[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FUTURE OF U.S. PAKISTAN RELATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 16, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-136
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC 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
97-997PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
_______________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
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
TOM EMMER, MinnesotaUntil 5/18/
15 deg.
DANIEL DONOVAN, New YorkAs
of 5/19/15 deg.
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESS
The Honorable Richard Olson, Special Representative for
Afghanistan and Pakistan, U.S. Department of State............. 4
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Richard Olson: Prepared statement.................. 7
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 48
Hearing minutes.................................................. 49
The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California: Material submitted for the record..... 51
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement.......... 59
Written responses from the Honorable Richard Olson to questions
submitted for the record by:
The Honorable Michael T. McCaul, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas...................................... 61
The Honorable Brad Sherman, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California...................................... 63
The Honorable David A. Trott, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Michigan........................................ 64
THE FUTURE OF U.S.-PAKISTAN RELATIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2015
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o'clock
a.m.,in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward
Royce (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Royce. This hearing will come to order. There is a
vote in progress. So my intention here is to begin the hearing,
and then we will suspend for the duration of the votes and
allow the other members of the committee to come forward. But
in this fashion, myself and Congressman Poe can make our
opening statements, and maybe some of the other members will be
able to as well.
This hearing is on the future of U.S.-Pakistan relations.
The committee has repeatedly urged Pakistan to take meaningful
action against key Islamist terrorist groups operating within
its territory. Unfortunately, Pakistan, which is now home to
the world's fastest growing nuclear weapons program, has
remained a fount of radical Islamist thought. It was no
surprise that one of the San Bernardino attackers, Tafsheen
Malik, studied at a Pakistani school spreading a particularly
fundamentalist message.
Looking back, the 9/11 terrorist attacks transformed the
U.S.-Pakistan relations overnight. After more than a decade
under sanctions for its nuclear proliferation, Pakistan was to
be a key ally in combatting Islamist militancy, becoming a
leading recipient of U.S. aid in the nearly 15 years since.
But while the U.S. was quick to embrace Pakistan, Pakistan
has hardly reciprocated. Pakistani Governments have come and
gone, but its northwestern frontier has remained a terrorist
haven. With its security services supporting what it considers
to be good Islamist terrorist groups, these good groups--under
Pakistan's calculus--destabilize Afghanistan and threaten
neighboring India while the government simultaneously opposes
what it considers the bad Islamist groups.
Today Deobandi schools create an infrastructure of hate.
Six-hundred Deobandi madrassas, funded with Gulf state money,
teach intolerant, hate-filled rhetoric that inspires the foot
soldiers of jihadist terrorism. I have made three trips to
Islamabad to press this issue. Pakistan must do the work to
register schools and close those creating new generations of
radicals, and those are the schools that are being funded with
Gulf state money, the Deobandi schools, and they need to be
closed.
Meanwhile, Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is on a track to be
the third largest. Its addition of small tactical nuclear
weapons in recent years is even more troubling. This is a
country which spends a fifth of its budget on the military,
from long-range missiles to F-16s, but under 2.5 percent on
education.
Through all of the double dealing, U.S. policy has
essentially stood still. Security assistance--cash and arms--
has continued to flow after the occasional temporary delays.
Indeed, despite some Department of Defense assistance for
Pakistan being held because of inadequate efforts against the
Haqqani Network, the State Department is currently seeking more
arms for Islamabad.
Pakistan itself has been devastated by terrorism with
thousands, over 2,000, of its soldiers killed, thousands and
thousands of its citizens killed, in terrorist attacks. Today
we recognize the year anniversary of a horrific attack on a
school in Peshawar that killed over 100 children. We want a
strong partnership with the country, but a new policy is long
overdue. One option, as Ranking Member Engel and I proposed
earlier this year, would be to target those officials who
maintain relationships with designated terrorist groups with
travel and financial sanctions. This would make it clear: The
U.S. and Pakistan cannot have a true strategic partnership
until Pakistan security services cuts ties with terrorist
organizations.
Recently, senior U.S. officials--including National
Security Adviser Susan Rice and Deputy Secretary of State Tony
Blinken--have traveled to Islamabad reportedly to press on the
Pakistani Government. We look forward to hearing from our
witness today whether there is reason for hope or if our policy
is stuck in the same rut.
And I now will turn to Mr. Ted Poe of Texas and Mr. Dana
Rohrabacher of California for their opening statements.
Mr. Poe.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My concern specifically is with our relationship with
Pakistan. The United States has given Pakistan $30 billion
since 9/11. I think Pakistan is a Benedict Arnold ally to the
United States. Even going back to May the 2nd, 2011, when there
was the raid in Pakistan on Osama bin Laden, we didn't tell the
Pakistanis we were coming because, frankly, they would snitch
us off, and Osama bin Laden would have left. And the near
confrontation that took place between the U.S. and Pakistan
after the raid--Pakistan scrambled two U.S.-made F-16s and were
headed to the area where the raid took place and a possible
confrontation with two U.S.-made jets against American
helicopters at the raid didn't happen, but it could have
happened--pilots that presumably were trained the year before
in 2010 in Tucson, Arizona. And I think we need to be very
concerned about providing armaments for Pakistan, who seems to
play all the sides.
And I would yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Okay.
And I now yield time to Mr. Dana Rohrabacher of California.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. When I was elected 28
years ago, I think most people considered me Pakistan's best
friend in the House of Representatives. And let me just say
that over the years, I have been deeply disappointed that those
people who I considered to be my friends were betraying the
trust of the United States and were committing acts that were
only the acts that an enemy would commit, even though we
continued to have a facade of friendship.
We have given $30 billion--$30 billion--since 9/11, to
Pakistan. Yet we realize that since 9/11 that there is ample
evidence that Pakistan is still deeply involved with various
terrorist networks, including supporting the Taliban in
Afghanistan, and radicals who kill Americans. Frankly, our
relationship with Pakistan has been a disgrace. We have a
government that gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden, the
murderer of 3,000 Americans--3,000 Americans slaughtered in
front of us. I don't think anybody believes that the high level
people in the Pakistan Government didn't know about that. They
continue to hold Dr. Afridi, just to rub it in our face. That
is the type of relationship they have with us. And to their own
people, they are slaughtering people in the Balochistan and the
Sindhis and others who are being brutally oppressed by a clique
in their government, so it is not all Pakistan, but the clique
that runs that country is treating us like suckers. And they
should because we are. We are acting foolish, very foolish.
Giving people money who have continually involved themselves in
activity that is harmful to the United States of America is not
going to win their friendship.
So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we face facts, and if the
Pakistani Government wants to be our friend, they can be our
friend. But they have not been, and they need to change that if
we are to continue on the relationship that we have. I would
like to at this point to submit for the record a number of
articles showing that, again, Pakistan continues to support
various terrorist operations as well as their relationship with
China, at the expense of their own people, the Baloch in
particular, and I submit that for the record at this point.
Chairman Royce. Without objection.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
Chairman Royce. We have four votes on the floor, so we will
recess the hearing and return for witness testimony and
questions after those four votes.
And we appreciate the patience of our witness and those in
attendance, and for now, we stand in recess.
[Recess.]
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen [presiding]. I will give him the
opportunity to make an opening statement, if Dr. Bera would
like to make one, and then I will introduce the Ambassador. He
will make his statement, and we will get to the questions and
answers.
Dr. Bera is recognized.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I will keep my
comments short so we can hear from the Ambassador.
Obviously, as we look at the South Asian region, we look at
India, we look at Pakistan, the relationship is incredibly
important, particularly as the changing mission in Afghanistan
is--the role of Pakistan and India in stabilizing the region is
incredibly complex and important.
It is an honor to welcome Ambassador Olson to the job. I
understand this is your first month on the job, so looking
forward to working with you and looking forward to furthering
the relationship between the United States and South Asia and
stabilizing the region. So thank you.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Dr. Bera.
The chairman would like to express his sorrow for not being
here, Mr. Ambassador, but he is leading the charge on the House
floor on four bills from our committee. And that is why he is
not here, and that is why Mr. Engel is not here either.
We are pleased to be joined by Ambassador Richard Olson.
Ambassador Olson is a Special Representative for Afghanistan
and Pakistan. Immediately prior to this appointment, Ambassador
Olson served as the U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan, but he has
served in many capacities all over the world since joining the
State Department in 1982. Ambassador Olson has been recognized
several times for his service, including being awarded the
Presidential Distinguished Service Award.
Thank you for being with us, Mr. Ambassador.
Without objection, the witness' full prepared statement
will be made a part of the record, and members will have 5
calendar days to submit statements, questions, and extraneous
materials for the record.
Ambassador Olson, please summarize your remarks.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RICHARD OLSON, SPECIAL
REPRESENTATIVE FOR AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
STATE
Mr. Olson. Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
current state of the United States' bilateral relationship with
Pakistan. I am honored to testify in front of you for the first
time in my capacity as U.S. Special Representative for
Afghanistan and Pakistan, after having served as your
Ambassador in Pakistan and previously at our Embassy in Kabul.
I am humbled and privileged to be in this new role at such a
critical time for the U.S. relationship with both Pakistan and
Afghanistan.
It is clear to me that despite many challenges, Pakistan
will continue to be an important partner for the United States
for the foreseeable future, particularly in light of our
enduring presence in Afghanistan. While we do not always see
eye to eye on every issue, our relationship with Pakistan is
vital to the national security of the United States. Most
importantly, we have the opportunity to continue working with
Pakistan today on counterterrorism issues along with strategic
stability, economic growth, and democratic governance to help
shape a future in which Pakistan is more stable, increasingly
prosperous, and plays a constructive role in the region.
Pakistan is a complex place, and it is important not to
overlook the significant progress made in the last few years.
In 2013, Pakistan completed its first democratic transition
from one elected civilian government to another. During the
past 2 years, we can point to progress, however imperfect, made
across the economic and security sectors. Prime Minister Nawaz
Sharif and his team have restored macroeconomic stability to
Pakistan and improved economic growth. While structural changes
are still needed to set Pakistan's economy on a path to
accelerated growth, the reforms to date are a considerable
accomplishment.
