[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE GOVERNMENT OF BELARUS:
CRUSHING HUMAN RIGHTS AT HOME?
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,
AND HUMAN RIGHTS
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE AND EURASIA
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 1, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-56
__________
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
65-497 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California BRAD SHERMAN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
RON PAUL, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
CONNIE MACK, Florida GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas DENNIS CARDOZA, California
TED POE, Texas BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
DAVID RIVERA, Florida FREDERICA WILSON, Florida
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania KAREN BASS, California
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York
RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina
VACANT
Yleem D.S. Poblete, Staff Director
Richard J. Kessler, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas KAREN BASS, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York
------
Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
ELTON GALLEGLY, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
TED POE, Texas
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Mr. Daniel A. Russell, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Russia,
Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus, Bureau of European and Eurasian
Affairs, U.S. Department of State.............................. 9
Mr. David Kramer, executive director, Freedom House.............. 23
Mr. Matt Rojansky, deputy director, Russia and Eurasia Program,
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace..................... 37
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Dan Burton, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana, and chairman, Subcommittee on Europe and
Eurasia: Prepared statement.................................... 6
Mr. Daniel A. Russell: Prepared statement........................ 12
Mr. David Kramer: Prepared statement............................. 27
Mr. Matt Rojansky: Prepared statement............................ 39
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 58
Hearing minutes.................................................. 59
The Honorable Russ Carnahan, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Missouri: Prepared statement...................... 60
The Honorable Donald M. Payne, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey: Material submitted for the record..... 61
THE GOVERNMENT OF BELARUS: CRUSHING HUMAN RIGHTS AT HOME?
----------
FRIDAY, APRIL 1, 2011
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
and Human Rights and
Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 1:50 p.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H.
Smith [chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
and Human Rights] presiding.
Mr. Smith. The subcommittees will come to order. And good
afternoon and welcome to this joint hearing of the Africa,
Global Health, and Human Rights Subcommittee and the Europe and
Eurasia Subcommittee, which will explore the recent mockery of
an election and a crackdown on democracy activists by the
Lukashenka dictatorship in Belarus.
We will also seek to answer questions about how we can most
constructively hold the Lukashenka dictatorship accountable for
its crimes and best assist the Belarusian people in their
struggle for freedom, human rights and democracy.
After the Presidential election of December 19, 2010,
thousands of Belarusians peacefully protested the massive
electoral fraud. The Lukashenka dictatorship sicced its
security forces on the crowds, indiscriminately clubbing
demonstrators, and detained over 700 people.
In a manner reminiscent of the late Soviet era, the
dictatorship has focused its ongoing crackdown on the
democratic political opposition, independent media and civil
society. The dictator's brutal campaign has been marked by the
abuse of those jailed, by unfair trials and harsh sentences up
to 4 years so far and by harassment and intimidation by the
KGB, including interrogations, raids and other forms of
pressure on families of opposition leaders, their lawyers,
journalists and democratic activists.
Recently I have had meetings with relatives and friends of
the imprisoned Presidential candidates. They have told me
heartbreaking stories about the mistreatment of their loved
ones. And one of those who remains imprisoned is my personal
friend, Anatoly Lebedko, a courageous and long-time leader of
the democratic opposition.
We have to keep in mind that the post-election crackdown is
not over. In the last few days alone, a correspondent for
Poland's largest daily newspaper was charged with ``insulting
the President,'' a crime in Belarus. And the Belarusian KGB
interrogated another journalist as well. On Tuesday, the
dictatorship's courts sentenced a democratic activist to 3\1/2\
years of imprisonment for taking part in the December 19th
protest. His was the eighth in a series of show trials.
Just yesterday, the Belarusian Government forced the
closure of the Minsk office of the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe despite many OSCE efforts to keep it
open.
As part of a Helsinki Commission visit to Minsk in June
2009, I had the opportunity, along with my colleagues, to press
Lukashenka directly on his dismal human rights record and
denial of fundamental freedoms. While making clear our support
for Belarus' independence, the delegation reiterated the
longstanding message that the only way to improve relations
between our two countries was and is for him to take steps to
increase political freedom and respect human rights. We told
Lukashenka that the ball was in his court. There were even
small, tentative steps taken at that time in the right
direction. But since December 19th, any hopes for change have
been squashed.
Aleksandr Lukashenka continues to turn a deaf ear to all
criticism of his government. At a press conference after the
election, Lukashenka said that Belarus will have no
more, quote, deg. ``mindless democracy,'' clearly
manifesting his sneering contempt for the Belarusian people,
many of whose lives have been ruined and whose country he stole
16 years ago, transforming it into a grotesque anomaly, what is
often called Europe's last dictatorship.
The United States and the EU have responded to the
electoral fraud, violence and repression with strong
condemnations, including from our President, and some
additional punitive measures, at least for now. I would
encourage both, especially the EU, to look for additional ways
to hold Lukashenka to account. The scale of the post-election
violence and the severity of the crackdown have far exceeded
anything Lukashenka has done in the past. For the time being,
the U.S. and the EU are not tempted to placate Lukashenka or to
try to change his rule by rewarding him.
This is one reason why we need legislation to address the
human rights tragedy and other issues created by the Lukashenka
dictatorship: To ensure steady focus and policy consistency.
This will require continued and even strengthened economic and
travel sanctions against the dictatorship and its senior
leaders and security forces. All this until Lukashenka releases
political prisoners and dramatically improves his government's
human rights record. This is exactly what the Belarus Democracy
and Human Rights Act of 2011, H.R. 515, which I introduced in
January along with my good friend and colleague from Indiana,
provides. Most of these issues were also successfully addressed
in the Belarus Democracy Acts of 2004 and of 2006, both of
which I authored and which were signed into law.
The Belarus Democracy Act of 2004 brought the U.S. into the
struggle for freedom in Belarus decisively on the side of the
Belarusian people, who wish to live in a country where human
rights are respected, democracy flourishes, and the rule of law
is the norm. I remain convinced that the time will soon come
when Belarus will be integrated with the family of democratic
nations. We must continue to stand at their side as they
continue to work their way out from under the oppressive yoke
of Aleksandr Lukashenka. I would like to yield to my good
friend and colleague, Mr. Payne, for any opening comments he
might have.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me
also commend you for your longstanding leadership on this
issue. I know that this is an important priority for you,
especially in your role as co-chair of the Helsinki Commission,
along with my good friend, Alcee Hastings, of Florida. Your
leadership on this issue is exemplified, as you just mentioned,
in your sponsorship of the original Belarus Democracy Act of
2004, which garnered significant bipartisan support from our
late chairman, Tom Lantos, Minority Whip Hoyer and Mr. Hastings
of Florida. I know that bill is up for reauthorization this
year. And given the troubling developments in the wake of the
December 2010 elections, this is a good time to highlight those
issues.
As you know, this year, I have been particularly focused on
elections and the democratic process, particularly in Africa,
North Africa, Central Africa, the whole thrust of democracy is
burning in that continent. And it is also very important that
President Obama and Secretary Clinton have asserted time and
time again that the United States must support the democratic
aspirations of all people. It is troubling to me that like Cote
d'Ivoire, a strong willed leader has chosen to suppress the
will of the electorate and refuses to leave the office that he
was recently defeated in.
During Aleksandr Lukashenka's 16 years as President of
Belarus, the government has tightened control over civil
society. A recent softening of Belarus's foreign relations has
let some activists inside the country, as well as foreign
policy makers, to hope for a more reasonable regime. But as
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and others have
reported, such expectations were dashed on December 19, 2010,
the night of Belarus' Presidential elections, when as many as
30,000 people took to the streets of the capital of Minsk to
peacefully protest what they feared would be yet another stolen
election.
When Lukashenka's victory of 79.7 percent was declared, a
few dozen mass people started breaking windows in the main
government building which overlooks independence square. Things
took an even more drastic turn when police and security forces
rushed in and beat up everyone within reach. Most of them
peaceful demonstrators, even going as far as to kick those who
fell, chasing those and grabbing people, including innocent
bystanders in adjacent streets. The Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) observers determined the
election, despite fairer campaigning practices than in previous
elections, has failed to meet OSCE standards.
In the wake of the December 19th post-election protests,
Belarusian civil society activists and independent media face
new government harassments and threats. Amnesty International
has reported that Lukashenka is responsible for several
political disappearances. And just last month, the Human Rights
Watch issued a 31-page report documenting human rights
violations that occurred on election night and in the wake of
the election through February of this year.
