[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REVIEWING THE ADMINISTRATION'S FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST FOR EUROPE AND
EURASIA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, EURASIA, AND EMERGING THREATS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 16, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-60
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
95-126 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
MATT SALMON, Arizona KAREN BASS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California
PAUL COOK, California ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas GRACE MENG, New York
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
RON DeSANTIS, Florida TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TED S. YOHO, Florida ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
CURT CLAWSON, Florida BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
DANIEL DONOVAN, New York
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats
DANA ROHRABACHER, California, Chairman
TED POE, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
MO BROOKS, Alabama THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
PAUL COOK, California WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Ms. Alina Romanowski, Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to Europe
and Eurasia, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, U.S.
Department of State............................................ 5
Ms. Susan Fritz, Acting Assistant Administrator, Europe and
Eurasia Bureau, U.S. Agency for International Development...... 18
Mr. Daniel Rosenblum, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Central
Asia, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, U.S.
Department of State............................................ 29
The Honorable Jonathan Stivers, Assistant Administrator, Bureau
for Asia, U.S. Agency for International Development............ 36
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Ms. Alina Romanowski: Prepared statement......................... 7
Ms. Susan Fritz: Prepared statement.............................. 21
Mr. Daniel Rosenblum: Prepared statement......................... 31
The Honorable Jonathan Stivers: Prepared statement............... 38
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 60
Hearing minutes.................................................. 61
REVIEWING THE ADMINISTRATION'S FY 2016
BUDGET REQUEST FOR EUROPE AND
EURASIA
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o'clock
p.m., in room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dana
Rohrabacher (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I call to order the Europe, Eurasia, and
Emerging Threats Subcommittee for this afternoon's hearing on
the administration's budget request.
Before I get into the substance of the hearing, I would
like to express my sympathy for the victims of the devastating
floods which struck the Georgian capital of Tbilisi this
weekend.
Over a dozen people have lost their lives and millions of
dollars in property damage has been suffered. I am sure my
ranking member and all the members of the subcommittee join me
in expressing our condolences to the families of the victims
and wishing the citizens of Tbilisi a speedy recovery.
Getting to the matter at hand, the President has asked that
Congress authorize over $50 billion for international affairs
programs for Fiscal Year 2016. Over $1 billion has been
requested for programs of all types in the jurisdiction of this
subcommittee.
That is a sizeable increase from roughly $640 million spent
for Fiscal Year 2014. Given the events in Eastern Europe over
the past 18 months, much of the increased spending is targeted
on Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova.
Yet, let me note that we are currently $18 trillion in debt
and the debt is increasing every day. So every dollar we use to
help people in foreign countries places that much additional
burden on the backs of the American taxpayer, even worse, on
the backs of America's children who will inherit this debt.
All government programs need to meet a high standard. But
foreign assistance particularly, if it is to be given at all,
must meet the most rigorous standards for accountability.
Congress has the duty to scrutinize the President's
requests to make sure it is responsible and that it properly
supports our nation's international policy priorities.
As I discussed during the same hearing last year, post-war
Europe is often cited as a successful example of U.S. foreign
assistance. The Marshall Plan did succeed. It did so because it
was part of a larger U.S. approach to restoring Europe.
The German Government itself, for example, undertook
reforms to remove extensive price controls and other
restrictions on trade, production and the distribution of
goods. That is what helped restore their economy more than any
aid program.
I would encourage us all to keep that experience in mind as
we talk about governments like the one in Kiev, which we are
currently working so hard to support.
The United States Government can provide loan guarantees,
technical assistance programs and training. But if the
Ukrainians themselves can't sustain the drive to reform their
country and root out corruption, our efforts will be fruitless.
Since Moldova gained its independence, for example, the
United States has spent over $1 billion to help that country
develop into a prosperous democracy. This year's request for
Moldova is nearly $50 million, or $20 million over Fiscal Year
2014.
During my question time, I hope to hear from the witnesses
why our aid to Moldova is increasing so dramatically when the
political parties and corrupt ruling elite in Moldova have
shown zero real interest in the type of reforms that country
needs in order to prosper.
Let me note there is a grave distinction between
humanitarian assistance and development aid. Of course, we
should always be ready to respond to natural disasters, perhaps
like the one that is experienced with Tbilisi--earthquakes,
floods, those type of natural disasters.
We owe it to our fellow human beings in being one of the
most prosperous countries in the world to help out in these
cases of dire emergency.
However, development funds can't work if recipient
countries do not undertake economic reforms. The role of
government assistance is not, thus, to replace private
investment.
Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days
to submit additional written questions or extraneous materials
for the record.
With that, I turn to our ranking member, Congressman Meeks,
for his opening statement.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also want to join you in sending out condolences to those
who were victims--those families victims of the floods in
Tbilisi. Our hearts and prayers go out to those families.
Let me also thank you, Chairman, for holding this hearing
to provide us with an opportunity to examine the
administration's 2016 budget request and our Government's
ability to execute our strategy in the region.
When discussing our fundamental strategy for a Europe
whole, free and at peace, my attention is immediately drawn to
the war in Ukraine.
The country struggled to modernize its economy and the
fight for its citizens' basic rights. Yet, while my attention
is drawn to Russia's role in the region and our relationship to
Russia, I cannot stress enough the importance of the countries
that are not in the spotlight in today's papers.
Europe and Eurasia is, after all, a diverse region in terms
of levels of political and economic development and in
strategic military concerns.
I am convinced that the work of our diplomats and aid
workers in the field ensure that America's interests are being
protected while bringing peace and prosperity to the region.
This is--but this project is far from over.
The overall budget reflects a particularly urgent demand
that, frankly speaking, may require more resources when 2016
arrives. I am referring to the situation in Ukraine and the
economic tightrope the government is currently walking.
Yes, the reform of the economy must be done by the
Ukrainians themselves following successive governments'
failures to reform. But the new Ukrainian Government will not
be able to meet the rightful demands of its citizens without
some help.
With a closing political window, I want to make sure that
we help a committed government get reform done and get it done
correctly. Take the Ukraine portion of the budget out of the
equation, however, and we are left with a relatively small
budget, given the concerns in other parts of the region.
A few weeks ago, this subcommittee hosted a lively hearing
on progress and challenges in the western Balkans. Since the
hearing, Macedonia continues to stumble through its political
turmoil.
The Greek foreign minister has also visited Washington when
we examined possible energy futures that would affect all
members of the western Balkan region. Or Serbian prime minister
visited also to DC to discuss Kosovo and relations with Russia.
All of this is a way to say that there is plenty of work to
be done in this region. Are we succeeding in achieving our
foreign policy goals in the western Balkans, given the budget?
Meanwhile, in Central Asia we face similar problems but
with different variables. As the Russian economy reels,
citizens feel the combined effects of low oil prices,
corruption and a non-modernized economy and Western sanctions.
As a result, scores of migrant laborers, many of them men, are
returning home to Central Asia.
Kyrgyzstan and Turkestan are especially vulnerable. We are
not only due--and it is not only due to the local economies
that rely on remittances as a significant source of income.
They do rely on remittances as a significant source of income.
But the economies may not be able to absorb the influx of
labor. In these countries, having frustrated portions of
society with nothing that they can do to support their
families, people will look toward more drastic options to
express despair.
And finally, the Caucasus, where USAID has been active in
various programs in the diverse region. I would like to hear
how the 2016 budget aims to address the problems that seem
increasingly difficult.
It is recent--in its recent summit and rigor our partners
in the region, the European Union, recalibrated its policy
toward the eastern partnership, noting the various challenges
and levels of development.
As EU and NATO memberships become even less attractive or
attainable goals in the mid- to medium-term, our assistance
there becomes much, much more important.
In conclusion, I look forward to discussing the proposed
2016 budget with our four colleagues from the State Department
and USAID.
It is my goal as ranking member of this subcommittee to
challenge, nudge and encourage you to make sure our dollars are
being used to their fullest potential in a diverse region that
means so much to us as Americans.
And I yield back.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Meeks.
Does Mr. Cook or Mr. Weber have an opening statement?
Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber. Yes, sir. Let us get going.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. There we go.
We have a great panel with us today to help us understand
this part of the Federal budget and how it relates directly to
our relations with the countries within our jurisdiction of
this committee.
First is Alina Romanowski, who is State Department
coordinator for U.S. assistance to Europe and Eurasia, a
position which she took up this past March. She coordinates our
assistance programs across multiple State Department bureaus
and government agencies.
Previously, she served as the deputy assistant
administrator for USAID's Middle East bureau and held senior
positions within the Bureau of Educational and Cultural
Affairs.
She is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and
graduated with a Master's degree from the University of
Chicago.
Next, we have Daniel--no, we don't. You are not next. No.
Next we have Susan Fritz as acting assistant administrator for
USAID in Europe and Eurasia Bureau.
She brings over two decades of experience to the table and
she has served as, for example, USAID mission director in
Serbia and the deputy mission director for Kosovo. It is good
to have her back as well before the subcommittee.
And then we have Mr. Daniel Rosenblum. He was a deputy
assistant secretary of state for Central Asia from 2008 to
2014. He served as the coordinator for U.S. assistance to
Europe and Eurasia.
Before that, he held numerous positions of responsibility
within the State Department before joining the executive
branch. He was a legislative assistant here on Capitol Hill for
Senator Carl Levin.
And last but not least, we have Jonathan Stivers, serves as
USAID's assistant administrator for the Bureau of Asia and
today will be speaking specifically to the Central Asian aspect
of his portfolio.
Mr. Stivers is an 18-year veteran of Capitol Hill and last
worked for Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. So we have two
veterans over there, you know, both sides of this discussion,
and he holds a Master's degree in international policy from
George Washington University.
I would like to ask all of our witnesses to limit their
presentation to 5 minutes. Everything else in your opening
statement can be put into the record and then it will be
followed by a question and answer period from the members to
the panel.
Ms. Romanowski, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF MS. ALINA ROMANOWSKI, COORDINATOR OF U.S.
ASSISTANCE TO EUROPE AND EURASIA, BUREAU OF EUROPEAN AND
EURASIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ms. Romanowski. Thank you, Chairman Rohrabacher, Ranking
Member Meeks and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
inviting me here today to testify on the President's Fiscal
Year 2016 budget for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia. If there
is no objection, I would also like to submit my written
testimony for the record.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Ms. Romanowski. Last fall marked the 25th anniversary of
our assistance to support democracy, political pluralism and
economic reform in the post-Communist space of Europe, Eurasia
and Central Asia.
The results have demonstrated the transformational power of
U.S. assistance to unleash freedom, security and prosperity
across a region once shackled by totalitarianism, hostility and
economic stagnation.
Since 1990, 12 former assistance countries have joined NATO
and 11 joined the EU. In Central Europe, 11 former seed
assistance countries are now fully-fledged partners in opening
the way toward democracy, rule of law, open markets and human
dignity for their Eastern neighbors.
While the success of our assistance had been significant,
progress is worryingly uneven. The fate of our 25-year
assistance effort is visibly being tested in Ukraine and
Russia's actions represent the most serious challenge facing
the U.S. and our European allies since the end of the Cold War.
With the current crisis in Ukraine and Russia's attempt to
shred the values on which the post-Cold War order is based, we
are redoubling our focus and objectives toward a Europe whole,
free and at peace and fostering stable, prosperous and
pluralistic democracies across the region.
Our Fiscal Year 2016 request for the Europe and Eurasia
region is $953.3 million and reflects the tough challenges that
we face in a budget environment with competing global demands.
We support five strategic objectives. First, keeping faith
with countries as they chart their own futures in the face of
bullying from outside actors. Second, supporting these
countries on their path toward Euro-Atlantic integration.
Third, bolstering efforts to tackle corruption, build rule
of law and foster transparent and accountable governance.
Fourth, deepening and expanding civil society and free
independent media.
And finally, fifth, rolling back transnational threats that
rob the region of its prosperity and undermine its security.
Since Russia's occupation and purported annexation of
Crimea, the U.S. has committed $471 million in assistance for
Ukraine along with providing two $1-billion loan guarantees.
If Ukraine continues progress on its reform agenda and
conditions warrant, the U.S. administration will work with
Congress to consider providing another loan guarantee later in
2015.
Going forward, our assistance in Ukraine will target broad
economic, anti-corruption and energy reforms while
incorporating civil society, private sector and the public into
this process.
In Kiev and European capitals, we are working closely with
other international donors to avoid duplication and ensure
complementarity of our efforts.
Just like in Ukraine, we are supporting Georgia and Moldova
to pursue clean accountable governance as well as their quests
to move closer to Europe and counter Russian pressure.
U.S. assistance is also playing an important role in
addressing serious transnational threats like organized crime,
trafficking and foreign fighters from the region.
To combat these malign influences, our Fiscal Year 2016
request for peace and security programs for Europe and Eurasia
is $263.4 million, which is up $51.8 million over Fiscal Year
2014 levels.
But our objectives are not limited to post-Soviet space.
The countries of the western Balkans too are knocking at the
door of Euro-Atlantic institutions.
We must continue to offer them a political, economic and
moral hand in their efforts whether in normalizing relations
between Serbia and Kosovo or helping Albania push ahead with
progress on reforms to meet EU standards.
Our budget request also aims at rooting out corruption. We
are increasing transparency and accountability in courtrooms
across Albania.
In Bosnia-Herzegovina, we are supporting civil society to
implement a new whistleblowing protection law and in Ukraine we
are providing technical assistance to help stand up a new
independent anti-corruption bureau.
We are also working to reverse the worrying trends of
democratic backsliding and restricting civil society. Doing
this requires innovative thinking to ensure that countries in
Eurasia and the Balkans continue on the path to democracy. Our
Fiscal Year 2016 request for democracy funding is $193 million.
As Secretary Kerry said when he testified before this
committee over a month ago, ``Our budget proposals aren't just
a collection of numbers. They are the embodiment of our
values.''
For 25 years, our assistance in Europe and Eurasia has
extended those values toward our ultimate goal of completing a
Europe whole, free and at peace. This budget request continues
that mission.
Finally, we remain committed to working diligently,
effectively and imaginatively with the resources provided by
the American people in service of our values and our national
interests throughout the region.
Thank you for this opportunity and your bipartisan support.
