help build on the peace process
    and ensure that a serious return to the past can be avoided.
        I wrote to then Prime Minister Gordon Brown earlier this
    year suggesting exactly this course of action. I believe that
    if leaders backtrack on the Good Friday Agreement's promise of
    a bill of rights for the north, it will send the wrong signal
    to those who have worked so hard to bring an end to violence
    and create a future of peace.
        At the same time, we have more work to continue to do here
    in the U.S. It is essential for the United States to continue
    its commitment to the peace process, and I believe one aspect
    of that is by continued support for the International Fund for
    Ireland. This small targeted investment has been extremely
    helpful in creating on-the-ground conditions for peace, and I
    am glad that the Congress continues to stand by that fund.
        There has been a tendency in some quarters to believe that
    the conflict in the North of Ireland is over. And one only
    needs to look at the violence of this past summer to give pause
    to that belief. We must not waiver in our commitment toward a
    lasting peace for all the people of the North of Ireland.
        With that, I would just direct to Ms. Gilmore, this
    December 10th will mark the second anniversary of the date that
    the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission gave its
    recommendations for a bill of rights for the north. This move
    was consistent with the Good Friday Agreement, as I mentioned
    before, and then proposed that the bill of rights for the north
    should include rights particular to the circumstances of the
    North of Ireland.
        Can you explain to us what those circumstances are and how
    having enumerated rights enshrined into a bill of rights
    addresses those concerns? If you can also enlighten us with
    what you believe are the reasons that the new British
    Government appears to be backtracking on the commitment to
    establishment of a bill of rights, and if that is so. And what
    role do you see the U.S. playing in this process? And what do
    you believe would be the result of not creating a specific bill
    of rights in the north? And is there strong support for that
    within a broad sector of the society of the North of Ireland?
        I also want to thank Father McManus as well as others who
    were here today applauding the efforts of this subcommittee
    today, and particularly yours, Mr. Carnahan, for having brought
    this hearing up today. Making reference, though, to the fact
    that there is so much embedded in the history between Ireland
    and Great Britain and I think as it pertains to the North of
    Ireland, we know the impact that the British Government had
    when it took some acknowledgment of its past mistakes
    pertaining to the Great Hunger. And I think that that was a
    watershed in terms of opening up a real full discussion and
    understanding of the problems. In that the Pope is now visiting
    the UK, it is bringing back a lot of the issues that I think
    fomented and really caused the divisions within Ireland.
        There is still the critical piece known as the Active
    Settlement of 1701, which really embedded within the British
    constitution much of the hatred that exists within the north
    today. And if you could address that. We are moving on one end,
    without addressing some more substantial or embedded pieces of
    the British constitution. If that is not addressed, is just
    moving toward a bill of rights enough, or do we need to address
    more issues within the British constitution itself?
        Ms. Gilmore. Thank you, Congressman Crowley.
        Thank you for your continued support and interest in
    Northern Ireland. It has been greatly appreciated.
        And to take each of your questions in turn quickly, the
    particular circumstances of Northern Ireland one could look at
    that very narrowly or one could look at it broadly. Narrowly,
    one could try to identify the very, very specific issues that
    divide us. Or one could look at it in terms of how the conflict
    has impacted Northern Ireland? What are the circumstances of
    Northern Ireland that could be related back to the conflict?
        And one then starts to look at issues of inequality and
    deprivation, of the huge impact on the mental health of the
    population of Northern Ireland, with 20 percent of people in
    Northern Ireland with a disability, many of whom acquired that
    disability through getting caught up in trouble in the
    conflict.
        So we believe that to take a very narrow approach and limit
    it to those very narrow things that would have divided people
    is actually going to be more divisive than by drawing us to the
    broader interpretation of the particular circumstances, and
    looking at the things that then could potentially unite people,
    where one would end up with a much more holistic bill of rights
    that everybody can identify with.
        In terms of the reasons why the United Kingdom is
    suggesting that the particular bill of rights for Northern
    Ireland, I would suggest that would be a very good question to
    ask the United Kingdom Government. We are very clear that what
    was required under the agreement was a particular bill of
    rights for Northern Ireland, and indeed, the Irish Government
    has made clear that a specific bill of rights for Northern
    Ireland is required, and it is not appropriate to deal with it
    within the UK context. I think that those are questions that
    need to be asked.
        The role of the U.S. now in terms of shoring up the support
    for a bill of rights, I think, the political support that has
    been shown by the U.S. over the years, both in supporting the
    governments and encouraging the political parties, and this
    links into your fifth question around support.
        There isn't cross-party political support in Northern
    Ireland for a bill of rights, but there is very deep and
    widespread cross-community support. Polling shows upwards of 80
    percent of people from right across communities in Northern
    Ireland support a bill of rights for Northern Ireland.
        It is so rare that we see such high levels of the
    agreement. So the cross-party support really belies the depth
    and breadth of discussions that have taken place across civil
    society and public.