Again, the parallels to Cote d'Ivoire are remarkable. It is
amazing what Lukashenka's regime has done to the people of
Belarus in just a few short months. The HRW report refers to
incidents of persecution of opposition candidates and
activists, abuse of detainees, trials behind closed doors and
raids on human rights organizations. The report further details
allegations of extremely poor conditions in detention, denial
of access to defense counsel and government pressure on lawyers
representing those facing criminal charges related to post-
election protests.
The international community has recognized Belarus'
measures as intentionally silencing the legitimate citizens'
grievances. Financial and travel sanctions against ruling
officials have been leveled by the European Union and the
United States in an attempt to force the Belarusian Government
to cease its abuse of human rights violations.
It is clear that Lukashenka and his regime must focus on
restoring the human rights guaranteed by Belarus' own
Constitution, as well as international law.
Chairman Smith, Burton and Ranking Member Meeks, I
appreciate this important hearing and hope that our Africa
Subcommittee will also hold a hearing on the deplorable same
type of rapidly deteriorating human rights conditions there as
it is beginning to be in the midst of a civil war.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, I commend you for your continued
persistence on this area of human rights. And I commend you for
it.
One last item I would like to ask to be placed in the
record. Belarus--it is called, ``Shattering Hopes, Post
Election Crackdown in Belarus,'' by Human Rights Watch.
Mr. Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
And thank you for your eloquent statement. I would like to
now yield to my good friend and colleague, Mr. Burton, the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Chairman Smith.
I appreciate having this joint hearing with you, and I
appreciate our witnesses being here today. We look forward to
hearing your testimony. I am not going to make a long statement
but there are a few things I would like to say. I think my
colleagues have covered a great deal of this already. So I will
submit much of my statement for the record.
One other thing that bothers me in addition to what they
are doing to their own people, is what they are doing in other
areas. It appears as though this despot is also helping other
criminal regimes. He has worked with Iran and has economic ties
with him in violation of international sanctions, and our
President announced this week penalties against Belarus for its
business with Tehran. And this is a good start by President
Obama, but I would like to see more action taken against this
dictator and his regime.
Finally, we are to meet shortly with the State Department
officials in a closed hearing to hear whether the Belarusian
regime is providing terrorists with arms and munitions in
violations of international agreements. We have reports of
Belarusian attack helicopters and heavy weapons being sent to
the Ivory Coast to suppress democratic opposition. I just met
with the Ivory Coast's Ambassador the other day and what he
told me was extraordinary about the number of people being
killed by a person who was defeated in the last election but
will not relinquish power. And so we have got a severe problem
there as well, and he is just adding to the problem by sending
weapons and helicopters to them.
Of course, these allegations have been retracted by the
U.N. But they follow a disturbing pattern of aiding criminal
regimes. Most recently, we have heard the much publicized
United Nations accusation that Belarus was sending arms and
munitions to Libya to supply the armies of Ghadafi, also in
violation of international agreements. The Belarusian regime is
the last remnant of the old Iron Curtain and Lukashenka is a
thug who I would like to see go. I think all of us would.
I am eager to hear how this administration is working to
make this happen and to help provide freedom and democracy to
the people of Belarus, and I want to thank our witnesses today
for being here to testify and I want to thank the Department of
State for their help and willingness to provide a witness and
briefer for today's topic, especially the work of the State's
legislative affairs team.
And finally, I want to thank the staff of Chairman Ros-
Lehtinen for their help in arranging today's hearing and
briefing, especially Mark Gage, the deputy staff director of
the Foreign Affairs Committee, who I understand is going to
retire today after three decades.
Mark has done a great job, and I will tell you how
difficult it is around here. When I first met him, he had a
real bushy head of hair, and you can see what this kind of a
job does to you.
But anyway, Mark, thank you very much for everything you
have done. Thanks for your help in solving the problems we had
the other day.
With that, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
And I want to yield to my good friend, Mr. Meeks, the ranking
Democrat--he should be a Republican--the ranking Democrat.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burton follows:]
----------
Mr. Meeks. Don't make that mistake.
Thank you, Chairman Burton and Chairman Smith, for
conducting or bringing this hearing up today. A very, very
important hearing.
Let me first say, laba diena, to my good friend, to Mr.
Zingeris. And thank you for addressing this body today. And I
am grateful for the opportunity to meet you. And I look forward
to working with you together on transatlantic
interparliamentary affairs. And I truly appreciate the
Lithuanian Parliament's leadership in trying to support and
bring change in Belarus. So it was great hearing from you this
afternoon.
And you have heard from my colleagues already that there
had been at the beginning some thought, maybe some hope that
something would change in Belarus, until December 19th. And so
we can just sum it up like this: Lukashenka is a bad actor and
Belarus under his leadership is a dangerous place for someone
who embraces democratic principles or republican principles for
that matter.
I expect that we will hear from Mr. Russell about
Lukashenka's autocratic, repressive regime, his tight control
of the economy, his unyielding grip on social order and
stranglehold on dissent. I expect Mr. Russell and my colleagues
will say or recount how Lukashenka runs roughshod over
democratic ideas and expressions, including civil and human
rights to free speech and assembly, free and fair elections,
independent judiciary and the rule of law.
He has been called and remains Europe's last dictator,
holding this dubious distinction for nearly a generation. What
I hope to understand better after today's discussion is what we
are doing about this situation, both to help Lukashenka's
victims and to change the situation. It is clear to me that the
situation must change and equally clear that the United States
has a role in seeing that it does. Not only do we care as
humanitarians about what happens in Belarus, we care from a
global security standpoint.
Anticipating some of your remarks, I want to emphasize my
support for the multilateral approach that the administration
has adopted. After all, what is going on in Belarus, is not
just a problem for the United States; it is a problem for the
community of democracies. But it is definitely our concern,
too.
While Belarus is in Western Europe's backyard, the
neighborhood is shrinking. Our response to December's stolen
election seems to have been well coordinated with the European
Union and through the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe with a broader community as well. Our joint
statements, joint demands for the release of political
prisoners, joint insistence on respect for human rights and
joint condemnation of Belarus' decision to close the OSCE
mission were on target.
I am concerned nevertheless about the effectiveness of our
efforts. In the face of our diplomatic efforts, sanctions and
assistance just this week, a Belarusian court sentenced one of
the protesters, a 20-year-old, to 2\1/2\ years in prison.
Several candidates who ran against Lukashenka remain in jail,
and others have been sentenced to prison terms, and dozens of
protesters and organizers remain political prisoners. It
continues to astonish me that this can happen in Europe in
2011.
So I hope to hear thoughts on Belarus' future. I
particularly would like to hear about springtime in Belarus.
The parallel between the Governments of Libya and Belarus are
extraordinary, with two notable exceptions. Lukashenka lacks
Ghadafi's control of abundant oil resources, and fortunately,
Belarus has been our partner in nuclear nonproliferation
efforts. I would like your assessment of the Belarusian
opposition and general public's willingness to endure the
situation or the susceptibility to be swept up in the movement
that has inspired young Arabs this spring.
Finally, I want to commend your team on the ground, led by
Mr. Michael Scanlan. They are working in a tough neighborhood,
and we recognize how difficult the work of a handful of
officers and local staff can be. And we thank you for all of
the work and look forward to hearing your testimony.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Marino for 1 minute if you would like.
And Mrs. Schmidt?
Thank you.
Now, it is my privilege to welcome Dan Russell. Mr. Russell
is Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Europe and
Eurasian Affairs, responsible for U.S. relations with Russia,
Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus and for international security
and arms control issues in the Bureau of European and Eurasia
Affairs.
He has held many key State Department posts, including
chief of staff to Under Secretary of State for Political
Affairs, deg. William Burns, deg. from 2008
to 2009; Deputy Chief of Mission in Moscow, in Russia of
course, from 2005 to 2008; and Deputy Chief of Mission in
Kazakhstan from 2000 to 2003. Deputy Assistant Secretary
Russell speaks fluent Russian, Spanish and French, but will be
testifying in English today.
Mr. Russell.
STATEMENT OF MR. DANIEL A. RUSSELL, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR RUSSIA, UKRAINE, MOLDOVA, AND BELARUS, BUREAU OF EUROPEAN
AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Russell. Thank you very much, Chairman Smith, Chairman
Burton, members of the committee, for inviting me today to
discuss the situation in Belarus.
