    [Senate Hearing 115-]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

      STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2018

                                  ----------

                              TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2017

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The subcommittee met at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Lindsey Graham (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Graham, Moran, Boozman, Daines, Leahy,
    Durbin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy and Van Hollen.

                       UNITED STATES DEMOCRACY ASSISTANCE

    STATEMENTS OF:
            HON. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, THE NATIONAL
                DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTE
            HON. STEPHEN HADLEY, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, THE UNITED STATES
                INSTITUTE OF PEACE
            HON. VIN WEBER, CO-VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, THE NATIONAL
                ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY
            HON. JAMES KOLBE, VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, THE INTERNATIONAL
                REPUBLICAN INSTITUTE
    TESTIMONY FROM DEMOCRACY PROGRAM BENEFICIARIES

    OUTSIDE WITNESS TESTIMONY SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE
                HEARING

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM

        Senator Graham. Thank you all. The subcommittee will come
    to order. Today, our hearing is on United States Democracy
    Assistance. I would like to welcome our witnesses who deserve
    long, glowing introductions--but you're not going to get one
    because we got to get on one with the hearing.
        We've got Madeleine Albright, Chairman of the Board of the
    National Democratic Institute and former Secretary of State.
    Welcome, Ms. Albright.
        James Kolbe, Vice-Chairman of the Board of the
    International Republican Institute. Jim, welcome.
        Vin Weber, Co-Vice Chairman of the Board of the National
    Endowment for Democracy, all around good guy, Republican type.
        Stephen Hadley, Chairman of the Board of the United States
    Institute of Peace. You are going to be in business for a long
    time. A lot of peace to be had out there. Former National
    Security Advisor for President Bush 43.
        Thank you, all. Senator Leahy is on the way. The
    subcommittee provides about $2.3 billion for democracy
    programs. I do not know what that is in terms of the total
    budget but perhaps one-tenth of one percent. Not much. The
    money is well utilized and we're going to make a case why
    America should be investing in democracy. The best case I can
    make is I cannot remember a war between two democracies. So, if
    you can ever get to democratic stability and democratic
    institutions rise from the ashes of strong man rule or
    dictatorships which is very hard to do, you'll find somebody
    you can do business with who probably won't kill you.
        A little bit about this account. We have asked people who
    benefit from democracy programs to give us their views of the
    importance of these programs.
        ``I've always admired the United States for its fundamental
    values of democracy, freedom and rule of law and so its
    institutions and people have the ability to help encourage the
    promotion of these positive principles,'' said the Dalai Lama.
        ``The question is what sort of world do we want? I have
    personally seen the benefits of that strong, inclusive
    democracies can have and I do not want to see my country, my
    region, my world turned back. Without the leadership of the
    United States, there will be others that will fill the void,
    others that do not share the values of freedom of speech,
    freedom of association, freedom to choose.'' That is the former
    Foreign Minister of Mongolia whose name I cannot pronounce, but
    I agree with everything he said.
        The bottom line is I've got a treasure trove of validation
    from those who have been on the receiving end of democracy
    programs. North Korean human rights groups, ``without the
    material and institutional support of NED, the National
    Endowment for Democracy, the North Korean Human Rights
    Movements as we know it today would not have existed.''
        On and on and on. What I want the American people to know
    that your tax dollars are hard to come by, we're in debt but as
    a nation, we need to stay involved in the world. The world will
    be involved with us whether we like it or not. I'd like to
    choose the terms of our involvement. When it comes to
    terrorism, the goal is to kill the idea, just not the terrorist
    because you kill a terrorist, you'll get a new one. If you kill
    the idea, then we win and I think most people do not want to go
    down the road that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant,
    Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have charted for them. Those who are
    wishing to say no just need our help.
        I am a pretty hawkish guy, but soft power is every bit as
    important as hard power. How do you hold Mosul, Raqqa, et
    cetera, if you do not have a soft power component? We will fail
    and we will be right back at it again. The terrorist offer a
    glorious death. We need to offer a hopeful life and a hopeful
    life comes from being able to choose your leaders, resolve your
    differences in a court that's fair and impartial and be able to
    speak without fear.
        That is what democracy programs are all about. That is why
    we are having this hearing.
        Would you like to say something, Senator Durbin, until
    Senator Leahy gets here?
        Senator Durbin. Just briefly. The question that comes to my
    mind, Vladimir Putin is developing some pretty effective tools
    for undermining democracy. What tools are we developing to
    undermine authoritarianism?
        Senator Graham. Great question and if it is okay, we will
    just start with our witnesses. Ladies, first.
    STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, CHAIRMAN OF THE
                BOARD, THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTE
        Ms. Albright. Thank you. Chairman Graham and when the
    Ranking Member Leahy gets here and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee, and thank you so much for holding this hearing on
    the importance of U.S. democracy assistance and for inviting me
    to testify as Chairman of the Board of the National Democratic
    Institute.
        And it's my pleasure to really appear alongside some good
    friends.
        Before I begin, I really do want to pay my deepest respect
    and appreciation for the vital role this subcommittee has
    played in sustaining and strengthening the non-military tools
    of American power. Experience has taught me that diplomacy,
    development, and democracy are as integral to our national
    security as defense, which Chairman Graham is really the answer
    to the taxpayers.
        In today's uncertain and dangerous world, we weaken these
    national security tools at our peril. Nevertheless, there are
    still some in Washington and elsewhere who believe that
    promoting democracy doesn't qualify as real foreign policy.
    They see little connection between fostering democratic
    practices and hardheaded pursuit of American interests.
        But our wisest leaders, Democrats and Republicans alike,
    have always understood that American foreign policy must be
    shaped not solely on the basis of what we are against, but also
    what we are for. And our interests dictate that we should be
    for a world in which democracy is defended and universal values
    upheld.
        Yesterday marked 72 years since the end of World War II in
    Europe. At the time I was 7 years old and a refugee living in
    London all through the Blitz and I was there with my family and
    I will never forget the elation that we all felt.
        In the decades that followed, we learned that democracy's
    more than just another form of government. It's also a powerful
    generator of international security, prosperity and peace and
    that is because while democracy may not provide a guarantee
    against aggression, it is the best political insurance
    available.
        Governments that are publically accountable rarely start
    wars while regimes that run roughshod over their own citizens
    are often indifferent to the rights of their neighbors.
        Moreover, in today's world, destabilizing conflicts that
    threaten U.S. interests erupt more frequently within societies
    than between them.
        And here again, democracies have a clear advantage because
    they embrace pluralism, encourage tolerance and enable citizens
    to pursue change in a lawful and peaceful way. It's no
    coincidence that the hotspots most likely to harbor terrorists
    and generate waves of refugees are in the areas of the world
    that are non-democratic. Meanwhile, democratic nations are more
    likely to support timely international action to fight
    terrorism, trafficking and disease.
        Democracy also has the best record of fostering the
    stability, openness and dynamism required for global economic
    growth, which is itself another important U.S. national
    security interest.
        I've been in many arguments about which comes first,
    economic or political development. The truth is they go
    together. Democracy has to deliver because people want to vote
    and eat.
        For all these reasons, the health of democracy is clearly
    vital to America's interest and my central message today is
    that promoting democracy is not just right; it is also
    necessary, smart and cost-effective. After all, foreign
    assistance is only about 1 percent of the total U.S. budget and
    democracy assistance represents just 4 percent of that.
        The question is how to go about promoting democracy. In any
    society, building democracy is never easy, never fully
    accomplished and it's something to be worked on, step by step,
    country by country, day by day. And that's precisely the
    philosophy that has guided the National Endowment for Democracy
    and our four core institutions--NDI, the International
    Republican Institute, the Center for International Private
    Enterprise, and the Solidarity Center.
        As you know, the NED and the institutes grew out a speech
    that President Reagan made to the British Parliament, in which
    he stated and I quote, ``Our military strength is a
    prerequisite to peace, but let it be clear we maintain this
    strength in the hope it will never be used, for the ultimate
    determinant in the struggle that's now going on in the world
    will not be bombs and rockets, but a test of wills and ideas, a
    trial of spiritual resolve, the values we hold, the beliefs we
    cherish, the ideals to which we are dedicated.'' And those
    words remain true today and the work of the NED and its
    institute remains vital to our national security.
        I've seen the work of these organizations up close. They
    have developed relationships at the highest levels of
    government across party lines and at the grass roots and their
    programs are serving important U.S. strategic interests as are
    the efforts of the U.S. Institute of Peace.
        My submitted testimony includes examples of NDI's positive
    effect. In Iraq, NDI opinion research is helping us understand
    what kind of governance Iraqi citizens want in a post-
    liberation Mosul. In Syria, we are advising local citizens and
    groups and administrative councils in dozens of community and
    in Ukraine, NDI and its European partners have brought together
    all eight party factions in the Parliament to agree on
    procedures that will make it easier to build consensus around
    economic and political reform.
        As our experience in these countries demonstrates, there's
    nothing automatic or easy about democratic change but we should
    remember that the mission of U.S. democracy assistance is not
    to impose democracy. That is an oxymoron. Democracy is not a
    product or a service. It cannot be exported or imported. It
    must grow from within. However, the United States can help
    plant the seed with democracy assistance and that money is well
    spent.
        Thanks to the tremendous efforts of this subcommittee, the
    omnibus appropriations act enacted by Congress last week
    provides full funding for democracy assistance, but as welcome
    as this step is, I'm concerned about the future. The so-called
    ``skinny'' budget proposal includes steep and arbitrary cuts to
    the State Department and international affairs' budget which
    would inflict irreparable harm on democracy assistance, as well
    as other vital diplomatic and development programs.
        At the same time, the cement appears to be hardening on a
    new global split between democratic and undemocratic forces.
    The United States must stand with small democrats and not give
    any encouragement to authoritarians and that means we must
    uphold both our principles and our interests as we pursue our
    foreign policy. America's leaders have always needed to weigh a
    variety of factors when deciding which foreign governments to
    support. It is sometimes necessary to make alliances of
    convenience with countries that do not share our values. But
    even when we make such arrangements, we should never lose sight
    of our long-term interests. Democracy and human rights must
    always be a pillar of our national security strategy and part
    of our bilateral agenda even with those countries where they're
    in short supply. Without this commitment, American foreign
    policy would lose its moral compass, it's most compelling claim
    to global respect and ultimately the support and understanding
    of the American people.
        Make no mistake, shedding our support for democracy would
    put in jeopardy our long-term economic, political and security
    interests. We must never forget that freedom is perhaps the
    clearest expression of national purpose ever adopted and it's
    America's purpose. Like other profound human aspirations, it
    can never be fully achieved; it is not a possession; it is a
    pursuit. And it is the star by which American foreign policy
    must continue to navigate in the years.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, your ongoing
    leadership is essential if America is going to continue to lead
    the roster of democracy champions.
        Thank you so very much for allowing us to testify.
        [The statement follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Hon. Madeleine K. Albright
        Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Leahy, distinguished members of the
    subcommittee: Thank you for holding today's hearing on U.S. democracy
    assistance and for inviting me to testify as Chairman of the Board of
    the National Democratic Institute.
        Before I begin, I want to express my deepest respect and
    appreciation for the vital role this subcommittee has played in
    sustaining and strengthening the non-military tools of American power.
    Experience has taught me that diplomacy, development, and democracy are
    as integral to our national security as defense. In today's uncertain
    and dangerous world, we weaken these national security tools at our
    peril.
        I am pleased today to be able to appear alongside three good
    friends.
        When I was in office, Jim Kolbe was a key partner on foreign
    assistance programs in Congress.
        A few years after I left government, I had the opportunity to work
    with Vin Weber on a Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on
    democracy in the Arab world.
        And more recently, Steve Hadley and I co-chaired the Atlantic
    Council's Middle East Strategy Task Force, which identified failures in
    governance as the root cause of the crisis in the region, and
    recommended that the international community focus more of its efforts
    on long-term institution building in the Middle East. The kind of
    support offered by democracy assistance programs and by independent
    organizations such as the U.S. Institute of Peace is a vital component
    of the strategy we proposed.

        With that in mind, my testimony today will focus on three areas:

      --First, the link between the growth of democracy abroad and our
            security here at home;
      --Second, the strategic impact of U.S. democracy assistance programs;
      --Third, the role of democracy assistance in addressing the threats
            and challenges facing America in the world.

        There are still some in Washington and elsewhere who believe that
    promoting democracy does not qualify as real foreign policy. They see
    little connection between fostering democratic practices and the hard-
    headed pursuit of American interests.
        But our wisest leaders, Democrats and Republicans alike, have
    always understood that American foreign policy must be shaped not
    solely on the basis of what we are against, but also what we are for.
    And our interests dictate that we should be for a world in which
    democracy is defended and universal values upheld.
        The past 70 years provides ample proof that democracy is more than
    just another form of government; it is also a powerful generator of
    international security, prosperity, and peace.
        Yesterday, May 8, marked 72 years since the end of World War II in
    Europe. In the years that followed, democracy helped Germany and Japan
    become integrated into the world economy and evolve into key allies of
    the United States.
        Forty years later, the promise of democracy inspired Solidarity,
    the Velvet Revolution and other movements that lifted the Iron Curtain
    and ended Cold War security threats.
        The democratic gains that followed in the 1990s inspired the
    enlargement of NATO and opened the door to EU expansion. They allowed
    us to work with our neighbors in this hemisphere more closely than ever
    to broaden prosperity, address social ills, and expand the rule of law.
    They enabled countries in the Asia-Pacific region--including Indonesia,
    India and South Korea--to achieve new levels of prosperity and become
    economic and strategic partners for the United States. And in Africa,
    the steady growth of democracy has led to improvements in development,
    health, and security across the continent.
        When the Cold War ended, many felt democracy was in command and
    marching on the right side of history. But in the years since, that
    sense of euphoria has dissipated. The financial crisis, and growing
    gaps between rich and poor, have fueled anger and deepened doubts about
    the capacity of democracy to deliver on its promises. Recent progress
    in a few key countries and regions has been overshadowed by renewed
    authoritarianism in Russia, democratic backsliding in places such as
    Turkey, the rise of illiberal populism in Europe, state collapse in an
    authoritarian Venezuela, and the breakdown of order in parts of the
    Middle East and North Africa.
        While history's direction no longer seems so obvious, we know that
    America's security needs will be influenced greatly by whether freedom
    finds a foothold in nations where democratic forces are being
    repressed.
        That is because while democracy may not provide a guarantee against
    aggression, it is the best political insurance available. Governments
    that are publicly accountable rarely start wars; while regimes that run
    roughshod over their own citizens are often indifferent to the rights
    of their neighbors.
        Moreover, in today's world, destabilizing conflicts that threaten
    U.S. interests erupt more frequently within societies than between
    them. Here again, democracies have a clear advantage, because they
    embrace pluralism, encourage tolerance, and enable citizens to pursue
    change in a lawful and peaceful way.
        It is no coincidence that the hotspots most likely to harbor
    terrorists, generate waves and refugees, and produce illegal drugs are
    in areas of the world that are nondemocratic. Meanwhile, democratic
    nations are more likely to support timely international action to fight
    terrorism, trafficking, and disease.
        It is true that democratic transitions can produce disorder in the
    short term, but history tells us that over the long term the opposite
    is true. As the legacy of totalitarianism attests, it is the denial of
    freedom that points the way most often to civil conflict and war.
        At its best, democracy can produce the kind of stability that
    lasts, a stability built on the firm ground of mutual commitments and
    consent. This differs from the illusion of order that can be maintained
    only as long as dissent is silenced; the kind of order that may last
    for decades and yet still disappear overnight.
        Democracy also has the best record of fostering the stability,
    openness, and dynamism required for global economic growth, which is
    itself another important U.S. national security interest.
        I have been in many arguments about which comes first, economic or
    political development. But experience has taught us that democracy and
    development reinforce each other. Societies grow more quickly and
    strongly if people are free to express their ideas, market their labor,
    and pursue a better life.
        For all these reasons, the health of democracy is clearly vital to
    America's interests. And my central message today is that promoting
    democracy is not just right; it is also necessary, smart, and cost-
    effective. After all, foreign assistance is only about 1 percent of the
    total U.S. budget; and democracy assistance represents just 4 percent
    of our foreign aid.
        The question is how to go about promoting democracy. Because in any
    society, building democracy is never easy and never fully accomplished;
    it is something to be worked toward, step by step, country by country,
    day by day.
        This is precisely the philosophy that has guided the National
    Endowment for Democracy and its four core institutes--NDI, the
    International Republican Institute, the Center for International
    Private Enterprise, and the Solidarity Center.
        As you know, NED and the party institutes grew out of President
    Reagan's speech to the British Parliament, in which he stated that
    ``Our military strength is a prerequisite to peace, but let it be clear
    we maintain this strength in the hope it will never be used, for the
    ultimate determinant in the struggle that's now going on in the world
    will not be bombs and rockets, but a test of wills and ideas, a trial
    of spiritual resolve, the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish, the
    ideals to which we are dedicated.''
        Those words remain true today.
        I am proud to have served as NDI's founding Vice Chair, and after
    stepping away from NDI for 8 years during the Clinton administration, I
    became Chairman of the Board of the Institute in 2001--a position I
    have held ever since.
        My experience gives me a unique perspective on how NDI and the
    other core institutes of the NED have worked to help advance U.S.
    strategic interests around the world, along with the important efforts
    of USAID, the State Department's Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and
    Labor, and the Middle East Partnership Initiative of the Near East
    Affairs Bureau. I have seen the work of these organizations up close.
    They have developed relationships at the highest levels of government,
    across party lines and at the grass roots.
        Having worked on these issues in an out of government, I can say
    that the pluralistic approach the United States has taken to democracy
    assistance has served it well. 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 on democracy issues is more difficult.
        The truth is that while the U.S. Government--including the White
    House, State Department, Congress, and overseas embassies--must set the
    tone and provide needed resources for democracy assistance, much of the
    day-to-day democratic development can and should be carried out, with
    proper oversight, by nongovernmental organizations, which operate in
    the realm of people-to-people relations.
        Although conducted at a distance from the U.S. Government, these
    programs serve important U.S. strategic interests.
        We see this in Iraq, where NDI has been on the ground for more than
    a dozen years. In recent months, NDI public opinion research has been
    identifying what kind of governing structures local residents want in
    post-liberation Mosul and elsewhere in the country.
        This research is critical because experience has shown that
    military operations to root out terrorism will succeed over the long
    term only if they are followed by sustainable improvements in
    governance with institutions that enjoy the confidence of the public.
    The work that NDI is doing to understand the preferences and attitudes
    of Sunni, Shia, and minority populations, combined with our work in the
    field to empower local partners, can help enable those improvements in
    governance to take root.
        The same is true across the border in Syria, where more than thirty
    NDI governance advisers are working each day helping to advise local
    citizen groups and administrative councils in dozens of communities
    across northern Syria. Thousands of consultations and training sessions
    have been conducted, reaching more than 500 council members and 7,000
    civic activists. The growing relationships between citizens and these
    councils are, under challenging circumstances, improving living
    conditions and creating a culture of democratic governance.
        These civic groups and councils are also directly challenging
    extremist groups. As one regional observer put it, ``you may think
    Syrians are condemned to an unpleasant choice between Bashar Al-Asad
    and the jihadists, but the real choice being fought out by the Syrians
    is between violent authoritarianism on the one hand and grassroots
    democracy on the other.''
        In the Middle East and elsewhere, the mission of U.S. democracy
    assistance is not to impose democracy. That is an oxymoron. Democracy
    is not a product or a service. It cannot be exported or imported. It
    must grow from within.
        Still, there is no truth to the argument that democracy is not
    suited to certain regions. Democratic elements are present in every
    major culture. Similarly, no nation is unready for democracy, because
    no country is ready for dictatorship.
        Yet if democracy is going to take root, we have learned that it
    must be accompanied by policies that will improve the living standards
    for the many, not just the privileged few. In short, the institutions
    of democracy must deliver. People want to vote and eat.
        To that end, deepening democracy so that it can deliver tangible
    improvements to people's lives must become even more of a focus for
    U.S. democracy assistance.
        The stakes for democracy's success are high in Ukraine, where NDI
    and its European partners have brought together all eight party
    factions in the parliament to agree on procedures that will make it
    easier to build consensus around economic and political reforms. The
    dialogue has taken place in Belgium, France, and Ukraine, and the
    feedback we have received has been positive. NDI is also supporting
    local civil society groups and larger national organizations who are
    pushing for economic and political change, and advocating for more
    women in elected office.
        These efforts are producing results, as citizens without prior
    experience in activism are participating in decisionmaking in large
    numbers. Through NDI programs alone, more than 45,000 citizens have
    engaged directly in the national reform process, including a
    decentralization process that 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.
        There is nothing automatic or easy about democratic change. But
    American freedom, prosperity and peace depend, in large measure, on
    whether democratic institutions succeed around the world. That depends,
    in turn, on America's willingness to continue working with our partners
    to promote democracy. And that depends on whether the administration
    and Congress provide the resources required for our most effective
    democracy-builders to do their jobs.
        Thanks to the tremendous efforts of this subcommittee, the omnibus
    appropriations act enacted by Congress last week provides full funding
    for democracy assistance and will enable NDI, the other NED-affiliated
    institutes and other groups to carry on vital work for the remainder of
    the fiscal year.
        Republicans and Democrats alike have expressed strong support for
    elevating democracy and human rights in our foreign policy, including
    in a bipartisan letter sent to President Trump last week.
        As welcome as these steps may be, there is much to be concerned
    about regarding the future of U.S. democracy assistance.
        The so-called ``skinny'' budget proposal includes steep and
    arbitrary cuts to the State Department and international affairs budget
    which would inflict irreparable harm on democracy assistance, as well
    as other vital diplomatic and development programs.
        At the same time, the cement appears to be hardening on a new
    global split between democratic and undemocratic forces. On one side is
    our Community of Democracies, on the other is a Community of Dictators.
    More than 25 years after the Cold War, we do not want Vladimir Putin--
    rather than the likes of Havel, Walesa, or Mandela--to point the way to
    the future.
        We must not provide these undemocratic forces encouragement, and
    that means the United States must not make the mistake of casting aside
    issues of democracy and human rights when it conducts its foreign
    policy.
        I am nearly 80 years old, without stars in my eyes. I understand
    that no system of government, not even democracy, guarantees prosperity
    or peace. Our leaders must weigh a variety of factors when deciding
    which foreign governments to support. It is sometimes necessary to make
    alliances of convenience with countries that do not share our values.
        Even when we make such arrangements, we should never lose sight of
    our long-term interests in promoting and sustaining democratic
    governance, which is ultimately the best guarantor of peace, prosperity
    and stability. This means democracy and human rights must always be a
    pillar of our national security strategy and a part of our bilateral
    agenda, even with those countries where they are in short supply. And
    that agenda includes the types of programs we are discussing today.
        Moving forward, we must remember that the alternative to support
    for democracy is complicity in the rule of governments that lack the
    blessing of their own people. That policy would betray those who are
    most sympathetic to our values and reveal a preference for the sterile
    order of repression over the rich and self-correcting sustainability of
    a free society. Such a preference might be expected of leaders from
    Moscow or Beijing, but not America or the community of democratic
    nations.
        The truth is that our values and our interests are not in conflict
    with each other. Our principles and our interests coincide, and if we
    do not act accordingly, we will serve neither effectively. If America
    is lukewarm or transparently hypocritical in its support for democracy,
    we will do more damage to our long-term interests than any short-term
    gains secured by a cynical approach. The more democracy is challenged,
    the more its champions must insist on its validity as the best system
    of governments humans have devised.
        Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee: your leadership is
    essential if America is to continue to lead the roster of democracy's
    champions. And much depends upon whether we do. Because the defining
    struggle of the 21st century is not, as many predicted, a clash of
    religious civilizations; it is instead a competition between democratic
    and autocratic systems of government.
        Our adversaries are determined to exploit democracy's openness, as
    we have seen with Russia's attempts to interfere in democratic
    elections around the world. But those who wish to tear democracy down
    can succeed only if democracy's guardians are too complacent, too
    divided, too timid, or too stuck in the past to stop them.
        The mission for small ``d'' democrats like us therefore begins with
    continuing our support for countries such as Ukraine, Burma, and
    Tunisia that are in the midst of a democratic transition and in need of
    outside support; but it cannot stop there.
        Ultimately, our ability to promote democracy successfully depends
    on the credibility and appeal of our example. It is hard to persuade
    others to follow our lead when all they see is gridlock and
    partisanship. But in a free country, the solution to setbacks can be
    found--not by bowing to the false gods of nationalism and tyranny--but
    by building better, more flexible and responsive institutions.
        To lead successfully, we must adjust to the ubiquity of social
    media, the changing nature of the workplace, and the desire that people
    everywhere have for sources of constancy in their lives.
        We must place a priority on ways to stimulate economic growth while
    simultaneously narrowing the gaps between rich and poor, urban and
    rural, women and men, skilled and unskilled.
        We must work across borders to respond to transnational challenges,
    including terrorism, climate change, sectarian violence, and too many
    people chasing too few jobs.
        Above all, we must recognize that democracy's unique virtue is its
    ability--through reason and the kind of open debate that is the
    hallmark of the U.S. Congress--to find remedies for its own
    shortcomings.
        That job is within our power to do, and we had better get on with
    it before it is too late.
        Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee: make no mistake,
    building democracy at home and supporting democratic institutions
    abroad is the continuation of heroic work. Without this commitment,
    American foreign policy would lose its moral compass, its most
    compelling claim to global respect, and ultimately, the support and
    understanding of the American people. Shedding our support for
    democracy would put in jeopardy our long-term economic, political, and
    security interests.
        Freedom is perhaps the clearest expression of national purpose ever
    adopted, and it is America's purpose. Like other profound human
    aspirations, it can never fully be achieved. It is not a possession; it
    is a pursuit. And it is the star by which American foreign policy must
    continue to navigate in the years to come.
        I want once again to thank each of you for the efforts you make
    every day on behalf of our Nation and the principles we have cherished
    for more than two centuries.
        I appreciate deeply the opportunity to testify before you, and I
    look forward to your questions.

        Senator Graham. Thank you all for taking time out of your
    schedules to come. Senator Leahy, would you like to say
    anything?

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

        Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, I want to apologize for being
    late. I was at another meeting about foreign operations.
    Everyone of these witnesses is a friend of mine. Secretary
    Albright, Mr. Hadley and Congressman Vin Weber, and Congressman
    Jim Kolbe who held the position you presently hold, Mr.
    Chairman, in the House. Thank you all for being here.
        I don't want to sound partisan but I worry when our
    President calls Vladimir Putin a strong leader or calls Egypt's
    President el-Sisi a fantastic guy or congratulating Turkey's
    President Erdogan on his recent consolidation of power and
    inviting Philippine President Duterte to the White House, a man
    who has condoned and even claimed that he himself has committed
    murders in his country. We see members of religious groups,
    reporters, activists being locked up.
        We have to understand that many times in these societies,
    they look to us to help them speak out. What happens if we cut
    these programs as some have proposed? What does it mean for
    civil society organizations in Russia, Egypt, Venezuela,
    Cambodia, and so many other countries? But also, what does it
    say about the United States?
        We have so much to be proud of in this country and we have
    done so much, Republicans and Democrats working to support the
    best about this country. We're not going to create exact models
    of the United States around the world. No, but we can bring our
    principles of democracy and freedom, speech, religion,
    assembly, and encourage others. I think, as the most powerful,
    wealthiest nation on earth, we have a moral responsibility to
    do that. Let the people in those countries decide, but we can
    help them do it.
        Mr. Chairman, you and I have worked together for years on
    these programs and I'm sure we'll continue to. But, I also want
    to thank these four. You couldn't have four better voices
    testifying here today.
        Senator Graham. Thank you, Senator Leahy.
        Mr. Hadley.
    STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHEN HADLEY, CHAIRMAN OF THE
                BOARD, THE UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE
        Mr. Hadley. Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Leahy, and
    distinguished members of the subcommittee, I'd like to say a
    word about the role of democratic values in America's foreign
    policy and what is required for democracy assistance to succeed
    in today's world.
        America has always been about its principles. Its history
    has been the record of its struggle to realize these principles
    at home and to advance them abroad. Freedom, democracy, human
    rights, and the rule of law are the very DNA of this Nation.
    Most every nation on earth was formed on the basis of a common
    language, an accepted culture, or a shared ethnic identity.
    America was not. It was formed on the basis of a set of
    principles that were enshrined in the founding documents,
    embraced by our citizens, and have attracted immigrants from
    all over the world. And because the founders of this Nation
    believed that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were
    endowed by their Creator to all men and women, these principles
    applies not just to Americans but to men and women around the
    world.
        Political democracy and free markets were the core of the
    rules-based international order that America and Europe created
    in the aftermath of World War II. And every war that America
    has fought since that time has been fought in the name of
    advancing the cause of freedom, democracy, human rights, and
    the rule of law.
        America has never accepted the idea that it had to choose
    between its democratic principles and its interests. This is a
    false choice. Advancing freedom and democracy in the world also
    advances American interests. For a world that reflects these
    principles, is more likely to be a world in which America and
    Americans can thrive and prosper. And it is also more likely to
    be a world of peace and security. Nations operating on
    democratic principles are better able to manage internal
    conflict so that it does not become violent and tear apart
    families and communities, undercut economic progress and
    development, and spark regional and even international
    violence.
        This is why programs to advance social justice, security,
    and rule of law in fragile states, to foster inclusive
    societies, and to promote free and fair elections unaffected by
    electoral violence are so critical. The organizations
    represented by the witnesses before you today all engage in
    this important work. It is critical to developing and
    sustaining durable and peaceful democracies; and, it is
    critical to avoid the violent conflicts that too often have
    required U.S. military intervention, with all its attendant
    costs in lives and treasure.
        Let me give you just three quick examples from the work of
    the U.S. Institute of Peace, whose board of directors I chair.
        In Iraq, USIP has brokered peace accords among tribal
    leaders to sustain the precious gains of our military,
    intelligence officers, and diplomats. Ten years ago, U.S. Army
    Colonel Michael M. Kershaw asked USIP to preempt cycles of
    tribal revenge killings in the Mahmoudiya region, known as the
    Triangle of Death in Iraq. USIP orchestrated a reconciliation
    process that helped heal the sectarian wounds of conflict and
    facilitated a peace agreement that has lasted 10 years.
        USIP successfully repeated this process last year in
    Tikrit, where over 380,000 Iraqis have now been able to return
    to their homes; in Kirkuk, where 50 tribal and religious
    leaders recently signed a preliminary peace agreement; and,
    most recently, in Mosul, where USIP has begun similar work in
    neighboring communities. I could say a word about what we're
    doing in Tunisia, also in Nigeria.
        This is what USIP is engaged in every day and I want to
    thank the support of this subcommittee, in 2017, the fiscal
    year, where USIP will be able to increase its work in Tunisia,
    Iraq, and Nigeria. Your support will be even more essential in
    2018. The OMB's skinny budget has slated USIP for elimination,
    something I can't understand given the contribution it makes to
    reducing conflict, saving U.S. lives and U.S. taxpayers' money.
    So, the support of this subcommittee will be essential to
    ensure that USIP and the other organizations represented before
    you today can continue their critical work in support of
    America's national security and its men and women in uniform.
        Traditionally America has sought to advance its democratic
    principles through these kinds of programs and through
    partnerships with non-governmental organizations. As you know,
    a number of these programs are now under attack. Democracy
    seems to be on the defensive in the world today and freedom on
    the decline. Part of it is because democracies have failed to
    deliver as Madeleine mentioned but also it is because the
    authoritarian states are now mounting a concerted campaign to
    undermine democratic principles not only in their states at
    home but also abroad. There are other factors, which we can
    talk about.
        Question, what is to be done? We should actively support
    those international organizations like Community of Democracies
    and the Open Government Partnership that promote democratic
    norms and principles. Same for organizations like the
    Organization of American States and the African Union.
        We have to recognize that while advancing democratic values
    abroad, it is very much in America's interest, it is not
    America's only interest. We have others. We need to have an
    interagency structure for make tradeoffs.
        We should integrate democracy programming in a broader
    process for addressing and balancing the full range of our
    interests.
        We should certainly reform and make more effective the
    organizations and programs that promote democratic principles.
    But deep, arbitrary, and across-the-board cuts in their budgets
    risks throwing the baby out with the bath water.
        We need to support local civil society; we need to empower
    individual citizens and citizen groups with new communication
    and social media technologies.
        Finally, we need to promote democratic principles
    effectively abroad and we can only do that if we can show the
    world that the principles of freedom, democracy, human rights
    and rule of law are working effectively here at home.
        A positive American example may not cause entrenched
    authoritarian leaders to see the light but it will inspire
    their people and will give them hope. We need to show them that
    the American political and economic system works; we need to
    overcome our political gridlock; we need to show that our
    economic system can provide inclusive economic growth that is
    on a sustainable basis that benefits all Americans. If we fix
    the American system at home, it will help fix our brand abroad
    and counter the narrative of authoritarian states that
    democracy is dead and buried.
        Thank you very much for your time and attention.
        [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Hon. Stephen J. Hadley
        Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Leahy, and distinguished members of
    the subcommittee. It is an honor and a privilege to have the
    opportunity to appear before you today--and especially to do so with my
    friends and colleagues Madeleine Albright, Jim Kolbe, and Vin Weber.
        With the permission of the subcommittee, I would like to offer a
    few thoughts about the critical role of democratic values in America's
    foreign policy and what is required for democracy assistance to succeed
    in the world of today.
        America has always been about its principles. Its history has been
    the record of its struggle to realize these principles at home and to
    advance them abroad.
        Freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law are the very
    DNA of this Nation. Most every nation on earth was formed on the basis
    of a common language, an accepted culture, or a shared ethnic identity.
        America was not. It was formed on the basis of a set of principles
    that were enshrined in its founding documents, embraced by its
    citizens, and that have attracted immigrants from all over the world.
    And because the founders of this Nation believed that ``life, liberty,
    and the pursuit of happiness'' were endowed by their Creator to ``all
    men [and women]'', these principles applied not just to Americans but
    to men and women around the world.
        Political democracy and free markets were at the core of the rules-
    based international order that America and Europe created in the
    aftermath of World War II. And every war that America has fought since
    that time has been fought in the name of advancing the cause of
    freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
        America has never accepted the idea that it had to choose between
    its democratic principles and its interests. This is a false choice.
    Advancing freedom and democracy in the world also advances American
    interests. For a world that reflects these principles, is more likely
    to be a world in which America--and Americans--can thrive and prosper.
        It is also more likely to be a world of peace and security. Nations
    operating on democratic principles are better able to manage internal
    conflict so that it does not become violent and tear apart families and
    communities, undercut economic progress and development, and spark
    regional and even international violence.
        This is why programs to advance justice, security, and rule of law
    in fragile states, to foster inclusive societies, and to promote free
    and fair elections unaffected by electoral violence are so critical.
        The organizations represented by the witnesses before you today all
    engage in this important work. It is critical to developing and
    sustaining durable and peaceful democracies. And it is critical to
    avoiding the violent conflicts that too often have required U.S.
    military intervention, with all its attendant costs in lives and
    treasure.
        Let me give you just three quick examples from the work of the U.S.
    Institute of Peace, whose board of directors I chair.

      --In Iraq, USIP has brokered peace accords among tribal leaders to
            sustain the precious gains of our military, intelligence
            officers, and diplomats.
        --Ten years ago, U.S. Army Colonel Michael M. Kershaw asked USIP to
                preempt cycles of tribal revenge killings in the Mahmoudiya
                region, known as the Triangle of Death. USIP orchestrated a
                reconciliation process that helped heal the sectarian
                wounds of conflict and facilitated a peace agreement that
                has lasted 10 years.
        --USIP successfully repeated this process last year in Tikrit,
                where over 380,000 Iraqis have now been able to return to
                their homes; in Kirkuk, where 50 tribal and religious
                leaders recently signed a preliminary peace agreement; and,
                most recently, in Mosul, where USIP has begun similar work
                in neighboring communities.
      --In Tunisia, USIP conducts mediated dialogues to broker agreements
            among secular and Salafist student unions on university
            campuses, which are otherwise recruiting grounds for future
            extremists.
      --In Nigeria, USIP is working with local citizens and the governors
            of the northern provinces to identify key reforms essential for
            restoring stability and peace to areas torn apart by Boko
            Haram, sectarian and tribal conflict, chronic poverty, and now
            acute famine.

        Thanks to the active support of this subcommittee, in 2017 USIP
    will be able to increase its work in Tunisia, Iraq, and Nigeria. Your
    support will be even more essential in 2018, to ensure that USIP and
    the other organizations represented before you today can continue their
    critical work in support of America's national security and its men and
    women in uniform.
        Traditionally America has sought to advance its democratic
    principles through these kinds of programs and through partnerships
    with non-governmental organizations. Some of these programs and
    partnerships have now come under popular suspicion and governmental
    pressure even from some of America's traditional friends and allies.
    Democracy seems to be on the defensive, and freedom on the decline.
        Certainly part of the problem is that democratic governments, have
    in too many cases, failed to deliver. Plagued by corruption, cronyism,
    and lack of competence, they have not provided the level of services,
    prosperity, or security expected by their citizens.
        But we must recognize that a major factor has also been the
    emergence over the last decade of an active campaign by authoritarian
    governments to discredit democratic principles both in their own
    societies and abroad. They offer alternative models of governance based
    on nationalism, authoritarianism, and state capitalism as better able
    to provide stability, security, and well being for their people.
        There are other factors as well that have contributed to the
    current disillusionment with democracy. The failure of the Arab
    awakening in the Middle East and the descent of too many of those
    states into chaos, carnage, and civil war has played a role. Many
    citizens of Europe and the United States suffer from a crisis of
    confidence, uncertain whether democratic principles still work for
    them.
        America's response to these developments has been inadequate. We
    are currently losing the global struggle between democratic values and
    authoritarianism.
        What is to be done?
        We should actively support those international organizations like
    the Community of Democracies and the Open Government Partnership that
    promote democratic norms and principles.
        We should actively support those regional organizations like the
    Organization of American States and the African Union whose missions
    include promoting democratic institutions and principles among their
    members.
        We should recognize that while advancing democratic values abroad
    is very much in America's interest, it is not America's only interest.
    Fighting terrorism, countering proliferation, resisting aggression,
    protecting the homeland, and promoting economic growth and stability
    are also priorities. In specific situations, trade-offs will have to be
    made.
        So we should integrate democracy programming into a broader process
    for addressing and balancing the full range of U.S. interests in a
    specific country or region. Where a lack of democracy represents a
    threat to fundamental American interests, democracy programming should
    have increased priority.
        We should certainly reform and make more effective those
    organizations and programs that promote democratic principles. But
    deep, arbitrary, and across-the-board cuts in their budgets risks
    throwing the baby out with the bath water.
        We should support the growth of local civil society as the bottom-
    up foundation for democratic societies. But we must not discredit these
    organizations in the eyes of their fellow citizens or subject their
    members to harassment, imprisonment, or worse.
        We should empower individual citizens and citizen groups with new
    communication and social media technologies and applications to expose
    corruption and to hold their governments to account.
        We should ensure that U.S. programs and activities cannot be
    criticized as partisan or favoring one political faction over another.
    They must be inclusive and available to all who support democratic
    principles and foreswear extremist violence.
        Promoting democratic principles is especially challenging when
    America's traditional friends and allies are the ones cracking down on
    U.S. programs and partnerships seeking to advance these principles.
        Selective public exhortation to adopt more democratic practices
    certainly has a role. But such public exhortation should also be
    coupled with public reassurance of American support and concrete steps
    to help address the legitimate security concerns of these countries.
    This may make more effective U.S. private encouragement to open up
    their political systems.
        Congress has an important role to play here. As a former NSC
    colleague recently suggested to me, for a U.S. ally facing a terrorist
    threat, conditioning security assistance on meeting difficult to
    achieve human rights benchmarks can be counterproductive. For the
    United States risks finding itself either having to cut off aid to the
    government, thereby running the risk of terrorist violence
    destabilizing the country, or of having to certify that the government
    is making more democratic progress than is actually the case.
        An alternative approach could be for Congress to incentivize
    positive behavior by identifying the steps it would like to see and
    then periodically holding public hearings to assess progress. This may
    better achieve the democratic progress on which peace and stability
    ultimately depend.
        Finally, to promote democratic principles effectively abroad, we
    must show the world that the principles of freedom, democracy, human
    rights, and rule of law are working effectively here at home.
        Much of the world associates democratic principles with America's
    political and economic success. If America is performing well for its
    people, those principles are vindicated. If America is not performing
    well for its people, those principles are called into question.
        A positive American example may not cause entrenched authoritarian
    leaders to see the light, but it will inspire their people and give
    them hope.
        What can we do?
        We can fix the American political and economic systems here at
    home. We can overcome partisan gridlock. We can show that our political
    system can reach bipartisan consensus and solve the problems facing the
    country--whether it is the tax system, the healthcare system, our
    deteriorating social and physical infrastructure, or exploding
    entitlement programs. We can show that our economic system can produce
    inclusive economic growth on a sustainable basis that benefits all
    Americans.
        Fixing the America system at home will help restore the American
    brand abroad and counter the narrative of the authoritarian states that
    democracy is dead and buried.
        Thank you for your time and attention.

        The views expressed in this testimony are those of the witness and
    not the U.S. Institute of Peace.

    STATEMENT OF HON. VIN WEBER, CO-VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE
                BOARD, THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY
        Mr. Weber. Thank you, Chairman Graham and Senator Leahy and
    I'd like to say a special greeting to an old colleague from the
    House, Senator Durbin. It's nice to have a Midwesterner up on
    the dais. It's a great pleasure to be able to be here today.
    I've been on the board of the National Endowment for Democracy
    for 16 of the last 17 years, including 8 years as chairman. Our
    chairman, Judy Shelton, is not able to be with us today so I'm
    substituting for her.
        On the 20th anniversary of the NED board, I had the honor
    of introducing President Bush and I sent word to the White
    House that a good Republican was going to be introducing the
    President and I was at his disposal. I'd say anything he wanted
    me to say and the word came back, ``The President says keep it
    short.'' So, I will follow that advice today as well, Mr.
    Chairman, as my colleagues have already said a good deal of
    what I would have to say.
        We are proud that the subcommittee has recognized that NED
    is uniquely positioned in their words to lead a strategic
    response to the grave threats facing democracy in today's
    world. With funds provided by the subcommittee for this
    purpose, NED has begun to implement the response to these
    threats, among them the subversion of the information space by
    Russia and other autocracies, the repression of civil society,
    the rise of violent extremist movements, the growing influence
    of kleptocratic regimes, and the failure, sadly, of democratic
    transitions in the Middle East and other regions.
        In its enumeration of NED's unparalleled institutional
    assets, the subcommittee has rightly noted NED's decades of
    experience in tackling the toughest political challenges, its
    core institutes, and its global grants program and activist
    networks. I want to emphasize this asset of the NED. Secretary
    Albright talked about the work we do through the four core
    institutes but it's worth re-emphasizing again. It's the vision
    that this subcommittee has supported and the vision of
    President Reagan's original speech, we work through core
    institutes affiliated with the Republican party, the Democratic
    party, the AFL/CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--business,
    labor, Republicans and Democrats. I think that's especially
    worth noting today as we go through a period in the political
    life of our country where everybody seems to be talking about
    disunity and partisan polarization, that on these issues of
    support for democracy and human rights around the world, they
    should serve as a great source of unity for our country.
        The American people should know that this subcommittee,
    this Congress are standing together regardless of partisanship
    behind the fundamental values that have made us so great as a
    country.
        While NED is of course subject to congressional oversight,
    its mission is not to advance a particular U.S. policy or an
    agenda made in Washington. It is to help build the institutions
    of a free society that will make it possible for people ``to
    choose their own way, develop their own culture, reconcile
    their own differences through peaceful means,'' as President
    Reagan said in his famed speech which has already been
    referenced, to the British Parliament.
        Since NED was founded more than three decades ago, aiding
    democracy has become we believe a bedrock principle of
    America's approach to the world supported by administrations of
    both political parties and consistently by the Congress and
    members of Congress of both political parties because it
    advances America's most important interests and also affirms
    our highest ideals.
        There are some who believe that we have to choose between
    defending our resources and affirming our values. As Steve said
    a minute ago, they pose a false and dangerous dichotomy; our
    interests and our values are mutually reinforcing, as is
    maintaining both our military strength and our moral vision.
        Mr. Chairman, I have a number of testimonials from people
    that we'll submit for the record. It's worth noting that in
    almost all cases these are people that are not only fighting a
    political fight but in many cases putting their lives on the
    line.
        If we cease supporting such brave people, our country will
    lose contact with its roots and values, and the result will be
    devastating for our national interests and our moral identity.
    So, with your help, let us carry on with this worthy and
    essential work.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Hon. Vin Weber
        I want to begin by thanking you, Senator Graham, and Ranking Member
    Leahy for holding this important hearing today. Speaking on behalf of
    the National Endowment for Democracy and its new board chair, Judy
    Shelton, I also want to thank the subcommittee for its unwavering
    support of NED and its mission. We're proud that the subcommittee has
    recognized that NED is ``uniquely positioned to lead a strategic
    response'' to the grave threats facing democracy in today's world. With
    funds provided by the subcommittee for this purpose, NED has begun to
    implement the response to these threats, among them the subversion of
    the information space by Russia and other autocracies, the repression
    of civil society, the rise of violent extremist movements, the growing
    influence of kleptocratic regimes, and the failure of democratic
    transitions in the Middle East and other regions.
        In its enumeration of NED's unparalleled institutional assets, the
    subcommittee has rightly noted NED's decades of experience in tackling
    the toughest political challenges, its core institutes, and its global
    grants program and activist networks.
        I want to call attention to an additional asset that accounts for
    NED's success, and that is its nongovernmental character. NED's
    independence has enabled it to respond quickly and effectively to
    rapidly changing problems. It also makes it possible for NED to connect
    directly to the brave people who are at the cutting edge of the
    democracy struggles in the world.
        While NED is of course subject to congressional oversight, its
    mission is not to advance a particular U.S. policy or an agenda made in
    Washington. It is to help build the institutions of a free society that
    will make it possible for people ``to choose their own way, to develop
    their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful
    means.''
        Those words, Mr. Chairman, were spoken by President Ronald Reagan's
    in his famed address to the British Parliament that launched the
    National Endowment for Democracy. June 8 will mark the 35th anniversary
    of that seminal speech, when President Reagan declared that ``We must
    be staunch in our conviction that freedom is not the sole prerogative
    of a lucky few, but the inalienable and universal right of all human
    beings.'' NED embodies that core American belief.
        Since NED was founded more than three decades ago, aiding democracy
    has become a bedrock foundational principle of America's approach to
    the world. Such work enjoys that standing because it advances America's
    most important interests and also affirms our highest ideals.
        There are some people who believe that we have to choose between
    defending our interests and affirming our values. They pose a false and
    dangerous dichotomy, since our interests and values are mutually
    reinforcing, as is maintaining both our military strength and our moral
    vision.
        President Reagan spoke to this issue in the Westminster Address
    with great eloquence and force. ``Our military strength,'' he said,
    ``is a prerequisite to peace, but let it be clear we maintain this
    strength in the hope it will never be used. For the ultimate
    determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be
    bombs and rockets, but a test of wills and ideas, a trial of spiritual
    resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish, the ideals to
    which we are dedicated.''
        These words continue to resonate today, especially among the people
    on the front lines of the struggle for democracy who benefit from NED's
    support.

        Here's what a few of them have said in messages prompted by this
    hearing:

      --The leader of the Al-Tahreer Association for Development, a key
            Iraqi NGO working to rebuild trust and governance in Mosul
            after the horrors of ISIS, wrote that they could not have
            carried out their successful projects without NED's ``financial
            and emotional support.''
      --Leila Yunus, the human rights defender in Azerbaijan and a
            recipient of the European Parliament's Sakharov Prize, has
            urged Congress to ``not only sustain but expand the work of
            NED'' as repression has increased and other foreign donors have
            pulled out.
      --The Rev. Benjamin Yoon in South Korea has written that ``Without
            the material and institutional support of NED, the North Korea
            human rights movement as we know it today,'' of which he is
            considered to be the founder, ``would not have existed.'' He
            emphasizes that such support remains essential to ``bringing
            justice to the North Korean victims.''
      --Khalil Parsa, the Afghan anti-corruption activist who survived an
            assassination attempt last October and who will receive NED's
            Democracy Award on June 7, has written that NED's assistance
            ``is a lifeline for civil society groups that raise awareness
            on good governance and on a daily basis fight the rampant
            corruption that is a lethal threat to Afghanistan's security
            and political stability.''
      --And the Dalai Lama has written that NED's ``work on the promotion
            of freedom is vitally important given the current volatile
            situation in many parts of the world and the threat these pose
            to peace and freedom.''

        Mr. Chairman, if we cease supporting such brave people, our country
    will lose contact with its roots and values, and the result will be
    devastating for our national interests and moral identity. So with your
    help, let us carry on with this worthy and absolutely essential work.

    STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES KOLBE, VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE
                BOARD, THE INTERNATIONAL REPUBLICAN
                INSTITUTE
        Mr. Kolbe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. After listening to my
    colleagues on this panel, I'm inclined to note that it's not
    that everything that needs to be said hasn't been said. It's
    just not that everybody has said it yet. So, I'll plunge in and
    say a little bit more perhaps of the same sort of thing.
        Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Leahy, and Members of this
    subcommittee, thank you for holding this timely and important
    hearing today, and for this opportunity to testify. Mr.
    Chairman, your leadership and the work of this subcommittee has
    been crucial in advancing America's foreign policy priorities,
    particularly in keeping deeply ingrained values of democracy
    and freedom on the forefront of our foreign policy agenda.
        I'm privileged to appear here today with this distinguished
    panel as Vice-Chairman of the Board of the International
    Republican Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan, democracy
    assistance organization that is active in more than 80
    countries around the world. Of course, Mr. Chairman, the
    organizations represented here at this table today, are not the
    only ones working around the globe to keep the flames of
    freedom and democracy alive and I would be remiss if I did not
    mention at least one on whose board I am privileged to serve,
    Freedom House. Now, in its 76th year, it has provided
    assistance to more than 3,000 human rights' defenders,
    religious minorities and civil society groups in more than 100
    countries, often at great peril to their own staffs.
        The challenges we face here today are diverse and often
    quite daunting. In the decade following the collapse of the
    Soviet Union, the spread of democracy seemed almost inevitable.
    We saw dramatic gains on the democracy front not only in the
    former Eastern bloc, but across the world and came to believe
    that somehow this was inevitable--the inevitable course of
    events for all countries. It didn't turn out that way, however.
    For the past decade, there has been a steady and disturbing
    increase in backsliding by transitioning countries, and a
    consolidation of power by authoritarian regimes worldwide, a
    condition well documented in Freedom House's annual Freedom in
    the World report.
        The fact is undemocratic and authoritarian regimes almost
    always undermine peace and stability over time. Self-
    interested, aggressive or reckless policies often promote mass
    migration and tragic conditions for refugees. In fact, when you
    consider those trouble spots in the world today, the root of
    the problem almost always lies with, or is exacerbated by,
    authoritarian governments. Recent years have also brought
    increased pressures on U.S. resources and budgets. American
    taxpayers have every right to demand a return on the investment
    of their tax dollars.
        Mr. Chairman, as a former appropriator and chairman of this
    same subcommittee in the House of Representatives, I sympathize
    with the tough choices you face in this subcommittee--balancing
    competing interests, setting funding priorities, and at the
    same time assuring that taxpayer dollars are wisely spent.
        The development sector needs to be able to demonstrate the
    value of taxpayer investment in these programs. While disaster
    relief is a crucial aspect of our international aid, we must
    also invest in programs that enable other governments to solve
    and prevent on their own, crises like famine, natural
    disasters, or acts of aggression. A governance-focused
    strategy, which supports the development of citizen-centered
    government and core institutions of democracy, is the
    embodiment of the adage that ``if you give a man a fish, he
    will eat for a day; but if you teach a man to fish, he will
    never go hungry.''
        History shows us a clear link between democratic government
    and stability. Democracies are more adaptable to change, more
    stable, and tend to be more prosperous. As President Reagan
    recognized during the Cold War, our ability to support the
    spread of truly citizen-centered government is one of the most
    powerful tools we possess to achieve American interests.
        For more than 30 years, IRI has been helping to lay the
    foundations for democratic governance, creating the conditions
    for governments to become more citizen-centered and thus more
    stable. Although IRI's global reach is significant, of course
    we're not able to work in every country that is in need of
    assistance, but our successful programs in each continent
    provide powerful examples of best practices to their neighbors
    and the wider region. IRI's program in Tunisia is helping
    strengthen the transparency and communications capacity of the
    government to increase citizen input and improve government
    response to citizens' concerns. In Mongolia, IRI partnered with
    local governments to combat corruption and consolidate
    democratic gains. And in Central America, IRI's programs
    enhanced citizen security by bridging the gap between citizens
    and their local and national governments.
        Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, when President
    Reagan articulated his vision of democracy assistance in the
    same speech to the British Parliament at Westminster cited by
    Secretary Albright some 35 years ago, he argued that
    ``democracy is not a fragile flower; but still it needs
    cultivating.'' As events in recent years have shown, much
    ground can be lost without determined ``cultivating.'' The
    threat to democracy is on the rise, and support for those who
    are seeking to protect and nurture its growth is needed now
    more than ever.
        At IRI we see some avenues to strengthen and improve our
    approach to this mission. Let me just cite three of them. One,
    incorporating democracy and governance as a central component
    of our assistance packages and tying foreign aid to progress on
    this criteria would be a step in the right direction. The
    Millennium Challenge Corporation has demonstrated the
    effectiveness of this type of governance-centered approach.
        Second, our approaches to funding the implementation of
    democracy and governance programs can be more consistent. All
    too often, elections are seen as the driving force of democracy
    and governance. In reality, it's what happens between elections
    that matters most, when campaigns end and governing begins.
        Lastly, I want to comment on the instrument we use to
    implement democracy and governance programs. Acquisition
    mechanisms are appropriate for procuring goods or services.
    However, unlike projects aimed at building physical
    infrastructure or the distribution of goods, acquisition
    mechanisms are inherently unsuited for projects aimed at
    building human capital, teaching skills, building best
    practices. A more tailored approach is required, and I urge you
    to provide oversight into how democracy and governance programs
    are being procured to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being
    spent in the most efficient and results-oriented manner.
        Let me conclude by quoting Secretary Mattis, a quote that
    has been often repeated. When asked whether the international
    development budget is helpful to national defense, he said,
    ``If you don't fund the State Department, then I need to buy
    more ammunition ultimately. So, I think it's a cost benefit
    ratio.'' Investing in democratic governance isn't about patting
    ourselves on the back or feeling good; it's a clear matter of
    delivering results that best serve U.S. interests and maximize
    the return on taxpayer investment. It is my hope that this
    marriage of principle and pragmatism will endure in our foreign
    policy, and will be reflected in our approach to international
    development. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Hon. Jim Kolbe
                                  introduction
        Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Leahy, members of the subcommittee,
    thank you for holding this timely and important hearing today, and
    thank you for the opportunity to testify. Mr. Chairman, it is no
    exaggeration and certainly not a gratuitous compliment to note that
    your leadership and the work of this subcommittee has been crucial to
    advancing America's foreign policy priorities, particularly in keeping
    the deeply ingrained values of democracy and freedom on the forefront
    of our foreign policy agenda.
        I'm here today as a member of the board of the International
    Republican Institute (IRI), a nonprofit, nonpartisan, democracy
    assistance organization that is active in more than 80 countries around
    the world. Along with the other organizations represented here today,
    we trace our roots back to President Reagan and his unshakeable belief
    that, ``Liberty is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few, but the
    inalienable right of all mankind.''
        I've been asked to address some of the challenges and opportunities
    facing the field of democracy assistance. While we all acknowledge
    there are significant challenges to our ability to support democracy
    worldwide, we at IRI see opportunities to invest in a governance-
    centered approach to international development that fosters greater
    stability worldwide and yields a greater return for the investment of
    American taxpayers.
                                   challenges
        Let me begin by addressing the challenges, which are diverse and,
    in some cases, quite daunting. In the decade following the collapse of
    the Soviet Union, the spread of democracy seemed almost inevitable. We
    saw dramatic gains on the democracy front not only in the former
    Eastern bloc, but across the world and believed this was somehow the
    inevitable upward trend for all countries. It didn't turn out to be
    that way, however. For the past decade there has been a steady and
    disturbing increase in backsliding by transitioning countries, and a
    consolidation of power by authoritarian regimes worldwide.
        The reasons for this development are complex, but the recent trend
    towards U.S. disengagement and ``leading from behind'' has been at
    best, unhelpful. At worst, it has encouraged the boldness with which
    despots like Vladimir Putin have cracked down on dissent at home and
    pursued aggressive and destabilizing policies abroad.
        The fact is, undemocratic and authoritarian regimes almost always
    undermine peace and stability over time. Self-interested, aggressive or
    reckless policies often provoke mass migration and tragic conditions
    for refugees. This has a destabilizing effect on regions and threatens
    economic stability. We are currently seeing the consequences of such
    actions unfold in the Middle East, where the Assad regime--aided and
    abetted by the Kremlin--has precipitated a global refugee crisis on a
    scale not seen since World War II. We see different challenges in Asia
    as the world grapples with the totalitarian regime in North Korea. In
    fact, when you consider the most troubled spots around the world, the
    root of the problem almost always lies with, or is exacerbated by,
    authoritarian government.
        Recent years have also brought increased pressure on U.S. resources
    and budgets. American taxpayers have every right to demand a return on
    investment of their tax dollars--and it's entirely understandable that
    some would question why their hard-earned money should be spent solving
    problems in other countries.
                                 opportunities
        Mr. Chairman, as a former appropriator and chairman of this same
    subcommittee in the House of Representatives, I sympathize with the
    tough choices you face on this subcommittee--balancing competing
    interests, setting funding priorities, and at the same time assuring
    that taxpayer dollars are wisely spent. We live in a dynamic world that
    presents an evolving array of threats, challenges, and opportunities.
    In the current funding environment, these pressures are particularly
    intense, and I commend the balance you have been able to achieve on
    this subcommittee.
        The development sector needs to be able to demonstrate the value of
    taxpayer investment in their programs. While disaster relief is a
    crucial aspect of our international aid, we must also invest in
    programs that enable other governments to solve and prevent crises like
    famine, natural disaster, or acts of aggression on their own. A
    governance-focused strategy, which supports the development of citizen-
    centered government and the core institutions of democracy, is the
    embodiment of the adage that ``if you give a man a fish, he will eat
    for a day; but if you teach a man to fish, he will never go hungry.''
        The previous administration took the approach of integrating
    democracy and governance programs into all development programs. While
    I applaud the support of a governance-focused strategy, I think a
    different approach is needed. Democracy assistance and governance
    programs require a specialized skillset--and more importantly--
    commitment to mission, that organizations like NED, IRI and NDI have.
    More than these organizations being in the business of advancing
    democracy and democratic institutions, it's the reason for existence.
        History shows us a clear link between democratic government and
    stability. Democracies are more adaptable to change, more stable, and
    tend to be more prosperous. They make better allies and are more
    dependable trading partners. Because they tolerate diversity of opinion
    and allow for dissent, they are, generally speaking, less likely to
    produce terrorists, proliferate weapons of mass destruction, or engage
    in armed aggression.
        As President Reagan recognized during the Cold War, our ability to
    support the spread of truly citizen-centered governments is one of the
    most powerful tools we possess to advance American interests. It wasn't
    just guns and butter that defeated communism--the inability of the
    communist dictatorships to understand and respond to the needs of their
    people made those systems fundamentally unstable.
        It is because these fundamental beliefs and core values are part
    and parcel of who I am and what I believe, that I respectfully submit
    to the Secretary of State that promotion of democracy and freedom must
    remain central components of our foreign policy. They must be an
    integral part of our objectives and of our foreign assistance programs.
          iri: a governance-centered approach to democracy assistance
        For more than 30 years, IRI has been helping to lay the foundations
    for democratic governance, creating the conditions for governments to
    become more citizen-centered and thus more stable; to become more
    reliable international partners in trade and diplomacy; and ultimately,
    to reduce the need for costly U.S. interventions.
        Although IRI's global reach is significant, we of course are not
    able to work in every country that is in need of assistance--but our
    successful programs in each continent provide powerful examples of best
    practices to their neighbors and the wider region.
        IRI's program in Tunisia is helping strengthen the transparency and
    communications capacity of the government to increase citizen input and
    improve government responsiveness to citizens' concerns. Today, Tunisia
    is proving that, although difficult, democracy may just be possible in
    a historically troubled region. In Mongolia, IRI partnered with local
    governments to combat corruption and consolidate democratic gains.
    Today, Mongolia (which became a democracy just 25 years ago) is being
    held up as an exemplar of how to avoid backsliding into undemocratic
    practices. And in Central America, IRI's programs enhancing citizen
    security by bridging the gap between citizens and their local and
    national governments is helping to build safer and more resilient
    communities, and helping to mitigate uncontrolled migration to North
    America.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee--when President Reagan
    articulated his vision of democracy assistance in a speech to
    Westminster Palace 35 years ago, he argued that ``democracy is not a
    fragile flower; still it needs cultivating.'' As events in recent years
    have shown, much ground can be lost without determined ``cultivating.''
    The threat to democracy is on the rise around the world, and support
    for those who are seeking to protect and advance it is needed now more
    than ever. If the United States retreats from fighting for these
    objectives, the world will become even more unstable.

        At IRI we see some avenues to strengthen and improve our approach
    to this mission:

      --Incorporating democracy and governance as a central component of
            our assistance packages and tying foreign aid to progress on
            those criteria would be a step in the right direction. The
            Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) has demonstrated the
            effectiveness of this type of governance-centered approach in
            maximizing the impact of international development investment.
            MCC includes a ``hard hurdle'' of basic political and civil
            rights into the front end when they evaluate potential compact
            countries. Through the life of a development compact, democracy
            and governance remain as a mandatory measurement for
            continuation of the compact. This approach acknowledges and
            builds into the process--in a formal and transparent way--the
            importance of governance to the success and sustainability of
            development aid.
      --Our approaches to funding the implementation of democracy and
            governance programs can be more consistent. All-too-often,
            elections are seen as the driving force of democracy and
            governance work--but in reality, it's what happens between
            elections that matters most. That's when campaigns end and the
            hard work of governing begins.
      --Lastly, I want to comment on the instrument we choose to implement
            democracy and governance programs. There are instances when an
            acquisition mechanism is appropriate for these programs--for
            example, procuring goods or services for government-to-
            government support. However, unlike projects aimed at building
            physical infrastructure or the distribution of goods,
            acquisition mechanisms are inherently unsuited for projects
            aimed at building human capital--teaching skills and building
            best practices. Human development and human systems are complex
            and you need the flexibility and tailored approach of an
            assistance mechanism to have a sustainable impact. I urge you
            to provide oversight into how democracy and governance programs
            are being procured to ensure that tax payer dollars are being
            spent in the most efficient and results-oriented way.

        America's most effective foreign policy is one that taps into all
    our strengths. When General Mattis was asked whether the international
    development budget is helpful to national defense, he said ``If you
    don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more
    ammunition ultimately. So I think it's a cost benefit ratio.''
    Investing in democratic governance isn't about patting ourselves on the
    back or feeling good--it's a clear matter of delivering results that
    best serve U.S. interests and maximize the return on taxpayer
    investment. It is my hope that this marriage of principle and
    pragmatism will endure in our foreign policy going forward, and that
    this will be reflected in our approach to international development.

                  INCREASING THREATS TO U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY

        Senator Graham. Thank you, all. We will do 5-minute rounds
    of questions and answers if that is okay with everybody. It
    seems to me that military budgets, foreign policy, and
    developmental-aid budgets should be based on the threats, not
    just made up numbers. Mr. Hadley, you were the National
    Security Advisor for President Bush 43. What is the threat
    matrix like right now for America? Is it growing or lessening?
        Mr. Hadley. Well, if you had a threat matrix or a geo-
    political volatility index, I would say that it's pretty much
    as high as it's been in maybe my lifetime.
        Senator Graham. What about you, Secretary Albright? Do you
    agree with that?
        Ms. Albright. I do agree. I think that things are out of
    kilter in a lot of places and we are facing threats and I do
    think that they need to be met by all the tools in the toolbox,
    not just the military but also diplomacy.
        Senator Graham. Do our two Congressmen, former Congressmen,
    do you agree with that assessment?
        Mr. Weber. I certainly agree with that assessment very
    strongly. I think that the threats----
        Senator Graham. Yes, will do.
        Mr. Weber. Yes, will do. Yes, is what you get, sir.
        Senator Graham. Okay.
        Mr. Kolbe. Yes.

                         U.S. ASSISTANCE AND SOFT POWER

        Senator Graham. Okay, good. You are a quick learner down
    there. So, do you agree with me that in light of the threats of
    which I agree with, reducing the State Department budget by 29
    percent would do a lot of damage to soft power?
        Mr. Hadley. Yes.
        Ms. Albright. Yes.
        Senator Graham. Do you agree with me that soft power is
    essential in winning the war against radical Islam and many
    other threats we face?
        Ms. Albright. Yes.
        Mr. Kolbe. Absolutely.
        Mr. Hadley. Yes.
        Senator Graham. If we tried to cut the military budget by
    29 percent, people would go crazy. Do you agree with that?
        Mr. Hadley. They would and should.
        Senator Graham. My point is if you believe the military is
    essential to defending the home land, the question you have to
    answer: what about the other side of the equation? I believe
    that soft power based on my visits to the Mideast with 42 or
    43, I can't remember, I've seen wars get better; I've seen them
    get worse. I've seen the benefits of soft power. I believe that
    the proposed 2018 budget basically destroys soft power as we
    know it and I hope we're wise enough to push back. Now having
    said that, is it fair to say that the State Department and any
    other organization can be run more efficiently? Do you see
    chances to reform the way we do business in 2018?

                       REFORMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE

        Ms. Albright. I do think that always it is useful to review
    and see what is efficient and what isn't. But I have to say I
    am worried about the fact that it takes an awful lot of time to
    reorganize and takes away time from what diplomats should be
    doing aside from the fact that it would be nice to have some
    diplomats named so they can go and be in these countries and
    work on soft power and represent our country.
        Senator Graham. Congressman Kolbe, you mentioned that
    procurement and acquisition is a way to reform, to save money.
        Mr. Kolbe. Yes, I think that there is a--significant gains
    can be made in doing some reforms in the acquisition. I might
    add also to your last question that while reorganization is
    important, I would not favor putting USAID to become simply a
    bureau of the State Department. I think then it becomes a
    political arm instead of the arm that it is today of our
    development assistance and democracy assistance.
        Senator Graham. So I agree with the idea that if you want
    to reorganize or reform the State Department, count me in.
    Twenty-nine percent is not reorganizing and it is not
    reforming; it's gutting. Now, let us talk about the other
    aspect of what the State Department's all about which is
    protecting those who are engaged in representing our country in
    very dangerous places. Secretary Albright, what is your concern
    in terms of our security footprint for our diplomats if we
    reduce the State Department by 29 percent?

                             SECURITY FOR DIPLOMATS

        Ms. Albright. I think it is of great concern because we do
    know that being a representative of our country and an
    ambassador in the embassies, it's a dangerous job. I think
    people feel that it's some fancy job where people just go to
    receptions. The truth is and Secretary Tillerson recently stood
    in front of the Wall and the State Department commemorating
    those ambassadors who had died in the course of serving our
    country. And, this is something that I feel very strongly
    personally because everybody who knows me knows I loved being
    Secretary of State, except on August 7, 1998, when our
    embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were blown up and there was a
    commission that looked at what had happened there and as a
    result of that, we had to increase security in our embassies in
    a way that protected not only the ambassadors in the embassies
    but creates an issue about how much goes for security and how
    much goes for programs. So, you can't rob Peter to pay Paul and
    then rob Paul also. And that is what worries me about a budget
    that doesn't have both money for programs and for security.

                       U.S. GLOBAL PRESENCE AND INFLUENCE

        Senator Graham. Final question, Mr. Hadley. If we enacted a
    29 percent cut to the State Department, the cost of security
    and other concerns, our footprint in the world would be
    dramatically smaller at a time when it should be larger. Do you
    agree with that general proposition?
        Mr. Hadley. I do and I also am concerned that once you cut
    it back, I don't think it's easy to restore. If I could just
    make one other point. If you look at our experience in the war
    on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, the problem has never been
    killing the bad guys or clearing the territory of terrorists.
    It has been after we cleared it, working to stabilize those
    areas so that the terrorists do not come back and that of
    course requires the soft power of diplomacy, development and
    other things. That's where we have failed. If that's where we
    have failed, that's the time where we need to relook and maybe
    even expand. We've got to do that in a more sensible, smart and
    successful way.
        Senator Graham. Thank you. Senator Leahy.

                        IMPORTANCE OF DEMOCRACY PROGRAMS

        Senator Leahy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Secretary
    Albright, you and I have known each other for a long time from
    your days in the White House when I was a new Senator here and
    on through to your time as Secretary of State. And I think I
    can state your position fairly by saying that defending freedom
    of expression and democrat institutions is a long-term
    investment, not a short-term investment. Is that correct?
        Ms. Albright. That's absolutely.
        Senator Leahy. I think of a number of times when you take a
    couple of steps forward you may go back one and a half. Can you
    give me some examples, perhaps when you were running the
    department, where our democracy programs made a tangible
    difference, when aid to a foreign government or to civil
    society paid off in some significant way?
        Ms. Albright. There were a number of places where there was
    a huge difference that was made by democracy programs. In the
    Balkans for instance, after we had been there militarily in
    terms of trying to help them figure out how to resolve their
    differences and work together and then establish and work to
    establish a rule of law. That also takes a very long time as
    was said.
        I also think that there were programs and one that I think
    is very important and has come to fruition recently is Plan
    Columbia, which was something that had a variety of aspects to
    it, was a bi-partisan--supported in a bi-partisan way in
    Washington and then worked very hard in order to establish an
    economic program and a political program. And I think--and it's
    an example frankly of something that takes a while to take root
    and that is a very important program. So, I do think there are
    others and in the Middle East also, in Lebanon and a variety of
    places. I think the hard part frankly is that things do
    backwards at times and therefore, it is important for us to be
    present and to know the people that we work with and to
    establish the kind of trust and confidence with the local
    partners that we have and it is--it takes a while. And I think
    that we should admit that which is why cutting all of a sudden
    is a breaking of trust and will make it difficult, as Steve
    said, to put back together.
        Senator Leahy. You mentioned Plan Columbia. A few weeks
    ago, we were talking with victims of the FARC and victims of
    the Colombian military. We saw the two steps forward, one, and
    three-quarter steps back at times. But I remember what
    President Santos said to the bi-partisan delegation I had taken
    there, which was to not give up hope. The arc has been forward,
    and all were concerned that the United States might say,
    ``Okay, we've been there done that, let's go on to something
    else.'' I think Mr. Hadley you've seen that. We discussed
    similar things when you were with the Bush administration.
    Maybe I should ask this of all three of you: what would it do
    to your organizations if we were to cut 30 to 50 percent from
    democracy programs, and secondly, has anybody from the new
    administration sat down with any of the four of you to discuss
    what you would do with more or less funding?

                      IMPACT OF CUTS TO DEMOCRACY PROGRAMS

        Mr. Hadley. I have not been contacted on that. I think one
    of the problems is that it's my sense from the outside is the
    way it's being done is kind of top down from OMB. And I think
    the sensible way to do it, take the State Department for
    example, Secretary Tillerson nominated by the President,
    confirmed by the Senate, he's the person you look to run the
    Department of State. I would think he should be given some time
    to get to know his department, understand his department, make
    some recommendations about how to strength which will probably
    involve some cuts but ought to also involve some plus ups. Let
    him bring that to the Congress of the United States and have a
    conversation about how to make sure that these non-military
    aspects are used as efficiently and effectively as we can
    because the security in these areas ultimately is going to
    depend on the success of those kinds of programs.
        Senator Leahy. Do the rest of you agree with that?
        Ms. Albright. I do think that it's important to understand
    what is really happening and I--you asked both of you whether
    this was, you did Chairman Graham, in terms of how dangerous
    the world is. I think time is passing here and everybody says
    it's early for making some decisions and some strategy for what
    the administration is doing. Soon, it will be too late and so I
    think it's very important in fact to have these kinds of
    discussions because unless you have some idea about what is
    going on in terms of the department and what various people do,
    I'm kind of worried about time passing. And so, I would be
    delighted to be contacted by somebody.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I do
    recall going to the Balkans with Secretary Albright and
    President Clinton during that time.
        Senator Graham. Okay. Thank you. Senator Moran.

                             EXAMPLES OF SOFT POWER

        Senator Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and the
    ranking member for having this hearing and thanks to our
    distinguished panelists for joining us. I've said on the Senate
    floor and in an op-ed piece to Kansans back home that soft
    power, would use a different word than that in speaking about
    this, is necessary to avoid additional military actions or to
    reduce the need for military actions around the globe. Are
    there specific examples that I can point to, that you could
    point to me that I can then indicate to those I'm speaking
    about where our diplomacy, our assistance, food aid and other
    things have made a difference such that you believe we
    prevented the need for military power to be utilized?
        Mr. Hadley. Senator, the example I used about Mahmoudiyah
    which was now 10 years old, a peace agreement arranged under
    the auspices of the USIP that has held for 10 years. The effect
    of that was dramatic in terms of the casualties being suffered
    by the Tenth Mountain Division. They fell by a factor of, you
    know, five or six times, and also allowed those forces to be
    withdrawn so that the peace was kept with a smaller number of
    people. So, that's a savings of lives, a savings of resources;
    and the cost of that operation I think, correct me if I'm
    wrong, about $1 million dollars. And that's kind of what the
    military spends about $11.5 million a day in Iraq during that
    timeframe. So, it's good value. That's the point. I think
    it's--we make a mistake calling it soft power. There's nothing
    soft about it. You know what our diplomats are doing, what our
    USIP people and our facilitators, they're risking their lives.
        Senator Moran. Right.
        Mr. Hadley. These are in conflicts zones. There's nothing
    soft about that. Maybe we ought to talk about the military and
    non-military but I think soft is not an adequate description of
    the risks they run. Thank you.

                              FAMINE AND FOOD AID

        Senator Moran. Let me focus a minute on food aid. There are
    famines around the globe. I think there's a desire on the part
    of many Americans to respond. Part of the challenge we face are
    the civil authorities or military authorities in the countries
    where there are famines not allowing non-governmental
    organizations into their country, not allowing assistance. What
    is it that we do, why do countries behave in a way in which
    they deny us the ability to save lives and how do we respond to
    get a different result?
        Ms. Albright. I think that this is where diplomacy comes in
    actually is to have ambassadors in those countries that are
    able to explain that we're not going in there to occupy and
    that is part of it. But I also think that we need to understand
    that the famines are partially being created by desertification
    and climate change and also by governments that want to starve
    their people. I think that's part of the issue and therefore,
    it's important to have contact with nongovernmental
    organizations in those countries and try to show that starving
    people then create the mayhem that then leads to worse things.
    I also do think that Americans are the most generous people in
    the world. Our only problem is that we have a short attention
    span and so I think that what needs to happen is that we need
    to understand that these are problems that are out there for a
    very long time. I do think, however, in those four particular
    countries, we have the most amazing operation in AFRICOM which
    is a command that in fact is a way of dealing and it's exactly
    what Steve was saying in terms of cooperating of the civil and
    the military together in order to make a difference in a
    particular country.
        Senator Moran. Congressman.
        Mr. Weber. Senator Moran, I would just, it's pointed out to
    me, Amartya Sen, the Nobel laureate, has said that ``there's
    never been a famine in a democratic country with a free
    media.''
        Senator Moran. I appreciate your saying that. I point that
    out that our ability to--I don't know--I guess that's the point
    that needs to be made if I can say it in my own words although
    not as articulate as who you quoted. The ability to have a
    democracy when people are starving doesn't exist. Is that a
    fair summation of that?
        Mr. Weber. It's much more difficult.
        Senator Moran. Much more difficult. I want to compliment
    Chairman Graham and the ranking member and this subcommittee.
    Nearly a billion dollars in food aid, famine assistance was
    included in the fiscal year appropriation bill. That's a great
    development. Our subcommittee on agriculture funded Dole
    McGovern Food Program, Food and Education program. Our
    appropriations process for fiscal year 2017 I think resulted in
    significant opportunities for help for people around the globe
    and enhances the chances that democracy will survive or are
    created and reduce the chances that our military's actions are
    necessary. So, Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank
    you for your efforts in regard to trying to feed people around
    the world.
        Senator Graham. Well, let it be known to the people of
    Kansas if Senator Moran had his way, all the farmers in Kansas
    would feed everybody in the world.
        Senator Moran. Well said.
        Senator Graham. Senator Coons.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Graham and Ranking
    Member Leahy and thank you to all four of our wonderful
    witnesses who've dedicated decades of your lives to the service
    of democracy in the United States. The four institutions
    represented here, National Endowment for Democracy, NDI, IRI
    and U.S. Institute for Peace are all significant resources in
    our work to advance our values in democracy around the world
    and I look forward to standing with you in support of them in
    this coming appropriations process. I think the Senate and this
    subcommittee in particular has to grapple with the trends that
    are transforming our world and describe how the United States
    should engage to defend our interests, support our allies, and
    advance our values. This should hopefully be a bi-partisan and
    constructive conversation and one where we can help contribute
    to shaping the agenda of the new administration. And I intend
    to relentlessly support programs such as yours that advance the
    values of democracy, human rights, rule of law as well as our
    vital interests. It was said I think most concisely by you,
    former Congressman Weber, there are some people who believe we
    have to choose between defending our interests and affirming
    our values. They pose a false and dangerous dichotomy since our
    interests and values are mutually reinforcing as is maintaining
    our military strength and our moral vision. All of you said
    some variation of that and I just want to thank you for your
    leadership in doing so.
        Let me focus on one specific program that's a window I
    think into the larger question we're all facing. The Young
    African Leaders Initiative is just one example of many young
    leaders' programs or people-to-people programs or human
    resources programs. This one was created in 2014 to invest in
    the next generation of African leaders and I've witnessed
    firsthand how 3,000 Africans that have been reached through
    YALI have formed an active network across the continent that's
    advancing good governance, human rights and entrepreneurship
    while creating a network of grass roots allies in strategically
    important countries. How are leadership exchange programs like
    YALI a cost-effective measure to promote democracy and
    governance? Congressman Kolbe, you I think specifically
    referenced in your testimony human resources as something hard
    to procure effectively. Why is it a poor choice perhaps for
    President Trump's proposed budget to eliminate a lot of the
    work of the Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs that would
    affect a wide range of sort of youth and partnership programs?
    Mr. Chairman, I'll submit for the record three different
    letters of support for YALI. I'd welcome comments from you,
    Congressman Kolbe, or any other members of the subcommittee on
    why these people-to-people programs are particularly effective
    and why this one in particular might be worth defending.
    Congressman.
        [The letters follow:]
                                                   Monday, May 8, 2017.
    Hon. Chris Coons,
    U.S. Senate,
    127A Russell Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Dear Senator Coons,

        We urge you to fully fund the Young African Leaders Initiative
    (YALI) and its flagship program, the Mandela Washington Fellowship for
    Young African Leaders. The current draft of the President's fiscal year
    2018 budget proposes significant cuts to the U.S. Department of State
    and its Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA). If enacted,
    these cuts could devastate YALI, which directly benefits American
    colleges and institutions who host these young leaders each year.
        For American businesses to grow, it's critical that we increase
    exports, and Africa--with its largely pro-American population--
    represents one of the most promising emerging markets. For example, in
    just the last 10 years, Nigeria surged from the world's 52nd largest
    economy to the 20th, ahead of Australia. We need to strengthen economic
    ties between the U.S. and Africa so that Americans can take advantage
    of this opportunity. Programs like the Mandela Washington Fellowship,
    part of the Young African Leaders Initiative, bring future African
    business, civic and government leaders to the U.S. to engage and build
    the kind of relationships, business practices, and democratic
    governance we need for U.S. businesses to enter these emerging markets
    successfully and create more jobs here at home.
        Our companies have benefited tremendously from YALI in a variety of
    ways, including hosting Fellows who provide valuable insights on taking
    advantage of business opportunities in Africa, and sending our own
    staff to the continent to launch new enterprises. Over 3,000 YALI
    Fellows are currently on the continent--many inhabiting influential
    political and economic positions. These sympathetic government and
    business leaders represent a growing network of future trading
    partners. From our personal experience, this Fellowship is truly a two-
    way exchange with tremendous benefits for the United States.
        We hope that we can count on your support in ensuring the
    Fellowship's continued success. A strong, prosperous, democratic Africa
    aligned with the U.S. will ensure our national strategic interests for
    decades to come. Investing in people who will help drive this change,
    while boosting exports and creating jobs here in the U.S., is an
    effective approach that speaks to American values and interests.

                Sincerely,

    Deloitte
    AGCO Corporation
    Black & Veatch
    Africa Venture Partners
    Corporate Council on Africa
    Creative Associates
    Oracle Corporation
    DAI
    DLR Group
    Integrated Solar Technologies
    International Green Structures
    Visa Inc.
    Symbion Power
    Premise Data Corporation
    Shea Yeleen
    Sheladia Associates

                                     ______

                                                   Monday, May 8, 2017.
    Hon. Chris Coons,
    U.S. Senate,
    127A Russell Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Dear Senator Coons,

        Over the course of the last three administrations, the U.S.
    Congress has advanced U.S. interests in Africa through transformative
    programs. The African Growth and Opportunity Act helped to move the
    U.S. relationship with the continent from that of donor-recipient to
    one of mutual benefit and gain. The President's Emergency Program for
    AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) not only helped to stabilize key parts of Africa
    but made it possible to think about an AIDS free generation. Congress
    has invested in other important programs such as Feed the Future,
    Electrify Africa and the President's anti-malaria initiative.
        The Young Africa Leaders Initiative (YALI) and its flagship
    program, the Mandela Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders,
    is an important addition to these bipartisan programs that will help to
    transform Africa's future and deserves your support. YALI excels at
    attracting Africa's best and brightest young men and women for
    leadership development at American universities in civic leadership,
    public management and entrepreneurship and business. YALI is a cost-
    effective investment in economic development, the deepening of
    democracy and strengthening civil society.
        Over 3,000 Mandela Washington Fellows and more than 450,000 YALI
    network members are now on the African continent. Many already are in
    positions of influence--and this number will only increase as these
    dynamic young leaders continue to advance in their careers. These
    leaders represent a growing network of allies, who will shape Africa's
    future--and strong ties to these young leaders is all the more crucial
    as China and others dramatically increase their cultural and
    educational exchanges across Africa. The fact that 64,000 Africans,
    from every country in sub-Saharan Africa have applied for 1,000 Mandela
    Washington Fellowships this year alone is a clear signal of YALI's
    impact and relevance.
        The current draft of the President's fiscal year 2018 budget
    proposes major cuts to USAID and the U.S. Department of State's Bureau
    of Educational and Cultural Affairs--the two parts of our government
    responsible for the program. If enacted, these cuts could devastate
    YALI and undermine the increasingly significant role that the program
    plays in advancing American national security interests in Africa.
        We urge you to support the continuation of the YALI and the Mandela
    Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders. A strong, prosperous,
    democratic Africa aligned with the United States and led by a dynamic
    network of emerging leaders who share our values is in our strategic
    national interests, now and for decades to come.

                Sincerely,

    The Honorable Thomas Pickering, former Under Secretary of State and
        former Ambassador of the United States to Israel, the United
        Nations, the Soviet Union, Nigeria and El Salvador

    The Honorable Robert Mallett, former Deputy Secretary and Acting
        Secretary of Commerce, and President & CEO, Africare

    General Kip Ward, former Commander, United States Africa Command
        (AFRICOM)

    The Honorable Johnnie Carson, former Assistant Secretary of State for
        African Affairs and former Ambassador of the United States to
        Uganda, Zimbabwe and Kenya

    The Honorable Hank Cohen, Former Assistant Secretary of State for
        African Affairs, Senior Director for Africa at the National
        Security Council and Ambassador of the United States to Senegal

    The Honorable George Moose, former Assistant Secretary of State for
        African Affairs, former Ambassador of the United States to Senegal,
        Benin, and the United Nations in Geneva

    The Honorable Dr. Chet Crocker, former Assistant Secretary of State for
        African Affairs

    The Honorable Earl Gast, Former Assistant Administrator for Africa,
        U.S. Agency for International Development

    The Honorable Vivian Lowery Derryck, former Assistant Administrator for
        Africa, U.S. Agency for International Development

    The Honorable Mark Bellamy, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
        of State for Africa, former Ambassador of the United States to
        Kenya and former Director, Africa Center for Strategic Studies

    The Honorable Michelle Gavin, former Senior Director for Africa,
        National Security Council and former Ambassador of the United
        States to Botswana

    The Honorable Don Gips, former Ambassador of the United States to South
        Africa

    The Honorable Phil Carter, former Ambassador of the United States to
        Cote d'Ivoire

    Mr. Grant Harris, former Senior Director for Africa, National Security
        Council

    Dr. Witney Schneidman, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for
        African Affairs

    Mr. John Prendergast, former Director for Africa, National Security
        Council
                                     ______

                                                   Monday, May 8, 2017.
    Hon. Chris Coons,
    U.S. Senate,
    127A Russell Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Dear Senator Coons,

        We urge you to fully fund the Young African Leaders Initiative
    (YALI) and its flagship program, the Mandela Washington Fellowship for
    Young African Leaders. The current draft of the President's fiscal year
    2018 budget proposes major cuts to USAID and the U.S. Department of
    State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. If enacted, these
    cuts could devastate YALI, which directly benefits American colleges
    and institutions who host these young leaders each year, including the
    University of Delaware in your State.
        The Young African Leaders Initiative invests in the next generation
    of leaders across the Continent. By providing training in leadership,
    management, and entrepreneurship that can help future leaders elevate
    their own communities and countries, the U.S. helps these communities
    help themselves while building long-term relationships that benefit the
    United States. It is critical to America's safety and economic strength
    to engage with young leaders from around the world, who are poised to
    take over influential roles in government, civil society, and business.
        Over 3,000 Mandela Washington Fellows and 450,000 YALI network
    members are now on the African Continent. Many already are in positions
    of influence, representing a growing web of allies, who will shape the
    future of Africa--and want to work with the United States instead of
    other geopolitical competitors seeking to exert influence.
        The Fellowship also gives our faculty, students, and local
    community members the opportunity to better understand people from
    different countries and cultures across Africa, home to some of the
    world's fastest growing economies. In a world where academic research
    and professional engagement increasingly occurs across borders, that's
    not just a feel-good experience--it's an essential 21st century
    business skill.
        Finally, the Fellowship brings direct economic benefits to our
    communities. Each participating institution receives $150,000 in
    Federal funds, which they match with an additional $100,000. This money
    is then invested back into the local community through expenditures on
    lodging, meals, and services, which support local jobs.
        From our personal experience, this Fellowship is truly a two-way
    exchange with tremendous benefits for the United States. We hope that
    we can count on your support in ensuring the Fellowship's continued
    success. A strong, prosperous, democratic Africa that is aligned with
    the U.S. will ensure our national strategic interests for decades to
    come.

                Sincerely,

    Appalachian State University (North Carolina)
    Bridgewater State University (Massachusetts)
    Dartmouth College (New Hampshire)
    Drake University (Iowa)
    Drexel University (Pennsylvania)
    Duquesne University (Pennsylvania)
    Florida International University (Florida)
    Georgia State University (Georgia)
    Indiana University (Indiana)
    Kansas State University (Kansas)
    Lehigh University (Pennsylvania)
    Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (New Jersey)
    Skyline College (California)
    Texas Tech University (Texas)
    The Presidential Precinct (Virginia)
    University of California, Davis (California)
    University of Delaware (Delaware)
    University of Iowa (Iowa)
    University of Maine (Maine)
    University of Minnesota (Minnesota)
    University of Notre Dame (Indiana)
    University of San Diego (California)
    Wagner College (New York)

                               EXCHANGE PROGRAMS

        Mr. Kolbe. Mr. Chairman and Senator Coons, I think you're
    absolutely right. I think these programs are effective. At IRI,
    we have a very effective, for example, Women's Democracy
    Network, which is worldwide where we bring together women
    leaders from around the world to share ideas and concerns and
    we hope to help them in their own countries to build networks,
    grass roots networks. So, I think these kinds of programs are
    very important and the one you cite in Africa is just one
    example of many that these different organizations represented
    at this table have been supporting over the years.
        Ms. Albright. I think the people-to-people programs are
    essential and they create a network of understanding and
    education by really dealing with each other. I also think that
    the young leaders, very important in terms of the youth, are
    one of the--people call it the youth bulge. I prefer to call it
    the youth surge, is really going to make a difference in
    countries if in fact we have the capabilities of talking to
    them, working through the cultural exchange programs and then
    developing a network that is supporting.
        I also hope, not to kind of cross too many lines, that
    there are enough--that we allow students to come to the United
    States. I'm a professor. It makes a big difference to be able
    to have foreign students in classes. It benefits the American
    students and so I think that's part of what we need to be doing
    in terms of networking and exchanging and developing new
    leaders that know each other. NDI also has a women's program.
        Senator Coons. This particular program partners with 20
    different American universities to bring young leaders to the
    United States for a period of months, but there are many others
    within this larger bucket. I just picked this particular one to
    talk about. Mr. Hadley.
        Mr. Hadley. You know one of the things about this is a lot
    of these fragile states are places with very youthful
    populations and they can be a terrific resource. There's a
    program that I heard about when I was in Kaval, Afghanistan, to
    take a conflict resolution course and put it into a university
    to teach young people. You know a lot of conflict comes because
    of unresolved local disputes about land, water and all the
    rest. So, you teach these kids conflict resolution skills. They
    actually go home into their communities and they start
    resolving conflicts and cutting across tribal and sectarian
    lines. It's now going to be put in other universities
    throughout Afghanistan. This is what we call sort of bottom up
    peace building. It's a huge opportunity and especially in these
    youthful countries, it's an enormous resource. And of course,
    by doing that, they learn the principles of democracy, freedom,
    rule of law and all the rest. So, it's a terrific opportunity
    for us.
        Senator Coons. Thank you. As has been mentioned, elections
    are not the only thing we need to support in order to support
    democracy. I think these are the sorts of programs that help
    build the fiber of non-governmental organizations, civic
    organizations and contribute to the sustainment of democracy.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this important hearing.
        Senator Durbin [presiding]. Thank you very much. I
    certainly support diplomacy, soft power, as a viable
    alternative to military, something that we should expand and
    explore. But, I'd like to address the issue of the toolbox,
    Secretary Albright, that you mentioned, because I do believe
    the toolbox is changing when it comes to achieving goals short
    of military action. There's no subtlety in Vladimir Putin's
    goal to undermine the democracy of the United States and other
    Western leaders. It's been certified by our own intelligence
    agencies that they made an attempt to do that in this last
    election for President of the United States. There's some
    evidence that they tried it in France and will try it in other
    places. The tools that Putin is using are not diplomacy or soft
    power as we defined it. What he's using are fake news, cyber-
    attacks, shady business dealings, dark campaign money and up-
    to-date social media. And he's using them with some impact,
    certainly in our country and other places. The question I have
    is when it comes to our side promoting democracy, preserving
    democracy, are our tools changing? Are they reflecting this
    century and what is needed now in a positive and legal context
    to deal with Putin and his tools?

                   DEMOCRACY PROMOTION TOOLS AND SOCIAL MEDIA

        Mr. Hadley. No. We've got to get back into this business in
    a 21st century way. You know, we thought at the end of the Cold
    War that, you know, freedom, democracy and free markets had
    swept the table and was the only alternative really out there.
    And what we've learned in the last 10 years is that the
    authoritarians have struck back with a comprehensive and new
    set of tools and we sort of went out of that business and we
    need to get back into that business. It's one of the things I
    think this subcommittee can take the real lead on in pushing
    the administration to start defining what is the toolset we
    need. If I could make one other comment, Senator you mentioned
    soft power as alternative to the military. It is true certainly
    in conflict avoidance but it is also a partner of the military
    in zones of conflict and I would like, Mr. Chairman, if
    possible, if we could insert in the record ``Will the
    COINdinistas Rise Again?'', which is really a wonderful telling
    of the cooperation between our military and these non-military
    assets in Afghanistan and Iraq and it is the case why we need
    to invest----
        [The information follows:]
                             National Interest deg.
      Submitted by Hon. Steven Hadley, Chairman of the Board, The United
                           States Institute of Peace

    [Published on The National Interest (http://nationalinterest.org), May
                                    3, 2017]

                       Will the COINdinistas Rise Again?

       purging the counterinsurgency lessons of the iraq war for fear of
    striking a political nerve would be a mistake--and h. r. mcmaster knows
                                     better

                                (By Zach Abels)

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              U.S. Army soldiers in Mosul, Iraq. Flickr/U.S. Army

        IN LATE 1986, a 34-year-old declared doctrinal war on the U.S.
    Army. With the stroke of a pen, one anonymous major set in motion a
    bureaucratic insurrection that, decades later, would subsume a cabal of
    battle-hardened revolutionaries and reshape American warfare. It was
    the opening salvo, the beginning of a story that ends with a maverick
    warrior-scholar running Donald Trump's ramshackle National Security
    Council.
        That winter, Parameters featured an article under the byline Gen.
    John R. Galvin. But Galvin was not the true author; he had delegated
    the writing to his assistant, an imperious major putting the finishing
    touches on his Princeton PhD. David H. Petraeus relished the task.
        Warfare is ``no longer fought simply by the military,'' he wrote.
    ``It now encompasses entire populations . . . and its outcome depends
    more and more on their collective will, what Clausewitz termed `the
    popular passions.' '' Petraeus pilloried the Army for its parochial
    obsession with firepower and conventional combat. He was warning of
    chinks in the armor. Unlike the brass, he did not see insurgency,
    terrorism and guerrilla warfare--``small wars''--as aberrations.
    Scholarship and a penchant for disruption fueled his diatribe. Petraeus
    dismissed the efficacy of merely killing rebels and touted the
    strategic logic of addressing ``contentious, long-ignored, but popular
    issues tied to key facets of national life.'' At bottom, war is a human
    endeavor.
        His self-described ``ramble'' called into question the Army's
    capacity to adapt. Military leaders ``don't look up very often,'' he
    observed, so distracted are they by the day-to-day slog. Petraeus
    worried that the dearth of critical thinking would exact a heavy toll.
    ``Let us get our young leaders away from the grindstone now and then,
    and encourage them to reflect on developments outside the fortress-
    cloister,'' he concluded. ``Only then will they develop into leaders
    capable of adapting to the changed environment of warfare and able to
    fashion a new paradigm that addresses all the dimensions of the
    conflicts that may lie ahead.''
        Today, his critique rings prophetic. America's post-9/11 invasions
    of Afghanistan and Iraq restored ``insurgency'' to national-security
    parlance. The ensuing conflicts were messy and slow. They laid bare the
    limits of the military instrument and the bankruptcy of conventional
    doctrine. Vicious, resilient insurgencies unleashed by the Taliban,
    Iran-backed Shia militias, Al Qaeda in Iraq and, later, the Islamic
    State have imprinted haunting images on the American psyche.
        Trump rode those very waves of fear and angst into the White House.
    The public's hunger for closure pales in comparison with its thirst for
    blood. Over and over again, Trump bewitched voters with promises of
    consigning ISIS to the fires of hell, without repeating the mistakes of
    the Iraq War. But evicting insurgents from their strongholds will not
    suffice. The president cares deeply about optics; he can't afford for
    the next ISIS to take root on his watch. Remember when candidate Trump
    accused Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton of cofounding ISIS? The attack
    ads would write themselves. Only an enduring victory will do.

        IF ANYONE can help the president realize that objective, it's his
    national security advisor, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster. McMaster first came
    to prominence in 1997, when he turned his PhD dissertation into a book.
    In Dereliction of Duty, he excoriates the joint chiefs of the Vietnam
    War era for not expressing dissent with enough conviction. McMaster
    always aspired to speak truth to power. The Iraq War turned principle
    into deed.
        It was during the Iraq War that the chain reaction triggered by
    Petraeus's ghostwriting reached a climax. Along with James N. Mattis--
    now Trump's defense secretary--a cast of erudite field officers and a
    clutch of civilian intellectuals, McMaster and Petraeus reengineered
    the way the United States thinks about warfare. They revolutionized a
    U.S. military culturally predisposed to the status quo. They changed
    the Government's most obstinate bureaucracy from within. They proved
    that America's storied warfighters, peerless though they are in
    dispatching conventional foes, are alone no match for the insurgencies
    that have metastasized throughout the Middle East. McMaster, Petraeus
    and their fellow rabble-rousers were dubbed ``COINdinistas,'' a tribute
    to the figurative insurgency they launched in order to teach the U.S.
    Government how to fight literal insurgencies.
        The Iraq War was their crucible. It crystallized for them that
    defeating insurgents rests on a symbiosis between soldier and civilian,
    between killing and rebuilding. In February, 121 retired flag officers,
    Petraeus among them, reaffirmed that precise belief in a letter to
    Congress. They averred their ``strong conviction that elevating and
    strengthening diplomacy and development alongside defense are critical
    to keeping America safe.'' They turned Mattis's own words against him.
    As the head of Central Command, he once said, ``If you don't fully fund
    the State Department, then I need to buy more ammunition.''
    Historically, that's a bipartisan sentiment, verging on gospel.
        So when the White House announced in mid-March that it aimed to
    enfeeble the State Department and USAID, and extinguish the United
    States Institute of Peace, it's no surprise that national-security
    pundits across the political spectrum struggled to suppress the
    invective bubbling beneath the surface. Some tempered their rage to
    inveigh against the president's ``skinny budget.'' Many are summoning
    the ethos of liberal internationalism. The more compelling rejoinders,
    though, are speaking to the countless ways in which Trump's budget
    would damage America's cold, hard material interests. Because it would.
    It would jeopardize what every elected official claims to treasure
    without reservation: America's shimmering coffers and legendary
    warfighters. The sheer symbolism of Trump's proposal, regardless of its
    plausibility on Capitol Hill, speaks volumes. Its shockwaves will
    reverberate and linger.
        The White House's budget outline marks the apex of a string of
    contradictions. The President's relationship with the military is
    perplexing. Retired four-stars head his Homeland Security and Defense
    Departments, and an active-duty three-star sits atop his NSC. Trump
    likes being seen in the company of generals, though some suspect he's
    using them as props. His ostensible deference didn't stop him from
    publicly blaming them for the botched Yemen raid and subsequent death
    of a Navy SEAL. In the greater Middle East, Trump has empowered his
    commanders, but hasn't provided a semblance of strategic vision--what's
    the endgame?
        The administration's disconnect between military action and
    political outcome is palpable. Officers in the field have been
    authorized to call in air strikes without permission from more senior
    officials. On April 13, Gen. John W. Nicholson Jr. dropped the ``mother
    of all bombs'' on an ISIS tunnel complex in remote eastern Afghanistan.
    It was the most powerful non-nuclear weapon ever used in combat and,
    reportedly, employed without White House signoff. But it's not just
    Trump who's guilty of confusing tantalizing explosions with sound
    foreign policy. Cable news worked itself into a frenzy, obscuring the
    difference between tactics and strategy, one awestruck chyron after
    another. Few paused to ask: what's stopping another 100 ISIS fighters
    from replacing those killed?
        ``We have to start winning wars again,'' the President exhorted on
    February 27. Days later, he pledged to ``give our military the tools
    you need to prevent war and, if required, to fight war and only do one
    thing. You know what that is? Win. Win! We're gonna start winning
    again.'' The irony is tragic and comedic, in equal measure. A few weeks
    later, Trump proposed a budget that would deprive the military of the
    exact tools he promised them. He seeks to cripple the civilian agencies
    that consolidate combat success into political victory. Military power
    divorced from diplomacy cannot win conventional wars. In small wars,
    raw firepower is even less decisive.
        If Trump were to succeed in budgetarily castrating the civilian
    agents of U.S. foreign policy, he would harm national security. In
    Iraq, where the administration has escalated the fight against ISIS, he
    would render the efforts of servicemen and women less consequential,
    their triumphs fleeting. Mosul will fall. What happens the day after?
    Sunni and Shia, Arab and Kurd, are unlikely to find peace overnight.
    Killing bad guys does not a foreign policy make. Without a concerted
    strategy of security, diplomacy and development, popular passions will
    once again engulf Iraq. Deja vu of the worst kind--the kind that sucks
    American soldiers and dollars right back in.
        No White House official is more keenly attuned to this dystopian
    fate than McMaster. No national-security professional exerts more
    influence in the new administration. ``H. R. knows firsthand the value
    of diplomacy in bringing conflict to a conclusion favorable to the
    United States, at the minimum possible cost in lives and dollars,''
    retired Lt. Col. John Nagl told me. ``H. R. knows that in his bones.''
    Nagl is no ordinary combat veteran. A COINdinista of the highest
    repute, he possesses unique insight into McMaster and is unencumbered
    by chain of command. ``It must gnaw at his innards,'' Nagl said of his
    friend, ``that the administration he is serving is attempting to do
    this kind of damage to institutions that are so important to the
    security of our great Nation.'' He was uninterested in mincing words:
    ``These ideas are asinine.''
        And that's the most confounding paradox of them all: that H. R.
    McMaster could possibly acquiesce to something so flagrantly
    antithetical to the American way of war he fought so hard to transform.
    He knows that ``small wars'' is a misnomer. When a president fantasizes
    about short, winnable wars with military-only solutions, young men and
    women pay for that mistake with their lives, and taxpayers with their
    wallets. It beggars belief that the strategist of a generation could be
    complicit in a national-security policy unmoored from common sense.

        TWELVE YEARS after decimating an entire Republican Guard tank
    formation without loss, Herbert Raymond McMaster returned to Iraq. It
    didn't take him long to discover that the pitched battles he and John
    Nagl waged against Saddam Hussein in 1991 had gone the way of the
    musket. This was a different sort of war.
        As the director of Central Command's advisory group in 2003,
    McMaster visited every brigade in Iraq. When he came across the 101st
    Airborne Division in Mosul, he was pleasantly surprised to find Maj.
    Gen. Petraeus experimenting with counterinsurgency. The two hadn't
    spoken in a while. Six years earlier, Fred Kaplan recounts in The
    Insurgents, McMaster's intellectual honesty caught Petraeus's eye. Both
    officers had written their PhD dissertations on the Vietnam War.
    Petraeus chose not to publish his for fear of insulting the commanders
    who held sway over his career; McMaster did not share that compunction.
    Dereliction of Duty bears the subtitle ``Lyndon Johnson, Robert
    McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to
    Vietnam.'' Not exactly subtle. Petraeus was an aide to the chairman of
    the joint chiefs at the time. He called McMaster and instructed him to
    reach out directly should he ever come under fire for what he'd
    written. The need never arose, but after reconnecting in Mosul, they
    stayed in touch. McMaster would experience his own watershed soon
    enough.
        It was the spring of 2005, and Tal Afar was in shambles. Colonel
    McMaster arrived at the helm of the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment to
    find the city, 35 miles from the Syrian border, beset with sectarian
    violence. Iraqi and foreign-fighter jihadists, along with elements of
    the local Sunni population, ran riot. Al Qaeda in Iraq, ISIS's
    forebear, targeted the minority Shia with heinous violence, the kind of
    theatrical brutality all too familiar today. A Shia police force fanned
    the flames with indiscriminate reprisal killings. In Insurgency and
    Counter-Insurgency in Iraq, Ahmed S. Hashim recalls that ``Tal Afar
    looked like one of those forlorn humanoid settlements on a distant and
    barren planet in the outer reaches of the solar system.'' On multiple
    occasions, the U.S. military ousted the insurgents. But each time they
    came back. The city became an insurgent sanctuary, a convenient support
    base for launching attacks on Mosul, which markedly deteriorated after
    Petraeus's departure.
        In the April 10, 2006 issue of the New Yorker, George Packer
    painted a vivid picture of McMaster's pioneering operations in Tal
    Afar. On his own initiative, McMaster employed classic
    counterinsurgency tactics in a bid to ``clear, hold, build.'' (Among
    the books McMaster assigned his regiment before deploying was Learning
    to Eat Soup with a Knife, by John Nagl. Combatting insurgency is
    ``messy and slow, like eating soup with a knife,'' T. E. Lawrence wrote
    in Seven Pillars of Wisdom.) Clearing and holding went well enough. He
    collaborated with the 82nd Airborne and special-operations units to
    dispossess the jihadists of their strongholds. He ordered his soldiers
    to establish neighborhood outposts and to dismount their armored
    vehicles while on patrol (shifting the emphasis from protecting
    themselves to protecting civilians); to curtail gratuitous night raids
    (which embitter and alienate); to use minimum necessary force when
    possible (to avoid collateral damage); and to treat the locals with a
    dose of dignity and compassion. ``Every time you treat an Iraqi
    disrespectfully, you are working for the enemy,'' he instructed. Trust
    yields intelligence, and intelligence saves lives. James Mattis,
    McMaster's current counterpart at the Pentagon, adopted a similar
    philosophy as commander of the First Marine Division in Anbar Province
    during the early years of the war. Tom Ricks documented Mattis's
    ``first, do no harm'' approach in Fiasco, a 2007 Pulitzer finalist.
        Building was another challenge entirely. McMaster worked to restore
    basic services, stood up a local security force and encouraged
    municipal workers to return by paying their wages. He rather shrewdly
    funneled reconstruction funds through tribal sheikhs. Appearances
    matter; people were more likely to welcome the return of order and
    infrastructure if they could plausibly deny affiliation with the
    American occupiers. Sowing trust among the locals proved most daunting.
    ``When we came to Iraq, we didn't understand the complexity--what it
    meant for a society to live under a brutal dictatorship, with ethnic
    and sectarian divisions,'' McMaster told Packer. The Jordanian
    terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi understood the complexity. Under his
    leadership, Al Qaeda in Iraq had brought Tal Afar to the brink of civil
    war. Zarqawi's brand of terror was calculated and effective. McMaster
    knew that if he couldn't find a way to end the cycle of revenge
    killings, his regiment's progress would evaporate. Taking death squads
    off the street was but a Band-Aid.
        And then the rubber met the road. As Packer observed, ``Shiite
    sheikhs accused the Sunnis of tolerating the presence of terrorists,
    and Sunni sheikhs accused the Shia of making unwarranted
    generalizations about them.'' McMaster tasked an exceptionally
    competent squadron commander with reversing Zarqawi's damage, through
    diplomacy at the community level. Lt. Col. Chris Hickey had to become
    an expert in tribal politics overnight--in his words, ``to switch the
    argument from Sunni versus Shia, which was what the terrorists were
    trying to make the argument, to Iraqi versus takfirin.''
        This mismatch is representative of so many failures throughout the
    occupation. A soldier was forced to play a role better suited to an
    anthropologist. In The Mission, Dana Priest illustrates how, by the
    turn of the century, the United States had become over-reliant on its
    military to carry out a broadening set of objectives, at the cost of
    the State Department and its ``shriveling'' resources. In 2006, Praeger
    reissued David Galula's 1964 book Counterinsurgency Warfare, with a new
    foreword by John Nagl. The French counterinsurgent argues that the
    responsibilities of the soldier, the policeman and the civil servant
    are drawn into a state of mutual dependence by COIN's inherently
    political character.
        The position McMaster put Hickey in wasn't uncommon. Before he was
    a COINdinista, Peter Mansoor led the First Brigade, First Armored
    Division. ``I was a brigade commander on the ground in 2003--4 and
    almost never saw a representative of the Coalition Provisional
    Authority. We desperately needed civilian expertise to help us with
    reconstruction and to reform the local governments,'' the retired
    colonel told me. ``There are certain aspects of counterinsurgency that
    really only civilians can provide.''
        Nagl had a similar experience. ``I became a Sunni-Shia religious,
    cultural and political expert--`expert' in quote marks!--on the fly
    because there was nobody else to do it,'' he lamented. ``When I was on
    the ground in Iraq trying to untangle tribal politics, I was despondent
    that I didn't have help from the State Department, USAID or anybody.
    And I became convinced that investment in diplomats would literally
    have saved my soldiers' lives.''
        Even more comprehensively than Petraeus in Mosul, McMaster
    supplanted chaos with stability in Tal Afar. His accomplishments were
    hailed as a wild success. And rightfully so. His was the first
    systematic counterinsurgency operation of the Iraq War--conducted, as
    Kaplan points out, ``with total independence from headquarters''--at a
    time when the mere utterance of the ``i-word'' invited opprobrium. But
    Tal Afar was one city, and McMaster one man. The insurgents cleared
    from one town would simply move to another, creating a ``balloon-
    squeezing phenomenon'' that prevented security from improving country-
    wide. It's what Galula called an ``accidental mosaic.'' Furthermore,
    the very nature of military deployments precludes the kind of
    continuity that might have seen McMaster achieve more in Tal Afar. He
    got his orders and moved on. On February 22, 2006, Al Qaeda in Iraq
    blew up the Al-Askari Shia shrine in Samarra. The jihadists got the
    civil war they wanted.
        Back in Washington, the war of ideas Petraeus sparked in 1986 was
    coming to a head. After years of surreptitious politicking, chain-of-
    command bending and painstaking intellectual salesmanship, Petraeus and
    McMaster were finally making inroads. In September 2006, Petreaus
    installed McMaster and Mansoor into a secret advisory group the joint
    chiefs had assembled to rethink Iraq. The ``council of colonels'' was
    afforded the opportunity to dispense with ceremony and tell the most
    senior officers in America's military the hard truths they couldn't
    countenance: Iraq was roiled in an insurgency. Clean victory and hasty
    withdrawal were pipedreams. Killing the enemy would not be enough. Only
    an injection of new commanders, resources and doctrine could salvage
    the crisis. Meanwhile, a network of influential experts, scrupulously
    cultivated by Petraeus, was working to convince President Bush to sign
    off.
        They were on the cusp. Petraeus and his cadre of doctrinal
    disobedients put pen to paper. On December 15, 2006, they published FM
    3-24, the COINdinistas' true statement of purpose. The paradigm-
    shifting counterinsurgency field manual, which cites McMaster's
    exploits in Tal Afar and Mattis's in Anbar Province, turned the
    American way of war upside down. It codified hearts-and-minds COIN.
    Corporals and lieutenants would have to unlearn much of what the
    military had taught them. An insurgency's center of gravity is the
    civilian population. The public is the prize; win them over and the
    insurgents lose support. FM 3-24 made its authors look more like agents
    of change than petulant insubordinates. They had broken free of the
    fortress-cloister.
        Bush finally acceded: America wasn't going to kill its way out of
    this morass. A month after the field manual's release, the president
    pinned a fourth star to Petraeus's shoulder, gave him charge of all
    U.S. forces in Iraq and green-lit the surge. Petraeus named Mansoor his
    executive officer and tapped McMaster to lead his strategic-assessment
    team. The COINdinistas were insurgents no longer.

        THE SURGE'S abiding relevance lies not in the operational realm but
    in the conceptual. It drew military and nonmilitary personnel into a
    state of mutual dependence, made protecting Iraqi civilians a central
    mandate and confronted the conflict's political accelerants. Killing
    insurgents was subordinated to a new directive: making sure their ilk
    couldn't return.
        ``We had a lot of military power on the ground to fight the
    insurgency,'' Mansoor told me. ``What we lacked was a robust,
    complimentary civilian effort to solidify the gains that the soldiers
    and marines were making on the streets of Iraqi cities and towns.'' So
    General Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the new ambassador in Baghdad,
    embedded provincial reconstruction teams (PRT) in combat units, filling
    their ranks with staff from USAID and the Departments of State,
    Agriculture and Justice. PRTs deployed to the front lines to tackle the
    socioeconomic drivers of the conflict. Soldiers and civilians put
    themselves at risk to secure and rebuild communities.
        The surge gave warring factions breathing space, a narrow window
    for political accommodation. Stop shooting, start talking. But security
    provision alone couldn't bring them to the table. In The
    Counterinsurgent's Constitution, Ganesh Sitaraman argues that in small
    wars, the counterinsurgent must initiate reconstruction in the midst of
    the conflict. ``Counterinsurgency embraces a bottom-up approach,'' he
    writes, ``that grows organically from the local conditions and context:
    the population's capacities and needs, their traditions and
    preferences. Organic reconstruction reframes warfighting as village-
    building.'' Sitaraman sees reconciliation programs as ``weapons of war,
    instruments of lawfare that can be designed to reduce or even eliminate
    the insurgency.'' At the height of the surge, an Army combat brigade
    and a civilian organization that Donald Trump now wants to defund put
    that theory to the test. Together, they weaponized reconciliation in
    the ``Triangle of Death.''
        Mahmudiya District, Baghdad's ethnically mixed southern doorstep,
    earned its bleak moniker during the early years of the war.
    Assassinations, public beheadings, improvised explosive devices and
    armed banditry punctuated virulent sectarian warfare. ``Not one man in
    a hundred will stand up to a real killer,'' James Mattis once remarked
    to the author Bing West. ``It's ruthlessness that cows people.''
        Col. Michael M. Kershaw was told a year ahead of time, far longer
    than usual, that his brigade would deploy to Mahmudiya. Early on in his
    preparation, he realized that ``this was fundamentally a problem of
    counterinsurgency.'' But it was not, contrary to the assumption I
    voiced to him during our interview, McMaster's operations in Tal Afar
    that brought him to this conclusion. He wasn't terribly chagrined at my
    mistake.
        Kershaw and McMaster, it turns out, go way back. They were in the
    same West Point class, where they played rugby together and shared a
    course on revolutionary warfare. They were both company commanders in
    Iraq during the Gulf War. When Kershaw attempted to dabble in
    counterinsurgency in Afghanistan in 2003, McMaster noticed. Kershaw was
    leading the First Ranger Battalion in Kunar Province and discovered
    ``the futility of trying to pick these guys off.'' McMaster flew in and
    received a briefing from Kershaw's second-in-command. When McMaster
    took COIN a few steps further in Tal Afar 2 years later, Kershaw was
    tracking his progress.
        Kershaw and the Second Brigade of the Tenth Mountain Division
    arrived in Mahmudiya in August 2006. From the beginning, he said, he
    was determined to ``harness something that would outlast our tour of
    duty.'' The Triangle of Death's new counterinsurgents manned
    neighborhood outposts, with an eye toward restoring community security.
    Special operators killed and captured Al Qaeda and its foreign
    fighters. Kershaw's deputy, Lt. Col. John Laganelli, told me he worked
    to bring agricultural and economic-development capabilities into the
    region, ``to create some form of normalcy for the people.'' Meanwhile,
    the ``Awakening'' had moved from Anbar Province and was sweeping across
    Mahmudiya. Local Sunnis began betraying Al Qaeda, electing to supply
    the U.S. military with intelligence in exchange for pay and promises of
    safety.
        In Kershaw's telling, plenty of tribal leaders wanted to talk, but
    the Second Brigade was struggling to consolidate the ink dots of
    ``awakened'' locals into a big-picture compromise. There were too many
    moving pieces, too little trust: ``We were trying to navigate an
    archipelago of societal islands. The campaign was like an island-
    hopping exercise.'' And Kershaw was, by all accounts, the Army's
    resident authority on south Baghdad. ``I was the Mahmudiya expert,'' he
    said matter-of-factly. ``But man, I went to public school in east
    Texas. I could only scrape the surface. The language barrier. The
    culture barrier.'' Someone in Kershaw's orbit coined the term
    ``sheikhapalooza'' to denote the unproductive theatrics that
    characterized the military's sit-downs with tribal leaders.
        By the summer of 2007, the Second Brigade had expelled Al Qaeda and
    bloodied the remaining insurgent groups. A promising, yet tenuous, calm
    took hold. Fearing regression, Kershaw's embedded PRT connected him
    with the United States Institute of Peace, a congressionally funded
    peacebuilding outfit--which the colonel ``knew nothing about,'' he's
    still embarrassed to say. When he met with USIP staff in the Green
    Zone, ``a lightbulb went off,'' he told me. ``Their set of capabilities
    was something we could not get elsewhere. They had Iraqis who could
    actually run the negotiations between the sheikhs. They could seat
    Iraqis with Iraqis.''
        USIP's objective, in its view, was to preempt revenge. Orchestrate
    a reconciliation process capable of suturing the ethnosectarian wounds
    the jihadists had wrought. Kershaw saw USIP in a utilitarian light:
    just as he turned to special-operations units to kill and capture
    irreconcilables, he turned to USIP to reconcile the rest. ``Those were
    desperate times. We were looking for anyone with value added.''
    Desperate they were. There were almost 2,200 IED incidents during the
    Second Brigade's 15-month tour. Fifty-four soldiers were killed in
    action. Kershaw was eager to maximize the returns on his soldiers'
    costly investment. He didn't need FM 3-24 or media-savvy Petraeus to
    teach him about civil-military innovation. But the new field manual and
    Petraeus's public championing of counterinsurgency, Kershaw told me,
    did give his brigade the cover it needed to engage deeply with the
    people of his sector and keep Al Qaeda on the ropes. (McMaster actually
    came down to Mahmudiya during Kershaw's deployment to visit his old
    friend and exchange ideas.)
        USIP tapped into its reservoir of Iraqi intermediaries, whom the
    institute had for years been working with and training in conflict
    management. They worked closely with the Second Brigade to map out
    Mahmudiya's intricate fault lines and volatile power centers. Which
    individuals and which clans were best positioned to convince their
    tribes to negotiate with bitter enemies? Kershaw's soldiers went to
    great lengths to protect and shuttle USIP personnel--one such escort
    was struck by an IED. Sarhang Hamasaeed, USIP's current director of
    Middle East programs, went out of his way to emphasize the
    complementary dynamic between the institute and the military. USIP
    wasn't exactly in a position to rid Mahmudiya of Al Qaeda, he told me,
    but neither was the Army equipped to rebuild social cohesion.
        USIP marshalled its acute expertise and capitalized on its
    ambiguous providence. Despite having ``United States'' in its name, the
    institute was able to disassociate itself from the oft-reviled
    occupation (in Kershaw's opinion, USIP's Iraqi-led approach allowed it
    to function like ``an NGO we fund as a front''). All the while, it was
    leveraging its pedigree in diverse corridors of power. Kershaw was
    constrained by chain of command; USIP was not. The institute
    collaborated with the State and Defense Departments to secure buy-in
    from integral power brokers at the municipal, provincial and national
    levels. Despite a hostile reception, USIP was able to extract an
    endorsement from officials in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's inner
    circle.
        USIP meticulously cultivated a web of local mediators and Triangle
    of Death stakeholders. The resulting delegation possessed unparalleled
    insight into the competing interests and hidden motives of the
    aggrieved parties. USIP and its delegation turned their attention to
    Mahmudiya's exiled Sunni leaders. Without them, the entire enterprise
    would grind to a halt. Post-Saddam Iraq had devastated their
    livelihoods and forced them to take refuge in Amman, Jordan. They held
    America responsible. Young firebrands and other radical elements in
    their tribes vied for influence. Some espoused sectarian warfare. Both
    Rusty Barber, USIP's chief of party in Iraq at the time and an
    architect of the peacebuilding initiative, and Colonel Kershaw
    described the links between these exiles and Mahmudiya's insurgents in
    cryptic terms. At the very least, Barber told me, they ``were capable
    of operating as spoilers to any agreement they were left out of.'' They
    ``definitely had blood on their hands,'' Kershaw said.
        Among the delegates USIP recruited for the Amman mission was Ali
    al-Mufraji, a 35-year-old general in the Iraqi army. He was the most
    senior Iraqi military officer in Mahmudiya and, in Kershaw's
    experience, ``the real power behind the throne,'' a reference to the
    local Shia government. When Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain
    visited the sector, Kershaw suggested that they meet with Mufraji. In
    Amman, the one-star general's job was to convince the exiles of the
    initiative's viability, especially on security grounds. A Shia married
    to a Sunni, Mufraji's pragmatism helped shift the tenor of the talks,
    which were nearly derailed by suspicion. The most formidable source of
    agitation was the widespread detention of Sunnis haphazardly branded as
    terrorist accomplices. Mufraji brandished his laptop, popped open a
    spreadsheet and revealed the status of tribesmen in custody. His candor
    and transactional efficiency fostered trust. The exiles accepted the
    project's merits and, later, convinced Mahmudiya's senior tribal
    leaders to participate in a Hail Mary dialogue. In a letter dated
    August 23, 2007, Kershaw credited USIP with ``creating an atmosphere
    where real communication could take place'' and implored the institute
    to see the project through.
        Months of ground work were to culminate in a conference at
    Baghdad's Al-Rashid Hotel. The Army provided organizers and
    participants with transportation and employed robust measures to
    protect the hotel itself. Rusty Barber told me that General Petraeus
    personally redirected funds to the reconciliation process.
        The 3-day conference began on October 16. USIP crafted the format
    and agenda. The institute's Iraqi facilitators conducted the
    proceedings. They instructed participants in mediation techniques
    without besmirching their traditions. A few verbal altercations boiled
    over, but were promptly cooled. By day two, the community leaders had
    reached consensus on goals and corresponding action items, which USIP
    channeled into a draft accord overnight. On the third day, pugnacious
    debate over the final text yielded ``Mahmoudiya: Cornerstone for Peace
    and National Accord,'' a concrete framework for the reconstruction of
    the district. Thirty-one Shia and Sunni tribal leaders, so recently
    warring, signed the document in view of Iraqi and foreign press. The
    pact's symbolic value wasn't lost on Kershaw. To him, its impact was
    simple: ``It legitimized the `Awakening.''' Stop shooting, start
    talking was officially socially acceptable. Al Qaeda had lost its local
    base of support.
        Violence declined precipitously. The 101st Division's Third
    Brigade, which replaced Kershaw's, lost a single soldier during its
    deployment. The Army trimmed its presence from a brigade combat team of
    3,500 to a battalion of 650. The entire USIP project cost American
    taxpayers around $1.5 million, roughly the price of a single Tomahawk
    cruise missile. On February 11, 2009, Petraeus praised ``USIP's on-the-
    ground peacebuilding efforts'' in a letter to the Office of Management
    and Budget. In it, he singled out the Mahmudiya initiative as ``a
    striking success story.'' The pact has endured the Arab Spring and the
    rise of ISIS. It holds to this day.

        THE INTENTION here is not to wax poetic about how the mighty
    COINdinistas injected 30,000 troops into Iraq, saved the day and
    galloped off into the sunset. Petraeus has been mythologized too often.
    The military historian Douglas Porch, Petraeus's harshest critic,
    titled his scathing polemic Counterinsurgency Myths. Even sympathetic
    observers point to Petraeus's preoccupation with his own glory and his
    cunning in spinning self-serving narratives.
        Nor is it reasonable to paper over U.S. killing. Brought back to
    Iraq to oversee strategy during the surge, McMaster was vehement that
    some insurgents had too much blood on their hands to be politically
    accommodated. Under Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Joint Special
    Operations Command took scores of these irreconcilables, including Abu
    Musab al-Zarqawi, off the battlefield. But McChrystal opted for the
    scalpel whenever possible. His kill-and-capture missions were designed
    to be discriminate. Collateral damage would only breed more terrorists.
        Besides, controlling territory is not the jihadist's only concern.
    Al Qaeda and ISIS inflict the deepest wounds on the virtual
    battlefield. A suicide bombing at a market has little military value;
    it resonates as ``propaganda of the deed.'' ISIS recruits foreign
    fighters and radicalizes homegrown terrorists online. Viral, emotive
    images are its weapons of choice. And as Graeme Wood argues in The Way
    of the Strangers, ISIS's weaponization of theology cannot simply be
    dismissed as a bastardization of Islam.
        Mending social cohesion in Iraqi communities, therefore, is only
    part of the story. Suffice it to say, the combination of the surge and
    the ``Awakening''--the widespread Sunni uprising against Al Qaeda,
    underway before Petraeus took over--dramatically reduced violence. From
    2004 to mid-2007, more than 1,500 civilians died every month in Iraq.
    By December 2007, that number plummeted to 500. From June 2008 to June
    2011, around 200 civilians died every month.
        The military could not occupy Iraq forever. America failed to
    establish a sustainable political order before withdrawing. Communities
    lacked closure, and tensions gestated. Maliki's overt hostility toward
    the Sunnis stoked discord and violence. ISIS exploited these divisions,
    co-opted Sunni tribes who once fought alongside the Americans and, in
    short order, routed the Iraqi army. In June 2014, ISIS declared a
    caliphate over a broad swathe of territory. At its peak, it controlled
    40 percent of Iraq.
        In Washington, reluctance to intervene understandably found voice.
    The Iraq War scarred America. Words like ``quagmire'' are never far
    from the lips of those who advocate for retrenchment. The Iraq War is
    as politically corrosive as ever, a reliable dog whistle that incites
    rabid denunciations of hegemonic overreach and paternalistic democracy
    promotion. But Iraq is more than just a trope. The decision to invade,
    among the worst foreign-policy blunders in U.S. history, and the
    prosecution of the war are two different things. Conflating
    counterinsurgency with the neoconservative worldview--just because they
    have Iraq in common--is reductive. Petraeus and McMaster did, in fact,
    make common cause with neocon stalwarts like Eliot A. Cohen and
    Frederick W. Kagan as they labored to convince President Bush to change
    tack. They were playing the hand they were dealt. Neocons broke Iraq;
    Petraeus and McMaster were tasked with putting it back together. Trump
    himself seems amenable to this sentiment. In March, he told Haider al-
    Abadi, Iraq's moderate prime minister, ``We shouldn't have gone in, but
    certainly we shouldn't have left.''
        Jettisoning the lessons of the Iraq War for fear of striking a
    political nerve would be feckless. Gaslighting the COINdinistas would
    be cataclysmic.