        So I think, as has happened over the years, our political
    parties need to be brought along and coaxed. And I think the
    U.S. has played an extremely important role in doing that, and
    again, in supporting the Irish Government and putting pressure
    on the UK Government to deliver.
        In relation to the British constitutional issues, the Good
    Friday Agreement in some ways was Northern Ireland's
    constitutional document, and it was our way of trying to deal
    with some of those constitutional issues. And really, I suppose
    that where things are going to go in relation to that matter is
    not something I am particularly qualified to speak about. I
    would say, though, that a Bill of Rights actually would play a
    very important role in terms of trying to constitutionalize
    some of the rights that would prevail whether one was part of
    the United Kingdom or whether one was part of the Republic of
    Ireland or whether one just sees oneself as Northern Irish,
    that sets out rights that apply in terms of your humanity. I
    think it is very important to protect those rights no matter
    what the constitutional settlement may be. So I hope that
    answers some of your questions.
        Mr. Crowley. It does.
        If I could, I know time is of the essence, but I think it
    is also important to doubt note that the Scots-Irish tradition
    here in the United States take great credit and rightfully so
    for the establishment of the bill of rights in this country. So
    it is no wonder to me that people, aside from party
    affiliation, people themselves within Northern Ireland
    understand the rights that they all have, divine rights as
    embedded in their own constitution. It is no surprise to me.
        So that is a very welcomed response to the question. I
    appreciate that very much.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.
    And I agree, there is a greater role that we must continue to
    play, especially I believe hearing from the Scots-Irish
    tradition here in this country who helped establish our own
    bill of rights expressing that support for the people of
    Northern Ireland as well. So thank you.
        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Congressman Crowley.
        And I just want to wrap up real quickly a couple of things.
    And I promised I would follow up on Mr. Ellison's question
    about the role of the Irish Americans here in terms of
    supporting the process, and obviously, they have been very
    engaged in different organizations and speaking out.
        And the other--I will hit these quickly--the response and
    engagement of the younger generation of people in Northern
    Ireland that may not have lived through some of the worst of
    the conflict, how they have engaged in this. And finally,
    really, the role of women that were so critical in bringing the
    Good Friday Agreements together and their ongoing role in these
    efforts.
        Ms. Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Those are two very excellent questions.
        When I was listening to the answer in relation to young
    people in Bosnia, I was struck by some of the parallels
    because, of course, many young people in Northern Ireland did
    not live through our conflict. But what we are seeing with them
    is the transgenerational impact of the conflict.
        I think the government's own statistics show that one in
    five young people will present with mental health problems by
    the time they are 18, and those are young people who have grown
    up in families that have been deeply impacted by the conflict.
    So while these young people may not have lived through the
    conflict, they are very much feeling it in their families and
    in their communities. And yet mental health resources are not
    targeted directly at those communities.
        I think it is interesting to note that in the recent
    violence and public disorder that we have seen, that many young
    people have been involved in it, and indeed, many young people
    have been injured. There were two young people quite seriously
    injured by plastic bullets being shot by the police during
    public disorder over the summer.
        I would just link that back to my earlier point on the need
    to invest in those communities and the need to invest
    particularly in young people because if they are feeling left
    behind and their communities are not addressed, one can see
    then how they would be open for persuasion and manipulation,
    for want of a better word, by those who would seek to stir up
    discontent and disorder on the streets.
        So I think if young people don't feel listened to and don't
    feel included and don't feel part of the peace process, even
    though they weren't part of the conflict, there is a danger
    that they will go back to conflict. And I think that is
    something we need to be very careful about.
        In relation to the role of women, the women's sector is a
    very vibrant sector in Northern Ireland. I think what is
    probably most problematic in relation to women in Northern
    Ireland is the lack or the serious under representation of
    women in public life. And actually, our Good Friday Agreement
    particularly stipulated the inclusion of women in public life.
    And we, across the United Kingdom, have the lowest percentage
    and the lowest statistics of involvement of women in, for
    example, our local councils and in government. And in senior
    positions in our civil service and in the administration, there
    is a very serious under representation of women. So women are
    still very involved at civil society level, but they haven't
    got through to the sort of higher levels.
        I believe the commitments that were made in the agreement
    in relation to increasing the participation of women in public
    life very much remain to be fulfilled. I think there is an onus
    on our assembly and our executive and our elected politicians
    to take more active steps to increase the participation of
    women in society in Northern Ireland.
        Mr. Carnahan. Thank you all very much.
        I am afraid I am going to have to wrap it up. We have about
    3 minutes left on the clock, so I am going to have to walk
    quickly across the street.
        But just special thanks to our panel today. I think they
    really gave us some very keen insights into how we can stay
    focused and stay committed with the efforts and the progress
    that has been made, but also I think a very realistic view on
    some of the challenges that remain.
        Thank you very much. We are going to stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

         Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.

                                   __________
      Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Russ Carnahan, a
     Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri, and Chairman,
    Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight