[Senate Hearing 115-831]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-831
DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS: THE CASE FOR U.S. LEADERSHIP
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WESTERN
HEMISPHERE, TRANSNATIONAL
CRIME, CIVILIAN SECURITY,
DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS,
AND GLOBAL WOMEN'S ISSUES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 16, 2017
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web:
http://www.govinfo.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-671 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
BOB CORKER, Tennessee, Chairman
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
MARCO RUBIO, Florida ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
CORY GARDNER, Colorado TOM UDALL, New Mexico
TODD YOUNG, Indiana CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming TIM KAINE, Virginia
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
RAND PAUL, Kentucky CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
Todd Womack, Staff Director
Jessica Lewis, Democratic Staff Director
John Dutton, Chief Clerk
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WESTERN HEMISPHERE,
TRANSNATIONAL CRIME, CIVILIAN SECURITY, DEMOCRACY,
HUMAN RIGHTS, AND GLOBAL WOMEN'S ISSUES
MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Chairman
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona TOM UDALL, New Mexico
CORY GARDNER, Colorado JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia TIM KAINE, Virginia
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Rubio, Hon. Marco, U.S. Senator from Florida..................... 1
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from Maryland............. 4
Gershman, Carl, President, National Endowment for Democracy,
Washington, DC................................................. 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Green, Hon. Mark, President, International Republican Institute,
Washington, DC................................................. 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Wollack, Kenneth, President, National Democratic Institute,
Washington, DC................................................. 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Machado, Danilo ``El Sexto'' Maldonado, Cuban Artist and Human
Rights Activist................................................ 31
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Eldosari, Dr. Halah, Visiting Scholar and Human Rights Activist,
Washington, DC................................................. 35
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Kasparov, Garry, Chairman, Human Rights Foundation, New York, NY. 39
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses of Carl Gershman to Questions Submitted by Senator Tim
Kaine.......................................................... 52
Response of Hon. Mark Green to Question Submitted by Senator Tim
Kaine.......................................................... 54
Response of Kenneth Wollack to Question Submitted by Senator Tim
Kaine.......................................................... 54
(iii)
DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS:
THE CASE FOR U.S. LEADERSHIP
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Transnational
Crime, Civilian Security, Democracy, Human Rights,
and Global Women's Issues,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:48 p.m. in
room 419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Marco Rubio,
chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Rubio [presiding], Gardner, Menendez, and
Kaine.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Rubio. This hearing of the Subcommittee on the
Western Hemisphere, Transnational Crime, Civilian Security,
Democracy, Human Rights, and Global Women's Issues will come to
order.
The title of this hearing is ``Democracy and Human Rights:
The Case for U.S. Leadership.'' We are going to have two panels
testifying today. The first will feature Mr. Carl Gershman,
president of the National Endowment for Democracy; the
Honorable Mark Green, the president of the International
Republican Institute; and Mr. Kenneth Wollack, who is the
president of the National Democratic Institute, all have long
and distinguished careers in this field, and we are fortunate
to have them here today.
The second panel will include Mr. Garry Kasparov, who is
the chairman of the Human Rights Foundation; Dr. Halah
Eldosari, a visiting scholar and human rights activist; and Mr.
Danilo ``El Sexto'' Maldonado Machado, who is a Cuban artist
and human rights activist. Each of these individuals have
suffered some form of oppression, harassment, or
marginalization by their governments, and I am confident the
stories they will share today will shine a powerful light on
those who attempt to violate the human rights and the freedom
that every person is entitled to.
We look forward to hearing your testimony. We thank
everyone in attendance for being here. I specifically want to
acknowledge the leadership of NED's core institutes
representing labor and business, Shawna Bader-Blau and Andrew
Wilson.
Today, we will discuss a topic which I believe is
especially timely not simply because we are at the start of a
new administration, which continues to formulate its foreign
policy, but also because a cursory glance around the globe
reveals disturbing trends of an authoritarian resurgence
threatening human rights and democracy. From Russia to China,
from North Korea to Venezuela, authoritarianism is on the rise.
Human freedom is under assault, and restrictive new NGO laws
are being used to crush civil society. Press freedom is being
challenged. Just yesterday, we saw the expulsion of CNN en
Espanol from Venezuela, and political dissidents often feel
isolated and abandoned while those who repress them do so with
seeming impunity.
Many of our historic alliances with other leading
democracies are fraying while authoritarian regimes are closely
collaborating and empowering other dictators. Some of the
world's most egregious human rights violators retain well-paid
lobbyists and P.R. firms. They engage in sophisticated
expressions of soft power in the media through so-called think
tanks and academia and even the entertainment industry. It
feels like freedom fighters are constantly playing catch-up.
Earlier this month, Vladimir Kara-Murza of Open Russia was
suspected of being poisoned for a second time. I understand
that he is now recovering and will hopefully be released from
the hospital shortly. He has been a target of the Russian
Government for some time.
Later this month, February 27th will be the second
anniversary of the assassination of his close ally, Boris
Nemtsov, who was murdered in view of the Kremlin after speaking
out against Russia's aggression in Ukraine and Vladimir Putin's
corruption. We invited his daughter Zhanna Nemtsova to testify
today, but she was unable to attend due to prior commitments. I
would, however, like to enter into the record a report from her
organization detailing the figures of political prisoners in
Russia.
[The information referred to above was not available at
time of print.]
Senator Rubio. In the seminal work, The Case for Democracy,
famed Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky, divides nations into
free and fear societies. He writes, quote, ``A simple way to
determine whether the right to dissent in a particular society
is being upheld is to apply the town-square test. Can a person
walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her
views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm?
If he can, then that person is living in a free society, and if
not, it is a fear society,'' end quote.
For the Chinese lawyer, the Russian journalist, the Saudi
blogger, the Venezuelan activist, the Cuban artist, the
Bahraini civil society leader, there is no question they are
living in fear societies. Their attempts to freely--and I would
add courageously--express themselves are met with harsh and
unyielding repression.
Civil rights champion, the Reverend Martin Luther King,
Jr., famously said, ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere.'' As the title of today's hearing makes clear, I
believe and I think it is safe to say that Ranking Member
Menendez agrees as well that there is indeed a convincing case
to be made for strong, principled U.S. leadership in the
promotion and support of democracy and human rights globally on
this moral imperative alone.
I recognize this is not a universal belief. It never has
been, even during the heyday of the Soviet Union, and
certainly, it is not now when there is no monolith enemy or
single ideological counterpart to the free world.
While the American people remain among the most generous in
the world, widely giving to charitable causes both domestically
and internationally, altruism or even the moral impetus to
stand with the oppressed and marginalized is insufficient
motivation for many, especially when they consider our own
decrepit infrastructure, our shuttered factories, our mounting
national debt, and other priorities here at home.
So for those of who believe in the merits of this work, the
burden is on us to make the case for why U.S. foreign policy
must be infused with the values at the center of our own
experiment in self-governance. It is incumbent upon us to
explore and explain why the support of emerging democracies
should be a core U.S. national interest precisely because it is
a national security imperative, and I hope today's hearing will
provide a platform to do so.
We need not abandon any notion of realpolitik. I recently
read a National Review piece that captured a conversation that
Mr. Kasparov had with Czech writer and dissident Vaclav Havel
in which Havel noted, ``Now and then, you have to negotiate
with evil regimes but you do not have to do so without bringing
up human rights.'' Take Ronald Reagan. He negotiated with the
Soviet Union about arms control and geopolitics, but he always
put political prisoners on the table.
With the previous administration, these issues took a back
seat to other geopolitical goals, whether it was greater
collaboration with China on climate change and the global
economic crisis, the resumption of diplomatic relations with
the tyranny in Cuba, or the prospects of a grand bargain with
Iran. Dissidents in these and other countries often felt
ignored and forgotten by the United States.
My critique is not reserved for a Democratic
administration. I raised these issues with our Secretary of
State--our new Secretary of State during his confirmation
hearing and I am--was concerned and remain so about the way he
addressed them. I intend to continue to highlight the
importance of democracy and human rights as senior State
Department nominees come before our committee for
consideration. And as I stated when I voted for Mr. Tillerson,
my support of or opposition to those nominees will be based in
part on their willingness to make these issues a priority.
I believe it is vital for the Secretary, for his deputies,
for senior White House officials, including the President and
Vice President, to meet publicly with dissidents and human
rights activists, as President Trump and Vice President Pence
did last night with Lilian Tintori, the wife of Venezuelan
opposition figure Leopoldo Lopez. It is essential that the
leaders of the world's greatest democracy issue statements of
support and solidarity and, where appropriate, condemnations
when grave human rights abuses occur.
I urge the administration to request robust democracy
funding for such work in the upcoming budget cycle and to
utilize recently passed legislation from the previous Congress,
which provides the State Department new tools to advance the
cause of human rights and human dignity, foremost among them,
the global Magnitsky Act, which the ranking member was so
involved in.
Writing eloquently and ominously in the Wall Street Journal
last year, one of our witnesses Mr. Kasparov noted
``Globalization has made it easy for the enemies of the free
world to spread their influence in ways the Soviet leadership
could not have imagined while the West has lost the will to
defend itself and its values.'' I pray this warning is not
borne out of--borne out by reality.
Consider the contrast with Natan Sharansky's account of
being held in an 8 by 10 foot cell in a Siberian prison in 1983
when his Soviet jailers allowed him to read the latest issue of
the official Communist Party newspaper. Sharansky recalled the
front-page article condemning Reagan's famous ``Evil Empire''
speech. And he wrote, ``Tapping on the walls and talking
through toilets, political prisoners spread the word of
Reagan's so-called provocation.'' The dissidents were ecstatic.
Finally, the leader of the free world had spoken the truth, a
truth that burns inside the heart of each and every one of us.
I believe we are at an inflection point and that the stakes
could not be higher, as we will no doubt hear today. We must
commit anew to a robust defense of our values because they are
not merely American values. Rather, they reflect the yearning
of millions of people around the world who live in societies
dominated by fear and oppression but who look to the United
States of America to champion their cause to full exercise
their God-given rights.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. You have
experience in the field and on the ground that will contribute
greatly to what can so easily become abstract policy
discussions. I turn now over to the ranking member, Senator
Menendez.
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB MENENDEZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Menendez. Well, Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr.
Chairman, since this is the first hearing of the subcommittee,
I want to say I look forward to working with you on the
subcommittee's enormous breadth and scope of jurisdiction. From
the Western Hemisphere to transnational crime to civilian
security to democracy and human rights and global women's
issues, we have a lot of ground to cover, and we are fortune to
be able to do so. And I look forward to working with you, as I
have on the full committee and in the Senate.
I want to welcome our distinguished guests for both panels.
We are honored to have you and very much forward to--looking
forward to hearing your testimony. I would like to thank the
chairman for making this our first subcommittee hearing of the
new Congress. For so many reasons I cannot think of a more
important topic: democracy, human rights, and the case for U.S.
leadership for this subcommittee and truly for the Foreign
Relations Committee as a whole to address.
The United States itself was built on the dreams and deep
beliefs of aspirational individuals, those of individual
liberty, of inalienable rights, and of a system of governance
that treats all individuals equally. This democratic vision led
to the creation of a system of government that protects
fundamental freedoms that we become at risk of taking for
granted: the freedom of speech, of expression, the freedom of
praying however we choose. And we are still perfecting the
vision of treating all individuals regardless of gender,
identity, race, religion, or creed equally under the law.
In addition to these individual liberties, we enjoy the
governance structures that ensure an independent judiciary and
three equal branches of government that prevent one person from
consolidating power.
I note this foundation of the United States because it has
and must continue to shape our world view and drive our foreign
policy. Diplomacy is not naked deal-making. There is often no
bottom line in carefully crafted, nuanced relationships with
foreign countries. Our diplomatic efforts must be driven by
these values.
We support democracies around the world because history has
taught us too well that democracies that also value the rule of
law and individual rights are our best partners and our most
reliable allies. For those countries with whom we partner out
of strategic necessity and shared security goals, we must
always be vocal and active in supporting democratic efforts and
independent voices.
It is this moral clarity, this leadership that sets the
United States apart. Any suggestions of moral equivalency, that
we are somehow on part with dictatorial regimes that kill
political opponents, that jail journalists for speaking the
truth, and indiscriminately bomb hospitals and slaughter
innocent civilians should be resoundingly condemned.
We are here today to give voice to those who have been
silenced in their own countries and to better understand how
and why America investment into democracy and governance
programs furthers our own national security and foreign policy
objectives.
Mr. Maldonado, your struggle hits a deeply personal note
for me. My family left Cuba in pursuit of the freedoms for
which you are still fighting. I have the deepest respect for
your courage and your tenacity in the face of brutal
repression, of prison, of threats against your family and
friends. And I agree with you completely that we must not
kowtow to the brutal regime of the Castros, and we should not
reward them or their military cronies the benefit of an open
relationship with the United States until they release all
political prisoners and work to improve the lives of all
Cubans.
Dr. Eldosari, I want to say your work and courage have
amplified the voices of millions of women not just in Saudi
Arabia but also around the world. There is never an excuse for
violence against women or treating women less than men. You
raise an interesting point about the consolidation of power and
the reliance on a system of unfair governance to explain away
these heinous crimes against women. There is direct connection
between democracy, democratic institutions, and their role in
protecting individual rights.
And, Mr. Kasparov, I completely agree with your assessment
that the United States and the rest of the world must express
moral clarity and stand up against and in support of our allies
in the face of Russian aggression. We have now seen firsthand
the impact that Russian attempts to undermine our democratic
system can have.
Finally, for our first panelists, your work simply speaks
volumes for itself. I thank you all for your service, for your
commitment to promoting the values that makes this country
great. Both of our main political parties in the United States
deeply believe that strong political institutions that uphold
the rule of law and promote good governance build stronger
countries that form the basis of the international order, and I
look forward to hearing your testimony.
Senator Rubio. Well, we are going to--thank you, Senator
Menendez.
We are going to begin with our first panel. Let us begin
with you, Mr. Carl Gershman. Thank you for being here today. I
am sorry, right to left.
STATEMENT OF CARL GERSHMAN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR
DEMOCRACY, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Gershman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Rubio. Your left to right, my right to left.
Mr. Gershman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really want to
thank you for holding this very timely and important hearing on
the importance of U.S. leadership in supporting human rights
and democracy in the world. And I want you to know what a
tremendous honor it is for me to be speaking at the same
hearing with my old friend Garry Kasparov, with El Sexto, who
was just in prison--having him here is such a joy--and with
Halah Eldosari, who we know very, very well.
As we know, democracy today is being challenged as never
before since the end of the Cold War. The crisis has many
dimensions, including the rise of ISIS and other terrorist
movements; growing illiberalism in Turkey, Hungary, the
Philippines, and other backsliding democracies; 11 years of
consecutive decline in global democracy, as measured by Freedom
House; and, most importantly, what the letter of invitation to
this hearing calls ``resurgent authoritarianism.''
An editorial in The Washington Post last June defined
resurgent authoritarianism as a modern-day version of the
totalitarian threat that Winston Churchill decried in his
famous Iron Curtain address in 1946. ``No longer is it about
communism,'' the editorial said, ``but rather the rise of
despots who rule by force and coercion, from Russia to China,
across the Middle East and Central Asia, to Latin America and
Africa.''
In the past decade, these leaders have become more adept
and daring at building a parallel universe to the liberal
democratic order. In their construct, state power reigns
supreme; political competition is extinguished; civil society
elbowed out; and freedoms of expression, association, and
belief suppressed. Surprisingly, some of these leaders,
particularly in Russia and China, have been wielding a
sophisticated and deceptive soft power beyond their borders
that is proving more enduring and effective than in the past.
And I want to note, Mr. Chairman, that last year, we
published this book Authoritarianism Goes Global, which really
gives a thorough elaboration of this new phenomenon.
The Congress, through the appropriations process, has
called upon NED to develop a strategic response to this new
threat, saying that NED is ``uniquely positioned'' to do so
because of its ``decades-long experience working in the most
hostile political terrain through the core institutes and its
global grants and programs.'' Building on work that was already
being done through its ongoing grants programs and research
activities, in 2016 NED was able to identify and fund startup
programs to address six key strategic challenges:
The need to strengthen democratic unity in defense of
democratic norms and values that are under assault by
authoritarian regimes in international institutions as well as
in public attitudes.
Second, the need to foster ethnic and religious pluralism
to counter the spread of Islamist and other forms of religious
and sectarian extremism.
Third, the need to help civil-society activists and
organizations prevail against the concerted campaign by
authoritarian regimes to repress and control them.
Fourth, the need to defend the integrity of the information
space against efforts by Russia and other authoritarian regimes
to use social media and other communications tools to buttress
their own power and to divide, demoralize, and even destabilize
democratic societies.
Fifth, the need to strengthen the capacity for democratic
governance so that new and fragile democracies are able to make
progress toward democratic consolidation.
And finally, the need to combat the rise of kleptocracy--or
``rule by thieves''--a new and systemic feature of modern
authoritarianism that, due to the way kleptocrats use their
illicit funds internationally, also has the effect of eroding
the integrity of institutions in democratic societies,
including our own.
NED's strategic grants complement its ongoing grants
program in some 90 countries, strengthening its response to the
formidable and integrated threat posed by the new wave of
authoritarianism. We are finding new ways to tie programs
together across regions, to stimulate broader international
partnerships and coalitions, and to take sometimes isolated
innovations and scale them up to a level that makes them more
effective.
Remarkably, these programs are reaching brave activists who
are fighting for fundamental rights in some of the harshest
political environments. These activists include North Korean
defectors who are helping to break the information blockade
that Pyongyang has used to keep the North Korean people totally
isolated.
They include Chinese lawyers who are defending religious
freedom and the rule of law against harsh repression that is
being urged on by the chief justice of their Supreme Court, who
recently called upon provincial judges in China to ``show the
sword'' against the idea of judicial independence.
They include Cubans who are not only fighting for basic
rights and political space but who are expanding their support
networks by organizing around issues of local citizen concern.
They include Venezuelans who, in addition to their
continuing programs to defend human rights and reduce political
polarization, are tracking food and medical shortages to help
coordinate the international relief agencies' response to the
worsening humanitarian crisis.
And I might note, Mr. Chairman, that last year, we honored
Lilian Tintori with our Democracy Award, and when we did, it
showed the immense bipartisan support in the Congress for the
struggle in Venezuela.
They include Iraqi activists and members of local councils
and governments who are implementing startup efforts to rebuild
governance, promote economic development and reconciliation,
and build trust at the local level between the community and
the security forces in the area--in the areas liberated from
ISIS control.
Not least, they include Russian journalists, human rights
defenders, and civic activists, many of whom have been declared
foreign agents and must defend themselves in court against
crippling fines but who still fight for basic rights and take
great risks in exposing the kleptocratic practices of Russia's
ruling class.
We recognize, Mr. Chairman, that the battles these
activists and others like them around the world are fighting
will be long and hard. Democracy does not come swiftly or
easily. We must recognize that trying to take shortcuts to
democracy is as dangerous as relying upon autocrats to preserve
stability. Either way, we will reap the whirlwind.
And we should not forget that even when democracy is
eventually achieved, it must be defended with eternal
vigilance, as Thomas Jefferson once said. It must never be
taken for granted, even in our own country.