There has also been substantial changes on the security
front. Beginning in June 2014, Pakistan initiated large-scale
counterterrorism operations in the Federally Administered
Tribal Areas. The subsequent Peshawar Army School attack of
exactly 1 year ago today was cited by terrorists as retribution
for Pakistan's operations. It galvanized public opinion in
Pakistan and prompted Pakistan to increase its counterterrorism
efforts, not just in tribal areas. Through these operations,
Pakistan has rooted out many terrorist safe havens and
recovered more than 160 tons of improvised explosive device
precursors.
In addition to taking action on internal threats,
Pakistan's CT cooperation with the United States on al-Qaeda
has been critical in decimating the organization. However,
while Pakistan has made significant sacrifices in its fight
against terrorism, we believe it can also take more steps to
put pressure on all terrorist groups in Pakistan that threaten
regional stability.
Pakistan is becoming a more constructive actor in the
region. Last July, Pakistan facilitated a direct meeting
between Afghan Government and Taliban officials in Murree,
Pakistan, a milestone in our ongoing efforts to pursue a
political settlement in Afghanistan. Last week Pakistan hosted
the Regional Heart of Asia conference, attended by President
Ghani, which yielded productive discussions about regional
cooperation to advance the peace process and Afghanistan's
long-term stability. In addition, India and Pakistan's
commitment last week to restart a bilateral dialogue is
particularly important.
In describing this progress, it is nonetheless clear that
real challenges remain. While we see progress in decreasing the
presence of certain terrorists in Pakistan, we continue to
press Pakistan to target all militant groups that have safe
haven in Pakistan, particularly the Taliban, including the
Haqqani Network and Lashkar-e-Tayyiba. We have made it clear to
the Pakistanis that these organizations threaten Pakistan, the
region, and the panoply of our mutual national security
interests, and they must be addressed rigorously.
We have also asked Pakistan to do all that it can to help
recover U.S. citizens hostages held on Pakistani territory. We
continue to press for greater cooperation between Afghanistan
and Pakistan, both to stabilize the common border region and to
build the constructive relationship necessary for regional
stability. It is also critical that Pakistan improve relations
with its other neighbor, India. Recent high-level talks between
Indian and Pakistani officials and the announcement of the
resumption of formal dialogue is welcome. We hope the dialogue
will be used to reduce tensions and increase ties between the
two nations.
Naturally, as Pakistan seeks to combat violent extremism
and pursue counterinsurgency and counterterrorism objectives,
we continue to encourage and support Pakistan to strengthen the
rule of law, civil liberties, respect for human rights,
accountability, and freedom of speech, which we firmly believe
are vital to lasting peace and security.
Our civilian assistance programs help make progress toward
these economic governance ends and a developing democracy, and
it is essential they are sustained at current levels.
With that, I would like to conclude my statement, Madam
Chair, and I am available for your questions and comments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Olson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Ambassador.
Last month, I led a congressional delegation trip to
Afghanistan and was joined by my friend and colleague from this
committee, Dr. Yoho. And while obviously this hearing is on the
future of U.S.-Pakistan relations, we all know that we can't
really address the future of our bilateral relationship without
also discussing Afghanistan. When our delegation met with
President Ghani, he told us that he has reached out his hand to
Pakistan only to be rebuffed. We all know that in order for
Pakistan--for Afghanistan to be stable and secure, Pakistan
will have to play a key role there. Some argue that Pakistan's
ultimate goal is to use Afghanistan as a sort of strategic
depth against India and that Pakistan prefers an insecure
Afghanistan and is using its proxies and ties to insurgent
groups to exert control in Afghanistan. I wanted to hear your
perspective on that.
In fact, in its report to Congress on the progress toward
security and stability in Afghanistan, the DOD openly stated
that Pakistan uses these proxy forces to hedge against the loss
of influence in Afghanistan and to counter India's superior
military. Do you know if it is true that Ghani is being
rebuffed by Pakistan? And what is Pakistan's strategic
objective with regard to Afghanistan?
And then I wanted to ask about the terrorist safe havens
inside of Pakistan's borders.
Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
Mr. Olson. Thank you, Madam Chair. With regard to President
Ghani, as I mentioned in my opening statement, he did travel to
the Heart of Asia conference last week. And, of course, we have
applauded President Ghani's outreach to Pakistan, which has
been one of the notable characteristics of his time in office.
And we believe that Pakistan has been wanting to reciprocate
this outreach. Pakistan has taken several steps that are
important in this regard. The first is that they hosted the
Murree talks with the Taliban in July between the Government of
Afghanistan and the Taliban, the first time that the Taliban
had sat down with the Government of Afghanistan. And at the
Heart of Asia Conference last week, they reaffirmed, President
Nawaz Sharif reaffirmed, his support for the sovereignty of
Afghanistan, the territorial integrity of Afghanistan, the
legitimacy of its government and its constitution, all of which
were, I think important points for President Ghani.
So we will continue to work with Pakistan to encourage them
to bring the Taliban to the table to resume a peace and
reconciliation process that is led by the Afghans and owned by
the Afghans.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. So although the countries have had a
rocky relationship, you believe that with the new government,
there will be brighter days ahead, and the level of cooperation
will be higher and that there will be more trust and
partnerships evolving from this?
Mr. Olson. Yes, ma'am. We think there are, of course, many
challenges in the Afghanistan and Pakistan relationship, but we
think that the interests of a stable and peaceful Afghanistan
are best served by having a positive relationship with
Pakistan, which I think is the strategic vision of both
President Ghani and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. We hope so. What is Pakistan
doing to help eliminate the terrorist safe havens inside of its
borders? We hear so much about that. And I believe that the
U.S. isn't effectively using our leverage in Afghanistan to
convince the Pakistanis to do more with us and our Afghan
partners on the counterterrorism front to work with them rather
than against the Afghan Government and against its security
forces.
We have a pending military package before us on this
committee, and I believe we need to use that as leverage. Have
we made progress in getting buy-in from Pakistan on our
counterterrorism efforts in Afghanistan in eliminating
terrorist safe havens inside Pakistan? And why should Congress
approve arms sales to Pakistan when our own Defense Department
is telling us that Pakistan is openly working against our
objectives when it comes to Afghanistan, safe havens, and
counterterrorism?
Mr. Olson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
With regard to Pakistan's own counterterrorism operations,
in June 2014, Pakistan launched Operation Zarb-e-Azb against
militant strongholds in North Waziristan tribal agency. This is
something that the United States has wanted for a number of
years because there were a number of groups located in North
Waziristan, specifically in Miramshah, that threatened U.S.-
Afghanistan, as well as others.
During the course of this operation over the course of more
than a year and a half, the Pakistanis have lost nearly 500
troops, 488, it was just announced. At the same time, they have
carried out terrorism operations throughout the settled areas
of Pakistan, that is to say the non-tribal areas, the rest of
Pakistan. And despite the terrible incident at the Peshawar
Army School a year ago, there has been less blow-back than
might have been expected from the terrorists.
As I said at the outset in my statement, most of the action
has been--we think there is more that can be done in terms of
targeting groups that don't just target Pakistan internally but
are threats to their neighbors, and we continue to have an
active dialogue with them. I had a very active dialogue during
my 3 years in Pakistan on the question of the Haqqanis and also
the question of Lashkar-e-Tayyiba; although Pakistan has taken
steps to ban Lashkar-e-Tayyiba.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, and I will leave the questions
to another member.
We are going to move on to Dr. Bera.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
As an Indian American, and the only Indian American Member
of Congress, the stability of the region is incredibly
important to me and it is one that I have spent a lot of time
thinking about and very much interconnected when you think
about India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Again, it is not easy.
On the counterterrorism side, you know, I think post-Mumbai
in 2008, India demonstrated incredible restraint in its
approach to Pakistan. Pakistan, as, Ambassador Olson, you
mentioned, it is the 1-year anniversary of the horrific
Peshawar school shooting. The fact that I would have expected
Pakistan to have a much more robust crackdown on the terrorist
threats, on the LET and the Haqqani Network and others. From
our perspective, I think from the perspective of the Indians,
there is almost this side-by-side relationship in Pakistan with
some of these terrorist networks that, you know, almost
symbiotic. They live side-by-side. From your perspective, what
are the steps that Pakistan's Government, its military, needs
to do to reduce the terrorist threats? Because, again, in some
ways, it is almost as though they allow these networks to exist
in Pakistan to destabilize the region or to have this constant
threat on India.
Mr. Olson. Thank you, Congressman. I agree with you that
there continues to be challenges in this area. It is important
to note that Pakistan has really had a shift over the course of
the last year and a half. They have suffered enormously from
terrorism. Over 2,000 soldiers or servicemembers killed, and
many thousands of individual Pakistani citizens have died as a
result of terrorist outrages. And the government has a stated
commitment, articulated both by the Prime Minister and the army
chief, to go after all terrorists without distinction. And we
believe there is more that can be done with regard to Lashkar-
e-Tayyiba and the Taliban, including particularly the Haqqani
Network. And that is a very active element of our dialogue. I
think it is safe to say that we have almost no meeting with the
appropriate officials in which those topics are not raised in
very vigorous, very vigorous, terms.
I think it is safe to say that the attacks that, that the
clearing of North Waziristan has resulted in disruption, if not
elimination, of the Haqqani Network's operational ability. And
as I mentioned before, they have banned Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, but
there is still work to be done in this area.
Mr. Bera. And it does still appear from my perspective that
there is this coexistence, that they tolerate some of these
terrorist networks. Looking at kind of projecting out, as India
undergoes this dramatic growth in its economy and GDP, I do
worry that Pakistan seems to be stagnating, and as you see the
ways of life change in these two countries that have a tense
relationship, it does worry me a little bit that Pakistan
doesn't seem to be developing its economy, doesn't seem to be
building those institutions that would create stability. And in
many ways, the civilian institutions that you would want to
create a more stable Pakistan, those investments certainly
aren't occurring.
I know we have over the years tried to create schools,
tried to create civilian institutions that would, you know,
create some stability. From your perspective, Ambassador Olson,
where should the United States focus? I would say that I am
critical that much of our focus has been on military sales,
which I don't think stabilize the region. In fact, I think they
destabilize the region. If we were to focus on civilian
institutions, where would you suggest that we place our focus?
Mr. Olson. Thank you, Congressman.
First of all, let me just say a quick word since you began
talking about India, about the recent upturn in relations
between India and Pakistan, which I think is quite significant.