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Romanowski follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Rohrabacher. The figure you just gave on $193 million
for democracy development or building, that was over what
territory?
Ms. Romanowski. Sir, that is our request for Fiscal Year
2016.
Mr. Rohrabacher. For which countries?
Ms. Romanowski. It is for the region.
Mr. Rohrabacher. For the----
Ms. Romanowski. Europe and Eurasia.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Got it. Okay.
Ms. Fritz, you may.
STATEMENT OF MS. SUSAN FRITZ, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
EUROPE AND EURASIA BUREAU, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Fritz. Chairman Rohrabacher, Ranking Member Meeks,
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
testify today on the administration's Fiscal Year 2016 budget
request for Europe and Eurasia.
Historically, the United States and USAID have played a key
role in this region. Over the past 20 years, 12 Eastern
European countries have transitioned from receiving USAID
assistance, integrating into the Euro-Atlantic community
including NATO and the EU, becoming strong allies.
However, the region's transformation isn't complete. In the
countries where we continue to work, progress in key areas is
uneven. Gains are at risk and we are even seeing some
regression.
The past year has been challenging. Russian aggression in
Ukraine and throughout the region threatens peace, stability,
democracy and prosperity and requires greater U.S. and
international focus, resolve and resources to meet these
challenges.
Still, we see opportunities from Kiev to Belgrade to
Tbilisi to further Euro-Atlantic integration, democracy and
economic prosperity. U.S. assistance remains critical to
countering Russian pressure and to advancing the goal of a
Europe whole, free and at peace.
To support these goals, the President has requested $710.2
million in ESF in Fiscal Year 2016. This assistance targets
critical needs in Ukraine, supports Georgia, Moldova and the
Balkans' continued Euro-Atlantic integration and strengthens
the democratic and economic resiliency of these countries to
address Russian pressure.
In Ukraine, USAID has stepped up its efforts to support the
Ukrainian Government and people during a historic transition.
We deeply appreciate congressional support that has reinforced
our efforts and the U.S. commitment to Ukraine.
USAID's funding supports critical programs in the following
areas--stabilizing, strengthening and growing Ukraine's economy
and supporting Ukraine's energy independence; strengthening
democracy and rule of law; combatting corruption and promoting
effective governance; and improving the availability and
effectiveness of health services and containing the spread of
HIV/AIDS and TB.
Some key accomplishments and milestones in these areas
include in energy, USAID provided critical technical assistance
to help Ukraine keep the lights and heat on this past winter in
the face of potential energy shortages.
Last year, USAID provided approximately $11 million in
support of a successful snap Presidential and parliamentary
elections. While we have seen progress, the challenges facing
Ukraine will not be solved overnight.
The conflict in Eastern Ukraine continues to destabilize
the country, resulting in over 1.3 million internally displaced
persons and 5.1 million people in need of humanitarian
assistance. Ukraine will require a sustained commitment from
the United States and the international community.
Turning to Moldova, Moldova has taken significant and
meaningful steps toward Euro-Atlantic integration but faces
substantial challenges, particularly from continued corruption
and Russian propaganda.
U.S. assistance is strengthening democratic institutions
and civil society, addressing corruption and improving the
business regulatory environment and private sector
competitiveness, especially through assistance to companies to
enter new markets after a 2014 Russian trade embargo.
Turning to the Caucuses, in Georgia USAID's programs are
aimed at economic growth, further U.S. integration--I am sorry,
EU integration and strengthening civil society, democratic
governance and independent media.
Targeted assistance also focuses on improving the
livelihood and resilience of border communities that are
particularly vulnerable to Russian pressure.
In Armenia, we are working with the government and civil
society to strengthen decentralization and anti-corruption
reforms and are supporting economic growth.
Turning to the Western Balkans, we are furthering EU
integration and strengthening democratic governance and
economic growth.
The recent crisis in Macedonia reminds us that we cannot
take peace and stability in the Western Balkans for granted.
Let me provide a few highlights of our efforts in the Balkans.
In Kosovo, USAID recently completed agricultural support
which led to increased agricultural sales of over $100 million
and created over 6,000 jobs.
In Macedonia, USAID supports credible and independent
reporting through its media fact-checking service. In Fiscal
Year 2014, the service published almost 900 peer reviews of
articles, produced over 90 critical disclosure analyses and
published over 100 journalistic lessons that helped increase
the media literacy of consumers.
In Serbia, we are supporting judicial reforms that are
critical to Serbia's EU accession. USAID's work with six pilot
courts resulted in reduction of backlogs by 55 percent,
resolving more than 13,000 cases.
So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, in a region facing some of
its most significant challenges in decades, USAID will continue
to seek to advance U.S. interests and goals while also
maximizing our impact and resources.
The Fiscal Year 2016 budget request recognizes that even
with competing priorities and difficult budget realities the
United States must continue to play a critical leadership role
in this region to achieve the goal of a Europe whole, free and
at peace.
I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Fritz follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
Mr Rosenblum.
STATEMENT OF MR. DANIEL ROSENBLUM, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR CENTRAL ASIA, BUREAU OF SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIAN AFFAIRS,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Rosenblum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask that my full
written statement appear in the record.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Rosenblum. Chairman Rohrabacher and members of the
subcommittee, I am here today to focus on Central Asia and that
portion of our request.
Some of Central Asia's most serious challenges such as
transnational crime, narcotics trafficking, terrorism and
violent extremism directly affect U.S. national interests and
require us to work closely with the countries of this region.
And while U.S. security is directly tied to a stable
Central Asia, the region's energy resources and transport
corridors can help drive economic growth that benefits the
region and the entire world economy.
So the President's Fiscal Year 2016 request of $155.7
million, which supports sovereignty, security, good governance
and economic development in Central Asia, is also supporting a
safer and more secure United States.
And this support should also help these countries reduce
their dependence on Russia or on any other single power.
Regionally, we are focusing on creating open and secure borders
while improving economic linkages among the Central Asian
states and with their neighbors to the south, east and west.
Our connectivity efforts are organized under what we call
the new Silk Road initiative and focus on creating an energy
market, improving trade and transport infrastructure,
streamlining customs and border procedures and enhancing
business networks and people-to-people ties.
We are also working with Kazakhstan to help it join
Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic as WTO members. And on that
note, we are insistent that the Eurasian Economic Union
shouldn't raise barriers to trade nor impair the ability of its
members to enter into other trade relationships or fulfill
their international commitments.
We know that the Central Asian governments' records on
human rights have been flawed and that improvement is slow and
inconsistent. Once step forward is often followed by two steps
back.
We also know that long-term stability cannot be achieved by
restricting the free and peaceful expression of political and
religious views which, as we often remind these countries, is a
shortsighted and counterproductive strategy.
So by seeking to build civil society and by promoting the
rule of law, our assistance seeks to create more space and
tolerance for peaceful dissent and religious expression.
It is important to note that while we often speak about
Central Asia as a monolithic region, in fact nothing could be
further from the truth. It is five individual countries, each
with their own unique history, culture, development needs and
external policies.
Kazakhstan, with its abundant natural resources and well-
educated younger generation, is the region's largest and most
advanced economy and shares U.S. priorities in regional
security, nonproliferation, counterterrorism, energy security
and climate change.