Those who are fighting for democracy deserve the support of
the American people, and through the NED they receive it. They
are defending the values we hold dear. They are the ones who
will bring real democracy and, through that, lasting stability.
In striving to fulfill their aspirations, they are advancing
our own fundamental national interests. They are helping us
live in a safer and more peaceful world, and for that they
deserve our solidarity.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gershman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Carl Gershman
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this very timely and
important hearing on the importance of U.S. leadership in supporting
human rights and democracy in the world. As we know too well, democracy
today is being challenged as never before since the end of the Cold
War. The crisis has many dimensions, including the rise of ISIS and
other terrorist movements; growing illiberalism in Turkey, Hungary, the
Philippines and other backsliding democracies; 11 consecutive years of
decline in global democracy, as measured by Freedom House; and, most
importantly, what the letter of invitation to this hearing calls
``resurgent authoritarianism.''
An editorial in The Washington Post last June defined resurgent
authoritarianism as a modern-day version of the totalitarian threat
that Winston Churchill decried in his famous ``iron curtain'' address
in 1946. ``No longer is it about communism,'' the editorial said, ``but
rather the rise of despots who rule by force and coercion, from Russia
to China, across the Middle East and Central Asia, to Latin America and
Africa. In the past decade, these leaders have become more adept--and
daring--at building a parallel universe to the liberal democratic
order. In their construct, state power reigns supreme, political
competition is extinguished, civil society elbowed out, and freedoms of
expression, association and belief suppressed. Surprisingly, some of
these leaders, particularly in Russia and China, have been wielding a
sophisticated and deceptive soft power beyond their borders that is
proving more enduring and effective than in the past.''
The Congress, through the appropriations process, has called upon
NED to develop a strategic response to this new threat, saying that NED
is ``uniquely positioned'' to do so because of its ``decades-long
experience working in the most hostile political terrain through the
core institutes and its global grants and programs.'' Building on work
that was already being done through its ongoing grants programs and
research activities, in 2016 NED was able to identify and fund start-up
programs to address six key strategic challenges:
The need to strengthen democratic unity in defense of democratic
norms and values that are under assault by authoritarian
regimes in international institutions as well as in public
attitudes;
The need to foster ethnic and religious pluralism to counter the
spread of Islamist and other forms of religious and sectarian
extremism;
The need to help civil-society activists and organizations prevail
against the concerted campaign by authoritarian regimes to
repress and control them;
The need to defend the integrity of the information space against
efforts by Russia and other authoritarian regimes to use social
media and other communications tools to buttress their own
power and to divide, demoralize, and even destabilize
democratic societies;
The need to strengthen the capacity for democratic governance so
that new and fragile democracies are able to make progress
toward democratic consolidation; and
The need to combat the rise of kleptocracy (or ``rule by
thieves'')--a new and systemic feature of modern
authoritarianism that, due to the way kleptocrats use their
illicit funds internationally, also has the effect of eroding
the integrity of institutions in democratic societies,
including our own.
NED's strategic grants complement its on-going grants program in
some 90 countries, strengthening its response to the formidable and
integrated threat posed by the new wave of authoritarianism. We are
finding new ways to tie programs together across regions, to stimulate
broader international partnerships and coalitions, and to take
sometimes isolated innovations and scale them up to a level that makes
them more effective.
Remarkably, these programs are reaching brave activists who are
fighting for fundamental rights in some of the harshest political
environments. These activists include North Korean defectors who are
helping to break the information blockade that Pyongyang has used to
keep the North Korean people totally isolated.
They include Chinese lawyers who are defending religious freedom
and the rule of law against harsh repression that is being urged on by
the chief justice of the Supreme Court, who recently called upon
provincial judges to ``show the sword'' against the idea of judicial
independence.
They include Cubans who are not only fighting for basic rights and
political space, but who are expanding their support networks by
organizing around issues of local citizen concern.
They include Venezuelans who, in addition to their continuing
programs to defend human rights and reduce political polarization, are
tracking food and medical shortages to help coordinate the response of
relief agencies to the worsening humanitarian crisis.
They include Iraqi community activists and members of local
councils and governments who are implementing start-up efforts to
rebuild governance, promote economic development and reconciliation,
and build trust at the local level between the community and the
security services in the areas liberated from ISIS control.
Not least, they include Russian journalists, human rights
defenders, and civic activists, many of whom have been declared
``foreign agents'' and must defend themselves in court against
crippling fines, but who still fight for basic rights and take great
risks in exposing the kleptocratic practices of Russia's ruling class.
We recognize, Mr. Chairman, that the battles these activists, and
others like them around the world, are fighting will be long and hard.
Democracy does not come swiftly or easily. We must recognize that
trying to take short-cuts to democracy is as dangerous as relying on
autocrats to preserve stability. Either way, we will reap the
whirlwind. And we should not forget that even when democracy is
eventually achieved, it must be defended with eternal vigilance, as
Thomas Jefferson once said. It must never be taken for granted, even in
our own country.
Those who are fighting for democracy deserve the support of the
American people, and through the NED they receive it. They are
defending the values we hold dear. They are the ones who will bring
real democracy and, through that, lasting stability. In striving to
fulfill their aspirations, they are advancing our own fundamental
national interests. They are helping us live in as a free and more
peaceful world, and for that they deserve our solidarity.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Ambassador Green, and just for the--so we can get into the
questions because I have--we have read your statements. They
are extraordinarily well-written. They are in the record. We
just--so if you--if there is somehow we could do it in 5
minutes each, that would be fantastic so we can get right into
the questions. This is not censorship; this is a democracy
hearing. I am just--no, we really want to get talking to you
here so----
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK GREEN, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL
REPUBLICAN INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC
Ambassador Green. Yes, I will not take it as censorship.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify, and thank you for holding this hearing.
Mr. Chairman, I will summarize my remarks here today.
Really what I am here to argue is that America should support
democracy and liberty overseas not only because it is the right
thing to do, but as you both alluded, also because it is in our
economic and security interests as well.
Here is what I mean: Generally speaking, democracies--
citizen-centered, citizen-responsive governments--are more
stable because they are more adaptable to change. They tend to
be more prosperous, and therefore, they make better economic
partners for the U.S. Democracies are less likely to produce
terrorists or weapons of mass destruction because they provide
outlets for dissent and they allow for diversity of opinion.
Authoritarian regimes on the other hand inherently pose
risks to order, peace, and stability. They often give rise to
refugees, burdening and even destabilizing their neighbors.
They maintain their iron grip on power in part by isolating
their citizens from outside ideas and influences, and sometimes
that means attacking, directly or indirectly, physically or
digitally, democratic neighbors who model the freedoms that
authoritarians most fear.
Sometimes pundits point to authoritarian governments as
models of stability, but often that stability is a veneer. In
fact, these regimes are prone to sudden instability. Because
their power is overly centralized in an individual or a small
group, when a crisis removes that leadership, it leaves a dark
vacuum that attracts the most dangerous elements.
Turning to our work itself, Mr. Chairman, a guiding
principle for all of us here is that we should not and indeed
cannot impose our democracy on the citizens of other countries.
Instead, our purpose is to walk with citizens and political
leaders as they blaze their own democratic trail.
Now, our work as evolved greatly over the last several
decades. In the wake of communism's collapse, we focused
largely on supporting issue-based political parties and
preparing candidates in their first real elections. Then our
work evolved to assist new governments in being more
accountable, effective, and responsive to citizens,
particularly traditionally marginalized communities.
Our marginalized communities practice continues through
today with initiatives like the Women's Democracy Network,
which offers training, mentorships, and networking for women
all around the world as they enter leadership. WDN has 16 fully
independent chapters and touches 17,000 women in more than 60
countries.
Our latest initiative is Generation Democracy, a network of
more than 400 youth organizations. It aims to help young people
move from broad passion and idealism to constructive
participation in political life.
Mr. Chairman, each of us here today can point to where,
working together--and in most places we are working together--
we have been able to help citizens and activists on their
journey. There is the story of Burma, and ethnically diverse,
culturally rich country with nearly unlimited economic
potential, but its people suffered for decades under a brutal
military dictatorship. Dissidents were often tortured and
imprisoned for transgressions as simple as gathering in a group
of more than five people.
When IRI and NDI began working there 25 years ago,
government crackdowns forced us to operate from just across the
border in Thailand, but we were a lifeline to activists and
opposition political parties, including Aung San Suu Kyi's
National League for Democracy. Eventually, in 2013 we were able
to open a formal office inside Burma itself. Since then, we
have engaged over 200,000 people from 340 organizations, from
political parties to local civil society organizations. Twenty
percent of all the elected national, state, and regional
parliamentarians serving today were actually trained by IRI.
Now, there is no doubt that Burma's civilian-led government
has a long way to go. It faces real challenges from a failing
infrastructure to disturbing ethnic and religious violence. But
given how far they have come, there is every reason to believe
that they can be a beacon to the region.
Tunisia is another great example of how American support
for democracy can make a difference even in a difficult
neighborhood. Despite extreme pressures from outside extremist
forces, Tunisia has held successive credible elections, solved
problems through compromise, and consistently demonstrated a
strong desire to be a U.S. ally.
Immediately after a youth-led revolution chased Ben Ali
from power, we all responded quickly to support the voices
demanding a say in their country's future. We conducted
hundreds of training workshops to develop political parties. We
helped civil society representatives foster meaningful lines of
communication between government and citizens and we have
strengthened Tunisian civil society by networking more than 60
organizations to promote government accountability.
As with Burma, Tunisia faces serious challenges. The
government and the economy have been rocked by terrorism, and
corruption continues to threaten its rise. We all believe that
it is crucial that organizations like ours stay engaged to help
them in their journey.
Mr. Chairman, in his famous Westminster address President
Reagan told us all that ``Democracy is not a fragile flower;
still it needs cultivating.'' Some of the most notable
successes in recent years--Tunisia, The Gambia, Burma, Ukraine,
and others--offer proof of the difference that U.S.-supported
cultivating can make.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mark Green
Chairman Rubio, Ranking Member Menendez, Members of the Committee,
thank you for holding this timely and important hearing, and thank you
for the opportunity to testify. By way of background, the International
Republican Institute (IRI) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization
working in more than 60 countries around the world. We trace our roots
back to President Reagan and his unshakeable belief that, ``Freedom is
not the sole prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable and
universal right of all human beings.''
advancing democracy is in our strategic interest
Mr. Chairman, based upon our three decades of experience, I believe
that America should support democracy and liberty, not only because it
is the right thing to do morally, but because it is very much in
America's economic and security interests. Generally speaking,
democracies--citizen-centered, citizen-responsive governments--are more
adaptable to change and are therefore more stable. They tend to be more
prosperous, which makes them better trading partners and markets for
U.S. goods. Because they tolerate diversity of opinion and allow for
dissent, they are less likely to produce terrorists, proliferate
weapons of mass destruction, or engage in armed aggression. That makes
them better neighbors and makes their regions more secure.
By contrast, authoritarian regimes, over the long run, pose
significant risks to peace and stability. They often give rise to
refugee populations, burdening and potentially destabilizing their
neighbors. In order to maintain their grip on power, such regimes
repress their people and seek to isolate their citizens from outside
ideas and influences. They attack--directly or indirectly, physically
or digitally--those outside their borders that model or represent the
freedom authoritarians fear. Finally, because authoritarians are often
incapable of meeting the aspirations of their citizens, they are prone
to sudden instability. Such regimes are stable, but only until they are
not. Since tyrants tend to spend little time or capital on grooming
other leaders or fostering responsive institutions, when they are
removed by death or crisis, it often opens up a power vacuum that
attracts dangerous elements.
democracy is never ``imposed''
Mr. Chairman, it is a basic tenet of our work that we do not, and
indeed cannot, ``impose'' our democracy or national values on the
citizens of other countries. Democracy is, after all, government by
consent of the governed. Our purpose is to walk with citizens and
political leaders around the world as they set out on their own journey
towards a more democratic future. As citizens work to strengthen their
voice in government, we offer tools to help. As leaders explore ways to
learn more about, and respond to, citizen priorities, we offer tools to
help.
democracy work has changed over the years
Just as the world has changed dramatically over the last several
decades, so has the nature of our work. In the wake of communism's
collapse, our focus was largely on developing political parties and
preparing candidates to stand for election. In former Warsaw Pact
satellites and the Baltic States, for example, we supported pro-reform,
pro-democratic political parties which, whether in power or in
opposition, helped those countries meet the demands of integrating into
NATO and the EU. We assisted them in developing responsive platforms,
and taught them the basics of political communications and the
marketplace of ideas. Our goal was to help them become productive,
contributing members of the transatlantic community.
Since those early days, acknowledging that democratic progress is
much more than a single election, our work evolved to address all
components of democratic systems. Following elections in those post-
communist states, newly-elected leaders needed to continue delivering
to citizens after reaching office. Our work evolved to assist
governments in being more accessible, accountable, effective,
inclusive, and responsive to citizens. As new foreign policy challenges
and democratic opportunities arose across the globe--in Asia, Latin
America, Africa--we replicated this important work, learning from each
experience and sharing approaches across countries and regions.
But it's not just about what a government can supply, it's also
about equipping citizens with the skills needed to hold their
government accountable and to advocate for change. Vitally important in
this work is ensuring that all citizens--particularly traditionally
marginalized people--have the skills needed to have a voice in the
political process.
For example, we work with Afro-Colombians in Colombia, the deaf in
Mongolia, and indigenous leaders in Guatemala and Mexico to help them
each amplify their voice in civil society and the public arena.
Perhaps our strongest and best-known initiative in this regard is
our groundbreaking Women's Democracy Network (WDN). While we are not a
``women's organization'' per se, it is our core belief that no
democracy can be truly representative if it essentially fails to listen
to half its people. No democracy can expect to succeed in meeting
today's complex challenges unless it turns to all parts of its
citizenry for the leadership it needs. WDN offers political training
and mentorships, networking opportunities and workshops on leadership
skills, all with an eye towards overcoming the biases and barriers
women often face. WDN has 16 fully independent chapters around the
world, touching over 17,000 women in more than 60 countries. Our latest
initiative to empower marginalized communities is Generation
Democracy--a youth-led, global movement of more than 400 member
organizations. Generation Democracy aims to help young people move
beyond broad idealism into active engagement in political life and
policy advocacy.
So what does all of this look like in practical terms? Mr.
Chairman, to help illustrate, I'd like to briefly describe the
democratic journey of two important countries, Burma and Tunisia. In
both cases, it seemed for many years as though democracy would never
come. But thanks to the courageous advocacy of everyday citizens and,
yes, the support of IRI, NDI and others, tremendous strides have been
made.
burma: from military dictatorship to hopeful democracy
Burma is an ethnically diverse, culturally rich country with nearly
unlimited economic potential. For the last five decades, however, its
story has also been a tragic one as a brutal military dictatorship held
absolute power. Dissidents were frequently interrogated, tortured and
imprisoned for ``transgressions'' as simple as gathering in a group of
more than five people. We began working there 25 years ago, during a
period when government crackdowns were commonplace. Despite the
regime's brutality, it was still clear that citizens were holding onto
their dreams of freedom and their quest for a voice in their own
future.
In those difficult years, IRI, along with NDI and NED, worked from
outside Burma's border in Thailand, supporting opposition political
parties--including Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy
(NLD). We assisted pro-democracy activists with messaging, strategic
communications, and operational capacity building so that their work
could be more focused and effective. We also trained activists in the
nuts-and-bolts of democratic politics through political party
development, advocacy and legal awareness workshops, and technical
skills-building to provide activists with the necessary tools to
connect with the international community. It's fair to say that for two
decades, we were quite literally a lifeline to the democracy movement.
In 2013, pressure from both courageous democratic voices inside the
country and the international community led to conditions improving
enough for IRI to open a formal office inside Burma itself. Since then,
with the knowledge of the national government, IRI has provided direct
assistance to support Burma's nascent democracy. We have engaged more
than 200,000 people from 340 organizations, from political parties to
local civil society organizations. Leading up to the 2015 elections, we
trained political party leaders in all 14 states and regions. Civic and
voter education activities carried out by our local partners helped
prepare 164,000 citizens to vote in those elections. With the help of
IRI and others, the 2015 elections were largely peaceful and, under the
watchful eyes of domestic and international observers, carried out in a
manner most described as ``credible and competitive.'' IRI's work left
a lasting impact. Twenty percent of all the elected national, state,
and regional parliamentarians serving today and 10 percent of all of
the women candidates who ran in 2015 were trained by IRI.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, one credible election does not make a
vibrant democracy. While the country has made remarkable strides in
recent years, the civilian-led government still faces serious
challenges, from a decrepit infrastructure and failing education system
to disturbing ethnic and religious violence. On the democracy front, we
continue to implement United States Agency for International
Development (USAID)-funded programs to support to political parties,
civil society organizations, women leaders, and Members of Parliament
through workshops, trainings, and targeted consultations. Democracy is
still fragile and governing institutions are still underdeveloped. In
short, the country's new democratic leaders need our continued help.
Several months ago, one of our staff members, who was born and
raised in Burma and was a prominent activist in Burma's early
democratic movement, returned to his home country 40 years after his
first arrest for his pro-democracy activities. He had endured a month
of interrogation, torture and solitary confinement. After his release,
he told his interrogators, ``You cannot destroy my heart--my mind is
separate. You can beat me--any part of my body, but you cannot touch my
heart.'' When he told us he wanted to go home after 16 years with us in
the U.S., he said ``I want to give my final days to my people.''
tunisia: democracy in a ``difficult neighborhood''
Tunisia is one of the most promising democratic stories of recent
times -an example of democracy taking root in a ``difficult
neighborhood.'' Despite extremist pressures from outside forces,
Tunisia has held successive credible elections, solved problems through
compromise, and consistently demonstrated a strong desire to be an ally
to the United States. While the country's leaders would be the first to
say that their democracy is still fragile, they also take great pride
in the progress they've made on a journey along which many others in
the region have stumbled. A stable, democratic and prosperous Tunisia
could serve as an example to the rest of the region of how to build a
society that is less vulnerable to extremism.
Prior to 2011, Tunisia was an unsettling place. Our staff traveled
there several times in the early 2000s and were accustomed to being
followed from meeting to meeting by government security. The Ben Ali
regime, consisting of his Democratic Constitutional Rally party, the
Ministry of Interior and its associated security organs, controlled
nearly every facet of public life. Fear of persecution meant that
discussions in cafes and restaurants occurred in hushed voices, if they
occurred at all.
That all changed in 2011 with the youth-lead revolution that chased
Ben Ali from power. Following the demise of Ben Ali's tyrannical reign,
IRI quickly responded by mobilizing an in-country presence and
operation. Since then, we have conducted hundreds of training workshops
to develop political parties. We have deployed international election
observation missions for each national election. We have taught
Tunisian civil society how to open and sustain channels of
communication between government and citizens--particularly those
historically marginalized groups, including youth, women and citizens
in the interior. We have helped government officials develop policies
and legislation that respond to citizen priorities. Finally, we have
assisted Tunisia's national government ministries develop improved
internal coordination and communications mechanisms, working across
multiple ministries to organize initiatives such as the National Youth
Congress.
It's hard not to be impressed by how Tunisians have put the tools
and training we have provided to work. More than 20 Tunisian national
ministries are now participating in the inter-ministerial working group
mechanism established with IRI's help. We are seeing signs of a multi-
party political system that appreciates the importance of public
opinion research. The National Youth Congress is well on its way to
producing a citizen-developed comprehensive national strategy to
support youth. We have strengthened Tunisian civil society by
networking more than 60 organizations into a national initiative that
promotes government accountability.
Make no mistake: much work remains to be done in Tunisia. Public
trust in government institutions is low. While corruption has only
recently become a policy priority, it has been a festering problem ever
since the 2011 revolution. The country is wrestling with the challenges
of decentralization and devolution of power, and still lacks a clear
vision of what responsibilities local elected officials will or should
have. As with Burma, it is crucial that the U.S.--and organizations
like IRI and NDI--remain engaged. Their path towards a vibrant
democracy still has twists and bumps, and we should continue to walk
side by side on that journey.
looking ahead
In his famous Westminster address, President Reagan told us all
that ``democracy is not a fragile flower; still it needs cultivating.''
Some of the most notable successes in recent years--Tunisia, The
Gambia, Burma, Ukraine and others--offer proof of the difference that
U.S.-supported ``cultivating'' can make.
For the reasons I stated earlier--both values-based and strategic--
advancing democracy and liberty should be reinforced as a priority in
American foreign policy. That means such issues should not be relegated
to side meetings when the President sees world leaders, but instead
should be a topic (if one of many) at the ``main event.'' Furthermore,
as President Reagan often did, President Trump should reach out to
civil society leaders to both learn about the challenges they face and
to demonstrate solidarity.
Finally, within our country's foreign assistance framework, I would
encourage the administration to ensure that our tools for supporting
democracy and liberty remain strong. In the long run, our nation's
investments in global health, nutrition and infrastructure around the
world are unlikely to succeed if the governments with whom we partner
lack strong, citizen-centered institutions.
America's most effective foreign policy is one that taps into all
the sources of our strength and mobilizes all our tools of leadership.
Military might is irreplaceable; economic vitality makes so much
possible. But our core national values--democracy and human liberty--
and our willingness to foster and encourage them in others, are a
critical tool in shaping an often turbulent world. We need to ensure
that this tool is as sharp as ever during the challenging times we all
see.
Senator Rubio. Thank you, Ambassador.
Mr. Wollack.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH WOLLACK, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC
INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Wollack. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Menendez, thank
you for inviting NDI to present our views on these important
issues.
The notion that there should be a dichotomy between our
moral preferences and our strategic interests is really a false
one. Our ultimate foreign policy goal is a world that is
secure, stable, humane, and safe where the risk of war is
minimal, yet the reality is that hotspots most likely to erupt
in violence are found for the most part in areas of the world
that are nondemocratic, places that have been defined by the
Defense Department as the ``arc of instability.'' These are
places that experience ethnic conflict and civil war. They
generate refugee flows across borders. They are places where
terrorists are harbored----
Senator Rubio. Mr. Wollack, is your microphone on just for
purposes of our transcripts? Try it now.
Mr. Wollack. They generate refugee flows across borders.
They are places where terrorists are harbored and illegal drugs
are produced.
As Tom Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment points out, ``In
most of the dozens of countries where the United States is
employing diplomatic, economic, and assistance measures to
support potential or struggling democratic transitions--from
Cambodia, Indonesia, and Mongolia to El Salvador, Kenya,
Nigeria, and Venezuela--such efforts align closely with and
serve a critical array of unquestionably hard interests. These
include limiting the strategic reach of the United States'
autocratic rivals, fighting terrorism, reducing international
drug trafficking, and undercutting drivers or massive refugee
flows.''
We have learned that in this interconnected world what
happens for good or for evil within the borders of nations has
global impact. Contrary to that famous tagline in tourism
marketing, what happens, let us say, in Kyiv or Cairo does not
stay there.
We have experienced a decade of democratic recession, with
a decline of political rights globally. Authoritarian regimes
have become more aggressive and sophisticated in stifling the
voices of civil society and political opponents, undercutting
independent media and judicial independence, and manipulating
elections. These regimes are also using new tools to disrupt
elections and democratic systems beyond their borders. At the
same time, new fragile democracies are struggling to meet
rising expectations, and even established democracies have been
beset by growing citizen discontent with the performance of
their democratic institutions.
Yet there is another more positive story that should remind
us about the universal demand for democracy and progress being
made sometimes in the most challenging of environments. Public
opinion polls from countries in every region of the world have
shown that vast majorities agree that democracy is the best
system. Nascent African democracies of Ghana, Cote d'Ivoire,
Senegal, Mozambique, and Sierra Leone are among the world's
fastest-growing economies, while many countries--including
Indonesia, Mongolia, Chile, Colombia, Georgia, South Korean,
and Mexico--have continued to make strides in both
consolidating their democracies and maintaining steady economic
growth. And there are also places where democratic setbacks
have been reversed either by the demands of citizen movements,
as was the case in Burkina Faso, or through the intervention of
intergovernmental organizations, as recently occurred in The
Gambia.
I would like to point to democracy support efforts in two
challenging environments--in Ukraine and in Syria--which is
seemingly one of the most unlikely places on earth to find good
news on this front. Ukraine undoubtedly continues to face grave
challenges, including economic dislocation and corruption, not
mention occupation in the south and a war in the east.
Purveyors of false news would have us believe that the country
is deeply divided and that a large portion of the population is
desperate to be rescued by Russia. The truth, however, is
exactly the opposite. According to NDI's research, 86 percent
of Ukrainians believe it is important or very important that
their country is democratic. This is truth whether respondents
live in the east or the west and regardless of political
affiliations. Ukrainians feel strongly that they will not give
up their right to determine their own future even if doing so
would bring peace.
And with outside encouragement and support, Ukrainians can
point to concrete achievements. These include the emergence of
new political parties that have national reach and are focused
on citizens they represent rather than the oligarchs who would
fund them. Brought together by NDI in partnership with European
institutions, party factions of the Parliament are overcoming
deep fragmentation to agree on procedures that will make it
easier to build consensus around future reforms.
At the local level, citizens are participating in decision-
making in large numbers. In our programs alone, more than
45,000 citizens have engaged directly in the national reform
process and more than 1.3 million have been reached by
television. These are the kinds of bottom-up changes that,
given time and continued support, can put down deep democratic
roots.
In the midst of massive humanitarian crisis and refugee
flight in Syria, another story of democratic resilience is
unfolding. In liberated territories across Syria, citizen
groups are prioritizing community needs and local
administrative councils are responding by providing critical
services. These democratic subcultures can become a model for
the country's future once the conflict subsides. More than two
dozen NDI governance advisors are working each day in 34 of
these locations helping to advise local groups and councils and
bringing them together to solve problems. Courageously and
successfully, these groups and councils have challenged
extremists who have sought to establish parallel governing
structures. As one regional news outlet noted, ``You may think
Syrians are condemned to an unpleasant choice between Bashar
Al-Assad and the jihadists, but the real choice being fought
out by Syrians is between violent authoritarianism on the one
hand and grassroots democracy on the other.''
Mr. Chairman, the citizens of our country, from its very
founding, have held the conviction that to ``secure the
blessings of liberty for ourselves and our country,'' we must
establish government that derives legitimacy and power from the
consent of the people. We received the help of others in our
founding, and from that point onward have embraced the ethic of
assisting those around the world who stepped forward--sometimes
at great risk in their own countries--to promote, establish,
and sustain democracy. We as a nation have benefited from the
peace that global democratic development produces and from the
economic opportunities that it creates.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wollack follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kenneth Wollack
Chairman Rubio, Ranking member Menendez and members of the
Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity on behalf of the National
Democratic Institute (NDI) to present our views on the importance and
efficacy of U.S. efforts to support the global development of
democratic institutions and practices.
Democracy promotion, long a pillar of America's foreign policy
framework, has, in recent years and in certain circles, become an issue
of some debate. Paradoxically, and wrongly in my view, democracy
assistance is viewed either as too soft or idealistic as a response to
serious security threats facing the nation; or it is seen as too
bellicose--conflated with regime change and the use of military force.
The real issue, however, is not whether democracy promotion is ``hard''
or ``soft'' or whether it fits neatly into the ``realism'' or
``idealism'' paradigms. The issue, rather, is whether advancing
democracy is an important means of advancing America's interests and
protecting our national security in a turbulent and often violent
world. I think the answer is clearly ``yes.''
The notion that there should be a dichotomy between our moral
preferences and our strategic interests is a false one. Our ultimate
foreign policy goal is a world that is secure, stable, humane, and
safe, where the risk of war is minimal. Yet, the reality is that
hotspots most likely to erupt into violence are found, for the most
part, in areas of the world that are nondemocratic--places that have
been defined by the Defense Department as the ``arc of instability.''
These are places that experience ethnic conflict and civil war; they
generate refugee flows across borders; they are places where terrorists
are harbored and illegal drugs are produced. The international
community has rightly worked to restore order by helping to establish a
democratic framework for governance in a number of these countries. The
response has not always been entirely successful, but on the whole, the
introduction of democratic processes and citizen engagement have made
these countries less dangerous than they had been. The cost for the
United States in this effort has been relatively inexpensive. Foreign
assistance is only about 1 percent of the total U.S. budget; and
democracy assistance represents just 4 percent of our foreign aid.
As Tom Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment points out, ``In most of
the dozens of countries where the United States is employing
diplomatic, economic, and assistance measures to support potential or
struggling democratic transitions--from Cambodia, Indonesia, and
Mongolia to El Salvador, Kenya, Nigeria, and Venezuela--such efforts
align closely with and serve a critical array of unquestionably hard
interests. These include limiting the strategic reach of the United
States' autocratic rivals, fighting terrorism, reducing international
drug trafficking, and undercutting drivers of massive refugee flows.''
There are those who have argued that the Arab Spring unleashed a
new area of instability in the Middle East by toppling repressive, but
so-called ``stable'' regimes. However, this idea that autocracy equals
stability collapses under scrutiny as the remaining supposedly stable
regimes are increasingly the locus of conflict; while those places that
are going through democratic transition, such as Tunisia, or are
engaged in either political reforms or liberalization--as is the case
in Morocco, Jordan, Lebanon and Algeria--are better able to address
economic challenges, and threats from extremist ideologies and groups.
As President Kennedy once said, ``Those who make peaceful revolution
impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.''
Even from the traditional foreign aid perspective, economic
assistance alone can not achieve sustained economic growth and social
stability. Political systems that lack accountability mechanisms or
sufficient political and social inclusion are usually plagued by
corruption or conflict, both of which undermine the objectives of
economic development aid to achieve self-sustaining growth and poverty
reduction. Deforestation, rural dislocation, environmental degradation,
and agricultural policies that lead to famine all trace to political
systems in which the victims have no political voice; in which
government institutions feel no obligation to answer to the people; and
in which special interests feel free to exploit the resources, land and
people without fear of oversight or the need to account. The respected
diplomat, Princeton Lyman, reminded his colleagues in a 1998 cable that
the problem with even an enlightened authoritarian leader is that
``blinded by economic success, hubris takes over along with greed: his
or her rule is perpetuated, and corruption grows.'' He urged
policymakers at that time to judge trends, rather than the snapshot of
the day.
During the 1980s, an important lesson was learned about political
transformations in countries like the Philippines and Chile: that
forces on the political fringes enjoy a mutually reinforcing
relationship, drawing strength from each other and, in the process,
marginalizing a democratic center. Prospects for peace and stability
only emerged once democratic political parties and civil society were
able to offer a viable alternative to the extremes. These democratic
forces benefited from the solidarity and support they received from the
international community and, in the United States, Republicans and
Democrats joined together to champion their cause. Today, these
conditions find their parallel in other countries around the world.
When World War II ended, fewer than a dozen democracies stood as
the Iron Curtain rose, military dictatorships proliferated, and
colonialism sought to regain its footing. Major breakthroughs against
those trends began with the so-called third wave of democratization
which, since the 1970s, impacted more than 100 countries where people
in every region of the world struggled against oppression and for
government based on popular will.
Freedom House, The Economist, and others, however, have now
chronicled a decade of democratic recession, with a decline of
political rights globally, along with a decreasing number of
democracies. Autocrats have become more aggressive and sophisticated in
stifling the voices of civil society and political opponents,
undercutting independent media and judicial independence and
manipulating elections.
Authoritarian regimes are also using a broader and more aggressive
set of tools to advance their interests, including various forms of
electoral espionage, the hacking of politicians and political parties,
and the dissemination of misinformation and fake news--all designed to
skew electoral outcomes and to discredit democratic systems. Repressive
regimes are using what we call ``distributed denial of democracy''
(DDoD) attacks to pollute new media channels with disinformation,
making new media less useful as a mechanism for legitimate democratic
discourse. These misinformation campaigns use troll farms and botnets
to amplify certain stories on new media. Such efforts also aim to
create a false equivalency between legitimate international democracy
assistance and foreign interference that disrupts democratic dialogue,
practices, and elections.
At the same time, new, fragile democracies are struggling to meet
rising expectations of their citizens, particularly with regard to
efforts that would combat corruption and improve standards of living.
Democratic transitions have been stymied or reversed by violence and
terrorism by non-state actors, or by the inability of democratic
movements to move from ``protest to politics'' and to challenge the
resiliency of the so-called ``deep state''--the elites and institutions
that benefited from years of corruption and impunity afforded by
entrenched autocracy. And even established democracies have been beset
by political polarization and growing citizen discontent with the
performance of democratic institutions and elected leaders.
Yet there is another, more positive story--a story that should
remind us about the universal demand for democracy and progress being
made, sometimes in the most challenging of environments. Public opinion
polls from countries in every region of the world have shown that vast
majorities agree that democracy, despite its problems, is the best
political system. One recent study of more than 800 protest movements
around the world show that they are not driven primarily by a desire
for better economic conditions, but rather by demands for a better
democracy, which the protesters believe can better address economic
issues. This shows that the desire for improved economic opportunities
often coexists with the demand for a political voice. And in today's
interdependent world, citizens will not indefinitely postpone the
latter for the former. Admittedly, there have been times when many
citizens seemingly abandoned democratic aspirations because of
instability, insecurity, or the performance of government. This was the
case in Pakistan, Venezuela, Cote d'Ivoire, Egypt, and Chile; but broad
support for authoritarian rule in these places has been short lived.
Then there are countries where active civil societies and reform-
minded political leadership have maintained positive democratic
trajectories. In Africa, for example, only three heads of state between
1960 and 1990 relinquished power voluntarily or after losing an
election; since 1990, that figure stands at more than 40. Nascent
African democracies of Ghana, Cote d'Ivoire, Senegal, Mozambique, and
Sierra Leone are among the world's fastest growing economies, while
many countries--including Indonesia, Mongolia, Chile, Colombia,
Georgia, South Korea and Mexico--have continued to make strides in both
consolidating their democracies and maintaining steady economic growth.
There are also places where democratic setbacks have been reversed,
either by the demands of citizen movements, as was the case in Burkina
Faso, or through the intervention of regional organizations as recently
occurred in The Gambia. And in Myanmar/Burma, Ukraine, and Tunisia,
active U.S. support for the democratic transitions underway have
reflected the convergence of our values and strategic interests.
Since the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the four core
institutes of the Endowment were established, we have learned a great
deal about democratic change, along with appropriate and effective ways
to nurture and support democracy. I would like to share some
fundamental lessons.
First, in this interconnected and interdependent world, what
happens for good or for bad within the borders of nations haves
regional and, sometimes, global impact. Contrary to that famous tagline
in tourism marketing, what happens, let's say, in Kyiv or Cairo doesn't
stay there. Therefore, at a basic level, we have a direct interest in
how people live and how they are treated by their governments.
Second, the credibility of a democracy ultimately depends on how it
works in practice and on what it delivers. Democracies must be able to
hold credible elections so that the institutions that emerge from those
polls enjoy legitimacy. But those institutions must be built and
strengthened between elections, and citizen engagement must be
developed and sustained. Nascent democratic regimes often inherit the
legacies of their nondemocratic predecessors--poverty, corruption and
political exclusion. And when those institutions fail to meet public
expectations, opportunities are created for populist, often
nondemocratic leaders who will roll back hard-won democratic gains.
The once rapid pace of democratic change had led many in the
democracy community to hope, if not expect, that progress toward fuller
democracy would be more linear than has been the case. As the late
Polish historian and politician Bronislaw Geremek warned, ``Democracy
is by no means a process that goes from triumph to triumph nor is it
exempt from creating the very conditions that undermine it.'' This
means long-term commitments are necessary to support a culture of
transparency, participation, and accountability.
Sustaining socioeconomic development over the long term requires a
political system whose incentive structures make it more likely that
responsive, reform-minded, and accountable politicians will emerge at
all levels of government. It requires governments that have the popular
support and legitimacy to sustain development policies. It also
requires mechanisms for orderly alternation of power in order to reduce
the incentives for corruption that inevitably affect governments with
no fear of losing office. It requires strengthened policy development
and capacity within political parties in order to help raise the level
of political discourse. It requires effective legislatures--with
significant roles for opposition voices and the means to build broader
consensus on public policy issues--in order to avoid policy reversals
when governments turn over. It requires greater voice and power for
citizens, particularly women and young people, along with historically
marginalized communities, in order to complement increased economic
empowerment with increased political participation.
Third, while citizens around the world have begun to harness the
benefits of information and communication technology to amplify their
voices, their political institutions have often been slower to respond.
As one tech leader explained via Twitter, ``Citizens using 21st cent
tools to talk, gov't using 20th cent tools to listen, and 19th cent
processes to respond.'' As technology innovation amplifies the voices
of desegregated citizen interests, fledgling democratic institutions--
governments, parliaments, and political parties--must harness
innovation to strengthen deliberative discourse, broker compromise, and
respond in a timely and effective manner.
New responses are also needed as authoritarian regimes have become
more aggressive in utilizing technology to subvert democracy and to
project their interests internationally. These include: cyber security
support; media literacy training with respect to disinformation spread
through new media; assistance to civic, media, and political groups
that can expose and combat misinformation; and policy advocacy with
technology firms to help them understand the impact of their policies
on democratic discourse and to help them prevent their platforms from
being used in DDoD attacks.
Fourth, for those of us in this country who are engaged in
assisting democratic development overseas, we have been most successful
when we have joined with others in the international community,
including governments, intergovernmental organizations, other
nongovernmental groups, along with individual practitioners. As a
practical matter, people making a democratic transition require diverse
experiences and expertise, along with broad peer support. Cooperative
approaches also convey a deeper truth: that democrats are joining a
community of nations which have traversed the same course, that they
can count on natural allies and an active support structure because
other nations are concerned and are watching.
Fifth, the U.S. government--including the White House, State
Department, Congress, and overseas embassies--can set the tone and
foreign aid can provide needed resources. Yet, much of the day-to-day
democratic development work should be carried out, with proper
oversight, by nongovernmental organizations, which operate in the realm
of people-to-people relations. Such mission-driven groups often have
pre-existing, global relationships and are not constrained by the
stringent rules of formal diplomacy. Most important, in countries where
a primary issue is the paucity of autonomous civic and political
institutions, the very idea that government ought not control all
aspects of society can be undermined by a too visible and too direct
donor government hand.
Ultimately, it is the nature of relationships with local partners
that matter the most. In a recent New York Times op-ed, David Brooks
asked a veteran youth activist in this country about which programs
``turn around'' the lives of kids living in poverty. ``I still haven't
seen one program change one kid's life,'' he replied. ``What changes
people is relationships.'' The same can be said about successful
democracy efforts overseas. How positive relationships with local
partners are established, developed, and evolve will ultimately
determine the success or failure of any and all interventions.