As you know, the National Security Advisers met in Bangkok, and
then Foreign Minister Swaraj attended the Heart of Asia
conference and extended the hand of friendship to Pakistan, and
that was very well received. And they have agreed to launch a
comprehensive dialogue, which will, I think, hopefully improve
the relationship.
One of the emphases that we have placed in our assistance
programs has been to build regional connectivity. So the
relaunch of a comprehensive dialogue will hopefully, exactly as
you say, lead to the possibility of increased trade, for
instance, between India and Pakistan, which we think would be
beneficial to both sides and particularly help Pakistan. It
could do more, frankly, in some ways than our assistance
programs to raise the level of prosperity.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
Thank you, Dr. Bera.
Judge Poe is recognized.
Mr. Poe. I thank the chair.
Ambassador, as I mentioned in my opening statement, I want
to be very specific about what I am concerned about, and that
is the sale of American fighter jets to Pakistan or the giving
of American fighter jets to Pakistan through military aid. That
military aid is then used in the United States to buy those
jets. And I used the example of Osama bin Laden. The
Pakistanis, the military, hid him out, in my opinion. The
United States didn't tell Pakistan we were going after him
because they would have moved him. We sent helicopters over
there. The raid was successful. Pakistan scrambles two
American-made F-16s to intercept the helicopters. Americans
were able to get away, and there could have been a
confrontation. How ironic that would have been, American-made
jets used by Pakistan in a confrontation with American-made
helicopters in a raid against Osama bin Laden?
Now we are again in this issue of more military aid to
Pakistan. I understand that there is $660 million in aid going
to Pakistan proposed. Some of that is going to be military aid.
Supposedly the eight fighter jets, F-16s--America makes the
best fighter jets in the world--is in this package. And it is
supposed to be used for humanitarian aid. Now, I don't know how
an F-16 with all of its hardware on there for combat can be
used for humanitarian aid. If they were buying C-130s--which I
used to be in a squadron of C-130s back in Texas--I can see
those being used for humanitarian aid. F-16s, it is not really
humanitarian aid that they are built for or used for. And are
we going to be in the same situation with the sale of fighter
jets for humanitarian aid where we were in the raid with Osama
bin Laden that these jets will be used for other purposes?
I don't trust Pakistan. Maybe you do. I don't. We had the
former Ambassador of Pakistan, Mr. Haqqani, here and testified
before my subcommittee and said that Pakistan still ends up
supporting terrorists.
Do they support them in any way? Does Pakistan support
terrorist groups in any way? Not just a little, not just a
much, but do they support them? Or are they free from doing
that now? Mr. Ambassador?
Mr. Olson. Thank you, Judge Poe.
With regard to, Pakistan does have a fleet of F-16s, and
they have been developing a precision strike capability with
those F-16s, which they have used to considerable effect in
North Waziristan and in the tribal areas generally. This is
within a framework of our security assistance to Pakistan,
which has six objectives basically centered around
counterinsurgency and counterterrorism. It is our belief that
the F-16s have been used very effectively, the precision strike
capability to take out terrorist targets, including safe havens
that threaten our forces in Afghanistan.
Mr. Poe. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Ambassador, my question is
very specific.
Mr. Olson. Yes.
Mr. Poe. Does Pakistan, the military, the government, do
they still give a safe haven or support directly or indirectly
to terrorist groups? I mean, they may go after some terrorist
groups, but do they still give them a safe haven or a pass or
whatever words you want to use, or are they after all the
terrorist groups? Do we have any assurance one way or the
other?
Mr. Olson. Well, Congressman, with regard to these groups,
we have had a very active dialogue with them where we have
pressed them repeatedly to take action against those groups
that have a presence on Pakistani soil, including the Haqqani
Network and the Taliban in general and also Lashkar-e-Tayyiba.
They have--their operations in North Waziristan have had a
disruptive effect. They, for instance, uncovered arms caches
that belonged to the Haqqanis and were associated with the
Haqqani mosque in Miramshah. I have been to Miramshah and seen
some of the results of these efforts. But we do believe that
there is more that can be done, and we continue to press them
very hard on that matter.
I yield back.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Judge Poe.
Ms. Kelly of Illinois is recognized.
Ms. Kelly. When you consider the future of U.S.-Pakistan
relations, what do you see as the key aims and drivers of our
Pakistan policy?
Mr. Olson. Thank you very much, Congresswoman.
We believe that the best way forward with Pakistan is
continued engagement, developing Pakistan's civilian economy,
its ability to be a stable and prosperous country. It is a
country that faces many challenges, some of which we have
already identified. It faces challenges from terrorism, from
violent extremism. It faces a large demographic challenge as
the youth bulge comes into what should be their most productive
years. We believe it is in our interests to continue engagement
with Pakistan so that Pakistan is able to effectively harness
the youth, having them be educated and prepared for the job
market, so that Pakistan plays a more constructive role in the
region as a whole.
Ms. Kelly. Where do you think our policies have been most
successful? And in looking back, if there was something you
could change, what would that be?
Mr. Olson. Well, I think that our assistance programs over
the past 5 years, our civilian assistance programs, have made a
real impact on the life of ordinary Pakistanis. We have,
through the so-called Kerry-Lugar-Berman authorization, added--
it has been focused in five areas: Energy, economic growth,
stabilization, health, and education. Some of the
accomplishments that we can point to include adding 1,750
megawatts to Pakistan's electricity grid. Electricity is a huge
problem for ordinary Pakistanis. We have added 1,000 kilometers
of roads, many of those in the western part of the country
connecting to Afghanistan so that there is greater regional
connectivity and farmers can get produce to market. Committed
over $250 million to returning refugees from the North
Waziristan operation to their homes. We have extensive exchange
programs. We bring many Pakistanis to the United States for
study, which we think will shape their future attitudes to the
United States. We have the largest, most extensively funded
Fulbright Program in the world in Pakistan, and we have built
1,000 schools and funded 15,000 domestic scholarships and 23
U.S.-Pakistan university partnerships.
Finally, in health, I would just say that we have launched
a hospital in Jacobabad and rehabilitated a major OB/GYN center
at the Jinnah Post Graduate Medical Centre in Karachi, so we
are addressing and focusing on maternal health care, which is a
very important issue in terms of the overall health of the
population.
Ms. Kelly. Is there something that you think should be
altered, or what would that be?
Mr. Olson. Well, I think that it is important for us to
continue engagement with Pakistan. Despite the challenges of
the relationship, which are many, we believe that it is in our
national interests not to allow Pakistan to become disengaged
from us. And I think we can draw on the lessons of history
there, especially the period in the 1990s and late 1980s, when
we did somewhat disengage from the region, and we paid, I
think, a significant price as a country for that at the
beginning of the last decade. I think that with all of the
challenges of the relationship, I think it is most important
for the U.S. to be engaged and to build a partnership with
Pakistan.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Ms. Kelly.
And now we will move to Mr. Rohrabacher of California.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you.
Well, Mr. Ambassador, you have a mighty tough job. We have
to respect you for that, and thank you for trying to do your
best.
Unfortunately, what I am about to say does not reflect on
your commitment, but on the feasibility of you succeeding in
what you are trying to do. The fact is that Pakistan has from
its very beginning been plagued with corruption and oppression
by its own government. The brutality and corruption in Pakistan
was so bad that early on, in 1971, the people of Bangladesh
couldn't take it anymore. And their uprising was, of course,
answered not by trying to reform their government but instead
by brutal suppression, which led to the independence of
Bangladesh.
Mr. Ambassador, feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but
I see a similar type of sentiments and a situation arising with
the people of Balochistan. There are now these F-16s that the
judge was talking about. Those F-16s and the military equipment
that we are providing Pakistan are being used against their own
people, just like they did against the people over there in
Bangladesh. So am I mistaken in that we are using weapons that
are provided--that they are using weapons provided by us
against their own people in Balochistan and elsewhere?
Mr. Olson. First of all, thank you, Congressman, very much
for your support and your kind words. I appreciate it greatly.
Let me say, with regard to corruption, there have been, as
part of the national action plan that Pakistan adopted after
the horrific attack on the Army School, there is an element of
improving governance and going after corruption, and that has
been particularly notable lately in some of the operations that
have taken place in Karachi. There has been an anticorruption
element to the government's action there.
Mr. Rohrabacher. You know, Mr. Ambassador, I am going to
have to tell you that this is about the third time over the
last 25 years that I have heard this. It is always, ``They are
now moving forward with the anticorruption drive.'' I will
just--I won't count on it, but if it happens, I will be very
happy about that, and the American people will rejoice with the
people of Pakistan that the crooks finally got displaced up in
Islamabad.
The ISI has been--and the judge made this point, and I
think that your answer suggests what is really going on--the
ISI is still engaged in terrorism as a strategy for what they
believe is going to defend their country or give their country
leverage. And we saw that in attacks on India, and attacks and
the efforts, of course, supporting the Taliban, et cetera.
Until that changes, until the people of Balochistan, for
example, don't have to suffer, where people are being grabbed
and their bodies are dumped in large numbers, this is a
travesty. And for the United States to provide weapons to a
government like Islamabad which then is used against them. But
even worse, Pakistan and these people who run that country,
their approach to the United States--the judge was right--if we
were thwarted in trying to bring to justice Osama bin Laden, it
would have been because the Pakistanis were using American jets
to shoot our people down. We calculated on that. That was not
out of the realm of possibility, and the fact that that is the
reality of it, and we end up giving them billions of dollars of
military equipment, no wonder they don't respect us.
And one last thing, Dr. Afridi--we know now Osama bin Laden
was given safe haven in that country. The man who slaughtered
3,000 Americans was given safe haven. The one guy that helped
us to make sure we could bring back that monster to justice is
now lingering in a dungeon in Pakistan. This is their answer to
us. That is a message to the people of the United States. They
are thumbing their nose at us and taking our money, and they
are saying: Here is the guy, yeah, we will tell those
Americans; the guy helped bring Osama bin Laden to justice, we
are just going to throw him in that dungeon. And that is the
message to the American people.