We share all of the concerns that everyone has expressed
about the government's brutal crackdown in the aftermath of the
flawed Presidential election. I think, simply put, the United
States is pursuing a policy first to press the Government of
Belarus to free its political prisoners and end the crackdown
and, second, to support those inside Belarus seeking democracy.
And we are doing this in concert with our European partners.
Looking back to--my written statement has been submitted
for the record, and maybe I will just summarize a few key
points. And I think first, looking back to election day, to
December 19th, in Belarus, it is fair to say the government did
not conduct a transparent vote. The OSCE, which was able to
provide a team to monitor the elections, concluded that the
campaign period was characterized by an uneven playing field
and a restrictive media environment. They reported a lack of
independence, impartiality and transparency in the electoral
process, and they characterized the vote count in over half of
the precincts that they observed as bad or very bad.
Now, nine Presidential candidates were allowed to run and
to conduct limited campaign activities this time, which was an
improvement from 2006, but you get the overall picture. Things
looked pretty predictable during the day, but after the sun
went down on December 19th, things changed. A large group, up
to 30,000 people as some of the members have pointed out, came
out in downtown Minsk to protest against the official claim of
Mr. Lukashenka's landslide 80 percent victory.
While we may never know all of the facts of what happened
that night, one point is clear, the government's reaction to
this largely peaceful demonstration was brutal. Some 700
individuals were detained, including, amazingly, seven
Presidential candidates. The beatings of demonstrators have
clearly been documented. Most of the detainees were subject to
10 to 15 days in jail. But six Presidential candidates, along
with 30 other activists, now face charges that could lead to
lengthy prison sentences. Trials have begun in February. Eight
demonstrators have been convicted. No one has been acquitted.
The detainees are clearly being held on political grounds,
and the United States considers them political prisoners. Our
response to this situation was clear in the media. Secretary
Clinton and the White House have issued multiple statements
beginning hours after the crackdown, condemning the violence
and calling for the unconditional and immediate release of all
detainees. We have done this together with the European Union's
high representative, Cathy Ashton, echoing the same message.
Unfortunately, the government not only moved to put the
detainees on trial, it initiated a broader campaign to
intimidate and weaken the political opposition and civil
society. The offices and homes of activists and civil society
representatives have been subject to police raids and searches.
So, on January 31, we adopted the following steps against
the government in Belarus and the individuals and entities we
think have a role in this crackdown. First, we reimposed full
sanctions against Belarus' largest petroleum and chemical
conglomerate. Second, we announced the expansion of the list of
Belarus officials subject to a travel ban to the United States.
And third, we announced that the United States is working to
impose additional financial sanctions against additional
individuals who contributed to the crackdown. And we welcomed
the European Union's concurrent decision to reimpose and expand
their own travel restrictions and asset freeze.
I want to make clear that this is one piece of our policy
and our actions were not aimed at the people of Belarus. An
integral part of our policy in the election aftermath has been
to increase support for efforts to build a modern democratic
society. On February 2nd, I took part in a donor's conference
in Warsaw that was organized by the Polish Government, and I
had the privilege to announce an additional $4 million to
support the--$4 million to support democracy related programs
in Belarus. This funding is in addition to the $11 million we
provided for programs in this area in 2010. And following the
crackdown, the United States has also begun providing legal and
humanitarian assistance to those facing repression.
Unfortunately, the Government of Belarus has chosen not to
engage the international community. As Chairman Smith
mentioned, the latest development has been its refusal to
extend the mandate of the OSCE office in Minsk which closed on
March 31. We believe that is a step backwards. We will continue
to call on Belarus to meet its OSCE commitments, and we are
working with like-minded OSCE members to pursue an independent
investigation into the events of December 19th and their
aftermath.
Just a comment on the backdrop to our policy: I think if
the Obama administration's response to the post-election
crackdown should be viewed within the context of its decision
to continue longstanding U.S. principled engagement with
Belarus, engagement that is centered on advocacy for democracy
and human rights, engagement that has enjoyed bipartisan
support. We have made clear to senior Belarusian officials our
bottom line that only progress on democracy and human rights
lead to improvements in overall relations with the United
States.
Just a word on--yes and unfortunately, I mean, the
government's failure to respect the human rights of its people
and not uphold OSCE commitments is not a new development in
Belarus. In the aftermath of the flawed elections in 2006, the
United States had imposed sanctions.
And I might just mention a word on sanctions. While
economic and commercial ties between the United States and
Belarus are limited, the Government of Belarus has reacted to
targeted sanctions. In 2008, following the decision to increase
U.S. sanctions, the government released all of its political
prisoners. And in response, the United States temporarily
licensed U.S. persons to do business with two subsidiaries of
this petroleum and chemical conglomerate.
I also should take a brief opportunity here to commend
Representative Smith and other Members of Congress who helped
to secure the release of American citizen Emanuel Zeltser in
2009.
Now, looking ahead, the recent actions of the Government of
Belarus, to state the blindingly obvious, give us little cause
for optimism in the near term. But at the same time, I think
the aspirations of the people of Belarus for a brighter future
do offer long-term hope. The country's youth particularly want
a freer and more democratic country that is clearly part of a
modern Europe. And we want to help them realize their dreams
for that future.
And as we continue to calibrate our response to the policy
of repression that we see unfolding in Minsk, I think the
elements of our policy response are pretty clear: One, we are
going to continue to implement targeted sanctions to press the
Government of Belarus to change its course. Our goal remains
the immediate and unconditional release of political prisoners,
and in that regard, additional sanctions and a further
expansion of the assets freeze and travel ban against
Belarusian officials are among the options we should consider.
Second, we are going to continue to expand support for those in
Belarus seeking a more democratic modern country that respects
the rights, democratic actors in Belarus represent the future
of that country, and they deserve our support. And third, we
are going to continue to act in concert with the European Union
and our other European partners in providing support for the
people of Belarus. The European Union is also considering the
imposition of targeted economic sanctions against Belarus
firms, and we hope that it will join us in this approach.
Lastly, I want to say that we have no illusions that
influencing a movement toward democracy and greater respect for
human rights in Belarus will be easy or quick. But we believe
the United States should encourage and support the people of
Belarus' desire for freedom and democracy. It is both in our
national interests and it is the right thing to do. Thank you
very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Russell follows:]
----------
Mr. Smith. Secretary Russell, thank you very much for your
testimony but, more importantly, for the work you are doing to
help the oppressed Belarusians, especially those that are in
prison.
Thankfully, this is a totally bipartisan effort, and you
have great support here in the House and I know in the Senate
on both sides of the aisle. So I do commend you personally and
the Department for being so clear and unambiguous about our
position on Lukashenka and the Belarus dissidents.
Let me ask you--and I limit myself and I think we, because
of time and votes, all of us, to 5 minutes, and I will be very
brief. The new media law, if you could comment on that. We know
that they borrowed handsomely from the Chinese Government, and
they are experts on the use or misuse of the Internet to find,
apprehend, and arrest those who are dissidents. The new media
are not working well because they are trying to subvert them.
What is Russia doing? Is Moscow being helpful? If you could
speak also to what we could be doing further and especially
what our allies and the European Union could be doing.
Yesterday, I understand, there was a very contentious meeting
at the OSCE and the Canadians took the lead with a very strong
statement. Should the Moscow Mechanism be invoked? And finally,
with regards to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, have they
cranked up further their efforts to get the message to the
people of Belarus about what their dictator is doing to the
best and the bravest and the finest in Belarus?
Mr. Russell. Well, thank you very much.
On the new media law, obviously, we are concerned, as are
you, about any attempts to restrict the Internet. And clearly,
the registration provisions that are in this law are an attempt
to do exactly that, although I must say personally I think it
is a fool's errand to try to restrict the Internet. It hasn't
really worked anywhere, and I don't think it is necessarily
going to stifle people with creativity in Belarus. But
nonetheless, it is not a good step and not one we welcome.
The role of Russia is a complicated question. After the
crackdown, we saw the Russian Government join with others and
the Council of Europe to call for the release of political
prisoners. At the same time, Russia and Belarus have a
longstanding economic relationship, which involves subsidies
for Belarus, particularly in the energy sector. And we have
seen the Prime Minister of Russia make a recent visit there.