Kazakhstan's likely accession to the WTO in a very short
time from now and its rapidly growing middle class offer many
new opportunities for U.S. companies. But Kazakhstan's advances
in the economic sphere have not been matched by the same amount
of progress in developing a vibrant civil society or strong
human rights protections.
So we are working to develop institutions within the
government and civil society that can advance those goals.
In the Kyrgyz Republic, democracy's roots are growing
gradually and we continue to support nascent government
institutions. The success of economic and political reforms is
not guaranteed here and we will continue to make the
investments in good governance that will strengthen this young
parliamentary democracy's resilience.
Tajikistan faces severe challenges including economic
stress and social tension resulting from the decline of
remittances from Tajik migrants--migrant workers in Russia.
These remittances sustain the Tajik economy but will
reportedly decline by at least 20 percent this year. On the
security side, we are working to enhance the capacity and
professionalism of Tajikistan's military, border security, law
enforcement and judicial institutions.
Turkmenistan also shares a long border with Afghanistan,
which it has assisted with discounted electricity, humanitarian
aid and infrastructure development. It also faces significant
challenges in securing its borders against criminal and
terrorist activities.
So our cooperation with Turkmenistan is focused on
enhancing its ability to maintain secure borders while also
addressing its restrictions on human rights.
Finally, Uzbekistan and its geographical position in
Central Asia make it strategically important for regional
security. It also shares a border with Afghanistan as the most
populous country in Central Asia.
Our priorities are to help Uzbekistan maintain safe and
secure borders while developing more responsive and open
institutions.
Mr. Chairman, despite its significant challenges, Central
Asia has tremendous potential to become a major nexus for
global trade and energy flows. Our assistance and diplomacy can
help achieve this vision, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosenblum follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Stivers.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JONATHAN STIVERS, ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR ASIA, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Stivers. Chairman Rohrabacher, distinguished members of
the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify today
on the role of USAID in advancing our foreign policy goals in
Central Asia.
It is always an honor to testify before this committee and
be back in the people's House. President Obama's Fiscal Year
2016 budget request of $155.7 million for foreign assistance in
Central Asia reflects a sustained commitment to American
involvement in the region and the broader area, including
Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In Central Asia, USAID is working through three primary
approaches--one, promoting economic growth and regional
connectivity; two, tackling development challenges of global
consequence; and three, supporting democratic governance.
First, on economic growth and regional connectivity,
Central Asia is one of the least economically integrated
regions of the world with intraregional trade accounting for
less than 5 percent of total trade.
With little economic opportunity at home, hundreds of
thousands are forced to migrate in search of work. In
Tajikistan, Russian-derived remittances account for 50 percent
of GDP and for neighboring Kyrgyz Republic, it is about a third
of GDP.
This year alone, more than 1 million Central Asians will
return home from Russia without funds or employment prospects.
USAID is working to expand economic opportunity through a
dual-pronged approach of promoting domestic reforms to support
economic growth and regional connectivity efforts. USAID
focuses on strengthening the business-enabling environment,
access to market and private sector and agricultural
competitiveness, and the U.S. Government's new Silk Road
initiative is key to efforts to bind the region to the markets
in South Asia through Afghanistan.
Second, we are tackling the development challenges and
threats to stability. On global health, some of the highest
rates of multidrug-resistance tuberculosis in the world are in
Central Asia.
The time between testing and diagnosis used to take almost
a month. Patients had no choice but to return to their
community as they awaited their diagnosis, thereby risking the
spread.
USAID has recently introduced cutting-edge technology from
California called Gene Expert that diagnoses drug-resistant
multidrug-resistant TB strains in hours instead of weeks.
USAID is also partnering on adaptation of Kazakhstan's
wheat sector. More frequent droughts are a major challenge and
any reduction in wheat production has significant repercussions
for regional food security.
Our efforts include promoting agricultural practices such
as the use of drought- and heat-resistant wheat varieties and
forecasting models to inform harvesting decisions and improve
yields.
Third, promoting democratic governance and empowering civil
society is our key priority. Fighting poverty is often less a
question of funding but also of effectively addressing the
underlying structural problems with governance that prevent
many countries from realizing their potential.
At the core of our engagement across the region are
empowering reformers who are standing up for human rights and
fundamental freedoms, all foundational to lasting stability and
prosperity.
Next, I will highlight other key assistance areas in the
five countries of Central Asia. In the Kyrgyz Republic, it is
the only parliamentary democracy in the region.
The country has continued to consolidate its democratic
system with the first democratic transfer of power in Central
Asia in 2011. The upcoming parliamentary elections this fall
and the Presidential elections in 2017 will be critical, as the
system remains fragile.
Our partnership offers an alternative to the authoritarian
models in the region. U.S. assistance supports continued
parliamentary development, judicial reform and consolidation of
an electoral process that continues to reflect the will of the
people.
Tajikistan shares an 800-mile border with Afghanistan and
is a lynchpin for security and stability in Central Asia.
Seventy-five percent of Tajikistan's labor force is dependent
on agriculture for their livelihoods, yet one in four children
suffer from stunting, which is chronic malnutrition that stunts
a child's growth in early ages. Boosting agricultural
productivity is essential to improving lives.
In Tajikistan's poorest province, the Feed the Future
initiative helps households increase their production of
profitable and nutritious crops.
In Uzbekistan, our assistance contributed to the adoption
of a judicial code of ethics and expanded defendant rights.
Uzbekistan is also a source country for human trafficking and
USAID works to combat the illegal practice.
In Kazakhstan, we support economic diversification,
combatting human trafficking, independent media and efficiency
and transparency of the court system.
And in Turkmenistan, one of the most isolated states in the
world, U.S. assistance improves access to outside information,
education and communication between the government and civil
society.
Thank you for the opportunity to share what USAID is doing
in Central Asia and I welcome any advice, thoughts or questions
you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stivers follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, and we will have
questions from the panel now--from our members.
Let me just say in general I am a bit concerned. Did the
words ``radical Islam'' come out of anybody's mouth today in
testimony? Any of your testimony include a statement that
included the words ``radical Islam?''
I don't think I heard that. I heard a lot about Russia and
being a reason for this and that, this and that, this and that.
But let me just note that if Central Asia, which is made up
mainly of Muslim populations, should succumb to the type of
radical Islamic temptations that people in other parts of the
Islamic world have succumbed to, we are in big trouble.
This could be--I personally believe that if General, now
President el-Sisi in Egypt, is overthrown and it has been very
difficult for this administration to get themselves to help
President el-Sisi, that you could have a complete collapse of
resistance to this radical Islamic terrorist movement in the
Gulf, which would then perhaps spread next step into Central
Asia.
I mean, this could be an historic threat to Western
civilization. But yet we didn't hear anything about it today
when we are discussing America's commitment to that region.
We have--let me ask a little bit about the nature of our
assistance. When we are talking about $750 million, I guess, to
Ukraine and $193 million to democracy building, when you are
talking about democracy building does that--is what we are
talking about money that we give to NGOs? Is that included in
this?
Ms. Fritz. Our assistance varies. Some of it is to NGOs to
help build their capacity. Most of our assistance goes through
U.S. contractors and U.S. NGOs that provide technical
assistance from civil society to----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. So the answer is yes.