Sixth, pluralism in democracy assistance has served the United
States well, allowing for diverse yet complementary programming that,
over the long term, could not be sustained by a highly static and
centralized system. Funding by the NED has allowed the Endowment and
its four core institutes to plan strategically, yet respond quickly and
flexibly to emerging opportunities and sudden problems in rapidly
shifting political environments. In addition, the NED has been able to
operate effectively in closed societies where direct government
engagement is more difficult. USAID has provided the basis for longer-
term commitments in helping to develop a country's democratic
institutions. The State Department's Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights
and Labor and other programs within the Department, such as the Middle
East Partnership, have given the U.S. government the capacity to
support--without cumbersome regulations--cutting edge and highly
focused democracy initiatives for individual countries, as well for
regional and global initiatives.
Seventh, and finally, democracy assistance can best be delivered in
four ways: 1) through direct, in-country presence where long term, day-
to-day relationships can be established and nurtured. (In nondemocratic
places that prohibit such engagement, long distance learning using
information technology and offshore programs can maintain solidarity
and provide more limited but critical outside support to groups and
individuals); 2) through targeted financial support to governments,
election commissions, civil society groups, and parliaments; 3) through
international and regional networks that can offer peer support; and 4)
through the development and application of international norms and
standards. The latter two approaches are designed to provide external
incentives for reform, particularly in places where local
organizations, leaders, and institutions seek to become members of a
global community--whether a community of civic groups, political
parties, parliaments, or governments. Examples of these communities
include the Open Government Partnership, the four major international
groupings of political parties, the Community of Democracies, the
Global Network of Domestic Election Monitors, and the World Movement
for Democracy. In this regard, the House Democracy Partnership, led by
Representatives Peter Roskam and David Price, has contributed
measurably to parliamentary strengthening efforts in 19 countries to
date.
My colleague, Mark Green, at the International Republican Institute
will speak on the progress being made in the transition process in
Burma/Myanmar and Tunisia. I would like to point to democracy support
efforts in two other challenging environments: in Ukraine and in Syria,
which is seemingly one of the most unlikely places on earth to find
good news on this front. These efforts have been supported by the NED,
USAID, the Department of State, the Canadian and British governments,
and others.
Ukraine undoubtedly continues to face grave challenges, including
severe economic problems, deeply-rooted corruption, public impatience
with the pace of reform--not to mention occupation in the South and a
war in the East. Purveyors of false news would have us believe that the
country is deeply divided and that a large portion of the population is
desperate to be rescued by Russia. The truth, however, is exactly the
opposite.
NDI's research shows that Ukrainians expect that the next
generation will be better off than their own with 86 percent saying it
is ``important'' or ``very important'' that their country become a
democracy. This is true whether respondents live in the East or the
West and regardless of political affiliations. Moreover, the research
and our observations on the ground show that Ukrainians are not
particularly susceptible to populist appeals or to conspiracy theories,
particularly those seen as emanating from outside the country.
Ukrainians feel strongly that they will not give up their right to
determine their own future--even if doing so would bring peace.
As these findings show, Ukrainians are virtually united in their
view that democracy is the best guarantor of their independence and
sovereignty. To the extent that their country succeeds, it will be
because ordinary Ukrainians have embraced these goals as their own and
are taking responsibility for reaching them.
This positive outlook is not based solely on public attitudes. With
outside encouragement and support, Ukrainians can point to concrete
achievements in recent years. These include the emergence of new
political parties that have national reach and are focused on citizens
they represent rather than on oligarchs who would finance them. Brought
together by NDI, in partnership with European institutions, party
factions in the parliament are overcoming deep fragmentation to agree
on procedures that will make it easier to build consensus around
reforms. Local civil society groups are partnering with larger national
organizations to push for economic and political change, and Ukrainians
are advocating and voting for more women in elected office.
At the local level, citizens without prior experience in any kind
of activism are participating in decision-making in large numbers. One
quarter has attended community meetings and an additional 29 percent
are willing to do so. In NDI programs alone, more than 45,000 citizens
have engaged directly in the national reform process in the past 2
years and more than 1.3 million have been reached by television. A
decentralization process will ultimately give Ukrainians more
opportunities to influence decisions that affect their lives. These are
the kinds of bottom-up changes that, given time and continued support,
can put down deep democratic roots.
In the midst of a massive humanitarian crisis and refugee flight,
another story of democratic resilience is unfolding in Syria. As the
Syrian government has lost control of large parts of the country, and
the war has expanded over the past 6 years, millions of citizens have
been left bereft of services and governing institutions to maintain
order and to meet their basic needs. But in liberated territories
across northern Syria, citizen groups are identifying and prioritizing
community needs, and local administrative councils, some democratically
elected, are responding by providing critical services. These
democratic subcultures can become a powerful model for the country's
future once the conflict subsides.
More than two dozen NDI governance advisers are working each day in
34 of these locations within Syria, helping to advise local citizen
groups and administrative councils, and bringing them together to solve
problems. Already, thousands of consultations and training sessions
have been conducted. More than 500 council members and staff and 7,000
civic activists, including many young people and women, have been
engaged in the program. Courageously, these civic groups and councils
have challenged extremist groups which have sought to establish
parallel governing structures. ``You may think Syrians are condemned to
an unpleasant choice between Bashar Al-Assad and the jihadists,'' noted
one regional news outlet. ``But the real choice being fought out by
Syrians is between violent authoritarianism on the one hand and
grassroots democracy on the other.''
Mr. Chairman, the citizens of our country--from its very founding--
have held the conviction that to ``secure the blessings of liberty for
ourselves and our country,'' we must establish government that derives
legitimacy and power from the consent of the people. We received the
help of others in our founding, and from that point onward have
embraced the ethic of assisting those around the world who step
forward--sometimes at great risk in their own countries--to promote,
establish, and sustain democracy. We as a nation have benefited from
the peace that global democratic development produces and from the
economic opportunities that it creates.
Assisting the advance of democracy has helped war-torn and
violence-prone states achieve more ``domestic tranquility,'' preventing
humanitarian disasters, refugee flows and violent extremist
recruitment. Across the globe, it has helped establish more stable and
honest frameworks for economic life, opening markets to trade and
investment. Democratic development has also helped cultivate a
community of nations that refrain from war with each other and often
ally themselves with the U.S. on geostrategic concerns. It is our hope
that this mission remains a priority for both the Congress and the
administration.
Senator Rubio. Thank you all for being here, and I will
begin with a broad question that I get all the time and I would
love to give you all the opportunity to address it. And here is
how it goes when I talk about democracy. They will say to me,
while these are bad people--Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Qaddafi
in Libya and the like--but in the end they were--they killed
terrorists and so were we not better off just having these
autocrats stay in power in these countries than the vacuum and
the chaos that we now see in Syria and in Iraq and in Libya and
in other places, in essence, the argument that there are places
in the world that can never be democratic for whatever reasons
they point to, cultural or otherwise. Why would we not prefer
in those parts of the world to have stability? Is that not in
the national interest of the United States to have strong
autocratic leaders who can control these elements in those
societies that could be radicals and the like? Are we--is that
not more important than promoting democracy, particularly in
nations who do not have a tradition of Western democratic
values?
And I would ask whoever wants to go first, but that is one
of the fundamental challenges I get every time that I talk
about promoting democracy.
Mr. Gershman. Mr. Chairman, if I can maybe first take a
crack at that. I think we have to understand that authoritarian
regimes are the main source of instability in the world today.
They are the ones who are responsible for kleptocracy, for
corruption, for refugees. They acquire weapons of mass
destruction against international treaties. Democracies do not
go to war against each other, and the United States--it is
never--its opponents are not democracies. Its opponents are
antidemocratic countries.
And there are other--authoritarianism is the main source
also of state failure, and they also--the people, sometimes
even when they are removed, they try to disrupt democratic
transitions and make it very, very difficult for transitions to
succeed.
So I think that the idea that we can achieve stability
through somehow partnering with authoritarians is a very
dangerous hope, especially because they also--the authoritarian
regimes, in repressing civil society and not giving people a
voice, they really do leave extremist movements as the only
alternative. People we support in these societies are
struggling and they are struggling against great odds, but it
is often that these autocratic governments prefer to have
extremist oppositions because they think it legitimizes them in
the same way that you are hearing this argument, that they are
the ones that can defeat the terrorists.
I think it is a very dangerous solution. I think we have
learned in the past that we cannot rely upon these such regimes
for stability. And even though democracy is long and hard and
difficult, if we can build civil societies, strong civil
societies in these countries even when these countries are
authoritarian, they will have a much better chance of a stable
democratic transition when that time comes, as it inevitably
will because these regimes will not be able to modernize, they
cannot reform, and ultimately, they will fail.
Ambassador Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I would
like to associate myself with Carl's remarks. I think he has
actually captured it very well.
I guess what I would add to it, as we talked earlier,
President Reagan gave this speech at Westminster that
essentially launched all of us. And even in those days, so back
in the early '80s, there were some who argued that parts of the
world could not handle democracy, somehow they did not
culturally have the ability to have democracy and protection of
human rights. And he very eloquently called that cultural
condescension or worse. And I agree.
When we talk about some of these countries, those who say
that they somehow should not have democracy, it is demeaning.
We should actually ask the people involved and what it is that
they want, their own desires, their own aspirations. So much of
this comes through courageous everyday citizens in the face of
this brutality and repression that stand up under great peril
for the cause of democracy.
Secondly, something that Carl said I think is very, very
important and that is this myth of stability. Stability is, in
these cases, often but a veneer because you get pent-up despair
raging, and you do leave these citizens oftentimes very little
choice but to resort to some of the extremism that we all point
to as being so very, very dangerous. And you look at the
inherent damage that these countries do in the region, whether
it is giving rise to extremist movements, whether it is causing
flows of refugees that overwhelm democratic systems around
them. There is not no cost to the existence of these regimes.
Mr. Wollack. Mr. Chairman, I would just add a couple
points. These regimes, so-called stable regimes, seem stable
until they are unstable. And since they have not created any
institutions, they have not created a social contract with the
people, once they fall, they leave in their wake instability
and conflict.
It is interesting in the Middle East region, if you look at
those regimes that are stable and enjoy a degree of legitimacy
that are confronting many of the challenges that exist in the
region, those regimes that are either going through a
democratic transition in the case of Tunisia or engaged in
reform or liberalization, which is true in Jordan and Morocco,
Lebanon, perhaps to a lesser degree but still liberalization in
Algeria, these are the regimes that are better able to confront
extremism, better able to engage citizens in the political
process with all the challenges that they are faced. So if you
look at the region those are the places that are better able to
handle the refugees, better able to handle conflict, better
able to handle the expectations of citizens.
And the answer is reform. The answer is liberalization. The
answer is not autocracy and repressive regimes and a
continuation of regimes that do not have a social contract with
the people.
Senator Rubio. And I just want one more quick question
because--Senator Kaine has now arrived and the ranking member
has questions. So, this is also broad. In order for us as a
nation to be credible advocates and champions for democracy and
freedom and liberty, we have to--it begins with our own example
here at home. In essence, if we were a nation that did not have
those principles and had not lived them for over two centuries,
it would be difficult for us to be the champions of that
abroad.
And my perspective on it is that a lot of times in the
coverage of our--in--and I obviously want your perception on
it, but broader than that, and sometimes in the coverage of our
modern political process, people talk about several things that
are going on. Obviously, we had a very divisive election cycle.
The last 4 weeks have been vibrant in the political debate in
this country. And I see, despite all of that, institutions that
are working. I see a United States Senate where the minority
party has exercised its rights under the rules to force the
Senate to take all the time available to it for these debates
on these issues. I have seen the media continue to report as
they see fit in a free society, irrespective of political
pressure, criticism on both sides of the equation. I see a
court system that stepped forward and, despite whether you
agree with the decision or not, exercised its role.
I see two people on this panel that--one who ran for Vice
President, one ran for President and neither one of us won.
Senator Menendez was too wise to undertake such an endeavor,
but the--neither one of us went to jail. Both of us are sitting
here today.
Is not some of this--despite all this coverage out there
about the intensity of our political debate in this country, is
not this something we should celebrate in some ways in
comparison to what happens in other parts of the world where
you do not see these things happening for one simple reason,
and that is the other--the people who are not in power in those
countries, they do not get to protest, they do not get to come
back to the Senate and work, they do not get to slow a debate
up, they do not get to vote on the Senate floor, they do not
get to go in the press and criticize whoever they want. They
get to go to jail, they get poisoned, they die, they go into
exile. Is not this something that in the end should be looked
at as a strength and not a weakness?
Mr. Wollack. I think, Mr. Chairman, that former Israeli
Foreign Minister Abba Eban once said that democracy eventually
does the right thing but only after exhausting all the
alternatives. But the point is that democracies have a self-
correcting mechanism because of checks and balances, because of
citizen engagement, because of different branches of
government.
I would only say that, overseas, I think there is a deep
recognition of the institutions that exist in this country. We
have problems, we have challenges like everybody else, but in
many of the countries where we are operating there are those
who would say we wish we only had the problems that you have
and we wish we only had the challenges that you have.
So--but we all recognize that there is today an
international solidarity network among small-D democrats around
the world. We have a responsibility to each other to help each
other, and they recognize, however, that ultimately, systems
like this, with all their flaws and all their difficulties, is
better than all the alternatives.
Ambassador Green. Mr. Chairman, I served as Ambassador to
Tanzania, and I was there on the election night, the McCain/
Obama election, and we had TVs in many parts of the country so
that people could watch. They could watch the spectacle of the
peaceful transfer of power. And we made sure that they all saw
Senator McCain's concession speech, which was beautiful,
eloquent, very special, and something that we thought was
important for our African audiences to see the fact that there
were not tanks rolling in the streets. And it was something
that made an important difference.
Secondly, when we do go around and talk about democracy in
other countries, I think it is also important that we begin
with humility. And so when I talk about democracy in other
countries I say, look, I am not saying that we have all the
answers. I am saying maybe we have made all the mistakes, and
maybe you as a friend of our country do not have to make the
same mistakes that we have made throughout our history. We are
on a journey just like you. Perhaps we are a little further
ahead, but we are still on the journey and we have not arrived.
Mr. Gershman. Let me say this, Mr. Chairman, you know, we
are living in a different period right now. This is not the
Cold War anymore; it is a much more complex world. You yourself
referred to that at the beginning. It is hard for people to
understand what the threats are that we face. In addition, we
live in an era now of social media, which is having a very,
very interesting but disruptive effect. And we know also that
foreign powers like Russia, as I said in my testimony, are
using social media in their own way with fake news and fake
platforms, controls to divide, to demoralize, even to
destabilize. So we face these new conditions.
And then you have a further problems of political
polarization, of dysfunction, and this is reflected in polling
data, which we published in our Journal of Democracy, which
showed decline in support for democracy, especially among young
people. Their parents are more supportive of democracy than
they are, and their grandparents are even more supportive. So
there is no memory of the threats that democracy faced in the
20th century. And you have these problems that are then
exacerbated.
And democracy is a messy process. It takes time to get
things done. Social media has conditioned people to want very
instant solutions to problems, so there is kind of a
demoralization that some people have. And I think it is one of
the greatest challenges that we face is to how to really revive
democratic conviction. It is not going to be easy. And it is
not really our mission because the Congress has given us an
international mission.
But I believe--and I have said this in many talks that I
give in the United States--that we need to connect young
Americans with activists abroad who are giving their lives for
freedom. They need to know who these people are. They need to
partner with them. They need to work with them. And we have a
large, large education job to do.
And so I agree with you. Yes, there is a lot of success
that we can point to. We have to make it better, we have to
solve our problems, and then we have to educate people more
about the difference between the kind of messy pluralist
democracy you are talking about and the corrupt and oppressive
dangers of an authoritarian system.
Senator Rubio. Thank you. Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those are some
thought-provoking questions.
I will just say to you that I did not run for President
because I am not as young or handsome as you or as witty and
charming as Senator Kaine.
[Laughter.]
Senator Menendez. So I am fulfilling my role here in the
Senate----
Senator Kaine. You just put up two low hurdles.
[Laughter.]
Senator Menendez. I do not know about that. You see what I
mean?
[Laughter.]
Senator Menendez. On a serious note, you know, I was
listening, Ken, to your testimony, as well as all of yours, and
you said something that, you know, was galvanizing for me a
moment, that a decade, a decade of democratic recession, what
do you attribute that to?
Mr. Wollack. Well, I----
Senator Menendez. If you put your microphone on so that the
recorder here can have it.
Mr. Wollack. Yes, I think that there are two--maybe more
than two but I will point to two sort of phenomenon. The first
is that over the past, I think, decade there has been what is
called authoritarian learning. Autocrats used to be isolated
from each other, isolated from their people. And there has been
a learning curve for these autocrats, much more sophisticated.
Laws that are passed in one country to curtail independent
activism, let alone opposition activity, a law will suddenly
appear in another country 3 weeks later. There is now a network
of autocrats who are learning from each other and now are
trying to actively seek to curtail the spread of democracy in
other countries. So that is one.
Second, I think that new fragile democracies inherit the
legacies of their nondemocratic predecessors: poverty, disease,
inaction, lack of political participation, apathy. And when the
new democratic institutions do not deliver, meet the
expectations of their citizens, one of two things happen.
Either they go to the streets, which is not where public policy
issues should be addressed, or they will vote for a populist
nondemocratic leader who will turn against civil society and
the opposition.
So that is why not only do I think it is important for us
to support small-D democrats in nondemocratic environments but
why we have to support new democracies to help them sustain--
build and sustain democratic institutions.
Bronislaw Geremek, the former foreign minister of Poland,
said democracy does not necessarily go from triumph to triumph.
And we have learned that democratic process--progress is not
linear. And so it requires, I think, sustained engagement by
the international community broadly and the United States in
particular.
Senator Menendez. In that regard, let me ask you, you know,
as we will face budgetary issues here and the new
administration and how they think about the appropriate use of
monies for foreign diplomacy, foreign aid, and democracy and
human rights development, I want to establish here for us for
the record part of--as I understand your challenges in
communicating your successes because, you know, there is a lot
of effort to be metric-driven. Not all this is so easily
metric-driven certainly in the short term. But nonetheless is
that your programs rely on a certain amount of discretion. And
can you share with the committee in a way that does not
undermine that but nonetheless what makes your programs
effective? Why should the United States taxpayer be ultimately
supporting your initiatives?
Mr. Gershman. Mr. Chairman, I think the basic feature of
what it is that we do is this is not top-down. This is bottom-
up. I mean, what has to be recognized is that there are people
around the world who share our values. They may not be at this
moment a majority in their countries, but they are fighting for
our values. And what NED does is demand-driven. It is bottom-
up. It is not we are going in there and we are going to engage
in social engineering or top-down imposition of democracy. And
I think that makes it extremely both effective and cost-
effective in terms of the way we do our work.
And there is a spirit about it--and then we do other things
in addition to try and provide them with financial help or
training. We link them together. They learn from each other. We
engage in actions of international solidarity when people are
in prison, we--the event we had for Lilian Tintori and the
others who are imprisoned in Venezuela, and we do that every
year.