We are going to continue to work with Russia. I don't think
that anybody wants to let Mr. Lukashenka play a zero-sum game
where he can play Russia off against the West because that is
simply not going to work. In fact, I would argue that he is
more isolated than he has ever been. It is not only the
European Union and the United States. The Ukraine has issued a
statement about the disproportionate use of force. And like I
said, with the Russians, we have seen some concern about what
is going on there as well. But clearly, this is going to be a
work in progress.
On the OSCE and the Moscow Mechanism, the United States is
working to support the Moscow Mechanism. This is something I
talked to our Ambassador to the OSCE today about this. And this
is something we are going to push next week. Whether we succeed
or fail, we are going to be committed to try to get our friends
with us in the OSCE to support an independent investigation
into the election and the aftermath.
And finally, on broadcasting, we and several of our
European allies have longstanding commitments to support
broadcasting from outside into Belarus to try to help inform
the Belarusian people and help them make informed decisions
about their future. I was struck by polling results that showed
that over half of Belarusians had never met anybody from the
European Union and over 70 percent of them had never travelled
to a European Union country. And I think that speaks volumes
about why we and the Europeans both need to do more to try to
bring them into the more modern world in which we all live.
Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Secretary Russell, because we have a vote and
some of our members have commitments they have to keep, and the
vote will make it so they are precluded from coming back. I
thought we could ask all of our members to ask questions and,
as best you can, start the answers, and then those of us who
can come back will hear the remainder of those answers.
Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Thank you. I will be very brief.
Recently, in our committee, we have heard discussion about
foreign assistance. Many of the new members have questions
about that, and they talk about corruption that was discussed
in a discussion on Africa. But I would like to also ask you a
question about Transparency International focuses on corruption
and ranks Belarus, which of course is in Europe, as 127th in
corruption. So I would like to know, one, how do we assure that
any aid funding does not inadvertently end up in the hands of
corrupt officials? Secondly, do we have any indications that
corrupt Belarusian officials abuse the U.S. financial system
through money laundering and so forth? And just finally, what
efforts can the U.S. undertake to help combat the corruption in
Belarus? Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Chairman Burton.
Mr. Burton. My main concern--I mean, my colleagues on the
Human Rights Subcommittee, they are covering their concerns
very well.
But I want to know what is going on as far as Belarus being
a conduit for weapons going into other countries like Libya,
the Ivory Coast and so forth. One of the big problems we have
got right now is the whole northern tier of Africa is in flux.
The Persian Gulf, the Middle East; it is all kind of up in the
air, and we are very concerned that some of the more radical
elements aren't fomenting more revolution and more upheavals
that could lead to severe problems for us.
We get over 30 percent of our energy from that part of the
world. And if there is a real conflagration that spreads
throughout the region, we could have real problems. So, in a
nutshell--I don't want to hold everybody up--in a nutshell, if
you could tell us, how extensive are the operations of Belarus
and their government in getting weapons to these other
countries?
Mr. Smith. Ranking Member Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, sir.
My question will go in this regard: What should we be
concerned or should we be concerned about plans for
construction of a nuclear power plant in Belarus? And given the
current state of Belarus' economy, do we assume that this will
be a Russian financed program? And is it also reasonable to
assume that a new nuclear plant would supply other European
countries?
And finally, what impact if any should the U.S. response be
to Lukashenka's crackdown have on our cooperation with Belarus
on nuclear issues?
Mr. Russell. Thanks.
First, Mr. Payne, on foreign assistance, we give no direct
foreign assistance to the Government of Belarus. Most of our
aid is in democracy programs, and in the $16 million we gave in
2010, $11 million of that went to the nongovernmental sector
and the rest of it went to programs working on issues such as
trafficking in persons and tuberculosis, and it wasn't funneled
directly to the Government of Belarus but to organizations that
we trust, like the World Health Organization. So this is one
country where I can say we probably don't have that concern.
Transparency International, frankly, if they had more
information on what is going on inside Belarus, I am not sure
they would be as high as 127th on the corruption list. On the
abuse of the U.S. financial system, we have had an assets
freeze in place against some of--President Lukashenka and some
of his top aides for several years now. I cannot verify this,
but I suspect there is very little money from senior people at
that level in the United States.
On arms sales, this has been a longstanding concern of the
United States. Belarus continues to rank somewhere between 25th
and 20th in arms sales, and clearly, that is an issue we need
to continue to follow. We have sanctioned individual entities
in Belarus for arms transfers in the past, and we continue to
have sanctions available to us should other information become
available. And certainly, in the second part of this, we are
going to discuss this subject in a little more detail.
Mr. Meeks, on the nuclear power plant project, Belarus has
had an interest in building a nuclear power plant for some
time. The United States supports the right of countries to have
civil nuclear power, but we have urged in Belarus that any
power plant be constructed in a manner that meets international
standards and meet--and be it operated in a way that meets
international safeguards. And that is a bottom line for us. And
clearly, Belarus also needs to take into account the concerns
of its neighbors and to meet its commitments under various
international conventions on this.
On the supply to other countries, it depends, obviously, on
the size of the power plant. There are now power plant projects
talked about. There are four in Finland; one in Lithuania;
others in Poland and the Czech Republic. I don't have a crystal
ball. I cannot tell you after the Japanese nuclear disaster how
many of these are actually going to go or whether there will
still be public support for them. But I think, obviously, these
need to be done on some sort of commercial basis.
What we want in Belarus and we have supported, we want to
see a project that is done on a competitive basis and one that
meets international standards. When Prime Minister Putin
visited Minsk earlier this month, the Russians again signed
some sort of deal on building a nuclear power plant in Belarus.
The financing of that project is unclear at this point, and it
is something we are going to continue to watch.
Mr. Smith. Just in the very few minutes remaining,
Secretary Russell, let me just ask you, has the Human Rights
Council or has our representative to the Human Rights Council
raised the issue of Belarus?
Secondly, I know we are not signatories--or we are
signatories, but we have not ratified the ICC. But is there any
sense that either the Europeans or with our support, a referral
might be made to the prosecutor's office for crimes committed
by the Lukashenka regime?
And thirdly, with regard to the political prisoners, had
they been visited by the ICRC? Are there conditions that one
might describe as degrading, inhumane and certainly torture?
And if so, has the Convention Against Torture and the panel of
experts initiated any kind of proceedings to hold Lukashenka to
account under the torture convention?
Mr. Russell. I honestly don't know whether we have raised
this at the Human Rights Council in the current session. I will
come back to you with an answer on that.
Mr. Smith. If not, if you could ask them to do so. Our
representative.
Mr. Russell. Yes. We support this. We have raised this at
every international forum that it has been appropriate. The
ICC, I am not aware of any action that has been taken to refer
this, and I am not a lawyer. I don't know enough about the
grounds for that.
On ICRC access, the United States and the other key members
of the ICRC have clearly asked the ICRC quietly to get
involved. Obviously, they don't report their findings, but I
think you are right that it is important that they have access.
The Convention Against Torture, one of the Presidential
candidates who has now sought political asylum in the Czech
Republic asserted that torture had taken place. So this is
obviously an issue we need to look at.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I thank you very much
for your testimony and your strong concern. The subcommittee
will go into a brief recess. Thank you very much.
[Recess.]
Mr. Smith. The subcommittees will resume their sitting. And
I apologize deeply to our witnesses, but believe me, your
testimonies will be disseminated, not just in the record but to
all the members of both subcommittees and the full committee,
because we do need to hear from you.
We did have a second panel that was supposed to testify on
the arms issues, arms transfer issues, and that had to become
classified. So I do hope that both of our distinguished
witnesses understand, and I apologize for the inconvenience.
We will now hear from David Kramer who is executive
director of Freedom House, one of Washington's most respected
voices on freedom and human rights issues.
Mr. Kramer has a distinguished NGO, academic, and
government career. In government, he has served as assistant
secretary of state for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor from
March 2008 to January 2009. In that capacity, in addition to
everything else he has done, he also then sat on the Helsinki
Commission. We greatly appreciated his insights and help with
regards to that Commission. He was also Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for European and Eurasia Affairs,
responsible for Russia, Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus and was
closely involved in formulating and implementing U.S. policy
toward Belarus.