Ms. Fritz [continuing]. Judicial reform, a whole host of
areas----
Mr. Rohrabacher. I got it.
Ms. Fritz [continuing]. Not just civil society.
Mr. Rohrabacher. In that--in that host of reforms, do we
sponsor NGOs that are pushing specific environmental policies
as well?
Ms. Fritz. I don't know what you are referring to.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Environmental policies. Do we have NGOs
who are suggesting that the countries in pushing to organize
people within these countries to focus on particular energy
sources or environmental mandates and restrictions?
Ms. Fritz. We do not, not that I am aware of. What we do do
is to work with countries to help them meet EU directives
related to energy, environment and private sector and their
energy sector. So EU directives but not anything beyond that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Well, let me note that we just
recently--I, with a delegation, visited Kosovo and there is
apparently an American-sponsored NGO that is becoming very
aggressive in trying to promote certain energy sources.
And I have met in that area region as well people who are
talking about NGOs trying to push for what we would call here
renewable energy resources rather than energy sources that
perhaps are cheaper for those societies at this particular
stage in their development.
And I think that while we all--who would disagree with some
very positive thing called environmentalism--what is good for
the environment--there are distinct debates as to what is in
the long run the best direction to go in terms of renewables
right now and the developing world.
Because if you have expenditures for energy that are higher
now in a developing world that means they don't have other
money available for education, health care, et cetera, et
cetera.
And so if maybe perhaps you could get back to me with a
list of the NGOs that are engaged with trying to influence
energy policy under your jurisdictions that would be very
helpful.
Ms. Fritz. Yes, sir. We will look into that and get back to
you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And Ms. Romanowski, you wanted to say
something about that?
Ms. Romanowski. Well, I did want to add a point--that with
respect to Kosovo in particular we are supporting broadly their
energy development and their energy security plans, which do
include a combination of renewables.
We are also looking at how they could be building a third
and more modern coal plant as well as replace the outdated and
very, very highly-polluting Kosovo A Plant.
So there are--the energy situation in Kosovo is
particularly serious and very, very unreliable and we are
working with Kosovo to develop an energy plan that, clearly, is
both a short-term and a medium-term objective including all
types of energy sources.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I have to admit that it certainly is--we
need to be involved with helping hands for countries like
Kosovo and other countries.
But I think people would resent it here if we had people
who were being paid by foreign governments to come in and tell
us what energy policies are best for our country and, you know,
so Kosovo--this is not an illiterate uneducated group of
people.
They should be able to make decisions on their own and it
seems to me providing that type of pressure, and I know that
people have--how do you say--have the best of motives in mind
in all of these areas because this is what they believe is
good.
Sometimes, of course, people can disagree with what exactly
that policy should be but even with that the idea on having the
United States Government going in, pressuring countries where
you have populations that are relatively educated populations
toward these type of policies I think it is something we need
to think about and be a little bit more retrospective in terms
of how we would feel if we had people in here from the United
Nations who now are going to come in and tell us what we are
going to do in terms of our energy and environmental policies.
What about social issues? Do we have--are we financing the
NGOs on different social issues?
Ms. Fritz. Are you specifically referring to Kosovo or more
broadly?
Mr. Rohrabacher. No, generally, in Eastern Europe and in
Eurasia.
Ms. Fritz. If you include health care as a social issue,
yes, we support NGOs who engage in issues related to health
care.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, the complaints that we have heard is
that they--that we are defining social issues to include sexual
type of things and basically policy toward homosexuality, which
we in the United States we don't believe in people being
discriminated against for this but in those countries perhaps
they are culturally different than we are and having our--
pressuring them through our Government to accept certain
cultural norms like that, I think that in Hungary in particular
we heard some people complaining that their government was
being pressured by American taxpayer groups that we are trying
to get--to force them to change their policy on this which,
again, should be left up to individual countries to make their
determination as to what their position would be on gay
marriage, for example, or even abortion. Any comments on that?
Ms. Romanowski. Mr. Rohrabacher, our support for civil
society and for NGOs is very much focused on themes that
strengthen democratic governance that helps support the reform
agendas that the people in this region are interested in
pursuing.
They are also focused on having laws and values that don't
discriminate against the peoples in this region and other
minorities that are in this region.
So a lot of our work that we do with NGOs and in fact in
our engagement--diplomatic engagement with the governments in
the region is to ensure that the laws are free of
discrimination and in this region.
So a lot of the work that we do do with NGOs does encompass
many of the values that we share in this country.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So the answer is yes, and let me just note
that I think that trying to push our belief in--from Western
civilization belief that, for example, most of us don't believe
that we should have multiple wives.
You know, you are married to one person, and to have--to go
to an Islamic country and try to push norms, whether it is
homosexuality or where it is men-women relationships and things
like that, I think that we could find it very difficult if
somebody was coming into the United States with government
money trying to pressure us in the opposite directions because
that is what their culture says is the right way to go.
With limited resources and with the fact that we are
borrowing every single penny that we give to these countries,
it might be better for us to prioritize and that telling them
how to run the social structure in their country should receive
a lot lower priority than perhaps working with them to build
their economy and build a more interactive country with us in
terms of economics and other items like that.
With that said, I will be very happy to yield to Mr. Deutch
and what time that he would like to expend.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before--and thanks to
all of you for your testimony.
Just one point I would make at the outset that many of us
deeply believe that this is not about American norms but that
LGBT rights and women's rights are human rights and that we
have an obligation to speak out in support of human rights
including LGBT and gender equality everywhere in the world. I
just wanted to get that on the record.
I have travelled--to our panel I will tell you I have
travelled a number of times to Europe and to Central Asia, most
recently last month on a trip to Germany and in my role as
chair of the Congressional Study Group on Germany.
It was clear to me in my meetings with members of the
government, legislators, civil society groups, NGOs that the
historic and deep transatlantic relationship is appreciated. It
is respected.
In many ways, it is revered. But it is not one to be taken
for granted. And as our attention is frequently diverted to
crises around the world, I think that we in Congress, the
administration, the American people have to remember the
important partnership that we have with our European allies and
should continue to engage with them on a bilateral basis as
well as through our multinational organizations like NATO and
OSCE. It is just not a relationship that should ever be taken
for granted.
Now, I would like to focus my questions on the eastern
Mediterranean region. There are a number of issues that make
this area one of interest for the United States including
recent optimism of achieving a reunification deal in Cyprus,
new energy opportunities in the Mediterranean and last week's
election results in Turkey and what will result for them.
Obviously, we are focused on the Greek debt crisis and the
down-to-the-wire negotiations and others. There is a lot
happening in that part of the region.
So just a couple of questions. In looking at the budget, it
appears that the State Department didn't request any funds for
Cyprus in the Fiscal Year 2016 budget. The question is does
State or USAID have any plans to increase involvement and
support, financial or otherwise, as Cyprus negotiations move
forward.
And then to the extent that you can speak to the status of
reunification negotiations and the role that the United States
is playing to help reach an agreement, I would appreciate that,
in particular, how have our USAID and State Department efforts
contributed to achieving a peaceful settlement. Ms. Romanowski.
Ms. Romanowski. Yes. Mr. Deutch, on Cyprus we welcome the
resumption of the settlement talks that started in May and are
going to--and reaffirm our full support for the U.N.-
facilitated process and we want to be helpful to the parties in
any way that we can.