It is time for us to quit taking that and stand up for
truth, and if we do--and justice--we will be siding with the
Pakistani people and not their corrupt, brutal government.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Higgins of New York.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Ambassador, a few minutes ago, you spoke of the hopeful
signs of the relationship between Pakistan and India. I want to
focus on the more troubling signs of the relationship with
India but also with that of the United States. Pakistan--let's
be truthful about this--plays a double game. They are our
military partner, but they are the protector and the patron of
our enemies, and this has been going on for 15 years. Since
2002, United States aid to Pakistan, economic and military, has
averaged about $2 billion a year. Pakistan's annual defense
budget is only about $5 billion a year. So we, the United
States, finance a major portion of their economic and defense
military budget. Yet by every measure, terrorism has become
worse in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. In 2010, the most
generous U.S. aid package to Pakistan of $4.5 billion--$4.5
billion--the United States suffered the highest level of
casualties in Afghanistan, almost 500 soldiers.
Also, Pakistan is involved in an arms race against what it
believes is its existential threat with India. In fact,
according to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
Pakistan could have 350 nuclear warheads in the next decade,
becoming the world's third biggest nuclear power, outpacing
India, France, China, and the United Kingdom. There is no
positive sign of any improved relations with India because
Pakistan justifies its nuclear proliferation as a deterrent
against aggression from the outside. So the United States has
to get tougher with Pakistan, and we have to call them out on
this double game that they have been playing, not this year,
not last year, not 5 years, but for the past 15 years.
I can appreciate, and you in your capacity must try to, I
guess, deal with these issues as diplomatically as possible,
but when you really look at the cold, hard facts, when you
really look at the cold, hard facts, Pakistan is not an ally to
the United States. They have facilitated; they have encouraged;
they have been a protector of the very enemies. So there are
these two conversations going. There is one when the Americans
are in the room and the other conversation when we are not in
the room. And the one that is most detrimental to us, the
American people, our American soldiers, is the one that is
going on when we are not in the room.
I would ask you to comment.
Mr. Olson. Thank you, Congressman.
And I want to say that we do share your concern,
particularly about the development of Pakistan's nuclear
arsenal. We are concerned both by the pace and the scope of
Pakistan's nuclear and missile program, including its pursuit
of short-range nuclear systems. We are concerned that a
conventional conflict in South Asia could escalate to include
nuclear use as well as the increased security challenges that
accompany growing stockpiles. I can tell you, sir, that we have
had a very active dialogue at the highest levels with the
Pakistanis in which we have made clear the nature of our very
specific concerns.
Mr. Higgins. Mr. Ambassador, with all due respect, we have
heard this for the past 15 years. You know, here is my
concern--and I apologize for cutting you off, but I only have a
minute. If Pakistan falls apart or if Islamic extremists take
over, it is a nightmare scenario for us. It is a big country,
about 180 million people. It has a lot of Islamic extremists,
and it has nuclear weapons. And to have Islamic extremists with
nuclear weapons is a primary goal, a primary goal of al-Qaeda.
And it would be a major victory for them and the outgrowth of
al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, and a major defeat for us, the
United States.
I yield back.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Higgins.
And we will turn to Mr. Cook of California.
Mr. Cook. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Many of the questions or comments are things that I was
going to address, and I just want to follow through on that. I
think Mr. Higgins made some great comments about that. I think
we are all concerned because of the size of the nuclear weapons
and everything else, and there is a part of me that wants to
say, you know, in all fairness, Pakistan has been a great ally
of ours, particularly from the military standpoint, and we
never would have gotten that equipment out of Iraq because
there was only one way to go, and that was through Pakistan. We
kind of overlooked that, and, of course, I still think the only
country that is going to control Afghanistan's destiny is
Pakistan. Whether you hate them, like them or not, that to me--
and I see you are shaking your head, and you agree with that--
all those things considered, I am going to throw something
which really, really scares me. And there has been talk that in
light of the Iranian deal and the nuclear weapons in a Persian
country, in a Shiite country, in your opinion, is there any
possibility that Pakistan would not just give the technology
but actually sell nuclear weapons to the Sunni states with
money--particularly, and I won't name them, but I think we all
know who they are--that this proliferation would start on a
scale that would just change the whole calculus of the region?
Mr. Olson. Thank you, Congressman, and thank you for
flagging the role Pakistan had with the JLOCs and other forms
of support for our operations in Afghanistan. I would say with
regard to nuclear weapons, first of all, I want to assure you
that we do agree that nuclear security is a key issue. We have
confidence in the capabilities of the security forces, the
Pakistani security forces, to control and secure their nuclear
weapons. We want to make sure that that continues to be the
case.
With regard to proliferation concerns, Pakistan has made an
effort over the past few years, and we have worked very closely
with them to tighten export controls and to make sure that they
are not in a position of proliferating nuclear materials. This
has involved, of course, a cleanup from a previous situation
that existed a decade ago. Our assessment is that they have
made considerable progress in this area.
Mr. Cook. Thank you.
Switching gears a little bit, just like everybody on this
committee, I am afraid that there is one agency in Pakistan
that I think the vast majority of us are afraid of, and that is
because of their past history, and that is ISI, and their
corruption, their agenda, and everything else, and more than
that, the amount of influence that they have on the Pakistani
Government in terms of intrigue--I can go on and on and on--but
just in terms of certain decisions. Can you give me any warm
and fuzzy feeling about an organization I think most of us are
very, very nervous about? I am from San Bernardino. I am
worried about the madrassas again. One of the terrorists came
from there. And I just--that more than anything else in terms
of one of the power factors in Pakistan, I am very, very, very
nervous and cynical about. Thank you.
Mr. Olson. Yes. Thank you very much, Congressman. Let me
just mention a couple of things on ISI. First of all, we do
have a very robust engagement with ISI. I met with the ISI
chief regularly during my tenure in Pakistan and made the
points that I described earlier about terrorism directly to
him. ISI does have a role to play with regard to Afghan
reconciliation, and we think that the role that Pakistan at
large played in bringing the Taliban to the table last summer
was quite important, and they need to do that again, in our
view, following up on the positive statements out of the Heart
of Asia conference.
Mr. Cook. Thank you very much. I know they are going to cut
me off, but thank you for answering my questions.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Cook.
Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
Ms. Gabbard of Hawaii.
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just following up on my colleague Mr. Cook's questions, you
know, the concern is you are talking about robust engagement
with ISI. But there has been evidence time and time again of
their direct and indirect connections with the Haqqani Network.
In 2011, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral
Mike Mullin, called the Haqqani Network a veritable arm of the
ISI. So as you are having these discussions, you talked a lot
about how more must be done; discussions are taking place. But
I am wondering what action, what change in U.S. policy has
occurred that would actually bring about a consequential shift?
Mr. Olson. Well, we continue to press at every point for
action on the Haqqanis. We have done this at the highest levels
of our Government.
Ms. Gabbard. Has there been any change in the aid packages
of the funding we are providing?
Mr. Olson. Well, as you know, Congresswoman, there was a
decrement of $300 million from the coalition support funds I
believe under last year's National Defense Authorization Act. I
would have to refer you to the Department of Defense for how
that is being implemented. The $300 million was subject to a
certification of cooperation from the Haqqanis. So I would have
to refer you to the Department of Defense on that.
Ms. Gabbard. Well, I think the concern is that there, to
say there are serious doubts is an understatement on Pakistan's
credibility when we talk about fighting these Islamic extremist
elements, these terrorist elements and even with nuclear
cooperation. I think one of the greatest concerns, as we look
at how closely connected the Haqqani Network and others are to
Pakistan, is the safety of the nuclear weapons that they have
and preventing misuse. You have just said that you have
confidence in the Pakistani security forces. But when you have
these insider threats, when you have the Haqqani Network being
an arm of the ISI, how can you have confidence that they would
not in any case gain access to these nuclear weapons or traffic
them or get them into the wrong hands?
Mr. Olson. Well, I think that Pakistan has taken a lot of
steps over the last years to tighten up its control of nuclear
security. They are well aware of their responsibilities with
regard to protecting. And I think they have specifically taken
into account the insider threat as well.
Ms. Gabbard. Can you speak with some specificity?
Mr. Olson. Ma'am, honestly, candidly, I would not be able
to address these issues in this forum. But in another forum, it
might be possible to do so. Thank you.
Ms. Gabbard. Can you speak specifically to what Pakistan
and the government has done to crack down on the Haqqani
Network or these other terrorist elements that have been and
are directly linked to them?
Mr. Olson. Yes, ma'am. The launching of operation of
Operation Zarb-e-Azb in North Waziristan in June 2014 was
something that the United States had actually wanted to see for
quite some time. North Waziristan was where many of these
militants, including the Haqqani Network, were based in
Miramshah. Miramshah was completely cleared, including the
Haqqani Network facilities, and armaments, tunnels, bunkers
were uncovered, destroyed, and arms caches taken away,
including 160 tons of precursors for improvised explosive
devices. And this has had a disruptive effect not only on the
Pakistani Taliban but also on the Haqqani Network and, by the
way, al-Qaeda, which probably had some presence there as well.
And the Pakistanis, including ISI, have cooperated with us in
taking down al-Qaeda cells, including Adnan Shukrijumah, who
was wanted for his plotting of attacks on the New York subway,
and one other American citizen individual who was extradited
from Pakistan in April of this year. So there has been quite a
bit of counterterrorism cooperation between ISI and the
Pakistan Government at large and the United States. And we
believe that has been to our national interest.
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you. My time has expired. But I think as
we look at U.S. policy toward Pakistan, this is something that
we need to carefully consider. Thank you.
Mr. Perry [presiding]. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
The Chair now recognizes himself.
Mr. Ambassador, thank you for being here. I had the
privilege of traveling to Islamabad and then to South
Waziristan. We couldn't go to North Waziristan because it was
too dangerous. So we understand and appreciate the difficulty
of your position and the tenuous circumstances of the
relationship with Pakistan. That having been said, do we, as a
Department of State, as the United States Government, have a
time-related series of metrics to determine success or failure
of our relationship and the money that the American taxpayer is
spending regarding that relationship? Can you tell me of any?
Mr. Olson. Mr. Chair, thank you very much. And let me say
it is a great pleasure to see you again after seeing you in
Islamabad. For the assistance programs, that, of course, is the
responsibility of our colleagues in USAID by and large. And
they do have an extensive program of metrics and tracking their
development assistance.
Mr. Perry. So let me cut to--I don't mean to cut you off.