We have to think of new ways to provide them with support,
and those are not expensive. And I think it is the spirit of
the institution that really explains its success and the fact
that we connect with people on the ground.
Ambassador Green. If I could add to that, you are correct;
it is difficult to measure sometimes the metrics of progress
and success, but there are shining success stories, as we
mentioned each of us in our opening remarks, in places like
Tunisia and Burma, The Gambia, Nigeria last year. So there are
certainly success stories worth holding onto.
But I would also suggest this country is wonderfully
generous in terms of its investments overseas dedicated to
lifting lives and building communities. Global Health, PEPFAR,
these are tremendous programs. In the long run it is hard for
me to see any of those investments being truly sustainable
unless you have in those countries where the investments are
made citizen-centered, citizen-responsive institutions with the
capacity to continue the mind to make these sustainable. So I
think it is also a crucial part of making sure that our other
investments are well spent and are sustainable and have a
lasting impact. So I think when we fail to address issues of
governance and political systems, I think we put our other
investments are risk quite frankly.
Senator Menendez. It seems to me that places in the world
without hope for political participation, economic opportunity,
or even the ability to provide basic safety for their citizens
ultimately creates the intersection between the citizen
security, refugee migration, democracy, and/or the lock of
democracy and the rule of law, which is incredibly important to
U.S. companies that ultimately want to go abroad and make
investments. And when they do, they want a rule of law or a
system that ultimately will honor their intellectual property
rights, that will honor their contracts, that at least they
will have a level playing field. So there is a very tangible
element to this as well.
Let me ask you finally two separate things. One is when the
United States established relations with Burma, the Obama
administration laid out a set of metrics. It basically said you
want to have a better standing with the United States, you want
to have a relationship with the United States, you have to
release Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the opposition. You
have to hold legislative elections. You have to permit the U.N.
special rapporteur on human rights to come in, among other
things. And all of those things eventually developed themselves
to be a reality.
I think of Cuba or I think of Malaysia, and should we not
be looking for the--is that not a template for--we should be
looking for from these countries?
Mr. Gershman. I agree completely, and frankly--this is my
own personal view; I do not, you know, speak for policy--but we
have not done that with Cuba with the opening--I mean, the real
critical thing I think more important than the normalization of
relations between Cuba and the United States is the
normalization of relations between the Cuban Government and the
Cuban people. And that has not been done. And we had a lot of
leverage in that situation. I do not think it was adequately
used.
We are not using that leverage today in the Balkan region.
I have just written something about that. I think it is a bomb
that is about to explode, and the reason is because we have
prioritized stability over democratic reform. And it is the
absence of democratic reform which is giving Russia all the
opportunities to exploit the divisions in the Balkans between
the Serbs and Croatians and the Albanians and so forth. But it
is becoming--this was the dominant issue in the '90s. It could
come back again. And our analysis is it is because the
international community has prioritized just stability and not
reform, and so it is an explosion waiting to happen.
So, yes, I think we have to use the leverage that we have.
We do not always have that leverage, but we have to use the
leverage that we have consistently to try to encourage openings
in situations.
Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Rubio. Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and fascinating
testimony and questions.
One of you used the phrase a few minutes ago in response to
Senator Rubio small-D democracy solidarity network, that there
is either such a thing or needs to be such a thing. And I have
also been struck with--I do not know, is it a lack of self-
confidence or something in the democracies of betraying the
virtues of the model, the authoritarians are nothing if not
self-confident. They are feeling very, very good right now. And
they are in all different parts of the globe. And I had not
thought about this learning curve issue and the sharing of best
authoritarian practice, but I guess that is part of what is
going on.
I mean, what is the status of any democracy solidarity
network, you know? And on this committee and on the Armed
Services Committee we deal with military alliances like NATO,
but that puts the military issue in a prime position, which
means the democracy promotion is always secondary. In fact, it
is kind of looked at with suspicion if you lead with military
first.
So talk to me about what network there is or what network
should there be around the world that would link the disparate
democracies, the mature, the nascent, which are now in all
parts of the globe. That is great, but what more could we do so
that that network would be stronger?
Mr. Gershman. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of networks,
and I am sure Ken and Mark will talk about some of them, but
there is an intergovernmental network, which is called the
Community of Democracies. It so happens that the U.S. now has
the presidency of this. It is a network that was created in
2000 by Madeleine Albright and Bronislaw Geremek of Poland.
They meet biannually at the ministerial level, and they are
supposed to meet in the United States in September. The current
administration has actually inherited the U.S. presidency of
the Community of Democracies from the previous administration.
And we have had meetings to prepare for the creation when
that ministerial meeting takes place of a new global
association associated with the community of parliamentarians
where they would organize multi-partisan democracy caucuses in
their respective parliaments and they would meet within the
parliamentary network to be an instrument for sharing
democratic practices and also for global solidarity.
At the nongovernmental level, the NED has created something
called the World Movement for Democracy. We had the founding
assembly of the World Movement for Democracy in India in
February of 1999. We wanted to do it in a non-Western country
to really make the point that democracy is not a Western value
but it is a universal value. At that meeting the great
philosopher Amartya Sen gave one of the most important
statements on democracy, democracy as a universal idea at that
meeting.
And the World Movement continues to be active. It has
solidarity networks in different regions. I have just learned
that the youth network of the World Movement for Democracy in
Latin America, headed by Rosa Maria Paya, is going to be giving
its Paya award to the Secretary General of the Organization of
American States in Cuba so the Secretary General is going to be
visiting. These are how these networks operate. There are
networks in Asia, which are engaged on a regional basis but
then they meet globally, and the next assembly of the World
Movement will be in Senegal in spring of 2018.
Ambassador Green. Just very briefly to add to that,
something that I thought you were going to touch upon, which I
think is important and we have not really gotten to, when the
question was asked about why is it that democracy is perceived
to be in decline, I think one of the factors is that
authoritarians--first off, they do feel self-confident, but
they also have tools at their disposal. And disinformation and
propaganda on an expansionist level that we have not seen for
many, many years I think is pushing back. And I do think it is
something that we in the community of democracies--I am not
talking about the formal organization but the community--really
have to work hard to push back against because I think it is
causing tremendous erosion of confidence in democracy in a
number of places in the world, and I think it is a significant
problem and challenge for us.
Mr. Wollack. I will just add to that, Senator Kaine, I
think when we--the endowment and our institutes began 30-some
years ago, there were few networks around the world and this
was an American enterprise for IRI and NDI. We were in a sense
patterned after the Germany party foundations, which played
such an important role in Spain and Portugal during the 1970s.
But today, there has been a sea change in terms of networks.
You have had traditionally the international networks of
political parties--social democratic, liberal, Christian
democratic--that represent 450 parties in 150 countries. You
have new initiatives like the open government partnership that
now includes 70 countries and about 50 parliaments and 180
civic organizations around the world. You have a global network
of 4 million domestic election monitors around the world that
help each other. You have intergovernmental organizations now
that have adopted democratic charters, the most recently being
the African Union, which is one of the reasons why there was
regional intervention in the case of The Gambia.
So these networks now exist. This is no longer an American
enterprise. This is really an international enterprise. And I
think, given the challenges that we have all talked about, what
it--it is a call to action to reinvigorate many of these
networks to meet some of the challenges that we are facing
today.
Senator Kaine. Thank you very much.
Senator Rubio. Do we have any further questions from our
members?
We want to thank all of you for being here today, for your
statements, for meeting with me earlier in the week, for
answering our questions.
We want to move on to our second panel, but we are grateful
for the work that you are doing and we thank you again for your
time. And you may receive written questions from members on the
panel, and I would encourage you to answer those so they can
become part of our record.
We will now seat the second panel.
Senator Rubio. I want to thank the panelists for all being
here. We are going to start with Mr. Maldonado Machado. I was
reminded that all three of the Senators here today speak
Spanish so you might not even need a translator, but for
purposes of the public record, we are going to have that
translated. And we thank you for you being here.
Make sure that the microphone is on for----
Senator Rubio. [Speaking foreign language.] Can someone--
the microphone?
STATEMENT OF DANILO ``EL SEXTO'' MALDONADO MACHADO, CUBAN
ARTIST AND HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST
Mr. Machado. Thank you, Marco. Thank you, Bob. Sorry for do
not speak English. Thank you, everybody.
[The following statement was delivered through an
interpreter.]
Mr. Machado. Thank you for the opportunity to amplify my
voice to denounce the situation of human rights violations of
where I come from, Cuba. I am 33 years old and I have already
served four sentences for the only reason that I have
criticized the Cuban dictatorship: through my art.
In Cuba, freedom of speech by artists is prohibited by
Article 39 of the Constitution. According to this, ``Artistic
creation is free, provided that its contents is not contrary to
the revolution.'' This means that the work of artists such as
myself and my colleagues Gorki Aguila and Tania Bruguera, which
is critical of the dictator--dictatorial regime of the Castro
brothers, is illegal in Cuba. For that reason, I served 2 years
when I was 18, 1 year when I was 24, 10 months at age 31, and
most recently, 2 months at the age of 33.
Now, I will refer to the last two occasions in which I was
in prison. On Christmas Day 2014, as part of a performance, I
attempted to release two little pigs on the streets of Havana,
both painted in green, one with the name of Raul and the other
with the name of Fidel. I called that performance ``Animal Farm
in memoriam in honor of Gorge Orwell.'' This cost me 10 months
in prison. During that time, I was tortured physically and
psychologically by the dictatorship to the point that I
declared myself on hunger strike and even considered the
possibility of letting myself die in prison as a result.
After 10 months and without previous warning, I was
released and driven to my house from prison. Until today, I
have not been served any notice of pending criminal charges,
nor have I been summoned for any type of trial. At that time I
was released following my protests and my hunger strike in
prison, and constant denunciations by my mother, my sister, my
grandmother, friends, and international institutions such as
the Human Rights Foundation, the Cuban American National
Foundation, Amnesty International, et cetera.
These same friends and others came together again this last
time I was in prison. I was in a maximum-security prison in
Havana for the simple crime of not having expressed any sadness
over the death of dictator Fidel Castro. On the night of
December 26, when his death was announced--Fidel Castro's death
was announced, I was awakened by calls from friends and my
sister. I dressed quickly, and when I left my house, I could
surely perceive fear as the streets became emptier and more
silent.
So that day, I began to think over how many atrocities and
how many crimes against humanity had been committed in more
than 56 years by brothers Fidel and Raul Castro. So I went out
to the streets to shout, ``Take the streets, the murderer died,
the mare died.'' I walked about a mile, took transportation to
the other side of the city, and walked for a mile for a while
celebrating until my video that went viral on social media was
transmitted live as the only celebratory event in the city of
Havana and on the island.
In the video, by assuming my identity as a free person in a
country controlled by a totalitarian dictatorship, I took the
risky decision of graffitiing the wall of the hotel where Fidel
Castro's troops were quartered for the first time in Havana
almost 60 years ago, armed and without a democratic election. I
did that following the example of the great Vaclav Havel, the
artist and former President of the Czech Republic, who advised
all those who, like him, had to live under communist
totalitarianism, to live in truth, to stop pretending that the
reality imposed by the regime by force is genuine. Upon the
death of Fidel Castro, this notion would have meant that I
should feel sad for the death of the dictator, as was pretended
by thousands of people for fear of repression on that day.
That day, after walking through the city, I returned home.
I was tired and went to bed when I was awakened by a noise at
my door that made me worry. Then, I saw a patrol car with a
policeman and two other men in plain clothing, when I saw the
owner of the house handing them the key to my door. In the
process I was able to call my fiancee, Alexandra Martinez, and
I said, ``Call everyone; they are taking me prisoner.'' The two
of them threw themselves at me without even identifying
themselves verbally, and I received only insults and blows from
these characters because, according to them, I had disrespected
Fidel Castro.
And so I was taken to the police unit of La Lisa as they
continued to hit me even after I got off, which did not stop my
cries of ``Murderers, yes the mare died, and good thing.'' When
in the unit, I asked: Do you know me? Have I done something to
you? If I have not committed any crime, why do you beat me for
my way of thinking? To which they only claimed, ``The laws
support us.''
This time the cost was 55 days in prison. At this time, I
once again suffered physical and psychological torture,
preventing me from seeing my family and my fiancee. I was
transferred to six consecutive detention centers, including the
high-security prison Combinado del Este. Also at this time I
was deprived of the right to be represented by a lawyer since
my pro bono international attorney, Kimberly Motley, who had
tried to visit me in Havana, was arrested and immediately
deported from Cuba.
Combinado del Este is a horrendous high-security prison
where only the most dangerous prisoners are sent. The roofs
were rife with leaks, the 6 by 4 square meter cells were
overcrowded for 36 people and bunkbeds for three were arranged
in order to avoid the leaks. During the day, the lights were
off and although it was daytime, the sunlight did not penetrate
the bars. On one occasion my jailers tried to terrorize me by
threatening that at any time they could take me to the yard to
execute me by firing squad. I was very worried because--by this
because I knew that could easily happen given the record of the
hundreds if not thousands of political prisoners they have
executed by the dictatorship.
I had to undergo all this abuse and humiliation for not
shedding tears and for graffitiing ``He's gone'' when an
assassin died, one who, with his brother, the current president
of Cuba Raul Castro, never allowed a different party than the
one that he created at gunpoint.
The Castro brothers and their family own all the
newspapers, radio, TV, and the only telephone company in Cuba,
which is the only one allowed to supply internet. These men
have remained in power during almost 60 years not only giving
orders to massacre Cubans such as those aboard the tugboat
Trece de Marzo but also various attempts against Oswaldo Paya
Sardinas' life and his eventual murder, as well as that of
Laura Pollan. The Castros not only divided all Cubans but also
made exiles of them, many of whom are in this country.
The Castros contributed high numbers of mercenaries and
arms to the wars of Angola, Ethiopia, under the command of the
Soviet Army, the FARC in Colombia, and guerrillas in Venezuela
in the '60s and in last two decades have support the
dictatorial Chavista regime, which today has plunged their
people into hunger and oppression.
I want to close my presentation requesting two things to
the people and the Government of the United States. First, we
request solidarity for the cause of democracy in Cuba given
that we have suffered a regime that does not allow democratic
elections for almost 60 years. The world should give us
solidarity and should ask Raul Castro for a plebiscite and
democratic elections in Cuba. And secondly, I ask the people
and Government of the United States to pressure Raul Castro's
regime to release the thousands of political prisoners existing
in my country.
Due to the totalitarian system we Cubans live under, at
least 85 percent of the present prison population would be
considered innocent in any democratic country and would have
never been sent to prison. We Cubans on the island are hostage
of the Castro brothers' regime and the life of all Cubans,
particularly artists, opponents, and dissidents, are under
permanent danger at the hands of the repressive dictatorship.
Once again, we need the solidarity of the United States and the
support of all people in the world.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Machado follows:]
Prepared Statement of Danilo ``El Sexto'' Maldonado Machado
Thank you for the opportunity to amplify my voice to denounce the
situation of human rights violations of where I come from, Cuba. I am
33 years old and have already served four sentences for the only reason
that I have criticized the Cuban dictatorship through my art.
In Cuba, freedom of speech by artists is prohibited by Article 39
of the Constitution. According to this, ``artistic creation is free
provided that its contents is not contrary to the Revolution.''
This means that the work of artists such as myself and my
colleagues Gorki Aguila and Tania Bruguera, which is critical of the
dictatory regime of the Castro brothers, is illegal in Cuba.
For that reason I served 2 years when I was 18; 1 year when I was
24; 10 months at age 31 and most recently 2 months at the age of 33.
Now I'll refer to the last two occasions in which I was in prison.
On Christmas Day 2014, as part of a performance, I attempted to release
two little pigs on the streets of Havana, both painted in green, one
with the name of Raul and the other with the name of Fidel. I called
that performance ``Animal Farm in memoriam'' in honor of Gorge Orwell.
This cost me 10 months in prison. During that time I was tortured
physically and psychologically by the dictatorship to the point that I
declared myself on a hunger strike and even considered the possibility
of letting myself die in prison as a result.
After 10 months without previous warning, I was released and driven
to my house from prison. Until today I have not been served any notice
of pending criminal charges nor have I been summoned for any type of
trial.
At that time I was released following my protests and my hunger
strike in prison, and constant protests by my mother, my sister, my
grandmother, friends, and international institutions such as the Human
Rights Foundation, the Cuban American National Foundation, Amnesty
International, etc . . .
These same friends and others came together again this last time I
was in prison. I was in a maximum security prison in Havana for the
simple crime of not having expressed any ``sadness'' over the death of
dictator Fidel Castro.
On the night of December 26, when his death was announced, I was
awakened by calls from friends and my sister.
I dressed quickly and when I left my house I could surely perceive
fear as the streets became emptier and more silent.
That day I began to think over how many atrocities and how many
crimes against humanity had been committed in more than 56 years by
brothers Fidel and Raul Castro.
So I went out to the streets to shout ``Take the streets, the
murderer died, the mare died.'' I walked about a mile, took
transportation to the other side of the city, and walked for a while
celebrating until my video, that went viral on social media, was
transmitted live as the only celebratory event in the city of Havana,
and on the island.
In the video, by assuming my identity as a free person in a country
controlled by a totalitarian dictatorship, I took the risky decision of
graffitiing the wall of the hotel where Fidel Castro's troops were
quartered for the first time in Havana almost 60 years ago, armed and a
without democratic election.
I did that following the example of the great Vaclav Havel, the
artist and former president of the Czech Republic, who advised all
those who, like him, had to live under communist totalitarianism, to
LIVE IN TRUTH. To stop pretending that the reality imposed by the
regime by force is genuine. Upon the death of Fidel Castro, this notion
would have meant that I should feel sad for the death of the dictator,
as was pretended by thousands of people for fear of repression on that
day.
That day, after walking through the city, I returned home. I was
tired and went to bed when I was awakened by a noise at my door that
made me worry. Then I saw a patrol car with a policeman and two other
men in plain clothing, when I saw the owner of the house handing them
the key to my door.
In the process I was able to call my fiancee, Alexandra Martinez,
and I said, ``Call everyone, they are taking me prisoner.'' The two of
them threw themselves at me without even identifying themselves
verbally and I received only insults and blows from these characters,
because according to them, I had disrespected Fidel Castro.
And so I was taken to the police unit of La Lisa as they continued
to hit me even after I got off, which did not stop my cries of
``Murderers, yes the mare died, and good thing.'' When in the unit I
asked: Do you know me? Have I done something to you? If I have not
committed any crime, why do you beat me for my way of thinking? To
which they only claimed ``the laws support us.''
This time the cost was 55 days in prison. At this time, I once
again suffered physical and psychological torture, preventing me from
seeing my family and my fiancee. I was transferred to 6 consecutive
detention centers, including the high security prison ``Combinado del
Este.''
Also at this time I was deprived of the right to be represented by
a lawyer since my probono international attorney, Kimberly Motley, who
had tried to visit me in Havana was arrested and immediately deported
from Cuba.
Combinado del Este is a horrendous high security prison where only
the most dangerous prisoners are sent. The roofs were rife with leaks,
the 6 by 4 square meter cells were overcrowded for 36 people and bunk
beds for 3, arranged in order to avoid the leaks. During the day the
lights were off and although it was daytime the sunlight did not
penetrate the bars.
On several occasions my jailers tried to terrorize me my
threatening that at any time they could take me to the yard to execute
me by firing squad.