We have encouraged the parties, as they go through their
talks to reach a settlement as soon as possible, to reunify the
island as a bizonal bicommunal federation.
But we, in fact, did not request funding in both Fiscal
Year 2015 or 2016 as we are facing regional challenges and
broader global demands on our budget.
We have had to make difficult choices but we will be
looking for ways in which we can support the settlement talks
as they go forward.
Mr. Deutch. Thanks. I would--I would just like to drill
down a little bit on one specific issue in Cyprus.
Last week, Cyprus' commissioner of humanitarian affairs was
in Washington. I know he met with the State Department, asking
for U.S. assistance and resolving the issue of missing persons
in Cyprus.
Nearly 2,000 people went missing during the intercommunal
fighting of 1963 to 1964 and then, again, after the Turkish
invasion of 1974. To this day, most remain missing and it would
seem that with the promising restart of reunification
negotiations and the focus on confidence-building measures that
one of the best confidence-building measures will be for Turkey
to stop putting up roadblocks like claiming certain areas are
in occupied Cyprus and are off limits as what they refer to as
military zones for the search of more than, as I understand it,
1,400 that remain missing.
So I know that USAID has provided assistance in the past to
the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus. We have legislation
that directs the administration to locate five American
citizens who joined the ranks of the missing in 1974 and so I
am just--I would like to know what progress is being made to
open up the military zones and what steps are being taken to
locate the remaining four American citizens whose remains have
not yet been found.
Ms. Romanowski. Mr. Deutch, I appreciate very much your
question but I would like to take that for the record and
consult with my other colleagues at the department that are
real experts on the missing persons issue and get you an answer
to that question, if that is all right.
Mr. Deutch. That is okay. I will look forward to receiving
that response after you have had an opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, do I have time for one last question or----
Mr. Rohrabacher. I think I went over my time so you can go
over your time.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you. I appreciate that. Just a general
question.
If anyone would like to comment on the changes--any changes
we might expect in Turkey following the recent election in
which AKP lost a number of--a significant number of its seats.
Ms. Romanowski. Yes. On the--the United States does look
forward to working with this newly-elected Parliament and the
new and the future government.
We are encouraging them to form a coalition government or a
new government as quickly as possible and at this point we have
looked at the--at the elections, that they were general--the
fundamental freedoms were generally respected.
Journalists--while journalists and the media were somewhat
critical of the ruling party and they were subject to some
pressure and intimidation--there was some violence--we agree
with the OSCE election observation mission that was in Turkey
that this is--it was an election that in essence represents the
elected--the voting representatives in Turkey.
We do--again, we do await their new government to continue
to work with Turkey as an important partner in the region on
many, many regional and global issues.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
will look forward to receiving that response to the question
about the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus, and I yield
back.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, thank you very much.
We will proceed to the second round, seeing that there is
only a couple of us here, and I mentioned earlier that I had
been through the--down in the Balkans on a trip recently and
one of the points, Ms. Fritz, that I have been trying to make
is that we--when we talk about aid I am--there is no hesitation
on my part to commit America to helping people in an emergency
situation and, certainly, Kosovo, 20 years ago, had an
emergency situation and they were in conflict and people were
being killed and there was a--and there are natural calamities
as well when people have volcanos and all sorts of earthquakes
and things such as that.
We have to be willing to help out in those situations. I
think our humanness of our values certainly would demand that
of any free people.
But in terms of aid, as I mentioned in my opening
statement, that we have to make sure that our aid isn't just
being used as a means not to have their governments do for
their people what they are perfectly capable of doing.
And when I was in Kosovo, I couldn't help but notice that
there was a new hospital that I actually visited that was built
totally with private funds from the United States and that the
government there in Pristina had not given them the permits to
open even though their hospital they had equipped--there it is
sitting right there with all of the most modern technology that
any hospital would have, closed.
And I don't--you know, whatever the reasons there are
always--anybody can find a reason not to do something, of
course, until somebody gets paid off somewhere.
Now, I haven't heard that they--someone has stepped forward
with their hand out yet but quite often that happens in less-
developed countries.
But why should we be giving Kosovo support when they have a
hospital right there that has been paid for with private
dollars and that they are not given permits to open?
Ms. Fritz. The kind of support we provide to Kosovo is
related to building their capacity. So we are not providing--
first of all, we are not providing assistance in the health
sector. Second of all, we don't provide funding.
We provide technical assistance and training to build the
capacity of the government to do different things whether it is
in the energy sector, helping private-sector development.
We help companies to be able to compete on the European
market to export their products to European countries.
Mr. Rohrabacher. We are not giving them any help in the
health care area at all?
Ms. Fritz. No.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Ms. Fritz. Sir, we also provide assistance related to
democratic institutions. We support civil society.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Ms. Fritz. We support a range of----
Mr. Rohrabacher. So would you suggest that if someone is
involved with a humanitarian effort like--this is--it better be
the White House. Hold on. Mr. President, I am in the middle of
a hearing. I am sorry. I can't take the call right now. I have
no idea who that was.
But so you would believe that when the--a country that we
are helping in a variety of areas does something like--for
example, does not give the permits necessary for a private
sector hospital to open up that this would be considered a
health care issue and not a rule of law issue?
Ms. Fritz. It certainly could be both, and what I meant to
say was that USAID is not currently engaged in this issue. We
can consult with the Embassy and find out more information for
you, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me suggest that we should--go right
ahead, Ms. Romanowski.
Ms. Romanowski. I just wanted to add a very important point
that I think we share also your concern for access to quality
health care and we recognize that this is an issue that is
problematic.
And our Ambassador, in fact, has been working this issue
with the Kosovo Government along with the private sector to try
and resolve this issue. In fact, she met with the prime
minister last week.
So it is definitely an issue on our radar that we are
focusing on to, again, make sure that that hospital can
function the way it was intended to.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, I realize the Ambassador is paying
attention because I think that we brought her with us to go to
the tour of the--of that hospital.
I would suggest that if Kosovo or other countries are
unwilling to step forward--now, this--to me, this is a
potential corruption issue because so often what happens is
people don't get permits until they have paid somebody off. But
I have not heard specifically of any demand yet.
But even without that factor, if people expect to have us
subsidize various activities in their country while they are
engaged in that type of thing with an American citizen who has
put money into it, I think it demands us more than just to say
something but it demands us to do something, which I would--I
will be watching very carefully to see if the State Department
does more than just talk about it after--this hospital isn't
open.
It has already been 6 months since we were there. So that
hospital is just sitting there while people in that country,
especially--by the way, it was especially designed to help
women--women in that city to get the proper care that they
need--and if that is going to remain closed I think we should
consider some type of pulling back in some of these other
areas, perhaps even pulling back from our trying to pressure
them to have the type of energy development that we think is
best for them rather than perhaps what they think is best for
them.
And about Ukraine, and I guess--I guess Mr.--Ms.
Romanowski, I think this would be for you but I am not sure if
the others--this fits them.
Could you give me a frank assessment of--because we have
been talking a lot about Ukraine here, and let me just note for
the record there is nothing that could help Ukraine more in
their building their economy is to help bring peace between
Russia and Ukraine.