But I am trying to get to the terror situation, which is what
we are really concerned about. We know we spend billions of
dollars on military assistance, on humanitarian assistance. But
what we are really getting to is this relationship where
Pakistan seems to be kind of walking the line somewhere between
terrorism and somewhere between the support of the United
States Government. And with all due respect, as long as we
allow them to continue to walk the line, they are going to
continue to walk the line because it is in their interest to do
that.
And I will give you some of my metrics. But are there any
metrics regarding terrorism that are time-related, where the
American people can see they are getting some value out of the
billions of dollars we spend?
Mr. Olson. Well, I think that there has been a shift in
Pakistan. During the time I was there, the 3 years that I was
there, I definitely saw a shift in the public discourse on the
terrorism issue. I think there is now a very broad consensus in
Pakistani politics that it is necessary to go after these
extremist groups. There was a period I think of doubt about the
efficacy of going after the Pakistani Taliban. And that ended
with the operation in North Waziristan in June 2014. There was
a broad consensus. And it certainly was reinforced by the
horrific incident of a year ago at the Peshawar Army School.
Mr. Perry. Mr. Ambassador, what is the cost of the F-16
deal to the American taxpayer? Do you know what that price is?
Mr. Olson. Well, Mr. Chair, as a matter of policy, we do
not discuss prospective arms sales until they have been----
Mr. Perry. We know it is not cheap, right? Let me just give
you some of my metrics because my time is short here, and I
want to make a couple points. In Pakistan, you have al-Qaeda;
you have the Afghan Taliban; the Haqqani Network; the TTP; and
the LET operating, which are all terrorist organizations.
Meanwhile, at the same time, over the past 14, 15 years, the
American people have spent $30 billion in our relationship with
Pakistan. Meanwhile, a poll conducted by the Pew Research
Center last year found only 14 percent--only 14 percent--of
Pakistanis expressed a positive view of the United States.
Pakistan seems neither particularly democratic nor tolerant
regarding their governance or their religious tolerance. And
then you look at, you know, we talk about this individual, Mr.
Afridi, who allegedly helped the United States get the number
one terrorist on our list. And, meanwhile, the backdrop is that
this terrorist organization, just for instance, the LET has
been active in Pakistan, as I already stated, Afghanistan, and
Kashmir since the 1990s, so it is not new. And Pakistan funded
the group. And the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence, the
ISI, agency helped establish the organization's military
structure and almost all LET members are Pakistani madrassa
students or Afghan veterans. In November 2008, 10 LET members
conducted a coordinated terrorist attack on targets in Mumbai,
India, killing 160 people, including 4 Americans.
In December 2008, Pakistan arrested Zaki-ur-Rehman,
whatever his last name is, the LET leader who organized the
Mumbai attacks. They arrested him. However, in April 2015, this
guy was released from jail on $2,300 bond. And there has been
no trial scheduled for this guy. Meanwhile, the doctor, the
good Dr. Afridi, remains in a jail. And we are going to sell or
make some deal with Pakistan for F-16s. And we have neighbors
that are much better allies. We understand the tenuous
circumstance. But when are we going to equate our relationship,
our financial relationship with results about terrorism? Do you
see that happening any time, quantifiable results, where the
American people can see the value of this relationship? Sir?
Mr. Olson. Well, if I could respond to a couple points, Mr.
Chair. First, on Dr. Afridi, we fully agree with you that he
has been unjustly imprisoned. And we have communicated this at
the highest level to----
Mr. Perry. Why don't we tie it to our actions? Why don't we
tie his release, why don't we tie the trial of this other
individual who attacked our ally to the sale of these weapons
systems and to our aid? Why don't we--who is negotiating these
deals on our behalf?
Mr. Olson. Well, Mr. Chair, we believe that, and, again, I
can't talk about the details of a prospective notification, but
let me say that we believe that the F-16s that we have already
sold to Pakistan or provided under security assistance have
been used to advance our national interests. They have been
used against terrorists in North Waziristan and in the tribal
areas. The precision strike capability of the F-16s and our
programs are focused on counterinsurgency and
counterterrorism----
Mr. Perry. Mr. Ambassador, I appreciate it. I understand
the value of the weapon system and what it can do. We
appreciate that. We understand that. We are very frustrated
that for the American people's involvement, we don't see a
whole lot coming on the other side of the ledger. But that is
my personal perception.
With that, my time has expired.
I would like to recognize the gentleman from California,
Mr. Lowenthal.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to follow up--I think you have probably touched on
some of these answers already, but I really want to kind of
deal with my own concerns. Like Congressman Higgins and Cook
and others, I am troubled about the reports of Pakistan's
development of what I consider destabilizing tactical nuclear
weapons at a faster rate than most other countries, if not than
any other country. I really want to understand, again, a little
bit more clearly your assessment of Pakistan's progress in
cooperating with the international community on nuclear
proliferation concerns. And also the second part of that
question has to do with some recent media reports suggesting
that our administration is considering some kind of nuclear
arrangement with Pakistan. I don't know. I am not really clear;
what is a nuclear arrangement? And if we are considering it, is
Pakistan really a trustworthy partner, again, in that? Again,
like other members, the nuclear proliferation treaty concerns
are very troubling.
Mr. Olson. Thank you, Congressman.
And we share your concern about the scope and pace of
Pakistan's nuclear program. We do have an active dialogue on
nonproliferation issues. We have a security----
Mr. Lowenthal. Has Pakistan increased the rate of
development, the production of tactical nuclear weapons?
Mr. Olson. We continue to have concerns about the scope and
pace, sir. I think that is probably all I can say in this
particular venue. But I did want to address one other issue
that you raised. I can assure you, despite some press reports
to the contrary, that we are not negotiating a 123 agreement,
so-called 123 agreement, a civil nuclear cooperation agreement,
with Pakistan.
Mr. Lowenthal. In any way. Are we setting any preconditions
or any conditions--this goes back to--about or talking to
Pakistan about the reduction of its nuclear weapons?
Mr. Olson. We have had a very candid discussion with the
Pakistanis about some of the concerns that we have, including
about shorter range nuclear systems. And Pakistan has been
prepared to engage with us in those discussions.
Mr. Lowenthal. And I gather over, since, for the last 60
years, we have provided over $75 billion in assistance,
primarily in military and economic assistance. Going back to
the question asked by the chair, is any of our assistance that
you know tied to changes in Pakistan's behavior?
Mr. Olson. There are some very specific metrics and
conditions that we use in all of our assistance programs, I
mean, specific to the nature of the program, particularly in
civilian assistance. With regard to security assistance, what
we have done is negotiated a framework with the Pakistanis in
which our security assistance is focused on the
counterinsurgency and counterterrorism missions. And I think it
is also particularly worth noting that two additional
provisions, obviously, all of our assistance is subject to the
Leahy Amendment, and we have a very rigorous Leahy process.
This addresses the question of human rights. And in addition to
that, we have very stringent end-use monitoring requirements on
the Pakistanis, especially with regard to high-technology
security assistance. And I can say that we are very strict on
those. And the results have been satisfactory.
Mr. Lowenthal. What does that mean, ``the results have been
satisfactory''?
Mr. Olson. That we believe that the end-use monitoring
systems have been effective.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
And I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chairman thanks the gentleman from
California.
The Chairman recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Yoho.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ambassador, I appreciate it. I was fortunate to go over
to Afghanistan with Chairman Ros-Lehtinen, and we had an
informative trip. Just to rehash, you know, we have given $30
billion since 2001 to Pakistan. You know, when you look through
the list here, there is at least five terrorist networks that
he know that are operating in the FATA area, along with ISIS is
in area. And we have heard over and over again it is a no-
man's-land. There is no rule. And in order to get peace in that
area, there can't be the threat of terrorism. And Pakistan, is
their goal to get rid of terrorism? I mean, how serious are
they? Because I am not seeing it.
Mr. Olson. Sir, thank you. We have agreed for many years
that the threat from the tribal areas was significant. In that
regard----
Mr. Yoho. How serious is Pakistan about bringing this to an
end? It is like my mom; she was--I told her I wanted to play
piano, but I wasn't real serious about it. And I never learned
how to play it. So if you are serious about it, you will do it.
And if you are not, you are not going to do it. With $30
billion of the American taxpayers' money going into that area,
and we rewarded Pakistan by giving them, selling the initial F-
16s as them helping us after 9/11, and then we suspended that
because we have seen them complicit, working against us in
Afghanistan. But, yet, we hear they want to have peace in that
area; they want to have talks and have the concurrent
resolutions and talks with India. But if you are not willing to
stand up and stomp out terrorism, you are not real serious
about it. Just yes or no, am I right or wrong on that?
Mr. Olson. Well, Congressman, Pakistan has launched
operations in North Waziristan. They have reasserted their
sovereign authority over----
Mr. Yoho. What kind of attacks have they done? I mean, we
did sorties against ISIS in the summer a year and a half ago,
but they weren't really meaningful. I mean, we were doing 5 to
10 maybe a month. If you are serious, you go in and annihilate
that.
Mr. Olson. Well, they have completely cleared the city of
Miramshah, which was the headquarters of, amongst others, the
Haqqani Network and the Pakistan Taliban, completely cleared
it. I have been to downtown Miramshah. There is no one there.
So they cleared the city and cleared all of the networks. They
have taken 488 casualties, deaths amongst their soldiers just
in Operation Zarb-e-Azb. So I think their commitment is serious
to fighting terrorism.
But the concern that we have, sir--and I have flagged
this--is we think that more needs to be done against the
Haqqani Network and some of the groups that threaten Pakistan's
neighbors, not just the ones that threaten them internally.
Mr. Yoho. Well, if you look at the recent attack in
California, Tashfeen Malik studied at an all-women's Islamic
religious school in Pakistan. So it is still working against
us. It is still creating terrorism. And then the debate largely
borders on these F-16s. Efforts by Congress to place
conditional requirements upon aid to Pakistan due to the
country's support for terror have consistently been waived by
administrations which argue that the U.S. assistance is
essential to build Pakistan's counterterrorism capabilities.
Let me ask you, in general, what specific contributions have
Pakistan's F-16s that they have had from us made to U.S.
counterterrorism objectives in South and Central America? What
can you say they have done definitively that I can go back to
the people that I represent and say, ``No, no, this is a good
thing; we want to keep it because it is going to give us peace
down the road''? We have said this for 30 years. And we are not
seeing it. In fact, we are going backwards in this. So what
benefits have these F-16s done? And I have got a followup
question if you can----
Mr. Olson. Yes, sir. I mean, they have used the F-16 for
precision strikes in the tribal areas. I don't have the
specific metrics with me here today on the numbers of strikes
they have conducted. But they are a regular feature of their
operations. And we believe they have been effective in taking
out terrorists that are of concern to us as well as to them.