I was very worried by this because I knew that could easily happen
given the record of the hundreds if not thousands of political
prisoners executed by the dictatorship.
I had to undergo all this abuse and humiliation for not shedding
tears and for graffitiing ``He's Gone'' when an assassin died, one who
with his brother, the current president of Cuba, Raul Castro, never
allowed a different party than the one he created at gun point.
The Castro brothers and their family own the three newspapers,
radio, TV, the only telephone company in Cuba which is the only one
allowed to supply internet.
These men have remained in power during almost 60 years not only
giving order to massacre Cubans such as those aboard Tugboat 13 de
Marzo but also various attempts against Oswaldo Paya Sardinas' life and
his eventual murder, as well as that of Laura Pollan. The Castros not
only divided all Cubans, but also made exiles of them, many of whom are
in this country.
These characters contributed high numbers of mercenaries and arms,
to the wars of Angola, Ethiopia, under the command of the Russian Army,
the FARC in Colombia, and guerrillas in Venezuela in the 60s and in
last two decades have supported the dictatorial Chavista regime, which
today have plunged their people into hunger and oppression.
I want to close my presentation requesting two things to the people
and the government of the United States. First, we request solidarity
for the cause of democracy in Cuba, given that we have suffered a
regime that does not allow democratic elections for almost 60 years.
The world should give us solidarity and should ask Raul Castro for a
plebiscite and democratic elections in Cuba.
And secondly, I ask the people and the government of the United
States, to pressure Raul Castro's regime to release the thousands of
political prisoners existent in my country. Due to the totalitarian
system we Cubans live under, at least 85 percent of the present prison
population would be considered innocent in any democratic country and
would have never been sent to prison.
All Cubans are hostage of the Castro brothers' regime and the life
of all Cubans, particularly artists, opponents, and dissidents, are
under permanent danger at the hands of the repressive dictatorship.
Once again we need the solidarity of the United States and the
support of all people of the world.
Senator Rubio. Thank you, Mr. Machado.
Dr. Eldosari.
STATEMENT OF DR. HALAH ELDOSARI, VISITING SCHOLAR AND HUMAN
RIGHTS ACTIVIST, WASHINGTON, DC
Dr. Eldosari. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Rubio and
Ranking Member Menendez----
Senator Rubio. Can you turn on the microphone? I am sorry.
Dr. Eldosari. Sorry.
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
Dr. Eldosari. Thank you for the kind invitation. So my name
is Dr. Halah Eldosari. I am a visiting scholar at the Arab Gulf
States Institute in Washington, DC. My research and writing
examines gender, health, and laws in Saudi Arabia and the Arab
Gulf States. My focus is on violence against women and advocacy
for women's rights. My statement today aims to inform on the
restrictions imposed on the citizens' ability to promote their
rights in Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy where political
parties, unions, independent civil society organizations are
prohibited by law. There is no penal code, and judges liberally
rely on personal judgment to decide on cases based on the
concept of ``ta'azir,'' which is an Islamic law concept that
allows an individual judge to decide on a suitable punishment
at his own whim when no clear description of the act or the
punishment is specified in Islamic scripture. It is not
uncommon to find irrelevant historic Islamic incidents or
quotations taken out of context to justify irrational
punishments against the critics or activists.
For instance, in the case of Ala'a Brinji, he is an
imprisoned Saudi journalist. His sentencing document lists some
of those historical sayings to justify sentencing him for 7
years in prison, followed by an equal term of travel ban merely
for tweets in which he called for religious freedom, revocation
of blasphemy laws, support for other human rights defenders and
support for women driving.
The unchecked authority of the King is enforced by law and
the appointed religious clerics. In the last few years, several
laws and regulations were issued to classify acts of promoting
human rights, such as questioning public policies or religious
norms, as acts of terror or as cybercrimes.
In the last few years, I came across numerous statements
filed by the prosecutors against peaceful critics, activists,
and writers which described their human rights advocacy as
``disobedience to the ruler,'' ``inciting the public against
the ruler,'' or ``disrupting the public stability.'' For
instance, all the members of the Saudi Civil and Political
Rights Association, along with other reputable activists, have
been sentenced to lengthy prison terms under such charges for
promoting a constitutional monarchy, religious tolerance, and
the rule of law. This is particularly concerning as it curtails
citizens' ability to comment on public policies such as the
role of Saudi Arabia in regional conflicts or the recent impact
of the economic reforms. Several writers and economic analysts
were recently silenced for critiquing the economic reforms'
impacts.
In 2013 I submitted a report on the situation of women's
rights in Saudi Arabia to the U.N. Human Rights Council listing
recommendations to reform the nationality act, the political
and economic participation of women, revoking the ban on women
driving, implementing measures to protect women's rights and
women against violence, abolishing the male guardianship
system. And none of these recommendations were implemented.
In addition, I have joined women activists in 2013 in a
campaign to revoke the driving ban by sharing videos of
ourselves driving inside Saudi Arabia on social media. The
campaign brought global attention, but the government responded
negatively. Women activists were detained, defamed in local
newspapers, had their cars confiscated, and two women were
imprisoned for 72 days and then placed under travel bans for
several months merely for requesting to cross the United Arab
Emirates-Saudi border in their cars.
Last August, I had written a petition to the King, which
was signed by 15,000 Saudi men and women to request abolishing
the guardianship system from the state's regulation. An
activist friend in Riyadh delivered it to the King. The male
guardianship system is made of policies and customary norms in
which officials require women to obtain the approval of a male
relative--usually a husband or a father or even a son--to
access education, work, travel, marriage, or get a release from
prison. It limits women's autonomy and safety from abusive
guardians.
I personally have written several letters to support Saudi
women seeking asylum in other countries to escape their
guardian's abuse. Last year, I lost track of three Saudi
sisters whom I have helped who fled the country and stayed in
Malaysia to escape the sexual abuse of their guardian and who
were forcibly returned by a private Saudi force to Riyadh in a
case similar to that of young man who fled religious
persecution to Malaysia before forcibly returned.
The World Bank ranked Saudi Arabia as the highest country
in the legal restrictions imposed on women's economic
participation among 170 economies. None of the objectives
planned for the Saudi vision can be reached without women's
full participation in the workforce. Saudi women have created a
daily hashtag on Twitter to end the guardianship system, and
today, it reached its 225th day without a response from the
state. Instead, a young woman who supported the campaign was
arrested for months and she has published a public apology for
participating in the campaign in the local newspaper upon her
release. Local newspapers also reported the sentencing of a
Saudi man to 1 year in prison and a penalty of $8,000 for
promoting the campaign by placing posters on local mosques.
In supporting the civil society in Saudi Arabia, several
approaches were successful. The discussion of punishments on
activists of top European officials with the King were very
useful for our activists. Media coverage of Saudi affairs
informed the public and compensated for the censored media
inside our country. Most importantly, I find the vocal and
material support for international community for prisoners of
conscience as key for the crucial role they play in advancing
political and economic reforms, accountability, gender
equality, and religious tolerance.
Currently, Saudi Arabia leaders are keen to secure economic
and defense alliances with the U.S., and this represents an
ideal opportunity to promote sustainable political and civil
reforms contrary to the notion that it may alienate U.S.
allies.
And thank you for the opportunity to include my perspective
on this issue.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Eldosari follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Halah Eldosari
Dear Chairman Rubio and Ranking Member Menendez, thank you for your
kind invitation. My name is Dr. Hala Aldosari, I'm a visiting scholar
at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington DC. My research and
writing examines gender, health and laws in Saudi Arabia and the Arab
Gulf States with a focuses on violence against women. I'm an advocate
for women and human rights in Saudi Arabia and have participated in a
range of activities, including, campaigning, researching, lecturing,
writing and public speaking on various platforms. I created an online
website as a resource on women's rights and violence against women. My
statement today is an attempt to inform the subcommittee on the
restrictions of citizens' ability to promote their rights in Saudi
Arabia.
Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy where political parties,
unions, independent civil society organizations are prohibited by law.
There is no penal code and judges liberally rely on personal judgment
on deciding cases based on the concept of ``ta'azir'', an Islamic law
concept that allows an individual judge to decide on a suitable
punishment at his own whim when no clear description of the act or the
punishment is specified in Islamic scripture. Activists and concerned
citizens struggle to provide a legal basis for their advocacy in the
current legal system. It is not uncommon to find irrelevant historical
Islamic incidents or quotations, taken out of context, in the
statements of the prosecution or the decisions of the judges to justify
irrational punishments against critics or activists. In the case of
Ala'a Brinji, an imprisoned Saudi journalist, his sentencing document
lists some of those historical sayings to justify sentencing him for 7
years in prison followed by a travel ban of equal duration merely for
tweets in which he called for religious freedom, revocation of
blasphemy laws, support for other human rights defenders and support
for women driving. When the international community raises concern over
the irrationality and arbitrary nature of the rulings against activists
and critics, the authorities argue that they followed the due process,
but fail to mention the false concept of justice employed to justify
these rulings, even under Islamic principles.
Saudi Arabia's political system places the King as the ultimate
guardian in which unconditional obedience is expected from citizens.
The unchecked authority of the King is enforced by law and the
appointed religious clerics. In the last few years, several laws and
regulations were issued to classify acts of promoting human rights,
such as questioning public policies or religious norms, as acts of
terrorism or as cybercrimes. In the last few years, I came across
numerous statements filed by prosecutors against peaceful critics,
activists and writers which described their human rights advocacy as
``disobedience to the ruler'', ``inciting the public against the
ruler'' or ``disrupting the public stability''. None of these acts
resemble recognizable crimes, yet Saudi authorities have used them to
lock up peaceful activists for up to 15 years. All members of the Saudi
Civil and Political Rights Association, along with other reputable
activists, have been sentenced to lengthy prison terms under such
charges, including promoting a constitutional monarchy, religious
tolerance and the rule of law. This is particularly concerning because
it curtails citizen's ability to comment on public policies affecting
every citizen, such as the role of Saudi Arabia in regional conflicts
or the recent impacts of the economic reforms. Several writers and
economic analysts were banned from travel, repeatedly brought to
investigation, suspended from writing or from their jobs, or sentenced
to prison terms for expressing concerns over the consequences of
political or economic decisions. The result is that citizens'
engagement in the civil and political life of their country has been
seriously compromised by fear of government reprisal and repression.
In 2013, I submitted a report on the situation of women's rights in
Saudi Arabia to the U.N. Human Rights Council. The report listed
recommendations, made by Saudi activists in the past, such as reforming
the nationality act, improving the political and economic participation
of women, revoking the ban on women driving, implementing measures to
protect women against violence and abolishing the male-guardianship
system that controls women's lives.
However, none of these recommendations were implemented. In
addition, I've joined women activists in 2013 in a campaign to revoke
the driving ban by sharing videos of ourselves driving inside Saudi
Arabia on social media. The campaign brought global attention, but the
government responded negatively. Women activists were detained, defamed
in local newspapers, had their cars confiscated and two women were
imprisoned for 72 days and then placed under travel bans for several
months merely for requesting to cross the UAE-Saudi border in their
cars. I worked, along other women activists, with Human Rights Watch on
updating their 2008 report on the male-guardianship system. This is a
system of policies and customary norms in which officials require women
to obtain the approval of a male relative, usually a husband or a
father, to access education, work, travel, marriage or get a release
from prison. The system limits women's autonomy when their guardians
refuse to provide the required permission or when guardians abuse their
power over women for personal benefits, such as in forced/ early
marriages for dowries or in taking the woman's salary to allow her to
work. Women who live with abusive guardians are at a particular risk
because of the vast authority granted to guardians on many domains in a
woman's lives. I have personally written several letters to support
Saudi women seeking asylum in other countries to escape their guardians
abuse. Last year, I lost track of three Saudi sisters who fled the
country to Malaysia to escape the sexual abuse of their guardian and
who were forcibly returned by a private Saudi force to Riyadh, in a
case similar to that of young man who fled religious persecution to
Malaysia and was forcibly returned to Riyadh. In a recent report by the
World Bank, the number of legal restrictions on women in Saudi Arabia
is the highest among 170 economies. It is therefore not surprising that
women's unemployment in Saudi Arabia is the lowest globally and the
recent economic proposals to transform the Saudi economy such as Vision
2030 or the National Transformation Plan have not revoked any of these
restrictions or barriers. The household income would be drastically
reduced as a result of the enforced austerity measures, and will not
likely to be avoided by 2020 without women's full participation in the
work force. Last August, I have written a petition to the king which
was signed by 15000 Saudi men and women to request abolishing the
guardianship system from the state's regulations, and an activist in
Riyadh delivered it to the King. Saudi women have created a daily
hashtag on twitter to end the male guardianship system listing personal
narratives and refuting the religious basis for it based on the
writings of reputable Islamic figures. The hashtag reached its 225th
day today without a response form the state. Instead, a young woman who
supported the campaign was arrested for months and was likely forced to
publish a public apology from participation in the local newspaper upon
her release. Local newspapers also reported the sentencing of a Saudi
man to 1 year in prison and a penalty of $8000 for promoting the
campaign by placing posters on local mosques.
In supporting the civil society in Saudi Arabia, I found that
several approaches were successful. First, we have seen that the
interventions of top officials from EU countries with the King as
successful in reducing some of the punishments of activists. In
addition, media coverage and analysis of Saudi issues raised awareness
among the Saudi public on key issues which were largely uncovered in
the local media. Most importunely, I find the vocal and material
support of the international community for the prisoners of conscience
is key because of the crucial role they play in advancing local
discourse on political and economic reforms, accountability, gender
equality and religious tolerance. I would also like to hint that
contrary to the common notion that public statements may alienate U.S.
allies, I find that the keen and active interest of Saudi Arabia
leaders in securing economic and defense alliances can be ideal
opportunities to promote human rights reforms. I thank you for the
opportunity to include my perspectives as part of the ongoing discourse
on promoting human rights.
Senator Rubio. Thank you so much.
Mr. Kasparov.
STATEMENT OF GARRY KASPAROV, CHAIRMAN, HUMAN RIGHTS FOUNDATION,
NEW YORK, NY
Mr. Kasparov. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
inviting me here today. Thank you very much, Ranking Member and
members, for your nice words about my work. It is especially
nice to hear such kind words compared to one U.S. Congressman
who has recently said that Putin is not so bad because Garry
Kasparov is still alive.
And I am also glad to be here in the Senate on the record
because it seems I am one of the few prominent Russians who is
not in contact with the White House.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kasparov. As one of the countless millions of people
who were freed or protected from totalitarianism by the United
States of America, it is easy for me to talk about the past, to
talk about the belief of the American people and their leaders
that this country was exceptional, and had special
responsibilities to match its tremendous power, that a nation
founded on freedom was bound to defend freedom everywhere.
I could talk about the bipartisan legacy of this most
American principle, from the Founding Fathers, to Democrats
like Harry Truman, to Republicans like Ronald Reagan. I could
talk about how the American people used to care deeply about
human rights and dissidents in far-off places, and how this is
what made America a beacon of hope, a shining city on a hill.
America led by example and set a high standard, a standard that
exposed the hypocrisy and cruelty of dictatorships around the
world.
But there is no time for nostalgia. Since the fall of the
Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the end of
the Cold War, Americans and America have retreated from those
principles, and the world has become much worse off as a
result. American skepticism about America's role in the world
deepened in the long, painful wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and
their aftermaths. Instead of applying the lessons learned about
how to do better, lessons about faulty intelligence and working
with native populations, the main outcome was to stop trying.
This result has been a tragedy for the billions of people
still living under authoritarian regimes around the world, and
it is based on faulty analysis. You can never guarantee a
positive outcome, not in chess, not in war, and certainly not
in politics. The best you can do is to do what you know is
right and to try your best.
I speak from experience when I say that the citizens of
unfree states do not expect guarantees. They want a reason to
hope and a fighting chance. People living under dictatorships
want the opportunity for freedom, the opportunity to live in
peace and to follow their dreams. From the Iraq War to the Arab
Spring to the current battles for liberty from Venezuela to
Eastern Ukraine, people are fighting for that opportunity,
giving up their lives for freedom. The United States must not
abandon them.
The United States and the rest of the free world has an
unprecedented advantage in economic and military strength
today. What is lacking is the will, the will to make the case
to the American people, the will to take risks and invest in
the long-term security of the country, and the world. This will
require investment in aid, in education, in security that allow
countries to attain the stability their people so badly need.
Such investment is far more moral and far cheaper than the
cycle of terror, war, refugees, and military intervention that
results when America leaves a vacuum of power. The best way to
help refugees is to prevent them from becoming refugees in the
first place.
The Soviet Union was an existential threat, and this
focused the attention of the world and the American people. The
existential threat today is not found on a map, but it is very
real. The forces of the past are making steady progress against
the modern world order. Terrorist movements in the Middle East,
extremist parties across Europe, a paranoid tyrant in North
Korea threatening nuclear blackmail, and, at the center of the
web, an aggressive KGB dictator in Russia. They all want to
turn the world back to a dark past because their survival is
threatened by the values of the free world, epitomized by the
United States. And they are thriving as the United States has
retreated. The global freedom index has declined for 10
consecutive years. No one likes to talk about the United States
as a global policeman, but this is what happens when there is
no cop on the beat.
American leadership begins at home, right here. America
cannot lead the world on democracy and human rights if there is
no unity on the meaning and importance of these things.
Leadership is required to make that case clearly and
powerfully. Right now, Americans are engaged in politics at a
level not seen in decades. It is an opportunity for them to
rediscover that making America great begins with believing
America can be great.
The Cold War was won on American values that were shared by
both parties and nearly every American. Institutions that were
created by a Democrat, Truman, were triumphant 40 years later
thanks to the courage of a Republican, Reagan. This bipartisan
consistency created the decades of strategic stability that is
the great strength of democracies.
Strong institutions that outlast politicians allow for
long-range planning. In contrast, dictators can operate only
tactically, not strategically, because they are not constrained
by the balance of powers, but they cannot afford to think
beyond their own survival. This is why a dictator like Putin
has an advantage in chaos, the ability to move quickly. This
can only be met by strategy, by long-term goals that are based
on shared values, not on polls and cable news.
The fear of making things worse has paralyzed the United
States from trying to make things better. There will always be
setbacks, but the United States cannot quit. The spread of
democracy is the only proven remedy for nearly every crisis
that plagues the world today. War, famine, poverty, terrorism,
all are generated and exacerbated by authoritarian regimes. A
policy of America first inevitably puts American security last.
Global American leadership is required because there is no
one else, and because it is good for America. There is no
weapon, there is no wall that is more powerful for security
than America being envied, imitated, and admired around the
world, admired not for being perfect, but for having the
exceptional courage to always try to be better.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kasparov follows:]
Prepared Statement of Garry Kasparov
My thanks to Chairman Corker and to Senator Rubio for inviting me
to be here today.
As one of the countless millions of people who were freed or
protected from totalitarianism by the United States of America, it is
easy for me to talk about the past. To talk about the belief of the
American people and their leaders that this country was exceptional,
and had special responsibilities to match its tremendous power. That a
nation founded on freedom was bound to defend freedom everywhere. I
could talk about the bipartisan legacy of this most American principle,
from the Founding Fathers, to Democrats like Harry Truman, to
Republicans like Ronald Reagan. I could talk about how the American
people used to care deeply about human rights and dissidents in far-off
places, and how this is what made America a beacon of hope, a shining
city on a hill. America led by example and set a high standard, a
standard that exposed the hypocrisy and cruelty of dictatorships around
the world.