Finally, we will hear from Matthew Rojansky, the deputy
director of the Russia and Eurasia Program for the Carnegie
Endowment. An expert on U.S. and Russian national security and
nuclear weapons policies, his work focuses on relations among
the United States, NATO and the states of the former Soviet
Union from 2007 to 2010. He served as executive director of the
Partnership for a Secure America, which sought to rebuild
bipartisan dialogue on U.S. national security and foreign
policy challenges.
Secretary Kramer, please.
STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID KRAMER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FREEDOM
HOUSE
Mr. Kramer. Hello, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
It is a pleasure again to appear before you. And thank you
very much for doing this hearing. In fact, it is critically
important that you and the subcommittees are holding a hearing
on Belarus.
Given that the world's attention is understandably riveted
on events in North Africa and the Middle East and yet we still
have an enormous challenge in Europe itself, in Belarus and, as
you have rightly described him, in Aleksandr Lukashenka as the
last dictator in Europe.
I also do want to acknowledge Dan Russell, Larry Silverman,
and Mike Scanlan, his staff and Embassy Minsk, what is left of
it, and Ian Kelly, who is the OSCE Ambassador in Vienna, for
the work all of them have been doing to keep the focus on
Belarus and U.S. policy.
It has already been described at length the kind of
situation we are dealing with in Belarus; where there are
dozens of people still in jail held as political prisoners,
where torture is common by Lukashenka and his KGB goons. I
think it is very important to understand that this is a serious
threat to the people of Belarus, to Europe, to the region as a
whole and, in fact, globally. And it is a vital issue for the
United States to stand firm and on principle in dealing with
this challenge that we all face.
Talk about Lukashenka sometimes gets carried away, Mr.
Chairman, when people say he is this all powerful leader. Let
us remember that there were credible polls that showed that on
December 19th of last year, he got less than 50 percent of the
vote and was fearful that he would have to run in a second
round of the election. What that suggests is that the majority
of the people who turned out in that election voted against
Aleksandr Lukashenka, and that means that his support is
slipping and eroding. And I think that alone is something that
scares him and forces him to lash out against the opposition so
that he doesn't risk losing total control.
Let's also remember that there were tens of thousands of
people who turned out in downtown Minsk in Independence Square,
in unprecedented numbers, that also suggest that many people in
Belarus have had enough of Aleksandr Lukashenka and want to see
a change. Those things I think are very noteworthy and
something we should not overlook.
What should we do about the situation? I would argue for a
two-prong approach. The first is dealing with assistance, in
standing with the people of Belarus and showing solidarity. It
is critical that the U.S. and EU speak with one voice and that
we make it clear that Aleksandr Lukashenka is the enemy here,
he is the threat, and that we stand for freedom and democracy.
They are the common cause in our goals in Belarus.
Yesterday's OSCE statement that was issued condemning
Lukashenka's refusal to allow the OSCE mission to remain open
in Minsk was a good sign of international solidarity on this,
and we need to see more indications of this.
It is important for Europeans in particular to reduce the
fees for visas, if not in fact waive the fees entirely, so that
more Belarusians can travel and, if necessary, relocate to
European countries.
We need to expand exchange programs. We need to help
students who have been expelled from universities because they
have been accused of exercising freedom of assembly and speech.
We need to help the families of those who are being held in
jail, help them with lawyer fees, medical bills, with food
assistance, all kinds of desperately needed assistance.
We need to help organizations like Charter 97 as well as
the Belarus Free Theater, the performers of which have not been
allowed to return home, and they are living on fumes. They need
vital financial assistance.
We need to get more media into Belarus so that the people
of Belarus understand that Europe and the United States stand
with them, that the problem we have is with the leader of
Belarus, not with the population of Belarus.
We need to resume material support for the opposition.
Neutrality on this issue or an unwillingness to provide such
support, frankly, in the face of a threat like Lukashenka is an
enemy of freedom. We need to lift the restrictions that have
been put in place by USAID.
We need to meet, as you have, Mr. Chairman, with members of
the opposition, with activists, with families of those in
detention.
And I want to thank you very much in particular for taking
time to meet with the delegation that Freedom House, IRI, NDI,
and the German Marshall Fund brought to the United States
several weeks ago. It is extremely important that you and other
members meet with these families to hear firsthand the heart-
wrenching stories, so we can put a human face with the
suffering the people of Belarus are enduring.
Again, thanks for your efforts on the legislation dealing
with Belarus, the bill on Belarus, and your leadership on that
in 2004 and 2006; it was vitally important. When I was in the
government, that legislation was a critical tool for us to deal
with this dangerous threat. That is on the support, assistance,
and solidarity side.
On dealing with the regime, we need to ratchet up the
pressure and really go after Lukashenka and those around him.
Sanctioning state-owned enterprises, in my view, is the way to
free the political prisoners. It worked in 2007 and 2008 when
the United States in November, 2007, sanctioned Belneftekhim.
Two months later, the release of the political prisoners
started.
The U.S. has reimposed the sanctions that eased after all
the prisoners were released in 2008. It has reimposed those on
Belneftekhim, but it is not enough. We need to go after the
Belarus potash firm. We need to go after other state-owned
enterprises. This is where Lukashenka keeps his money. This is
where he benefits personally through massive corruption, and it
is where the Europeans need to really step up to the plate.
Here the Europeans are divided, not only from us on this issue
but divided among themselves; and they need to get behind
sanctions against state-owned enterprises.
We should not have meetings with senior officials of the
Lukashenka regime. We did not recognize the election results;
and if we don't recognize Lukashenka as President, we should
not be meeting with his representatives. We should add Foreign
Minister Martynov to the visa banned list so Lukashenka doesn't
have a stooge running around Europe and the United States
peddling his lies.
We should end International Monetary Fund and European Bank
for Reconstruction and Development support for Belarus,
particularly with Belarus' hard currency reserves dwindling and
facing a devaluation, which apparently it has done by 20
percent with even a possible default. The last thing we should
be doing is providing international loans that would bail out
Lukashenka and throw him a lifeline.
I am in favor of suspending Belarus from the European
Union's Eastern Partnership Initiative, but at a minimum, if
the Europeans do not do that, instead of inviting
representatives of the Lukashenka regime, they should invite
representatives of the opposition in civil society to sit in
those seats when they have a summit later this year.
We should strongly urge the International Hockey Federation
to relocate its world championship which Belarus is scheduled
to host in 2014. Aleksandr Lukashenka is a big hockey fan. He
is a player himself. This, if nothing else, might get his
attention if we threaten to take this prize away from him.
We should reject engagement with the regime. Engagement was
tried from the fall of 2008 right up until December 19th.
Engagement with this regime failed. Engagement with this regime
should not be resumed.
Aleksandr Lukashenka is not serious about engagement with
the West. He is brilliant at playing the West and Russia off of
each other, threatening to go to one if the other increases the
pressure. We should not fall for this game once again.
We should understand that pressure is what gets
Lukashenka's attention. That is the way to get these people out
of jail. That is the way to end their suffering.
Also, I would just say, in response to your question to Dan
Russell about the ICC, we should begin a serious and
comprehensive effort to document the many crimes that
Lukashenka has committed, so that when and if there is a
process in place to bring Lukashenka to justice, we already
have much of the documentation in place to move forward.
Belarus, Mr. Chairman, just to conclude, is a real test for
the West, with ramifications for the region and, frankly, for
the whole globe. Left unchallenged, Lukashenka becomes a model
for other authoritarian leaders in the region and in the world,
a number of whom, as we have already heard and based on
questions from Chairman Burton, are clients of his for weapon
sales. And so if we don't respond to this challenge, the West
will be exposed as an impotent force, unable to deal with
problems in its own neighborhood.
We saw tens of thousands of people turn out in the streets
to protest Lukashenka's rule, and we saw a fraudulent election
where official results suggested that he got 80 percent, when
in fact most results would suggest he got less than 50 percent.
Many more people voted against him than for him in that
election.
Our support should be for those tens of thousands of people
who turned out in downtown Minsk, brave people who risked their
lives, risked injury to speak their minds and exercise their
right to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression. They
are the future of Belarus, and they need our support and
solidarity now.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kramer follows:]
----------
Mr. Smith. Secretary Kramer, thank you very much for that
very comprehensive prescription of what we need to be doing. I
am taking notes, and I know others will as well. I do thank you
for that and for your leadership in the past as well.
Mr. Rojansky.