Mr. Yoho. The administration has no real idea what policies
Pakistan will be pursuing against militants in the tribal area
when any new aircraft will be delivered, each of which will
generally take 3 years to produce and deliver. Would you
recommend giving them more, selling them more airplanes with
the results we have gotten so far? And the $30 billion--because
you read off an impressive list of schools, education,
Fulbright Scholarships. I am not seeing the return on
investment here to bring this to an end. And you know where we
are in America with the American sentiment; they want this to
end.
Mr. Olson. Sir, with regard to the F-16s, let me say that
we believe that they have been a very effective instrument of
counterinsurgency and counterterrorism. As I said, out of
respect for congressional prerogatives, we do not discuss
prospective sales until they have been formally notified.
Mr. Yoho. But, yet, they protected Osama bin Laden all
those years. I mean, there is no way they didn't know about
that. I mean, nobody can convince me of anything different. And
so, yet, they are effective over here hitting a beehive. They
are treating a tumor, a malignant, metastatic tumor over here.
But the main tumor is over here. And we need to go after the
main root cause of our problems before I can support any sales
of those. Thank you.
Chairman Royce [presiding]. Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you. On November 18, Anwar Laghari, the
brother of the Sindh activist who is the chief advocate here in
Washington, Munawar Laghari, was killed. There is an ongoing
investigation. I want to thank you and the State Department for
the counsel general's focus on this. And it raises the bigger
issue as to whether there are forces in Pakistan that are
simply hostile to any region of the country other than Punjab.
What percentage of the general officers of the military are
Punjabi? I don't know if you have that available.
Mr. Olson. I do not have that available, Congressman. And
we can take that back and see if we have that information.
I can tell you anecdotally from my personal experience, it
is a high proportion, but it is not an exclusive proportion.
Mr. Sherman. Okay. Zero-based budgeting, most people I
represent feel that the roughly $2 billion we give Pakistan
could be better spent in the San Fernando Valley. If we are not
willing to talk about simply a zero figure for aid to Pakistan,
we have no leverage. The doctor that helped us get Osama bin
Laden will be rotting in prison. Do we have a plan, as one of
several options, to go to zero? And what would we expect the
Pakistani response to be? Is it considered an act of war to
fail to give another country money?
Mr. Olson. Sir, we believe that engagement with Pakistan is
in our national----
Mr. Sherman. Other countries don't give them money, and
they still talk. I am not saying we close our Embassy. Are you
saying the Pakistanis would refuse to talk to us? Does every
other country have to give them money as like a party gift to
go have a conversation?
Mr. Olson. Well, we think that our assistance programs,
whether we are talking about civilian or military, have
actually done a lot to improve the conditions in the case of
civilians and the lives of ordinary Pakistanis. And Pakistan is
facing an enormous demographic challenge. I mean, it is a
country of 190 million people. It has a youth bulge. The youth
are about to come into the most productive years of their
lives. Either they are going to have jobs or not have jobs. We
think the----
Mr. Sherman. Look, I know that we do some good for
Pakistanis. If we spent that money in India or in Congo, we
would do an equal amount of good. What is the Pakistani
response if we simply say ``zero''?
Mr. Olson. Well, I really can't say what the Government of
Pakistan would----
Mr. Sherman. So we are spending $2 billion, much of it
military. And if we eliminated the military aid, it is clear
that the Pakistani military does some good. It is also clear
that the Pakistani military and the ISI do some harm. Have we
discussed with the Pakistanis that perhaps Congress would
simply specify zero, particularly if we didn't see some changes
in policies, starting with the release of the doctor who helped
us get Osama bin Laden? Have you talked to the Pakistanis that
there is sentiment in the Congress to go to zero?
Mr. Olson. I will be happy to convey that sentiment,
Congressman. And I think that is a point that we can make. The
administration's position is that we believe that the
assistance programs that we have are in our national interest.
They are in our national--it is in our national interest to
have Pakistan be stable and prosperous, rather than the
alternative. And it is in our national interest to have
Pakistan conducting counterinsurgency and counterterrorism
operations in the western part of the country.
Mr. Sherman. Do we have assurance that the money we give
them is not used for oppression and terrorism rather than
prosperity and counterterrorism? Money is fungible. They may be
confronting the Haqqani Network or not. Or they may be funding
the organizations that kill people in Mumbai. How do we know
which of those two activities our money is funding?
Mr. Olson. Well, sir, we are very careful about how we
spend our money and what we spend it on. With regard to the
military assistance, it is subjected to a very extensive Leahy
Amendment vetting process. And there is no question that we
continue to raise these issues that you flagged. The question
of the Haqqanis, we need to do more on the Haqqanis and on
Lashkar-e-Tayyiba with the Pakistani Government at every
occasion.
Mr. Sherman. Unless they think that you are willing under
some circumstances to recommend zero to the United States
Congress, you will not achieve our objectives. And the biggest
weathervane is the physician that helped us get Osama bin
Laden. For us to ignore that they were harboring him in one of
their safest and most military towns and then say we should
ignore the fact that they have that doctor in prison, it begs
the question of whether the aid we give them is warranted.
I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Thank you. I am going to return to points
that I made in my opening statement. I was absent for a while.
We had three bills debated on the House floor that our
committee put out, including the legislation authored by myself
and Eliot Engel on targeting Hezbollah, and several other
cosponsors here, like Mr. Sherman, that we will be voting on
this afternoon. But if I could return to some of the points
that I made. I opened with this observation about the Deobandi
schools in Pakistan. Now, there are 600 of these specifically
that I am concerned with that over the years we have tried to
convince the government to shutter, shut them down. They are
funded primarily by the Gulf states, by individuals, by
families in the Gulf states who make these charitable
contributions as they are called. But the problem is that the
graduates out of these schools basically have a foundation in
radical ideology. So we have the National Action Plan that has
been set up by the government. I asked the Congressional
Research Service about that particular plan. And they say
nearly 1 year later, there remains limited evidence that the
government's National Action Plan has brought major policy
changes. So I wanted to ask you about that, ask you,
Ambassador, about your dialogue with the government about
shutting these down so that we shut down the foundation from
which this radicalization is occurring. Many of those young
people that come out of that experience will go on to become
clerics either in Pakistan or elsewhere. And they will continue
to expand on this radical jihadist ideology that is advanced
in, that comes out of the Gulf states that is now being taught.
Mr. Olson. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me say that we share
your concern about the madrassas. We think it is a serious
issue. We thought it was significant that it was for the first
time addressed as an issue nationally in the National Action
Plan that was put out last year. Our understanding is that the
government is in the process of putting together a greater
regulatory framework for the madrassas. It is presently
mapping----
Chairman Royce. But this isn't rocket science. We are not
talking about all madrassas. We are talking about the Deobandi
schools. As the Dawn editorial, the newspaper Dawn, said:
Branding all madrassas as incubators of hate and violence is
wrong. But there is little doubt that there still exists across
Pakistan religious centers that continue to spew hate. And
unless that infrastructure of hate is shut down, Pakistan will
never win its struggle for internal peace. That is the issue.
We have the list of the 600 schools. I have made three trips,
as I have indicated, to try to convince the government to shut
those down. We have had little success in convincing families
in the Gulf states not to send their money there or convincing
those governments in the Gulf states not to fund this. This is
a phenomenon that, frankly, is so frustrating because what we
see is the failure of the government time and time again to
address issues that are in that government's own best interest.
And this, to me, given the knowledge about what goes on in
those 600 schools, is the most obvious and vexing problem that
is right in front of us. What do people in the government say
about that issue?
Mr. Olson. Well, I have had some discussions about this,
Mr. Chairman. And I agree that there is a huge challenge with
the madrassas. The reason in a way that they exist and have
become popular in Pakistan, if that is the word, is because
they do provide a free education. And this has to do with the
fact----
Chairman Royce. We are talking past each other. I am not
talking about all the madrassas that provide a free education.
I am talking about the 600 that you and I know are in this
particular line of ideological radicalization. And on that
issue, clearly, given the amount of money that is spent toward
education in the budget, which is about 2.4 percent that
actually goes toward education, I understand, I mean, this is
one of the debates here in terms of the F-16s and other
military hardware is, wouldn't Pakistan be better served
addressing this issue of shutting down these 600 schools? And
if they do it, you know, funding public education there for
individuals, for families as an alternative for their sons to
go to those schools in this case instead of the lads going to
schools where you and I suspect the final outcome is going to
be like a lot of others that were radicalized in those Deobandi
schools.
Mr. Olson. I would agree with that analysis, Mr. Chairman.
We think that what has to be done is there has to be a further
reform of the public education system, that the public
education system is not delivering in Pakistan. And there has
to be a viable alternative for parents who otherwise have no
choice but to send their children to schools that are free and,
indeed, where not only are they free, but the food is provided.
So there is a real draw factor in all of this. We also think
that it is important that the Government of Pakistan--and we
are working with them in this area, in the counter and violence
extremism area--to try to reform these, the curriculum, so that
at least in the religiously oriented schools, there are
marketable skills; there is standardized curricula; and there
are attempts to address a more modern perspective.
Chairman Royce. My time has expired.
But without objection, I am going to ask unanimous consent
that Representative Sheila Jackson Lee be next in terms of
asking any questions. She is not on the committee, but she
wanted to participate today.
So, without objection, we will go to Representative Sheila
Jackson Lee from Texas.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your kindness.
It is much appreciated--along with the ranking member, thank
you so very much.
I chair the Congressional Pakistan Caucus with my colleague
and have done so for more than a decade. So thank you very much
for your presence here. I am going to go pointedly to a
question dealing with an American doctor of some years back. In
2014, Dr. Mehdi Ali Qamar, out of Chicago I believe, who came
on a mission to serve, and, of course, he had a different
religious background, Ahmadiyya. And I am just wondering did we
ever solve his killing? And was there any response to that very
tragic incident? From Chicago, I believe.
Mr. Olson. Yes, Congresswoman, it is a pleasure to see you
again.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much.