But there is no time for nostalgia. Since the fall of the Berlin
Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the end of the Cold War,
Americans, and America, have retreated from those principles, and the
world has become much worse off as a result. American skepticism about
America's role in the world deepened in the long, painful wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq, and their aftermaths. Instead of applying the
lessons learned about how to do better, lessons about faulty
intelligence and working with native populations, the main outcome was
to stop trying.
This result has been a tragedy for the billions of people still
living under authoritarian regimes around the world, and it is based on
faulty analysis. You can never guarantee a positive outcome--not in
chess, not in war, and certainly not in politics. The best you can do
is to do what you know is right and to try your best. I speak from
experience when I say that the citizens of unfree states do not expect
guarantees. They want a reason to hope and a fighting chance. People
living under dictatorships want the opportunity for freedom, the
opportunity to live in peace and to follow their dreams. From the Iraq
War to the Arab Spring to the current battles for liberty from
Venezuela to Eastern Ukraine, people are fighting for that opportunity,
giving up their lives for freedom. The United States must not abandon
them.
The United States and the rest of the free world has an
unprecedented advantage in economic and military strength today. What
is lacking is the will. The will to make the case to the American
people, the will to take risks and invest in the long-term security of
the country, and the world. This will require investments in aid, in
education, in security that allow countries to attain the stability
their people so badly need. Such investment is far more moral and far
cheaper than the cycle of terror, war, refugees, and military
intervention that results when America leaves a vacuum of power. The
best way to help refugees is to prevent them from becoming refugees in
the first place.
The Soviet Union was an existential threat, and this focused the
attention of the world, and the American people. There existential
threat today is not found on a map, but it is very real. The forces of
the past are making steady progress against the modern world order.
Terrorist movements in the Middle East, extremist parties across
Europe, a paranoid tyrant in North Korea threatening nuclear blackmail,
and, at the center of the web, an aggressive KGB dictator in Russia.
They all want to turn the world back to a dark past because their
survival is threatened by the values of the free world, epitomized by
the United States. And they are thriving as the U.S. has retreated. The
global freedom index has declined for 10 consecutive years. No one like
to talk about the United States as a global policeman, but this is what
happens when there is no cop on the beat.
American leadership begins at home, right here. America cannot lead
the world on democracy and human rights if there is no unity on the
meaning and importance of these things. Leadership is required to make
that case clearly and powerfully. Right now, Americans are engaged in
politics at a level not seen in decades. It is an opportunity for them
to rediscover that making America great begins with believing America
can be great.
The Cold War was won on American values that were shared by both
parties and nearly every American. Institutions that were created by a
Democrat, Truman, were triumphant 40 years later thanks to the courage
of a Republican, Reagan. This bipartisan consistency created the
decades of strategic stability that is the great strength of
democracies. Strong institutions that outlast politicians allow for
long-range planning. In contrast, dictators can operate only
tactically, not strategically, because they are not constrained by the
balance of powers, but cannot afford to think beyond their own
survival. This is why a dictator like Putin has an advantage in chaos,
the ability to move quickly. This can only be met by strategy, by long-
term goals that are based on shared values, not on polls and cable
news.
The fear of making things worse has paralyzed the United States
from trying to make things better. There will always be setbacks, but
the United States cannot quit. The spread of democracy is the only
proven remedy for nearly every crisis that plagues the world today.
War, famine, poverty, terrorism-all are generated and exacerbated by
authoritarian regimes. A policy of America First inevitably puts
American security last.
American leadership is required because there is no one else, and
because it is good for America. There is no weapon or wall that is more
powerful for security than America being envied, imitated, and admired
around the world. Admired not for being perfect, but for having the
exceptional courage to always try to be better. Thank you.
Senator Rubio. Thank you for being here. I am going to
allow--Senator Kaine, do you need to--okay.
Senator Menendez.
Senator Menendez. Well, thank you all for your incredible
testimony. And I am just going to take a moment, Mr. Chairman,
and I will excuse myself with our recorder here. I will give
you the synthesis of what I said but I do not want to proceed
without saying this to Mr. Maldonado Machado.
[Speaking foreign language.]
Mr. Machado. Gracias.
Senator Menendez. [Speaking foreign language.]
So I appreciate your testimony, and I wish that more of our
colleagues were here to be honest with you, because even those
who somehow have this romanticized idea of what the Castros are
all about, even those who applaud the engagement that we have
had with the Castro regime, what bothers me is not that. That
is America. It is a different point of view. What bothers me is
that they never talk about the Danilos Machados of the world.
They do not talk about the Marta Beatriz Roques. They do not
talk about Berta Soler and a large number of individuals who
are the Vaclav Havels, the Lech Walesas, the Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyns of Cuba.
And for some reason the world is focused on human rights
and democracy in other places but somehow cannot rivet its
attention on the very abuses that they feel so compelled to say
from the highest mountaintop about any other place in the
world, but when it comes to Cuba, there is this indifference.
And so while I disagree with my colleagues on some of the
policy views, I--at least I would hope that they would be
voices, as they are so eloquently in other parts of the world,
to speak about those who struggled inside of Cuba, as you do.
I heard your petition, but I am wondering in what concrete
way would you want to see the United States Government act to
help you, as an artisan, as a citizen be free to perform your
art, to say what you wish, to have your colleagues be able to
do the same? What would you want us to actually--if you could,
if you could say to us do this, what is it? What would it be?
Mr. Machado. First of all, I want to thank you. You can
help us the way you are doing now. But if these people have
been violating human rights for almost 60 years, if you went
after Pablo Escobar or bin Laden more recently, why these
people are still there in power. It does not matter how you can
help me but how you can help 12 million people while they are
trying to escape.
Senator Menendez. Yes. You said--in the interpretation you
said why are they not before a tribunal, which is an
interesting view. Let me ask you this. Do you believe that the
United States should insist that before there is any further
deepening of this relationship that there be a call for free
and independent elections?
Mr. Machado. No doubt about it.
Senator Menendez. Do you believe that we should say to the
Castro Regime that before there can be any deepening
relationship all political prisoners must be released?
Mr. Machado. For sure. For sure.
Senator Menendez. I could go on but we have other important
witnesses. But I really appreciate you giving a presence, a
young man who has spent a good part of his young life in
prison, beaten simply because he was seeking to do those things
that we in America take for granted. It is just amazing to me.
And I hear nothing about that in terms of our State Department
and our engagement. So I hope things will change.
Dr. Eldosari, let me ask you, how is it can we best--you
know, we often hear, you know, in response as we talk about
human rights and democracy, whether it be in Saudi Arabia or
other parts in the Arab world about--well, you do not
understand the culture, you do not understand history. I
respect culture and history but I cannot imagine that anything
can be legitimized to put women in the plight in which they are
in. How would you have us approach the issues of human rights
and democracy and the role of women particularly and their
rightful role as a human being in terms of the fulfillment of
their rights? What do you think would be the most constructive
way?
Dr. Eldosari. One of the main important things is to
recognize that there are voices within those regimes, within
Saudi Arabia and other places, which actually require those
demands, which actually fight for those demands. So it is not
foreign. It is not against the culture. It is not against their
beliefs. So the justification presented by those regimes, as
this is culturally irrelevant or culturally inappropriate is
not correct.
The other thing is that there is a huge diversity in the
Islamic world, in the Muslim world, in the Arabic world in
which places where women--like, for instance, in the United
Arab Emirates, women have been now part of the armed forces and
the air forces and the commercial planes. So there are
precedences where other Muslim countries, where other Arab
countries have allowed women and men very much have an equal
opportunity without relevance to cultural appropriation or not.
So I think that should be brought into the discussion and
end all of the movements that are happening, the organic
movements and the grassroots movements within Saudi Arabia.
There are great diversity in the number of people so we have
women and men on the campaigns that I have participated in
whether it is for a municipal election or for driving or for
allowing--for removing the guardianship system or for the
defense of the prisoners of conscience.
We have religious scholars, really intellectual scholars
who have argued for those things from the perspective of
Islamic schools of thoughts. So I think there is room and
leverage to pressure, especially now, that these things are
appropriate since there are voices that demand those things
within those countries. And by supporting those voices and
those demands, many of those voices are based on Islamic
justifications as well. We can elevate the role of--not only of
human rights but the role of Islamic diversity that is so much
hijacked by the states.
Senator Menendez. Mr. Kasparov, at one time I thought I
could be a great chess master, so--and I do enjoy playing the
game and I think it is extraordinary. And I appreciate the work
that you do and your foundation to use it as a vehicle to
create critical skills for children in schools. So I appreciate
that.
But I want to ask you about--as much as I would be engaged
in asking you about some of the great opening gambits, I want
to ask you about Russia in the context of, you know, very
often, in a different context than I asked the doctor, some
argue that Russia is different, that history and the people
themselves are conditioned to authoritarian rule, that Putin,
these people claim, provides firm leadership, coupled with a
vision of greatness, of Russian greatness that appeals to
ordinary citizens and that the path to greatness requires
sacrifices and the return to the greater Russia.
How does one frame--and you were in Russia and
unfortunately, you--because of what was going on and your
activism, you had to come to the United States. How does one
frame the narratives so that Russia's greatness includes a
respect for human rights?
Mr. Kasparov. Thank you very much for this question because
it comes back and forth. This is one of the arguments I hear in
many talk shows that, you know, certain countries, they just
simply do not fit democracy. And Russia, of course, you know,
is one of the samples. So the country is doomed to live under
authoritarian or totalitarian regimes, which is--you know, as
we look at history, as Russia had very short periods of
democratic rule, but at the same time we can look around the
world and we will find places where, you know, divided nations
demonstrated that democracy performed much, much better than
any other form of governance.
Let us look at Korean peninsula. Is it is the same nation,
divided on the north 38th parallel and one side we have a
concentration camp, a gulag with 20 million people that is
trying to sell, you know, it is the nuclear blackmail to feed
its own people and to prevent, you know, massive famine and
potential revolt. On the other side we have 40 million of the--
living in democracy and most vibrant economies in the world. We
can talk about two Germanys, divided Germanys, also Taiwan and
China.
And even now going back to Russia, let us not forget Russia
and Ukraine, never close, maybe it is not as close as two
Koreans, but still, when you look at Eastern Ukraine, you could
see that many people who leave there, they are all ethnic
Russians. They grew up in the same country called Soviet Union.
Even after 1991 there was no border so they could go from--
there is a hike up the coast. And there is a fact that is being
committed by many of Putin's apologists that most of the
fighters in the Ukrainian army today, they are ethnic Russians
because they are fighting for their right to choose and to live
in a free country because they know exactly what to expect in
Putin's Russia.
And, you know, it is--in my view the fighting between
Russia and Ukraine could be viewed as the kind of geopolitical
showdown, historical one, of the Kyiv's Russia, which was, you
know, part of the European culture and the Golden Horde. So the
Asian succession unfortunately dominated Russia for centuries.
And one of the things, you know, followed the comments in
the first panel is that Ukrainian, like Russia, in 1994
experienced a peaceful transition of power. So the current--the
President then, Leonid Kuchma, lost elections and, you know,
peacefully he was replaced by his successor Leonid Kuchma. So
with all credit given to Boris Yeltsin, he failed the ultimate
test of peaceful transition of power. Instead of following, you
know, proper electoral procedures, he picked up a successor.
Some would say, you know, it could be Boris Nemtsov but Yeltsin
made the wrong choice, and we are now seeing the consequences.
So I do not believe that people in Russia are just doomed
to live under the shadows of dictatorship, and many of us
fought. Some of them, you know, were even killed. Many of them
are in prison and even more are like myself. I live in exile.
But the future of Russia is--belongs to the famine of the
civilized democratic nations, and we can look at the current
economic situation in the country. It is one of the richest
countries in the world that is living in terrible conditions.
We can see the steady deterioration of living standards. The
economy is in free-fall, and that is why Putin, as every
dictator, he is now--he has replaced domestic news by his
aggressive foreign policy. If you follow Russian news and
Russian talk shows, they do not talk about Russia. They talk
about Ukraine, Syria, Israel, United States, blaming the world
for all the hardship.
Senator Menendez. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Rubio. Mr. Kasparov, if I could lead off from that
as well, it is--and if you disagree with any of the statements
I am about to make as it leads into my questioning, you will
tell me. Number one, as I--Vladimir Putin at this point has
amassed more power in his hands than any leader in Moscow since
Stalin in the '50s.
Number two, there was--less than 10 years ago were--there
were still--there was still political resistance that we could
see expressed, whether it was through rock bands, political
parties, demonstrations. That has steadily eroded, and it is a
result of his willingness to exile, murder, and jail political
opponents. And so you have no doubts that Vladimir Putin has
ordered the murder and the jailing of political opponents.
I also do not believe you have any doubts that he has
directed the targeting and the killing of innocent civilian
women, children in Aleppo and in other parts of Syria.
I ask all that and lay that context out because we are--we
have now had two administrations who believed that somehow this
is someone we could work with and create some sort of a
strategic geopolitical partnership, and the new administration
has also expressed a willingness to potentially pursue this
sort of geopolitical partnership with Vladimir Putin, despite
all these things we know about him. And I am interested from
your perspective, what would the impact be on our credibility,
on America's standing in the world, and in, quite frankly, our
national security but in particular I want you to opine on our
credibility and our standing in the world as a nation who
promotes democracy and liberty and the rights of all people.
What would it do to our standing if, despite all of these
things that we now know, we somehow enter in a geopolitical
deal with Moscow in which we are willing to overlook all these
things and the sovereignty of nations like Ukraine in exchange
for their supposed cooperation in Syria? What would the impact
be on America's standing in the world if we go into a deal with
a criminal like this?
Mr. Kasparov. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with
everything you said about Vladimir Putin and his regime. I
think it is important to emphasize that the United States and
Putin's Russia--let me emphasize Putin's Russia--have no common
values, no common ground, and no common interest. It is a false
narrative that unfortunately is being pushed by some people in
this country and in Europe that Vladimir Putin could be an ally
in a war against terrorism. Terrorism has been--I would not say
invented but nursed by KGB decades ago, and now we could see
that in Syria ISIS has been used by Bashar Al-Assad's
butcherous regime as an excuse for the atrocities that they
committed against their own people.
Again, it is a long story to find out whether, you know,
KGB infiltrators had influenced within ISIS. I believe so. But
what is most important that we could see that Assad's forces
never fought ISIS and Putin always looked, you know, for ISIS
as a good reason for him, an excuse to enter Syria.
So the problem is, you know, that if you make one
concession to Putin's regime, they will look for more
concessions. They do not look at comprises as a search for
common ground. It is a sign of weakness, and they will push on
forward.
You mentioned two administrations, Bush 43 administration
and Barack Obama administration. I could also mention that one
of the earliest mistakes was made even by Clinton
administration while in 1995. Bill Clinton was empowered by the
bipartisan resolution of the U.S. Congress to demand Boris
Yeltsin to stop the first transaction of Russian nuclear
weapons to Iran, and he could threaten and actually could pull
out financial aid, which was crucial. Unfortunately, he decided
against doing it.
So--but if Clinton administration or Bush administration
could be somehow forgiven because they looked at Russia as a
country that was making, you know, first steps towards
democracy, the last 8 or especially the last 4 years, you know,
I think it is the--this shortsighted policy cannot be excused
because those were the years where Putin accumulated all the
power and moved from any form of cooperation into the open
confrontation.
Ten years ago in Munich he delivered a speech which cannot
be interpreted otherwise but he challenged the West in a Munich
security conference. And by the way, he follows almost
religiously to what he said there, challenging American power
and making United States as a prime target for his domestic
propaganda.
If United States enters any kind of deal at the expense of
its traditional democratic allies or the countries like Ukraine
that are heroically fighting against Putin aggression, that
will be a very deep wound in the reputation--global reputation
of the United States because it will be seen as the clear case
of hypocrisy, and it will undermine U.S. attempts to promote
democracy worldwide. And it--by the way, it will not stop Putin
from moving further because, again, for him it will be a sign
of weakness and he will try to exercise even more power because
his domestic propaganda is based exclusively on the
confrontation with the United States and the free world.
Senator Rubio. The--you are a long-time observer and
perhaps know firsthand and have seen the tradecraft of the KGB
and now the Putin government. As you see reports about their
active measures in the United States elections beyond simply
some just--you know, just say, well, this is all about trying
to reach a particular outcome, in your opinion beyond just the
outcome of the election of somebody winning, somebody losing,
deeper than that, what is the reason why Vladimir Putin's
government would seek to undertake active measures in which
they weaponize leaked illegally accessed information for
purpose--and then strategically placing that information in the
press? What at the end of the day--were they trying to go
beyond that--undermine the credibility of American democracy,
sow chaos, instability? What is the thinking that goes behind
that sort of action?
Mr. Kasparov. Vladimir Putin is targeting democracy as an
institution. Undermining democracy and of course United States
is the most lucrative target for a KGB agent. He believes that
he could destroy any hopes for democratizations in Russia or in
other countries of un-free world. He has been doing the same
things in Europe. He has been steadily attacking democratic
institutions in the U.K., now in Holland, in France, and
Germany, in Italy, elsewhere because for him it is a great
opportunity to use, what an irony, technology invented in the
free world, the freedom of speech to undermine the very
institutions that are protecting our freedom. And he is not
going to stop because for him it is a natural way of extending
his powers since he wants chaos. Chaos helps him to promote his
clandestine agenda, and chaos prevents unified front of
European nations and the United States and Canada and other
democratic nations in the world to stand against Putin's
aggression.
Senator Rubio. Dr. Eldosari, you said in--on October 10th
to the BBC's Arabic Service that ``The problem with the Saudi
legal system is that it deals with the lives of people in the
21st century with the mentality of the 7th century.'' I was
hoping you could elaborate further for those who might read the
transcripts of this hearing or be watching at some point. What
did you mean by the they are dealing ``with the lives of people
in the 21st century with the mentality of the 7th century?''
Dr. Eldosari. A very good example is considering any
critics of the state, any critics of the policies as
disobedient to the ruler. This idea of a ruler as the guardian,
as the ultimate guardian is very much foreign idea, and it is
an idea that has been--and aspired by early historical examples
that does not have any relevance to the social contracts or to
modern work. And if any act could be interpreted by any citizen
as a disobedience to the King, that is a good ground to punish
this person either by flogging or either by sentencing. There
is no penal code in Saudi Arabia.
There is no written codification of what does it mean to
have a certain crime and what is the kind of punishment. As I
have just mentioned, the ta'azir, which is the authority given
to judges by certain Islamic schools of thoughts to decide on
punishments according to their own whim is something that is
threatening for the due process. Often, when Saudi Arabia is
challenged by the international community and asking for a
rationale or justification for the punishments enforced on
activists, they bring forth the idea of the due process.
We are having courts, we are having lawyers, we are having
trials, but the whole philosophy of what is a criminal act is
absent. So you could just go to jail like all the members of
the Civil and Political Rights for demanding that should be--
that there should be a social contract with very--with much of
checks and balances for the authority of the ruler. If you
demand that in Saudi Arabia, you are sentenced for 11 years or
15 years in prison and--followed by equal duration of travel
ban.