When Ukraine or any other country invests in military
equipment, we are there investing in things that blow up rather
than things that create more wealth.
Military spending and providing debt to a country in order
to finance an unnecessary conflict is a horrendous burden on a
country that is in debt and I think it is--frankly, I think we
should be doing more in trying to find a compromise and a
solution, perhaps in helping--even having more talks about the
Minsk agreements that have been reached on a pathway to get
them back--to back off from this conflict.
But one of the unknown factors or unseen factors here in
the United States is the role that oligarchs have been playing
in creating the situation that now exists.
A large portion of the Ukrainian army has been financed by
a couple of oligarchs. These are private sector people who have
military personnel out and which--with tanks and cannons and
all the rest.
Could you give us any type of an assessment of whether or
not the--this new President Poroshenko has been successful at
de-oligarching his government and his society?
Ms. Romanowski. Mr. Chairman, let me say a few words about
that. I think the government of the current and new Government
of Ukraine has made some significant progress in undertaking
reforms across many sectors in their society that will--that
will, again, address some of the issues that you are talking
about.
It is a long--they have--and I will speak to some of the
reforms in a minute but it is a long-term process. There are--
they have made some very important reforms.
The Rada has passed some significant legislation that goes
to anti-corruption and rule of law. We are working with them
through a series of advisors in the government ministries,
again, to help both implement reforms and to focus on the kinds
of reforms that are needed across a number of sectors.
It will take a significant amount of time and it certainly
will require the full support of the Ukrainian people.
With respect to the efforts that they are on the Minsk
commitments, currently we are very much encouraging and
supportive of the trilateral contact group that is designed to
bring all the parties together to talk about implementing the
Minsk agreement.
And this is a very important component of being able to
make sure that Ukraine can continue its commitment to democracy
and to reforms and also to push back against Russian pressure
on the--and the presence of Russian involvement in eastern
Ukraine.
They do have a near-term economic crisis, which we have
helped as well as the IMF and others to stabilize, so that they
can continue to implement the reforms that they want to do to,
again, build a stronger and prosperous country that isn't
affected and can push against the Russian pressure that is
going on right now.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, this all started when--over an
economic crisis in which President--the elected President,
Yanukovych, went for assistance to the EU and the deal that he
received from them he did not believe was equivalent or near
what the Russians were offering and that led to--step by step
into a situation of conflict today.
And I would hope that we can take step by step back from
that and the first step in that is to try to stop the actual
physical fighting between the Ukrainians and the separatists
and especially the withdrawal of the Russians of any people
they have in the eastern Ukraine and hopefully that can be part
of the same deal.
But we need to--we need to focus a lot on peace rather than
simply subsidizing the current status quo, which is leading
them into the gates of Hell.
We now have--Ms. Frankel has joined us and if you have some
questions for the panel you are certainly welcome to take your
5 minutes right now.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
And I wanted just to follow up on a comment of one of our
witnesses, and thank you all for being here. Over the weekend,
our Ambassador to the Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, summed up
concerns that I think a lot of us have and he said there is no
issue that is a greater threat to Ukraine's long-term success
today than the institutionalized corruption. It is a bigger
threat than Russian tanks.
I don't know whether you are familiar with that or whether
you agree with that. But in reference to that, I would like to
ask this.
First of all, do you have an opinion as to whether this
long-term corruption issue in Ukraine so undermined the
Ukrainian Government and the confidence of the people that set
a stage for the Russian aggression--whether that is related at
all.
And can you tell me how--I guess is it USAID that is
doing--that is working on the corruption issue? Can I get some
details on that?
Ms. Fritz. Sure. I can talk about our programs. Is that
what you were interested more about--our assistance? So----
Ms. Frankel. But I would also like to hear the cause and
effect, if you have an opinion to that.
Ms. Fritz. So maybe I can talk about assistance and Alina
might take the cause and effect. So our assistance--what we
have done is when we design every new project we look at how we
can build in an anti-corruption component.
So, for example, we are working with the judiciary. We are
working in education, pharmaceutical procurement, e-governance
permitting, financial disclosure in energy and all of those
each have an anti-corruption component.
In assessing how the Ukrainian Government is doing, they
have passed more than a dozen key pieces of legislation that
address corruption including establishing legislation to
establish the National Anti-Corruption Bureau as well as the
National Anti-Corruption Prevention Agency and the bureau is
moving forward in terms of being stood up with a budget and
staff and so forth.
The prevention agency--they are just in the process of
appointing a director of the agencies or setting up the
committee to appoint the director. The prevention agency will
be really important in terms of addressing financial disclosure
and monitoring that of public sector employees of which there
are over 900,000.
Another area in which USAID has been involved is working on
doing risk assessments for corruption of government agencies.
So we have done two--one with the Securities Commission,
another with the Deposit Insurance Company--and those identify
areas that are at risk within those agencies for corruption and
then an action plan to start addressing them.
Moreover, we have given the methodology to or we are in the
process of giving it to the Ukrainian Government so that they
can do it across the government to start addressing some of
these issues holistically across the government.
We have judicial reform programs as well as programs that
support civil society. What I would point to post-Maidan is
that civil society was energized by Maidan and remains engaged
in pressuring the government on reforms. They are monitoring.
I was just there last week, met with a group of key NGOs
and they are continuing their pressure on the government to
reform. So it is from both sides that this is happening and
will continue.
Lastly, I asked a question of the group last week whether
they have seen progress in the year since Maidan in terms of
corruption and what they reported was public sector corruption
it is noticeably less than it was a year ago and they were
energized and inspired that this will continue. So I think
Ukraine has a long way to go but we have seen some progress.
Ms. Romanowski. Ms. Frankel, let me try and answer your
question about whether corruption and how this all happened. I
really am not in a position to really speculate on what
prompted Mr. Putin to violate another country's sovereignty and
territorial integrity.
So I think I will leave it at that for the moment. But what
I will say about corruption and how it can erode a country's
stability, it can limit its prosperity and it really does
inhibit the responsive democratic pathways that populations
would like.
It undercuts its economy and it undercuts the expression
and the ability of citizens in their country to express their
values and where they want to take their country.
On the corruption piece, for us and as my colleague, Susan
Fritz, has said, fighting corruption is very much an integral
part of our longstanding goal of Europe whole, free and at
peace.
It is not just in Ukraine. It is across the region. So that
in fact that countries outside and external pressures such as
Russian pressure don't have the impact and don't have the
ability to get in and begin to meddle in the situation and into
a country's economy or politics or elsewhere.
Like my colleague at USAID, going to Ukraine was one of the
first visits I made in this new--in this new job and I was--I
was struck when I talked to NGOs and even new government
officials how important for them it was to tackle the issue of
corruption in Ukraine and how the reforms that they were
undertaking and the long, long list of other reforms that they
had to undertake was going to be a long-term effort and a
commitment.
They recognized how difficult this might be and how it
required convincing others in their society to make these
difficult reforms that initially could have a significant
impact on the--on the economy or on the--or on the livelihoods.
But at the end of the day, every single Ukrainian I talked
to recognized that they needed to embark on serious reforms to
get on to the democratic path and to continue their integration
into Europe.
Ms. Frankel. Just--Mr. Chair, if I just may follow through.
I did not mean to infer that the corruption was an excuse to
Putin.