Mr. Olson. I am afraid I do not have any details on that
particular case. So if I can get back to you with a response, I
would do so of course.
Mr. Olson. We continue to have concern about, in general,
the treatment of religious minorities in Pakistan. And it is a
key area of our engagement.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So let me just follow up. You just made a
key area. I happen to think it is an important issue. And I am
just wondering how are we pursuing this whole issue of
religious tolerance?
Mr. Olson. Well, I think that there have been some
developments over time in Pakistan that give us a little bit of
space. We are trying to advance this. One of them certainly was
the decision by the Supreme Court under Justice Jillani in June
2014 to extend greater protection to religious minorities. We,
you know, think that is a positive step that needs to be
followed up on with the government. We have an ongoing dialogue
about the rights of religious minorities. And we have a
particular concern about blasphemy laws, not just in Pakistan
but everywhere in the world, because of the possibility of
their being subject to abuse. And that has been the case in
certain instances in Pakistan. We think it is--within the
context of having, you know, concerns about the framework, the
legal framework in which Pakistan conducts antiblasphemy laws--
we think it is positive the case of Asia Bibi has moved to the
Supreme Court. And we will continue to press the Government of
Pakistan for proper treatment of religious minorities.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank you. And, first of all, let
me say it is very good to see you. And thank you for your
service both in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I am probably going
to focus on Pakistan and then maybe a slight question within
the timeframe that I have left. I know that you have answered
the question about Dr. Afridi and his status. When President
Sharif was here, I questioned him. It seems as if he was trying
to suggest that there are other issues. Do you have any update?
You may have given it already in other testimony. But if I can
get that quickly.
And let me just follow up with my other question which is
when the Prime Minister was here, there was certainly an
impression given--Pakistan--that he was attempting to continue
to build on democratic principles, focus on economic
development, education, issues that we would be concerned about
and, certainly, existence, if you will, with India. And so I am
wondering what your assessment is. But if you would start with
the status of the doctor.
And then, lastly, if you could give me just a little bit
about Afghanistan, I am concerned in terms of whether or not
the frontier land or the areas are even embraced by the central
government and whether or not we actually have a functioning,
tranquil, growing government in Afghanistan.
Mr. Olson. Thank you, Congresswoman.
With regard to Dr. Afridi, we do believe there is no reason
for his continued detention. We have been assured by the
Pakistanis that he is in good health. But we continue to press
his case absolutely at the highest levels of our Government and
seek his release.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And you see no other accounts or charges,
which has been represented to me that there are some other
charges, you see no reason for him to continue to be
incarcerated?
Mr. Olson. Well, we just believe inherently that he should
not be in a position of detention for helping out in the
capture or the Osama bin Laden raid. So that has been our
position from the outset.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And you continue at the United Nations
level and other levels to be able to secure his release?
Mr. Olson. Yes. We continue to work every avenue that is
open to us and continue to press hard on it.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And the other questions?
Mr. Olson. With regard to Afghanistan, the government
actually does face some challenges. That is not surprising. But
on the other hand, the government of national unity has held
together for over a year. The government of national unity, any
government of national unity, coalition government anywhere,
there are challenges associated with it. When I was in Kabul
last week, I got a sense of renewed determination from the
government to improve its governance, particularly after the
security challenges that it has faced over the last year. It is
drawing lessons learned from the experiences of the past year
and is making more government appointments. And there is a
particular provincial focus to the government's reform efforts
right now.
Ms. Jackson Lee. If the chairman would be kind enough, if
you could just, under Prime Minister Sharif, who came to the
United States, do you see the country moving toward more
democratic principles, economic development? You are in and out
of the country; do we have a line or a measuring stick that
moves Pakistan with all of its population, all of its desire
for education, to a level where you are empowering the many
young people that are there in the country?
Mr. Olson. Yes. Congresswoman, thank you.
There was an important transition in Pakistan, as you know,
in June 2013 when the first civilian-elected government took
over from a civilian-elected government, the first successful
civilian transition in Pakistan's 65-year history at that
point. And I think that after facing some domestic political
challenges, the government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has,
I think, largely settled those political issues. And I think
the political situation is stable. And the government has
indeed focused on several key areas of stabilizing the economy.
Pakistan was--the coffers were quite empty at the time that the
Nawaz government took over. And there was the potential at that
point of a balance of payments crisis. Pakistan is now on an
IMF program. It has been through eight tranches. And that is
longer than any previous IMF program in history.
There is still some important structural reforms that need
to be undertaken, especially in the energy sector. But, on the
other hand, they have moved to diversify their energy supply.
They are importing liquefied natural gas with a company from
Houston helping out in that process, which we were very happy
to try to promote successfully. And they have also focused on
infrastructure.
The Prime Minister has also committed to increasing the
proportion of spending on education. And in that regard, I
think it is worth noting that the Prime Minister's daughter,
Maryam Sharif, signed on with the First Lady, Mrs. Obama, for
the Let Girls Learn initiative during the Prime Minister's
visit. And in that regard, Pakistan has expressed its
seriousness about addressing issues of education, particularly
for adolescent girls. And we encourage them to continue to
spend, to increase their funding on education.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you for your service.
And thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member,
for your courtesies. I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Thank you. We now go to Mr. Eliot Engel of
New York.
Mr. Engel. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And, Ambassador Olson, it is good to see you. We had a good
meeting yesterday in my office. I was just debating a bill on
the House floor and also a New York delegation. So I apologize
for missing the first part of the hearing. But we discussed
many of the issues. And I am delighted with your appointment.
What I am going to do is make a statement and then ask you to
comment on it. This week, we marked 5 years since the passing
of Ambassador Holbrooke, who was our first Special
Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. And we still feel
his loss. He left a remarkable legacy. And his final effort was
laying the groundwork for resolving the long conflict in
Afghanistan and Pakistan. And I hope we are able to take
advantage of that work. As I mentioned before, Ambassador
Olson, I am confident that with your previous experience in
both Afghanistan and Pakistan, this important task is in the
right hands.
When President Obama took office, I was encouraged by the
bipartisan commitment to support our military forces,
diplomats, and development workers in Afghanistan, and to renew
our partnership with the civilian leadership of Pakistan. This
focus on Pakistan was reflected in the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill
passed by Congress in 2009. But that authorization recently
expired. And now is a good time to take stock of the status of
the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. We are used to hearing some bad
news about Pakistan. But the Pakistani people have achieved
some noteworthy accomplishments in recent years. Pakistan has
seen its first peaceful transfer of power from one
democratically elected government to another. I think this was
a historic moment for the country.
Thanks to collaboration with our own USAID, today Pakistan
has added 1750 megawatts of electricity to its energy grid,
30,000 new jobs, nearly 1,000 new or refurbished schools, and
the more than 18,000 newly trained teachers. And let me commend
our development experts for their hard work in a very
challenging environment.
On the security side, we have seen much more modest
progress. Terrorist groups based in Pakistan continue to pose a
serious threat to Americans, Pakistanis, and our partners
throughout South Asia and the world. Moreover, Pakistan has
provided some extremist groups safe haven and a permissive
environment that allows extremist ideology to spread. The
result is terrorist attacks in Afghanistan, India, in the U.K.,
and here in the United States. But the hardest hit have been
the Pakistani people. Terrorism inside Pakistan has killed more
than 50,000 people since 2003. That is 50,000 people.
A year ago today, terrorists affiliated with the Pakistani
Taliban, also known as TTP, massacred more than 140 teachers
and students at the Army Public School in Peshawar. Absolutely
horrific. After years of prodding and far too many lives lost,
the Pakistani Government finally took military action against
TTP in North Waziristan. Along with many others, I had high
hopes for those efforts. I was also hopeful when Pakistan's
Parliament took a leading role in establishing a National
Action Plan to comprehensively address terrorism in the
aftermath of the Peshawar attacks.
When Pakistan's Government decided it would no longer
differentiate between good and bad terrorists, that suggested a
real change in Pakistan's approach, a positive change, to
addressing terrorism in the country. But, yet again, we have
seen little evidence that the Government of Pakistan has
followed through on these commitments. And so some violent
groups continue to operate in Pakistan with impunity, including
the Haqqani Network, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of
Americans in Afghanistan, and Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, also called
LET, the group responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks, which
also cost American lives. There are some in Pakistan who
believe they can manage these groups. Yet Lashkar terrorists
end up fighting our troops in Afghanistan. And Haqqani Network
terrorists have pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda. It is clear
that Pakistan is a long way from solving these problems.
So, Ambassador Olson, as we discuss these issues, I hope we
can focus on a few key areas. First of all, what is it going to
take for Pakistan to stop differentiating between good and bad
terrorists and start treating all terrorists as bad and all
terrorists as the threat that they are? Does our own policy
effectively convey to Pakistan that the harm from these
relationships outweigh any perceived benefit?
Next, I am curious about how Pakistani acquiescence in or
support for terrorist groups is affecting its neighbors. Can
Afghanistan stabilize while Pakistan continues to host groups
like the Haqqani Network? Can Pakistan and India have a normal
relationship when Pakistan continues to support LET?
And, lastly, I am concerned about the messages we are
sending when we continue to provide Pakistan security
assistance, despite Pakistan's ongoing relationships with the
Haqqani Network and LET. We need to be clear-eyed about
Pakistan's counterterrorism efforts.
Now, I believe in the U.S.-Pakistan alliance. I believe
that the United States and Pakistan should be allies and
continue to work together. But I think the question about
terrorism is a very important question. And it really has not
been satisfactorily, in my opinion, met by the Pakistani
Government. Also, I hope we can soon see a country strategy for
Pakistan and Afghanistan from USAID so that we can maximize the
remaining foreign assistance to both countries. In my view, we
need to include incentives that encourage Pakistan to make much
needed energy sector and tax reforms. We all want to see a
peaceful, stable, and prosperous Pakistan that is an integrated
part of a larger, more connected Central and South Asia. This
simply cannot happen with the continued instability that exists
in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
So I am wondering, Ambassador, if you could answer some of
these questions I made. If you have already done it, then we
can do it in writing afterwards. But if you can answer, I would
be grateful. Thank you.
And I wish you good luck. And as I said before, I think you
are the right man for the job.
Mr. Olson. Well, thank you very much, Ranking Member Engel.