STATEMENT OF MR. MATT ROJANSKY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, RUSSIA AND
EURASIA PROGRAM, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE
Mr. Rojansky. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
As a member of last December's OSCE election observer
mission in Belarus I am particularly appreciative of this
opportunity to share my assessment of what has taken place
there and how I believe we need to move forward.
Of course, you yourself, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Payne, Secretary
Russell, and others I think have provided an ample and accurate
summary of the recent repressions. I am also in full agreement
with Mr. Kramer that a reversal of these measures should be a
top U.S. policy priority at this point.
What I would like to focus on, though, is what I believe is
ultimately our core policy challenge. How can we in the West
help to create the conditions for future positive change?
In light of the ongoing abuses by the Lukashenka regime,
Western governments are understandably compelled to adopt a
strong and a moral stance, severing public engagement with
Minsk, withdrawing previously offered incentives, and imposing
new penalties. An example, of course, is what you heard Mr.
Kramer say about not meeting with Mr. Martynov, the Foreign
Minister.
These sanctions I believe, as they have been reinforced and
reinstated, should remain in force until Minsk acts clearly to
reverse the most egregious consequences of the crackdown. We
and our European allies should assist those still suffering
under government repression, including specifically identifying
and imposing new penalties on their persecutors as individuals,
supporting victims' legal defense, and publicizing their
harrowing stories. And some of that has been done already.
The present sanctions as they have been reinforced should
also continue until the OSCE can return to Belarus with an
explicit mandate to investigate the violence linked to the
elections. And here I would agree with the suggestion of
implementing the Moscow Mechanism.
That said, an approach in my view that is centered solely
on coercion and punishment is unlikely to help the people of
Belarus. Some recognition first is due for recent responsible
behavior by Minsk, for example, the commitment to eliminate all
highly enriched uranium by the 2012 nuclear summit; compliance
with terms of the IMF and World Bank loans; and the announced
reduction of regulatory burdens on small- and medium-sized
businesses. Because these in fact enable greater economic
independence from Lukashenka and the state for the Belarusian
people.
To prevent imposing de facto isolation on the people of
Belarus, Western governments must also sustain and enhance
their efforts to engage with ordinary citizens. Our goal should
be to build the skills and capacity of Belarusians to take
responsibility for their own political future but not to
catalyze regime change when it is not yet ripe domestically.
As a friend involved in civil society working in Belarus
told me, the real long-term challenge is social and political
change, not regime change. The former gives us Poland, the
latter gives us Ukraine, by which I mean an incomplete and
possibly unstable transition to democracy.
Western governments should make small- and medium-sized
grants to grassroots organizations, especially those that are
outside of Minsk and those with nonpolitical missions. Examples
would include groups working to treat social problems like drug
and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, groups that track reforms
and monitor corruption and network-building NGOs.
Western aid should include training on the Internet and
social networking tools, basic communication strategy, and
community advocacy. Independent media, above all, that cover
Belarus need better training, and they need the means to reach
audiences throughout the country.
In the near term, we must remain firm and uncompromising in
the demand that Lukashenka release the political prisoners and
stop the repression. However, we should also have an eye to the
upcoming 2012 parliamentary elections. These elections, it has
been announced by the Belarusians, will once again have OSCE
observers invited.
In my view, the best mechanism to prevent another blatantly
undemocratic electoral process is to push hard and
uncompromisingly now for an electoral commission which has
independent membership and to train and equip Belarusians to
serve as domestic election observers. This, by the way, is a
role that was authorized under the 2010 election law as it was
amended at the urging of the OSCE, but I personally did not see
domestic observers in polling stations. They lacked the
capacity and the training.
The U.S. and the European Union have done an admirable job
of coordinating their official response, particularly in terms
of official statements. Now I believe that, thanks to improved
dialogue among Washington, Brussels, and Moscow, we can seek
coordination with Russia as well. We cannot allow Lukashenka
alone to define the terms of Belarus' engagement with East and
West.
Russia and the West have different interests with respect
to Belarus, surely, but the costs of business as usual are
shared and the danger is shared if Belarus' economic
vulnerability and political isolation lead to more upheaval,
violence, and potentially bloodshed. For Russia, coordination
with the West does not need to undermine historically close
ties with Belarus.
Mr. Chairman, there is no simple policy prescription to
change the nature of the Belarusian regime without exacting
painful costs for the country's people. But there are some
short- and long-term steps that can enable Belarusians
themselves to define a future in which they enjoy security and
prosperity with close ties to partners throughout the Euro-
Atlantic region. I believe these measures are in our national
interest and in the interest of the people of Belarus.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rojansky follows:]
----------
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Rojansky, for your
testimony and for being a part of reform for so long there and
elsewhere. I just have a few questions.
I would like to ask, are we coordinating our democracy
assistance well enough with the European Union? How is USAID
getting it wrong, or is it getting it right with regards to
that assistance?
And with regard to the additional sanctions, Secretary
Kramer, that you mentioned, do you believe that is something
that is seriously being contemplated or have we done enough and
closed the door and we are now looking somewhere else and
waiting to see if those sanctions already articulated are going
to have any kind of bite?
Mr. Kramer. Mr. Chairman, I think on the coordination
issue, there was a donors' conference that the Poles hosted in
Warsaw in early February that was a good opportunity for the
Americans and Europeans to compare notes to coordinate, avoid
duplication, and make sure that there is sufficient coverage.
My impression is that there is good coordination between
Europeans and the United States on these issues. The assistance
people at the State Department are in constant contact with
their European colleagues. I don't really have any criticism of
the coordination when it comes to assistance programs.
On USAID's point, USAID, with the operations for Belarus
that are run out of Embassy Kiev, has been resistant to go
ahead with material support for opposition. They feel that that
is unwarranted, that it is playing favorites with certain
individuals, and they simply feel it is not something the
United States should be doing. We have to be clear here, which
is that we are not talking about a level playing field. We are
talking about a playing field that is grossly tilted in favor
of Aleksandr Lukashenka.
What we are trying to do in pushing forward on this is to
suggest that they need as much support as they can possibly
get. They are not going to get it inside Belarus. They need
help with training and with equipment and other things to at
least give them a uniform to play in the game. We are not even
talking about fair competition.
And so my hope is that USAID would go along with this and
recognize that such assistance is in fact important to go
through. And it is not really for my organization. It is for
organizations that do this work for a living that are very good
at it, such as IRI and NDI.
On the issue of sanctions, I speak from the experience of
working with the Europeans very closely on this in 2006 and
2007. We in the U.S. and Europe went forward with the visa ban
and asset freeze. When it came to sanctions against state-owned
enterprises, we did that unilaterally. The Europeans did not go
along with it.
But it is critical to remember when that sanction was
imposed against Belneftekhim in November, 2007, within 2 months
of that sanction a representative of Lukashenka came to the
U.S. Embassy in Minsk and asked what the United States--not
what Europe would do, what the United States would do--if they
started releasing the political prisoners. And we explained we
would ease the sanctions on Belneftekhim. We found their
vulnerability with that sanction against state-owned
enterprises. It took us too long, but we finally found it.
And what we need to do now is recognize that a visa ban and
asset freeze are nice to do, and they are important. I don't
mean to minimize them. But they are nowhere near sufficient if
we want to effect a change in the status of the political
prisoners.
But by these sanctions I don't want to imply that we are
going to bring democracy to Belarus. That won't happen as long
as Aleksandr Lukashenka sits in the President's chair in Minsk.
But it will at least mitigate the deteriorating situation on
the ground and the terrible plight that people like Andrei
Sannikov Alexander Lebedko and Vladimir Neklyayev and others
have experienced, people who are being tortured on a daily
basis, the Belarus Free Theater people, who barely escaped with
their lives.
This is a leader who disappeared four critics and
opposition figures in 1999 and 2000. This is not new behavior.
This is typical Lukashenka behavior, and we have to understand
that democracy, and democratic reform are not going come to the
country as long as he is there. So regime behavior won't
change, and I think we really do have to start talking about
some form or another of regime change.
Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Mr. Rojansky. Mr. Chairman, I want to say, first, that I am
in full agreement with Mr. Kramer as far as it concerns
reversing the abuses that have taken place, getting the folks
out of jail, providing the assistance to make sure that they
have legal defense. I think the OSCE mission has to go back,
and I think it has to have the capacity to have an
investigation. Those are the minimum steps.