I--my inference was that it weakens the resistance of the
country and the people in the country when they don't have
confidence in the government and the government is not working
correctly. It can lay a predicate for a terrorist group or--I
know what you are going to call Mr. Putin--an aggressor to come
in.
Ms. Romanowski. And I think that the--what we are seeing
now is the Ukrainian people want to see reforms happen fast and
quick, and as we all know, in some cases it takes a while to
get those done.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you to the panel. Just a few more
thoughts about the--just sort of take up where the conversation
ended. I think the corruption issue is the direct--is the
direct cause for the problems that are in Ukraine today, not
just their economic situation but this military confrontation
that they have.
I remember seeing Kuchma and I was there during the Orange
Revolution and I actually supported the kids down in the square
and went into their tents with them and everything.
And, of course, they got rid of Kuchma, the last of the
Soviet leadership of Ukraine, and we got Yushchenko is, I
believe, then came in after the Orange Revolution and he was
married to Kathy Chumachenko, worked with me in the Reagan
White House.
Thought, oh boy, we got some Western people there now who
are committed to better government, and the people, in fact, in
Ukraine have been convinced that Yushchenko--and,
unfortunately, his--all of his cohorts were as corrupt as they
had with Kuchma and were so disillusioned that they ended up
voting for Yanukovych, who was the pro-Russian candidate at the
time.
And then Yanukovych, of course, to suggest that he was any
less corrupt than anybody else would be just wrong because what
the people of the Ukraine have had is government after
government after government coming in, with the hope of the
people that new government is going to be a noncorrupt
government and they got some hope and, frankly, Yanukovych was
just as corrupt as his predecessors, probably more corrupt.
And when they--thus, when he did not get the deal that he
was looking for to help the Ukraine's--the Ukraine's economy
from the--from their Western European friends who have to,
again, like Merkel has suggested, had they treated Yanukovych
differently we might not have had this confrontation with
Russia going on.
But Yanukovych ends up going to Putin, getting the
agreement--a better agreement than what the European Union was
offering--but the people of his country, because they have
learned that corruption is the way of life of these--of their
leadership, assumed that they--the country was being sold out
to Russia probably for personal gain for their--for their
President and that is when this violence erupted in that
society.
And let us just hope--I mean, this is a horrible situation
in Ukraine and we need to--I think the first step is, number
one, do everything we can to stop the actual fighting and get
the people disengaged with spending because every day of
fighting is the expenditure of millions of dollars that are
drains on that economy and also it hurts the people there and
people lose their lives.
So just--that is just a thought and but I got one last
issue I would like to bring up before we close and--unless Ms.
Frankel has another comment.
I have--this is, Mr. Rosenblum, about--this is back to my
central point that I didn't hear anybody mention radical Islam.
I keep hearing people mention Russia, Russia, Russia. But
radical Islam is, to me, the major threat we must face today.
Just like when the Soviet Union was in, that was the major
threat and other things were secondary.
Well, I believe, as I mentioned earlier, that we could have
radical Islamic terrorists taking over various governments in
Central Asia and I understand that we trained--in Tajikistan
they trained their special forces commander, who recently
defected to ISIL and is now actively involved in trying to
accomplish the ISIL gains in Central Asia and whatever the ISIL
is long term trying to do. Is that correct?
Mr. Rosenblum. Mr. Chairman, I think you are referring to
the case of Mr. Khalimov, who was the commander of the Oman
special forces, which is the interior ministry special forces
in Tajikistan----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Mr. Rosenblum [continuing]. Who, I guess it was 2 or 3
weeks ago appeared in a video where he announced that he had
joined ISIL.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right. Defected.
Mr. Rosenblum. That is correct--defected. And so this
case--it actually so happens, coincidentally, that today a
delegation from the Government of Tajikistan is here in
Washington for our annual--what we call the annual bilateral
consultations between our two governments.
Not surprisingly, this particular case has come up in the
conversation although it is covering the whole broad range of
our relationship with Tajikistan.
So we--this is a case that, obviously, was--came as a
surprise to us and that we are very concerned about and what
its ramifications are.
The--Mr. Khalimov came up through the ranks of the interior
ministry before he became the commander and during that period
of about a decade did participate in several U.S. training
courses--I think about five training programs sponsored under
our anti-terrorism assistance program.
The way those programs work, as you probably know, Mr.
Chairman, is that the attendees are selected by the government
of the country and then they go through a vetting process that
is sometimes informally referred to as the Leahy vetting, which
is basically seeing whether the selected participant was
involved in any gross violations of human rights in their own
country.
And in terms of that vetting, this person, Mr. Khalimov,
passed our vetting. But I just want to emphasize that he was--
he was selected by the government, which is the normal way that
these things work.
It is hard to predict these sorts of things and actually
there was a hearing last week that I participated in on exactly
this issue of recruitment of foreign terrorist fighters from
Central Asia.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Mr. Rosenblum. Of course, this case came up as well, and I
was asked a similar question about Mr. Khalimov. It is hard to
predict how these cases come up. As I said there and I will say
here again, we are continuing to look at our procedures for
conducting these training courses.
We are always going to be dependent on selection by the
governments to a large extent, of course, of the participants.
But we are looking if there are any ways to do additional
screening that might help us to avoid future cases like this.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, I would hope that this particular
incident is a wake-up call for all of us about Central Asia. We
should not be taking Central Asia for granted--that, indeed,
once radical Islam, if they are successful in the Gulf and then
they manage to spread to the other areas in northern Africa and
into Central Asia, we will be involved with an historic shift
of power on this planet that will plague us and plague mankind
and humankind for generations to come.
And this is--the fact that in Tajikistan you have someone
like this defecting over to the most radical elements of Islam
should tell us that we need to pay attention there and not
take--and not focus totally, our whole efforts, on Russia's
dispute within Ukraine, although we need to make sure that
Russia has got the message that we do not believe that it was
right for them to go in to--even if they had--Yanukovych was
overthrown or whatever, there was no excuse for them to come in
with their troops and that should not have happened.
But with that said, we have a lot of other challenges to
face in which the Russians could possibly play a positive role
in if we can get the situation in the Ukraine settled.
So with that said, Mr. Deutch, you have whatever time you
would like.
Mr. Deutch. Just--I only need a couple seconds. I wanted to
come back in just to ask that our panelists take back from me
and, I know, from those of us on this committee who have had
the opportunity to travel to places like Tashkent and Dushanbe
and Bishkek that we have really great appreciation for the work
that State and our diplomatic corps and that our USAID workers
do in these places--that it can't be taken for granted that
for, unlike many parts of the world, for most of the people in
Bishkek, for example, what they know about the United States is
what they learn from their contact with the person from the
Embassy who goes out and reads to kids, runs programs--what
they do to stand for this country and our values and advance
our interests.
By being willing to spend a few years representing this
country in those places means a great deal. They should be
commended for it and I would ask you to take that message back
to them.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Deutch, I would like to thank you for
coming back to make that expression. I think that reflects we
are a partnership here.
You know, this is--we are trying--all trying to do our best
to make sure our country is served well and we are--and the
message that Mr. Deutch gave of that gratitude for the role
that you play it goes for both sides of the aisle.
So thank you very much. I declare this hearing adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:37 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]