That means a great deal to me that I enjoy your confidence. And
thank you for your support. You started by mentioning it is 5
years since the death of Richard Holbrooke. I was actually in
his outer office waiting to see him on the day that he
collapsed. And I think all of us who are working on this
account greatly, greatly miss him to this day. And I am well
aware that I am filling very big shoes.
And thank you for your very comprehensive and balanced
statement. Let me say with regard particularly to the issue of
terrorism, we appreciate the statements that Pakistan has made
at the level of the Prime Minister and the army chief of not
differentiating between good and bad terrorists. We think there
is still work to be done in this area. We think that Pakistan
has moved decisively against any terrorists that threaten
Pakistan internally but still needs to devote attention to
those that represent a threat to their neighbors. You asked
about particularly the effect on Afghanistan. I would just note
that we had a very constructive week last week with the Heart
of Asia conference, at which President Ghani attended and which
Pakistan committed in its public statements to uphold the
sovereignty, territorial integrity and legitimacy of the
Afghanistan Government and its constitution, which was
important for the Afghanistan side. And they committed to
renewing and reinvigorating a peace process.
Pakistan did host talks at Murree between the Taliban and
the Afghanistan Government, the first such talks, last summer
in July. And I think we are all agreed that it is important to
get a political settlement process going with a sense of
urgency. And we look to Pakistan to bring--help to bring the
Taliban to the table. At the same time, we continue to raise
our concerns about the threat that specifically the Haqqani
Network represent to us and our forces and our Embassy and
civilians in Afghanistan, as well as the Taliban more
generally.
And, finally, we certainly have the same view with regard
to Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and the need to not just ban Lashkar-e-
Tayyiba but to take action with regard to prosecuting the
perpetrators of Mumbai.
Mr. Engel. Thank you.
And I look forward to continuing to working with you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. And I believe Mr. Higgins had an additional
question or two.
Mr. Higgins. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just, you know, I just keep going back to the double game
that is being played by Pakistan. And, you know, you had said
that Pakistan expressed a seriousness in addressing the
education needs of its country. Pakistan spends 3 percent of
its budget on education, 3 percent. It spends 3 percent of its
budget on infrastructure. According to the World Economic
Forum, countries that spend less than 15 percent on education,
health care, and infrastructure are countries that are very
susceptible to collapse. So when Pakistan says or expresses a
seriousness in addressing its educational needs, one only needs
to look at the amount of budgetary resources its addressing for
that need.
Additionally, Pakistan, I think, inflates the amount it
spends on counterterrorism operations so it can receive more
money, particularly from us. And as has been stated here
throughout this hearing, some $30 billion over the past 15
years has been spent, both military and economic development
aid for Pakistan. According to U.S. military officials, the
legitimate costs are only about 30 percent. So my question is,
where is the rest of that money going? And it is very, very
significant, and I suspect for nefarious purpose.
And are we winning the hearts and minds of Pakistanis given
the extraordinary aid that we have provided? Well, I would
refer you to the Pew Research Center, which says that the
majority of Pakistanis view the United States as the enemy. The
majority say that U.S. assistance has a negative or no impact
at all. And Pakistan is one of the most corrupt countries in
the world.
So I think by any measure, when you look at the
extraordinary aid that we have provided, at the very least, we
have not used that aid package as a basis from which to force
very, very reasonable reforms with respect to helping the
Pakistanis help their own people. Because if you are not making
a commitment to education, if you are not making a commitment
to health care, if you are not building the roads and bridges
of your community, why are we? We spent $87 billion rebuilding
the roads and bridges of Afghanistan. We spent $73 billion
rebuilding the roads and bridges of Iraq, roads and bridges
they blow up to kill our people. So, you know, I think, if
anything, you know, we look at this exercise today, this
hearing, as underscoring, I think, the urgency of better
utilizing the leverage that we have with Pakistan so to ensure
that not only that money is more wisely spent, but we, you
know, the benefactors of huge amounts of foreign aid to
Pakistan aren't viewed by the vast majority of the Pakistani
people as the enemy and the money that we give them as
ineffective.
Mr. Olson. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman.
And I appreciate the very thoughtful comments that you have
offered here. And we agree with you on the need for Pakistan to
be investing more in education, in health, in its own people. I
think there is really no doubt about that. And we support Prime
Minister Nawaz' stated commitment to devoting 4 percent to
education, 4 percent of GDP. And we would like to see that. We
would like to see that happen.
I think it does have to be said that Pakistan faces a huge
number of challenges right now. It faces huge security
challenges. And we could have a very long discussion about how
that happened. And I think, you know, there are domestic--there
are certainly large domestic factors at play. And I think
Pakistan is attempting to turn that security situation around.
But that does consume, I think, a significant amount of their
budget in doing so.
On the question of hearts and minds and views of Americans,
it is not--it is not a happy story. And I agree with you. On
the other hand, it is something that is somewhat improving. The
numbers have gradually improved on Pakistan's perceptions--
Pakistanis' perceptions of Americans. I can tell you from
personal experience, I think there is less of an impression now
amongst the political elite that the United States is playing
some kind of nefarious role with regard to Pakistani domestic
politics. In other words, we are perceived as not intervening
in Pakistani politics. And that is because we haven't. We have
been very careful not to do that. So I think that this is
something that is not going to change overnight. But the trends
are, albeit modest, they are in a positive direction. And I
think we need to keep working away at that.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you.
Chairman Royce. Well, Ambassador, let me--I am going to
yield time to Mr. Brad Sherman of California for an additional
question.
Mr. Sherman. Pakistan is the only schizophrenic nuclear
power. Winning over the people of Pakistan is one of the most
important things we can do. Voice of America spends a lot of
money around the world. I hope that you would be an advocate
for making sure that we have a robust program not just in Urdu
but also in the Sindhi and other languages. Please do not be
fooled by them saying: Well, a lot of people have some working
knowledge of Urdu. You are in the marketing business. People in
my town spend billions of dollars advertising in Spanish to
people who prefer to listen in Spanish. They don't say: Well,
you know, we are going to test those people and see, what is
their working knowledge?
You reach people in the language they want to listen in.
And the fact that we are talking about $2 billion a year and we
are not spending $1 million a year to reach people in the
Sindhi language is something I hope you will do something
about. I have been trying. I have not been successful. I am
counting on you.
I want to second just about everything Mr. Higgins said. I
was an advocate in my first 5 minutes, or a devil's advocate,
for a zero-based budget for Pakistan. That is obviously not
what we are going to do. I do hope that you will confer to the
Pakistanis, though, that if there ever was a vote on the floor
of the House to say not one penny can be disbursed until Dr.
Afridi and his family are safe here, it would pose a danger to
the U.S. Congress because we would be stampeding to vote yes.
And that would be a danger to some of our colleagues.
As to--yes, everybody would stampede; those voting first
would be stampeded by those trying to be first.
Focusing on that aid, obviously, schools are important.
USAID dedicated more than $155 million dollars deg.to
building and improving schools in Sindh. A 2014 USAID inspector
general report found that 3 years in, the program was not
achieving its goals; it had unrealistic expectations; that no
schools had been built; that there was little improvement in
early grade reading.
That was a report in 2014. Has anything been done to make
sure that education aid in Sindh is more effectively spent? And
if you don't have that information, you can respond for the
record.
Mr. Olson. Thank you very much, Congressman Sherman.
Let me say with regard to Sindhi, I hope that you are aware
that our Consulate General in Karachi has started putting out
all of its social media work in Sindhi, and it has received a
very positive reaction. So Facebook----
Mr. Sherman. That idea may have come from Congress. Go on.
Mr. Olson. We are happy to implement it, and I will take
back the message on Voice of America. I don't have specific
detailed information on the schools in Sindh, but I can tell
you that I have participated in the inauguration of schools, so
they are being built. They are going up. But I will have to get
you a detailed status report.
Mr. Sherman. I look forward to that. I would also like you
to explore with USAID the idea that a good chunk of our aid
should go there in the form of providing free textbooks. That
would allow us to make sure that the content of those
textbooks, perhaps not passing a politically correct test in
the Democratic Club in the San Fernando Valley, would be
consistent with, if not reflective, of American values.
Second, every student sees on the front page, ``Provided by
the people of the United States,'' every day.
Third, it is very hard to steal a textbook because if the
United States is providing free textbooks, who are you going to
sell the textbooks to? Everybody who wants textbooks got them
for free.
And, fourth, one of the advantages of the madrassa is they
got free textbooks; we ought to have free textbooks.
Finally, what would it take to get Pakistan to be a status
quo power? That is to say, generally accepting a Kashmir
situation. Is there any amount of development aid the world
could provide to the Kashmiri people? Is there any change in
the level of local autonomy that India could provide? I realize
everybody wants to get a Nobel Prize for solving the Israeli-
Palestinian question. There might be a prize in it for you. Is
there anything--not so that Pakistan would formally accept the
situation, but so that they could calm down, agree to live for
a decade or so without Kashmir being at the top of their list?
Chairman Royce. If I might interject here, I am aware that
Ambassador Olson has to appear on the Senate side, and I am
aware that----
Mr. Sherman. That is not important.
Chairman Royce. Regardless of our feelings on this, he
might interpret it differently, and so maybe that is a longer
discussion that we might have either in writing or sit down
with him.
Mr. Sherman. And we were supposed to meet in my office.
They closed every school in my district. I look forward to
meeting with you.
Chairman Royce. Thank you.
And just in closing, I did want to bring up the remarks
that Mr. Engel made about your predecessor, Ambassador Olson,
in your job, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. He was a personal
friend to myself and Eliot Engel, and I know certainly from the
day that he began engaging with this committee, I remember the
Dayton Peace Accords and the work he did on Bosnia and Kosovo
with Eliot Engel and others, with those of us here. We counted
him as someone who had very wise counsel on a lot of issues. We
miss him. I can't help but feel when I reflect upon your
predecessor that the stress of the job may have had something
to do with his heart giving out.
We wish you, Ambassador, well in your responsibilities
here, and we appreciate your time and patience today. I know
that you are on your way to the Senate, so I will just say what
you have heard are some deep concerns from both sides of the
aisle here today about the direction, this issue about getting
more money into public education in Pakistan. It is clear to us
that this has got to be a priority. Members are frustrated.
You have a difficult job, but you have the full backing
from us to weigh in forcefully with the responsibilities you
have in your position.
So, with that said, we thank you again, and we stand
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:58 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]