So this is what I have meant that this kind of mentality
that does not really coincide with any definitions of human
rights, this kind of mentality that treats any act of
expression of opinion or expression of religious beliefs as an
act of terror, as an act of insult against Islam to protect
their power. Basically, the religious institutions and the
legal institutions are there to protect the status quo rather
than to implement justice, and this really is apparent from the
wide variance of sentences that people experience from even the
same judge.
Senator Rubio. In our hearing for Secretary of State, then-
nominee, now-Secretary of State testified in response to my
questions about Saudi Arabia that we needed to account for
cultural differences that existed, that perhaps is the reason
why this is still in place and it would take a little longer
than it would in other places. Is--in your opinion, is the
condition of the general population, in particular, women and
how they are treated under Saudi law and by Saudi leadership,
is that a result of some sort of a cultural affinity or is that
basically a system of political control disguised as a cultural
principle?
Dr. Eldosari. Yes.
So the total obedience that is demanded from citizen to the
rule of the King, basically the absolute authority to the King
that is unchecked by any balances or measures, this is the same
authority that is granted to men over women in a family. And
the massive support that we amassed in the male guardianship
campaign, it is a social campaign, and the massive, you know,
support from religious scholars as well who came out and said
that these practices are not found in Islam under--or
precedence in Islam that actually contracted these ideas. And
these ideas are fairly new.
So in the lives of people in the '60s in Saudi Arabia,
there was no ban on women to travel on their own. It was an
invented state regulation because of a certain incident that
happened. So all of those restrictions that were imposed on
women to refrain women from participating in the public
meaningfully or to acquire, you know, equal opportunities in
the workforce or in education or to decide on their own lives
or marriages are very much an invented, you know,
interpretation of what should be a different scenario.
If really the diversity of Islamic schools of thoughts and
the diversity of people have been expressed, then this is
something that we have witnessed from a number of people of all
backgrounds that have joined the campaign to express online and
in writings.
Senator Rubio. My last question, Doctor, is because of your
activism, because of your testimony here today, because of the
words you have expressed and the work that you have done, what
do they say about you in Saudi Arabia?
Dr. Eldosari. Well, I think one of the things that we learn
to do--I am sure there are mixed feeling----
Senator Rubio. By the government, I apologize.
Dr. Eldosari. Well, I do see my name coming in the formal
print media and in online defamation campaigns all the time and
the names of other people who are doing the same. And similar
to my distinguished colleague here, I think that we learn to
work without thinking of things beyond our control. We tend to
uphold our values and our principles and try to do the best of
the resources that we have, ideas like what the government
would think of is not of an importance I think to people in
Saudi Arabia more than to secure the public interest and to
make sure that their rights are safeguarded and guaranteed.
Senator Rubio. Mr. Maldonado, there was a school of thought
in American politics that the best way to advance the cause of
human rights and freedom in Cuba is to allow for Cuba to be
flooded with American business and travelers but in particular
American business, that if somehow there were more economic
interaction between American corporations and the Cuban
Government, which controls the entire economy, that that would
somehow lead automatically at some point to political freedoms
and some form of representative government. Do you share that
view, and has that been your experience over the last 2 years
or 2 1/2 years since the change in policy? We now see a large
number of chambers of commerce, business interests traveling to
Cuba and interacting with the Cuban Government. Has that led to
any political opening for people such as yourself or others who
disagree with the government? And do you believe that somehow
economic interaction with the United States in and of itself
will lead to democracy without additional pressure? The
microphone.
Mr. Machado. Oh, sorry. This will have some impact if the
United States could demand that they could pay their own
workers in their U.S. companies. Otherwise, it would be more of
the same as all foreign companies in Cuba have experienced
during the long years in which the state is like a middle man
between the company and the Cuban workers. So the Cuban
Government is paying their workers, $20, $25, $30 a month for
doctors and workers in Cuba, which is earned by an American
worker in a couple of hours.
Senator Rubio. But so--and the--the fundamental question
that people continue to pose is that we should somehow separate
the political opening from the economic debate. Is it your view
that we need to be doing more to empower civil society, create
obviously attention to the cause such as people such as
yourself, that in essence, if we could focus on the political
and the freedom, that that would then create a free Cuban
people who could decide an economic model for themselves and
for their country?
Mr. Machado. Well, that is rather difficult because, you
know, if it is only political, they could remain as owners of
the economy and continue as any other transition of power to
themselves.
Senator Rubio. It is fair to say that the Cuban Government
across its holding companies, controlled by sometimes military
figures in the government, basically control the vast and
overwhelming majority of the Cuban economy?
Mr. Machado. Yes. Well, American citizens know the cost of
opening some sort of business in Cuba. Mr. Alan Gross is an
example. There should be requirements to the Cuban Government
that Americans investing in Cuba should be respected. Their
policies should be respected to do their business, to conduct
their business with all their rights. Maybe that would be a way
to reach--another way to reach freedom.
Senator Rubio. The resistance in Cuba, the people like
yourself who are not just demonstrating against the oppression
and the tyranny but also who aspire for a freer and more
democratic Cuba where people are represented, when this opening
happened with Cuba that included all the celebrations that we
saw about it, yet we saw such little mention of the plight of
those such as yourself and others, what impact did that have on
the psychology, the morale of those such as yourself who are
still suffering?
Mr. Machado. Businesses continue to open but there is still
that middle man that will distribute the profits and will pay
the Cuban workers very, very small salaries and keep the profit
for themselves.
Senator Rubio. So the bottom line is what American business
interests need to know is that an economic opening to Cuba is
not necessarily an economic opening with the Cuban people. It
is an economic opening to do business with the Cuban
Government, who then uses it as an additional form of control
over the Cuban people?
Mr. Machado. Exactly. Exactly.
Senator Rubio. My last question is, since the opening of
the U.S. Embassy and our designation of the once consulate to
embassy, have the personnel there, including the charge
d'affaires and others in charge of that facility been
supportive of you, reached out to you, interacted with you?
Mr. Machado. Sometimes we are called by phone. I was
invited to the Fourth of July celebration, and I was the only
listed artist on venue.
Senator Rubio. And in--have you ever in your--over the last
2 or 3 years, as several of our colleagues have visited Cuba--
Congressmen, Senators--have you ever had any Member of Congress
visit you?
Mr. Machado. Not to me but certainly when President Obama
visited Cuba, he met several--all the dissidents, which was
very important--a very important action by him.
Senator Rubio. After the President visited Cuba and left,
what was the government--the Castro government's reaction to
the people who met with him? Was there a--did you notice a
change in their behavior after he left? Did they become more
repressive after the fact?
Mr. Machado. No. Repression has been increased.
Senator Rubio. My last question. Since December of 2014
when this opening with Cuba was announced, has repression in
Cuba increased or decreased?
The Interpreter. Say that again, please.
Senator Rubio. Since December of 2014 when the opening was
announced to Cuba from the U.S. Government, has repression in
Cuba increased or decreased?
Mr. Machado. It has increased because there is also more
activism.
Senator Menendez. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, one quick
question and then a comment.
Do you think that after the openings of relationships the
Castro regime thinks that they must change in terms of human
rights and democracy or have they already acquired what they
want?
Mr. Machado. Well, believing that would lead you to think
that by releasing ``El Chapo'' Guzman, he could change his
attitude.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Machado. Do you think that would be effective? A
murderer is a murderer.
Senator Menendez. By the way, a murderer is a murderer. I
get it. To your line of questioning, Mr. Chairman, of course in
Cuba if you want to do business, you have to do it with Raul's
son or his son-in-law, both high-ranking officials of the Cuban
military, both have run the two major entities, one on tourism
and its related industry, the other one in agriculture, so not
very capable of doing business with the Cuban people and
unlocking the freedom of the Cuban people to make money, decide
how--get paid directly by U.S. companies, be able to spend that
money in a way they want, including hiring some of their
relatives or friends and therefore create an economic movement
that creates freedom at the end of the day. So I appreciate
your line of questioning.
The last thing I want to say, I do not know when you are
going back to Cuba, but when you do, I want you to make sure
your contacts here in the United States, if you are arrested
again, I want you--I think the chairman and I would both want
to know immediately through your contacts because the--if there
is to be an embassy of the United States in Cuba, or for that
fact any place in the world, then it seems to me that in fact
there should be a vigorous pursuit of giving assistance to
human rights activists, political dissidents, independent
journalists who are jailed simply because they peacefully try
to express their position.
So I want to do--I hope what we have done in other parts of
the world when we did with Walesa and Vaclav Havel and others
is create this light upon the individual that hopefully creates
some degree of security for them. The regime does not seem to
care much about that, but at some point it has to give, and I
just want to--I appreciate you taking the risk to come here and
testify because your oppressors get to sit in the back row, but
in Cuba you cannot do that. And so to the extent that we can be
helpful to protect you, I want to make sure that you know that
you are not alone.
Senator Rubio. My final--and I have to ask you a final
question but there is one more. My colleagues, some will
wonder, well, if it is such a dictatorship, if it so
tyrannical, then why is Mr. Maldonado allowed to travel, come
here to the United States and say the things that he is saying.
In your opinion, why have they allowed you to be here today and
to testify?
Mr. Machado. Thanks to continuous movement of protest, the
world knows that there are dissidents in Cuba. They removed the
permit to travel. In the past, only they could travel. Now, all
can travel. I have faced difficulties to leave the country
sometimes and by that action being denounced, that prohibition
was removed. Maybe they hope that I will not be back.
Senator Rubio. Well, we appreciate all of you for being
here. The record is going to remain open for 48 hours, and I
thank you all again for your time and for your brave testimony.
And with that, this meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:09 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses of Carl Gershman to Questions
Submitted by Senator Tim Kaine
Question. There are various indices, including the Economist
Intelligence Unit, that measure the state of democracy in countries
around the world. Which of these do you find the most credible and
accurate, and why?
Answer. The various indices to which you refer exist precisely
because there is no consensus on how to conceptualize and measure
democracy. Consequently, different methodologies are employed by the
principal indices, which include the EIU's Democracy Index, Freedom
House, Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI), Democracy Barometer,
Freedom House, Polity IV, Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI),
Legatum, V-Dem, Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI), and the UNDP's
Electoral Democracy Index.
All such indices share the common problems of establishing a
precise and credible definition of democracy; identifying appropriate
indicators; aggregating quantitative or numerical data; and subjecting
the data to evaluation and judgments (the Freedom House, Polity IV and
EIU surveys all rely on expert's qualitative interpretation of
quantitative data).
These issues have been the subject of an intense debate amongst
academics and practitioners. The attached articles from the NED's
Journal of Democracy address some of the key issues.
Since its inception, the NED has been committed to a broad or
holistic interpretation of democracy rather than a 'minimalist'
definition that privileges elections, hence NED's mission to support
``the growth of a wide range of democratic institutions abroad,
including political parties, trade unions, free markets and business
organizations, as well as the many elements of a vibrant civil society
that ensure human rights, an independent media, and the rule of law.''
Consequently, and without discounting the value and insights of
other democracy indices, Freedom House's Freedom in the World--which
adopts a similarly holistic approach (including socio-economic rights
within political and civil liberties, for instance) - remains the
standard setter for gauging the condition and trajectory of democratic
governance and political and civil rights. Through a long-established
series of complementary annual reports, Freedom House's analytical team
has developed a significant specialization in standardized,
multicountry surveys.
By contrast, most of the other indices offer a partial or
specialized perspective. The Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI),
for instance, popular in Europe, assesses some dimensions of political
rights and civil liberties in over I 00 countries, but its conceptual
approach highlights ``transformational management'' in the context of
``good governance.'' The relatively new V-Dem (``Varieties of
Democracy''--see attached Journal of Democracy article), produced by an
international academic consortium, by contrast, seeks ``to distinguish
between seven high level principles of democracy'' (Electoral, Liberal,
Participatory, Majoritarian, Consensual, Deliberative, and
Egalitarian).
While the various indices offer distinctive insights, the principal
virtue of Freedom in the World is its accessibility and user-friendly
approach--one reason why the Freedom in the World data and supporting
narrative reports have become a crucial point of reference for
journalists and analysts. That the analysis is provided in a non-
academic, jargon-free, clear-minded way is also useful. Moreover, at a
time when undemocratic regimes have turned the manipulation of
information into an art form and facts are increasingly subject to
distortion, the grounded, rigorous numerical scores, succinct
narratives, and consistent reporting of Freedom in the World is
especially valuable.
Question. Further, which factors do you believe are the most
important to account for in determining a country's level of democracy
over time?
Answer. Measuring democracy is important to the Endowment and other
democracy assistance practitioners for several reasons, including:
gauging the state or quality of democracy in a particular country,
region or sphere in order to identify programmatic priorities;
identifying 'early warning signals' of democratic deterioration or
relapse;
program evaluation;
monitoring compliance with standards (e.g., Millennium Challenge
Account).
The NED's commitment to inclusive democracy (see above) is
consistent with the celebrated political scientist Robert Dahl's widely
accepted two-part definition of democracy as requiring at least
conleslation or compeliiion and participation or inclusion (the right
to vote, freedom of association, etc.). Consequently, the primary
factors of a healthy democracy would include free and fair elections,
the right to form political parties, competitiveness and prospects for
political turnover or alternation. These institutional prerequisites of
democracy, however, require a supportive substructure of secondary
factors, such as a robust civil society, free media, independent
judiciary, and a constitution with explicit guarantees of fundamental
rights.
But the emergence of 'competitive authoritarian' or hybrid regimes,
which hold elections (albeit flawed) and allow a degree of political
space for opposition voices, has highlighted the importance of
measuring democracy between elections and beyond formal institutions
and procedures. While the minimalist or electoral conception of
democracy has prioritized such factors as the integrity of the
electoral process and prospects for political alternation, hitherto
secondary factors deemed important for ensuring or supporting electoral
contestation are becoming primary indicators of the health or quality
of democracy, including:
rule of law and judicial independence;
transparency and horizontal accountability of state institutions;
media freedom and pluralism;
human rights and civil liberties (including minority rights), and
the autonomy and vibrancy of civil society.
There may be an academic case for prioritizing some indicators of
democracy over others, but from a practitioner perspective, the
assessment of which factors or indicators are most important in
determining a country's level of democracy over time depends to a large
extent on the specific country context and necessarily remains fluid,
responsive to trends and events. For example, few would have predicted
the corrosion of democratic institutions that is occurring in
'consolidated' democracies.
Accordingly, there may be a case for prioritizing factors such as
voice/accountability and issues of government effectiveness, especially
since democracy's perceived institutional failures threaten to
undermine its appeal and legitimacy.
[The material referred to above can be accessed in the documents
referenced in footnotes below.] \1\ \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Anxious Dictators, Wavering Democrats,'' Arch Puddington,
Tyler Roylance, Journal of Democracy, Volume 27, Number 2, April 2016,
pp. 86-100. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/614520.
\2\ ``V-Dem: A New Way to Measure Democracy,'' Staffan I. Lindberg,
Michael Coppedge, John Gerring, and Jan Teorell, Journal of Democracy,
Volume 25, Number 3, July 2014, pp. 159-169. https://muse.jhu.edu/
article/549506.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________
Response of Hon. Mark Green to Question
Submitted by Senator Tim Kaine
democracy data
Question. There are various indices, including the Economist
Intelligence Unit, that measure the state of democracy in countries
around the world. Which of these do you find the most credible and
accurate, and why? Further, which factors do you believe are the most
important to account for in determining a country's level of democracy
over time?
Answer. Indices that measure the state of democracy can be useful
for identifying trends in democratic development across countries and
over time. However, it is important to remember that there is no ``one-
size-fits-all'' model of democracy. All democracies are works in
progress: they are complex, dynamic, and vary depending on culture and
context. For this reason, no matter how comprehensive and well-
conceived an index is, it's important to critically assess the measures
an index score is based on; to compare those measures with data from
other sources (including other indices); and to place improvements or
declines in scores in context through in-depth qualitative analysis.
That being said, the approach taken by the Millennium Challenge
Corporation (MCC) indices is useful. Using data drawn from Freedom
House, the MCC determines whether a country meets a ``hard hurdle'' of
basic political and/or civil rights, and incorporates additional data
from several different sources to assess government effectiveness,
transparency and responsiveness. MCC now has a decade of experience
applying its democracy measurement approach in a wide range of
settings, and their index has become increasingly recognized and
accepted, especially in lower-income and lower middle-income countries.
__________
Response of Kenneth Wollack to Question
Submitted by Senator Tim Kaine
democracy data
Question. There are various indices, including the Economist
Intelligence Unit, that measure the state of democracy in countries
around the world. Which of these do you find the most credible and
accurate, and why? Further, which factors do you believe are the most
important to account for in determining a country's level of democracy
over time?
Answer. There are a number of credible indices on the state of
democracy globally and in particular countries. The Economist
Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index, Freedom House's Freedom in the
World Reports, and Bertelsmann's Transformations Index are among them.
They each are very helpful, though each also has constraints largely
defined by the combination of necessarily limited factors they consider
and emphases they embrace. It is best to look at a combination of the
indices, rather than to focus on just one, and to compare them over a
period of years, rather than to accept a 1-year snapshot as definitive.
It is also best to look at them together with other indices that are
relevant to democratization, like Transparency International's
Corruption Perception Index, Reporters without Borders' World Press
Freedom Index, and the Fraser Institute's Economic Freedom Ranking.
Moreover, an index by nature assigns weight to a particular set of
indicators, usually grouped by subject areas, and it then assigns an
overall score to each country it considers. There are also important
nuances, which highlight the need to consider reports on particular
countries and subjects across a number of countries. The U. S.
Department of State's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices and
reports of credible nongovernmental and intergovernmental organizations
on elections, gender and politics, rule of law development, human
rights and other issues are indispensable for understanding the state
of democracy and trends of particular countries and globally. The
UNDP's Human Development Reports and their related indices are valuable
resources when considering global trends.
There are key principles that underpin democracy, each comprise a
number of factors. The principles guide analysis the democratic health
of a country's governance, political processes, elections, and broader
civic engagements. The three main principles are: inclusiveness;
transparency, and accountability.
Inclusiveness is at the core of the social contract between and
among citizens, civic organizations including political parties, and
government institutions and processes including elections. The
democratic norms of universal and equal suffrage and of equality before
the law and equal protection of the law embody the principle of
inclusiveness. It is essential to realization of civil liberties and
economic opportunity.
Transparency is essential for democratic governance. The authority
of democratic government derives from the will of the people expressed
in genuine elections. Democratic governance depends on citizens
exercising their right to participate in government and public affairs
beyond elections. An informed vote and informed participation is
impossible without sufficient and accurate information about
governmental processes, policies and performance. This explains why
democratic government is open government, and why citizens have a right
to know about government information with only certain narrow
exceptions that must provide for their oversight.
Accountability is synonymous with democratic governance. Government
in all of its facets must be accountable to the people, and every
person must be accountable before the law in a democracy.
Accountability encompasses various mechanisms and processes from the
functioning of checks and balances among government branches, to the
means for citizens to question policy formulation and implementation or
lodge complaints, to avenues for examining the functioning of rule of
law institutions, to the conduct of credible elections that allow
citizens to hold elected officials to account. The principle of
accountability is essential to combatting corruption and impunity and
is vital to democracy delivering improved quality of life.
The number of specific factors to examine vary depending for
example on whether press freedoms, women's participation, economic
justice, or electoral integrity are the subject of democratic inquiry.
In each case the analysis should be guided by evaluating how basic
democratic principles are being respected.
[all]