I think in terms of what comes next when we look at the
bigger picture, I have a slightly different view. Regarding
democracy assistance and coordination, I think the dialogue has
been there. What is missing I think is an understanding of what
role Western assistance for democracy and opposition figures
has played thus far.
I agree that there certainly are cases in which very
targeted punitive steps can get people who have already been
put in prison out of prison. But as to whether democracy
assistance from the West can create an opposition, a political
opposition which is truly capable of taking on the mantle of
governance, of democratic effective governance in Belarus in
place of Lukashenka--because I am truly of the opinion that
Lukashenka will not last in Belarus. But when that change
comes, the question is will we have prepared the ground for a
democratic opposition or democratic forces to truly take
leadership in Belarus? And I think that is where our assistance
has been uncoordinated and it has been ineffective.
I will give you just a couple of examples of I think how
that has taken place. One is that it is a mistake for us to
anoint opposition leaders. We should not be in search of the
next Vaclav Havel in Belarus, because I think we will only be
hurting that person and those closest to that person. In a
sense, we create a mutually damaging symbiosis, particularly I
think when we take these people in in the West and we raise
them up, we give them publicity. They don't appear to be of the
people and understood by the people and understanding the
people in Belarus.
I will tell you from my personal experience people didn't
know who most of those candidates on that list of 10 candidates
were. They knew who Lukashenka was. He's a nationally known
figure.
I don't think we can know with certainty what the real
percentages were in that vote, because it wasn't a real vote.
It was rigged. But I would posit he is the one figure who has
national name recognition.
I think what we can do is we can help to build conditions
where there is more communication and more access to
information. These are kind of basic building blocks of
democracy, as opposed to doing the type of sophisticated
political party training and campaigning that can be helpful in
other contexts but, in my view, not so much in Belarus. I think
that addresses as well the question about the USAID policies
and providing material support to opposition.
With respect to additional sanctions, my feeling here is we
have sanctions in place now that send a very strong message.
And those sanctions have been reinstated, and they have been
strengthened from the United States' part. From Europe's part,
one of the reasons that Europe has influence on Belarus--and I
think we have seen the limitations, with all due respect, to
those achievements that the last administration had. I think we
have seen the limitations of the effectiveness of American
leverage, quite simply because we have very little relationship
left with Belarus to exercise leverage on. The Europeans have a
much, much larger relationship diplomatically, economically,
and in every other way.
I think it is sort of like the wedding ring problem, which
is to say, if you have worn a wedding ring all your life and
you've been faithful, if you take it off it sends a bad
message. But if you haven't worn a wedding ring and nonetheless
you have been faithful, you don't need to put that ring on in
order to show your moral position.
And I think the Europeans have made their position very
clear through their statements. I don't think at this point
that they need to ratchet up broad sanctions. They need to have
targeted punishments, and they have done that with the visa ban
list.
The last comment I'll make, sir, is just, as I said, I
think in the long term the disappearance of Lukashenka from the
scene is going to happen; and the evidence for that is the
instability and vulnerability and isolation that he faces right
now. Over 50 percent of the GDP now is made up by foreign debt.
He cannot sustain that situation. Around 15 percent of his
annual budget is in deficit. He cannot sustain that situation.
The Belarusian people are withdrawing their assets and
transitioning them into foreign hard currency and sticking it
under the mattress.
This guy is going to go. And this is why I say it is in the
interest of Moscow, of Brussels, of Washington, of the entire
world community to ensure that that situation doesn't lead to
instability and violence and bloodshed in the heart of Europe;
and I think that is where we need to have a unified front and
more coordination.
Mr. Smith. To follow up on the state-owned enterprises and
whether or not the EU ought to take a stronger sanctions
approach toward them, do you agree with that?
Mr. Rojansky. I would only agree to the extent that assets
can be specifically traced to individuals who are tied--and I
would say, for example, the visa ban list is an example of some
of the individuals who are responsible for the abuses on
December 19th and afterwards. But I would not do blanket
cutting off of the economic relationship with Belarus because I
think the EU--and we can't dictate their policy, but I think
the EU will lose their ability to implement effective policy in
a few years down the road.
Mr. Kramer. Mr. Chairman, if I can, I absolutely think the
EU needs to take these steps. I think each day that passes
people in jail will suffer, possibly lose their lives. The EU
does have more room to maneuver than the United States does. We
don't have many more bullets in our revolver left. The EU has
many. Belarus is quite dependent on trade with the EU, and the
EU needs to use that as a point of leverage to exercise change
in Lukashenka's behavior.
We should also, I would say, listen to people like Iryna
Bogdanova, who is the sister of Andrei Sannikov; Natalia
Kalyada, who is one of the directors of the Belarus Free
Theater; of Irina Krasovskaya, who is the widow of one of the
disappeared; Eva Neklyayeva, the daughter of Vladimir
Neklyayeva. All of these people are in support of sanctions
against state-owned enterprises.
So the concern that some people have that this would have
an adverse effect on the population, these people don't see
that argument. They also don't buy the argument that these
steps would push Belarus and Lukashenka toward Russia. If that
is all Lukashenka can do, I think his days are in fact
numbered. Because the elite around him don't want to be puppets
of the Russian Government and Belarus; the population does not
want to be subservient to the Russian people.
So I think this step is vitally important. I am disturbed
by the divisions within the European Union over this issue.
They need to show resolve, and they need to do it as soon as
possible to end the suffering of people who are in jail.
Thank you.
Mr. Smith. If I could, to Mr. Rojansky, why wouldn't it be
a good idea? I mean, sanctions can be imposed. They can be
unimposed almost as quickly as they are imposed, although there
is probably a turnaround time to get it up and running in terms
of the facilitation of that trade to that company.
But it seems to me that we do need a tourniquet when we are
on the eve of, rather than at the end of, a number of show
trials that will see increasingly harsher penalties, I would
think, being imposed on the dissidents and people like Lebedko.
Why wouldn't we want to really strongly admonish our
European friends, to say enough is enough, put that tourniquet
on? Because Lukashenka, in my opinion, feels that the world is
so diverted from Belarus and from Minsk, Japan, all the
occurrences in the Middle Eastern countries, all the chaos in
the Sudan. And we do know that one of the arms suppliers to
Sudan happens to be--to Khartoum, that is--happens to be
Belarus. So they are fomenters of potentially truly
destabilizing actions--hopefully, not a resumption of
hostilities in southern Sudan. Big, key dates obviously are
coming up, July 9th being the biggest in Sudan.
So why wouldn't you want to do that, if you could further
explain.
Mr. Rojansky. Absolutely, sir.
My objection would not be to very targeted and what you
described as easy-to-switch-on and easy-to-switch-off measures.
To the extent that we are dealing with those, that they are
targeted at individuals who we know are criminally responsible
for behavior since the 19th, I think that makes a lot of sense.
What I am concerned about are blanket sanctions that do
harm the people of Belarus. I think there is no question about
that. They are in a very precarious situation today. People had
savings prior to 2 years ago. Today, they do not have savings
anymore. They have hard currency shoved under the mattress, and
they are in a dangerous position. So we have to be careful not
to worsen that situation.
We also don't want to cut off our own access to being able
to build some of the long-term building blocks of democracy
that I was talking about. Because we don't want to see a
scenario of potentially violent change, or even nonviolent
change but which results in no real change in the system. It is
entirely possible that you get rid of the individual
personality of Aleksandr Lukashenka and you have another
similar system in place with another so-called strong man.
And then I guess my bigger concern about the leverage of
sanctions logic is, if you look at recent history, there was a
long period in which we used sanctions and I think we made some
progress, but we imposed very, very harsh sanctions; and we
didn't achieve the big picture goal. And the progress that we
made--you asked what about reversing sanctions and turning them
off. Well, the progress was turned off, too. So I think it is a
two-way street.
And if you look at the legacy of sanctions, for example,
against Cuba, we did everything that we can; and now we don't
have leverage left. And I am concerned that we end up with a
situation where Belarus is Cuba and we and Europe have no
leverage left and then we will wish that we had coordinated
with Moscow, quite frankly, earlier than we did, because they
will be the only ones with any leverage.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Kramer.
Mr. Kramer. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to Matt,
let's look at what worked. We imposed a visa ban and asset
freeze in the summer of 2006 after the fraudulent election in
2006 against Lukashenka. That didn't work. It took the sanction
against Belneftekhim in November 2007, which 2 months later
brought the regime to the U.S. Embassy to say how do we get you
to ease off on these sanctions? That is the kind of sanction
that is going to free the political prisoners; there is a
proven track record.
When I was in the State Department there was intelligence
to back up this claim, and it seems to me that is the step that
we need right now. A visa ban and asset freeze aren't
irrelevant, but they are not going to get the job done.
Lukashenka was anticipating this. What he was worried about
before the EU took its decision on January 31st was that there
would be sanctions against state-owned enterprises and that is
why he freed two political prisoners on the eve of that
decision.
On people losing their savings, that wasn't due to
sanctions. That is due to the ridiculous economic policies of
Lukashenka and his government.
On engagement, let's remember that after sanctions were
suspended by the EU in October 2008--bad timing because it was
1 month after a bad parliamentary election in September 2008--
October 2008 there was a full-throttle engagement effort,
including offers of $3.5 billion by European foreign ministers
that if the elections passed the free and fair test the EU
would help Belarus.
And what did Lukashenka do? On December 19th, he gave those
who support engagement two middle fingers. That is what he
thinks of engagement. So I think engagement has been tried.
Engagement was the policy during this whole period leading up
to when people have been losing their savings. It isn't because
of sanctions. It is because of his leadership.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Let me just ask you a few final questions.
First, with regards to the United Nations' response, to the
best of your knowledge, has Ban Ki-moon said anything? I know
that on March 14th, 45 U.N. states presented a statement on
Belarus at the session of the Human Rights Council. The
statement expressed deep concerns on human rights. Belarus
responded by denying dialogue and making counteraccusations.
But I am wondering, the Human Rights Council has been,
unfortunately, a great disappointment following up to the
egregiously flawed Human Rights Commission. But, that said, we
are a member--the United States is a member, and many European
countries also have delegations there. And I am wondering about
an official investigation, tabling of a resolution that would
very clearly and cogently single out Lukashenka and his
henchmen for the harm they are doing every day.
I am very worried about the loss of life as well as what
the cruelty of torture does to a person's mind as well as body,
PTSD. I have written four laws called the Torture Victims
Relief Acts, and from my contacts with former victims of
torture those scars are absolutely lifelong. Although some of
the influences or consequences can be mitigated, they carry
those scars. And I am so concerned, as I know both of you are,
about the scars that are being inflicted as we meet at this
hearing today. Especially with long, long sentences likely to
be meted out in these show trials.
So I am wondering if the U.N. can be--I asked our previous
witness, Secretary Russell, if he would raise the issue of the
Convention Against Torture and degrading and cruel treatment.
They are signatories. ``They'' being the Belarusians. Why
aren't the panel of experts and the mechanisms being invoked
there? Because certainly, at a minimum, cruel and degrading
treatment is being imposed and I do believe torture as well. I
was just wondering, why is the U.N. seemingly silent on this?
Mr. Kramer. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, I am
not aware of any statement from the Secretary General. I would
be happy to stand corrected, but I don't believe he has.
On the Human Rights Commission, I agree there should be
every effort made to bring attention to the situation in
Belarus. Of course, Russia is a member of the Human Rights
Council and is likely to block any resolutions or efforts to
launch a special investigation on torture or any other
allegations against Belarus through that mechanism.
Freedom House has efforts, and has outreach to different
delegations in the Human Rights Council, and we will be happy
to pursue those relationships we have and strongly urge this be
taken up with the Human Rights Council.
Mr. Rojansky. Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize very
clearly that I am not proposing engagement as a solution here.
For that reason, I actually think that investigation and
putting on the record the crimes of the Lukashenka regime, of
Lukashenka personally and his associates, makes perfect sense;
and the Human Rights Commission is exactly the right venue. I
would recommend, also, Council of Europe, European Court of
Human Rights, OSCE; and indeed I think this would be a case in
which the ICC's complementarity doctrine could be applied.
I think that the challenge, quite frankly, in practice with
any of these things--which, again, is analogous to my concern
about blanket sanctions and highly punitive measures, is what
if they don't work. If we cannot go in and arrest Aleksandr
Lukashenka, then all we have done is create a public record.
And I think that is important, but I do think we have to think
about the long term and things we can do that will make a
difference.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Just on that, we are looking to mark up H.R. 515 very
shortly. Any text ideas that you might have, we would greatly
appreciate it.
We do have an amendment in the nature of a substitute that
has some refinements already, including calling on the
International Ice Hockey Federation to suspend its plan to hold
the 2014 International Hockey Championship in Minsk until the
Government of Belarus releases all political prisoners. And it
seems to me that that is an absolute bare minimum.
I find it appalling, in a parallel way, that the Olympics
occurred in China, despite the massive crackdown on dissidents.
I remember I met Wei Jingsheng, the father of the Democracy
Wall Movement in the early '90s in Beijing. He was let out in
order to get Olympics 2000, which the Chinese Government did
not get. And then they rearrested him and brought him close to
death. And on a humanitarian only basis they allowed him to
leave.
But those kinds of tools, and you gentlemen have
recommended them, I think they are excellent ideas. Secretary
Kramer, you focused on that. I think it is a great idea. But
any ideas you might have for how we can beef up our response to
Lukashenka so that we don't miss any opportunity to engage and
to hold him to account through sanctions and other ways.
Is there anything else either of you would like to conclude
with? And I thank you again for your extraordinary patience but
also, more importantly, for your very wise counsel.
Mr. Kramer. Mr. Chairman, thank you and thanks for coming
back after the vote. I know it is a Friday afternoon, and so
your patience with us is also very much appreciated.
On the legislation, and I think this is already in there,
but I would strongly urge that attention also be focused on the
IMF so that international financial institution support not go
forward. The U.S. should use its weight in the IMF to block any
possible assistance and should strongly--in fact, including
through the EBRD, in which we have a large share as well. We
should exercise our influence in these international
institutions to make sure that Lukashenka is not propped up.
There is an aspect where I think the worse a situation is the
weaker his grip on power becomes.
I don't quite share the same concerns that the situation
could spiral out of control. Having just been in Egypt last
week, when I was there also in mid-December, it is a night-and-
day change. There are still many challenges in Egypt, a lot
could go wrong in Egypt, but there is really for the first time
in decades hope and optimism in large part because Hosni
Mubarak is no longer in power. The same is true in Belarus. As
long as Mubarak was in power in Egypt, democracy and freedom
and human rights were not possible in Egypt. As long as
Aleksandr Lukashenka is in Belarus, the same thing is true in
that country as well.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Rojansky. Thank you again for the opportunity, sir.
I think in this case there is much less disagreement than
there appears to be. I think we are of the same mind. No
question that Lukashenka requires targeted punishment to get
him to reverse the most recent abuses.
I think in the bigger picture the one thing that I would
love to see in the legislation, if it is not there already, and
I'll be sure to check this, is that we take advantage of a very
new relationship that we have created with Moscow. Because I
think at the end of the day--and here I would not argue that we
are pushing Lukashenka toward Moscow, and if that is the
problem, quite the opposite, that there is great power and
influence in the hands of the Kremlin and that I think the
Kremlin may be prepared or more prepared to use that. Because,
if you think about it, our interests in avoiding a scenario in
Belarus in which there is instability and chaos or there is a
change which leads to damage in Russia's interest and the
United States' interests I think are very much shared.
So I think this is a case where we can have more of a
united international front than we have had in the past, and
that may in fact change this history that I'm concerned about
where steps have been taken but that they haven't led to the
change that we are looking for. So I would like to see that.
Mr. Smith. Thank you for that counsel.
And, just to conclude, this is the first in a series of
hearings on Belarus. This will not be the last. We hope to go
to markup soon in subcommittee, then bring it to the full
committee, then to the floor.
And I do believe the legislation--not just the debate
itself--will also bring attention to Belarus. There are a
number of members who knew what happened in December, but who
are not sure where it went. It kind of fell off the front page
and page 3 and everywhere else in our news media. That has to
change, and I think we are going to try to bring much more
light and scrutiny to it and press immediately for the release
of all the political prisoners and the end of their unjust
incarceration and mistreatment.
And, again, you, both gentlemen, have provided enormous
insights and the subcommittees are deeply grateful for that.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the subcommittees were
adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Donald M. Payne, a
Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey
[Note: The previous article is not reprinted here in its entirety but
is available in committee records.]