        DONALD TRUMP is in an unenviable predicament. He's got to defeat
    ISIS and prevent its resurgence, with a footprint small enough to repel
    allegations of interventionism. The Pentagon wants to retain U.S.
    forces in Iraq for years after Mosul is recaptured. ``I believe it's in
    our national interest that we keep Iraqi security forces in a position
    to keep our mutual enemies on their back foot,'' Defense Secretary
    Mattis told Senate leaders in late March. ``I don't see any reason to
    pull out again and face the same lesson.''
        The White House has since delegated new authorities to the Defense
    Department to decide how many troops are deployed in the war against
    ISIS. Two Pentagon officials made clear to me that Operation Inherent
    Resolve is a conventional military affair. Adrian J. T. Rankine-
    Galloway, a Pentagon spokesperson, used some version of ``supporting
    role'' five times in our brief exchange. I asked about the day after
    Mosul falls. ``The Government of Iraq is responsible for governance and
    security matters within its territory,'' the Marine Corps major
    responded. A second Pentagon official, this one senior, spoke to me on
    condition of anonymity. ``Once ISIS is defeated, you still have
    sectarian tensions and divisions. That's where soft power comes into
    play,'' the official said. Gutting civilian agencies, like Trump has
    proposed, would ``hinder the U.S. ability to prevent insurgencies
    before they happen.'' Surely there's some middle ground between full-
    tilt counterinsurgency and what Major Rankine-Galloway referred to as
    ``supporting local partners as those forces liberate territory from
    ISIS control.''
        The lessons the COINdinistas took from Iraq in the 2000s extend
    beyond that time and place. In Waging Insurgent Warfare, Seth G. Jones
    conducts an empirical study on the 181 insurgencies that took form
    between World War II and 2015. Insurgency prevention across the board,
    he demonstrates, hinges on ameliorating local grievances,
    ``particularly ones associated with low per capita income, ethnic
    polarization, and religious polarization.'' Washington isn't going to
    ``fix'' Iraq in one fell swoop. But Trump cannot afford to defund the
    organizations doing a measure of good. Michael Singh, managing director
    at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, was once responsible
    for George W. Bush's national-security policy toward the region
    stretching from Morocco to Iran. ``How we defeat ISIS is just as
    important as whether we do,'' he told me. ``We need to leave behind
    conditions in Iraq both for effective local governance and stable
    regional geopolitics. It will be worth taking our time to get this
    right.''
        If America is going to prolong putting uniformed men and women in
    harm's way, dipping deeper and deeper into the war chest, common sense
    demands that the administration maximize their impact. If America is
    going to help Iraq break the endless cycle of sectarian violence--
    undoubtedly, a prerequisite for hindering an embarrassing ISIS
    comeback--it will have to find a cost-effective, palatable means of
    translating battlefield triumphs into political progress. What Trump
    needs is a force multiplier. Regrettably, the White House's recent
    budget proposal sentenced to death an indispensable variable in that
    equation.
        Seven years after Mahmudiya, the United States Institute of Peace
    executed another unlikely scheme, in the northern city of Tikrit.
        Tikrit in 2014 was like Tal Afar in 2005, but worse. Ravaged by
    calculating jihadists, Saddam Hussein's ancestral hometown collapsed on
    itself. ISIS has a vested interest in instability; internecine violence
    is basically insurgent catnip. Camp Speicher had been home to a few
    thousand Iraqi military cadets before ISIS weeded out 1,700 Shia,
    slaughtered them and dumped their bodies into mass graves. It released
    photos and videos to adorn its sickening propaganda. The Speicher
    victims represented 20 southern tribes, from 9 provinces. By the time a
    hodgepodge of Iraqi Security Forces and Iran-linked militias ejected
    ISIS from Tikrit in April 2015, the massacre had been seared into Shia
    memory.
        Civil war seemed inevitable. Shia from the south marched north to
    avenge their sons. The immediate aftermath of ISIS's expulsion saw a
    wave of looting and lynching. Had he been asked, McMaster could've
    scripted the conflagration to come, like an omniscient playwright. In
    Act One, the Shia conflate every Sunni with a pulse with ISIS and its
    war crimes. The Sunnis are too busy accusing the Shia of making blatant
    generalizations to offer nuance. In Act Two, revenge killing begets
    revenge killing. Tikrit's displaced locals do not return. No Sunni
    trusts the overwhelmingly Shia security forces, least of all the
    militias. In Act Three, the Shia militias use disproportionate force to
    restore order, falling just short of war crimes. In Act Four, ISIS
    returns to Tikrit and hoists its black flag. This time, more Sunni
    tribes than before acquiesce. They've come to hate Baghdad more than
    any jihadist.
        McMaster the playwright would've been within his rights to
    anticipate such a bitter tragedy. He knows the motifs inside and out.
    But in the case of Tikrit, he would've been wrong.
        Tikrit was the first major Sunni city retaken from ISIS. USIP's
    intensive monitoring paid dividends; months before the battle
    concluded, the institute was already reckoning with the brewing storm.
    USIP mobilized an intervention team with its network of Iraqi
    facilitators. Well versed in the fine contours of Tikrit's tattered
    social fabric, the team convened a series of meetings in Baghdad.
    Sarhang Hamasaeed, the institute's Middle East director, helped design
    the Tikrit initiative. He likens revenge killing to an improvised
    explosive device. It hides in plain sight and can detonate at any
    moment, triggering cascading violence. That violence, he told me,
    becomes ``the cleavage that ISIS exploits,'' its fundamental
    sustenance.
        The goal of the dialogue was to dispel notions of collective blame,
    to introduce nuance. But the situation was ``way too hot'' to
    immediately bring the Tikriti Sunnis accused of complicity face to face
    with the southern Shia mourning their children. USIP dubbed these
    parties the ``inner circle.'' What the mediators needed was an ``outer
    circle.'' Their homework on local power dynamics bore fruit. They
    identified viable enablers and probable spoilers. They carefully
    selected an outer circle of tribal leaders who exerted strong influence
    over the inner circle. Sunni and Shia a heartbeat away from war
    gathered under one roof. USIP's Iraqi facilitators ran the show. (``At
    the end of the day,'' Hamasaeed told me, ``you want the Iraqis to have
    the credibility and the know-how to do this on their own.'') Compelling
    anecdotes challenged dangerous prevailing narratives. Not every Sunni,
    it turns out, abetted ISIS. They too lost loved ones. Some Sunni tribes
    put themselves at risk to protect Shia from the jihadists.
        USIP brought crucial stakeholders into the fold. Grand Ayatollah
    Ali al-Sistani, the most revered Shia cleric in the world, sent two
    representatives. Sistani's blessing conferred moderation. The office of
    the prime minister, meanwhile, cleared 400 Sunni families of ISIS
    collusion, allowing them to return home. The disputants struck a
    bargain virtually unprecedented in tribal tradition. According to the
    Christian Science Monitor, ``In front of more than 30 satellite TV
    channels, Tikriti tribal leaders denounced the Speicher massacre,
    blamed IS, and vowed to help Iraqi security forces identify and capture
    individual culprits within their own tribes, and help identify mass
    graves.'' It was more than a rhetorical coup; the prospect of justice
    was coming into relief. Bereaved Shia families received moral and
    financial compensation from Baghdad. In exchange, hundreds of thousands
    of displaced Tikritis were given a right of return. Monitors were
    dispatched to the area to deter reprisals.
        USIP's plot was not, alas, a miracle cure for all that ails Iraq.
    Salahuddin Province and Tikrit, its capital, have recently suffered a
    number of suicide bombings, in part, the result of ISIS feeling the
    squeeze in Mosul. And the provincial governor seems to have gone rogue.
    Under a new policy, authorities are forcibly displacing and detaining
    hundreds of families accused of ISIS ties. Hamasaeed readily
    acknowledges USIP's limits. ``We can cut into the communal tensions the
    militias want to exploit,'' he told me. ``But we cannot end the
    militias.''
        And yet, in Iraq, ``it could be worse'' has currency. NPR reported
    that Tikrit has ``confounded expectations,'' observing the city center
    ``bustling with life.'' The Wall Street Journal described a degree of
    normalcy and saw ``no signs that local resentments are going to turn
    violent.'' Tikrit University has reopened, and most of its 23,000
    students, including Shia from the south, are back in attendance. Over
    90 percent of Tikritis displaced by ISIS have returned home. And Shia
    forces are not summarily executing Sunnis with power drills, as was the
    case during the worst years of the Iraq War. USIP's follow-up work is
    ongoing. It has implemented Justice and Security Dialogues in Kirkuk,
    Baghdad, Karbala and Basra, which are intended to build trust between
    security forces and the locals they serve.
        The real test comes down to resilience. When ISIS or the Shia
    militias spill blood, are there vehicles of redress strong enough to
    dissuade victims from reacting violently to attacks designed to provoke
    just that?
        Despite the caricature of a tree-hugging think tank that does
    nothing but write earnest policy reports, USIP has actionable
    comparative advantages. In Tikrit, USIP advanced core components of
    McMaster's Tal Afar agenda, but with less money. The institute runs
    lean. Its annual budget of $35.3 million wouldn't register as a
    rounding error at the Pentagon. The entire Tikrit project cost around
    $1 million. In contrast, anti-ISIS operations run the military $11.2
    million a day.
        John Nagl considers USIP a ``combat multiplier,'' insofar as its
    specialists ``understand cultures and tribal and local politics more
    deeply and more instinctually than anyone but the very best and rare
    American soldiers.'' And it's not restricted by limited deployments.
    Peter Mansoor lauded the institute's ``staying power.'' When the
    Defense and State Departments move on to the next crisis, he said,
    ``USIP stays behind for a longer-term commitment.'' Its longevity
    allows it to accumulate relationships and granular expertise. Moreover,
    USIP isn't beholden to the Embassy's chain of command. Its staff can
    maneuver around the country to places where neither the State
    Department nor USAID is permitted.
        The institute has shed the baggage of the American occupier, and is
    respected among Iraqis for not having an agenda. Michael Knights is a
    foremost expert on Iraqi security affairs. Although he's distinctly
    military-centric in his analysis--``I'm not a soft-security person,''
    he told me--he considers USIP ``very credible in Iraq.'' I spoke to him
    not long after he delivered Senate testimony on the future of U.S.
    policy in Iraq. Visibly disillusioned by inefficient foreign-aid
    delivery, he sees in USIP a potential viable model: ``If the U.S.
    Government could throw some resources at some genuine Iraqi-led
    organizations--even if USIP were the conduit--it could have a big
    impact.''
        USIP also maintains access to the highest levels of the Iraqi
    Government. ``When you come to Washington and you see that thing,''
    Knights said of USIP's glassy, Lincoln Memorial--facing headquarters,
    ``you know that you're somewhere powerful. It has prestige, and
    prestige matters a lot in a place like Iraq.'' In the past 7 years, the
    institute has hosted Iraq's prime ministers on each of their visits to
    Washington.
        By the end of our interview, Nagl was effusive. ``USIP prevents
    wars from happening and ends them sooner, on terms more favorable to
    the United States. It keeps American soldiers alive,'' he annunciated
    slowly. ``USIP understands how wars end.''

        ``WE'RE DOING very well in Iraq,'' President Trump recently
    extolled. ``Our soldiers are fighting, and fighting like never
    before.'' In March, U.S.-led air strikes killed more civilians than in
    any other month since the anti-ISIS campaign began in 2014. A single
    March 17 attack reportedly killed as many as 200 Mosul residents, and
    the U.S. military ``probably had a role.'' Razing ancient cities with
    women and children still inside--not what most would consider ``doing
    very well.'' Rubble and cinder play well both in jihadist propaganda
    and on CNN, but for inverse reasons. Not to worry: the President has
    assigned Jared Kushner the Iraq portfolio.
        Incoherence is a staple of the administration's foreign-policy
    messaging. UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, for instance, declared that
    Washington would not ``focus on getting Assad out'' 10 days before
    telling Jake Tapper, ``There's not any sort of option where a political
    solution is going to happen with Assad at the head of the regime.'' In
    the interim, Trump fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian air
    base in retaliation for the regime's gruesome chemical attack on
    civilians.
        U.S. policy in Iraq is equally discordant. ``As a coalition, we are
    not in the business of nation-building or reconstruction,'' Secretary
    of State Rex Tillerson recently said. ``We must ensure that our
    respective Nations' precious and limited resources are devoted to
    preventing the resurgence of ISIS and equipping the war-torn
    communities to take the lead in rebuilding their institutions and
    returning to stability.'' Empowering Iraqis to take the lead is fine
    and good. But passing the buck on reconstruction is a sure-fire way to
    guarantee an ISIS resurgence. ``A short-term approach to long-term
    problems,'' Colonel McMaster wrote of America's post-9/11 wars in 2008,
    ``generated multiple short-term plans that often confused activity with
    progress.''
        The President's bomb-only approach belies echoes of Sisyphus. Trump
    may inadvertently sentence America to a lifetime of boulder pushing.
    Higher and higher the military rolls the insurgent boulder up the hill.
    Just when the summit is in sight, the boulder falls to the bottom. And
    so on, for eternity.
        A few glimmers of hope, however, may be squeezing through the
    cracks. Weeks into his presidency, Trump replaced his ethically
    challenged national security advisor, Michael J. Flynn, with a man once
    responsible for rooting out corruption in Afghanistan. McMaster now
    appears to be wresting control of the National Security Council from
    the White House's toxic ideologues. Steve Bannon's permanent seat on
    the Principals Committee has been revoked, while the director of
    national intelligence and the chairman of the joint chiefs have had
    theirs restored. McMaster has relocated Flynn's deputy, K. T.
    McFarland, to Singapore. He's poached Dina Powell, one of the few Trump
    aides with government experience. Most encouraging, he's hired a
    scholar named Nadia Schadlow. Both John Nagl and Peter Mansoor sang her
    praises, independently and unprompted. Schadlow's new study hit the
    bookshelves right around the time Trump was releasing his draconian
    budget blueprint. The subtitle of War and the Art of Governance is
    alone cause for cautious optimism: ``Consolidating Combat Success into
    Political Victory.''
        It would be a mistake of epic proportions to purge
    counterinsurgency's underlying principles for fear of conjuring images
    of failed nation building. Yes, a full-blown counterinsurgency do-over
    is as unviable as it is imprudent. But throwing out the baby with the
    bathwater would be folly. USIP is but one example of diplomatic effort
    complementing military sacrifice. Good policy need not be bad politics.
    At bare minimum, Trump has an obligation to uphold his campaign
    promises to protect core U.S. interests in Iraq, which he has, more or
    less, reduced to ``ISIS bad. Iran bad.'' Emboldening moderates in Iraq
    is consistent with one of the President's favorite talking points--
    hedging against Iranian subterfuge. Like ISIS, Iran feeds on sectarian
    strife and political dysfunction. Michael Singh, the former NSC
    official, made an emphatic point of this. ``An unstable, conflict-
    ridden Iraq,'' Singh told me, ``will inevitably be a vector for Iranian
    power projection, just as Syria, Lebanon and Yemen have been.''
        If he had the incentive, Trump could advance a deft Iraq policy
    without violating the nebulous tenets of ``America First.'' He could
    don a veneer of pragmatic national-security ethos and proclaim, with
    something approximating conviction, that ISIS will never again be
    allowed safe haven. If he were to revise his ``skinny budget,'' he'd
    have at his disposal a blend of military and nonmilitary assets
    uniquely equipped to render Iraq inhospitable to the insurgents who
    have cast such an indelible shadow over the American homeland. By
    funding that recipe's civilian ingredients and disabusing himself of a
    ``bomb the shit out of 'em'' mentality, the president could secure
    lasting bang for a shoestring buck. In other words, H. R. McMaster must
    teach Donald Trump how to eat soup with a knife.

        Zach Abels is an assistant managing editor at the National
    Interest.

        Note: This article has been updated since its original posting.

        Senator Durbin. If I could follow through on the 21st
    Century toolbox, what we're learning in campaigns trying to win
    the hearts and minds of a majority in each of our States is
    that you better be on top of social media. If you're still
    playing by the old rules of television ads and radio ads and
    the like and old polling, you're missing it and you're likely
    to lose. So, when it comes to your efforts in your agencies,
    are you now in the 21st Century social media world when it
    comes to promoting and preserving democracy?
        Mr. Weber. Yes, Senator Durbin, I would just say, first of
    all, you all appropriated a special strategic fund for us about
    $25 million and the types of questions you're raising are
    exactly the things that we're trying to spend that money on,
    how to combat exactly the problems that you cited and do so in
    a way that is keeping up or getting ahead of our opponents
    around the world. We also try to combat fake news, phony media
    and all that stuff by helping the development of local media.
    We think that's a central part of our function is to help
    empower people to develop genuine free media with real messages
    and real news and run by local people. So, we're trying our
    very best to keep up and ahead of that problem. But, it's a
    problem.
        Senator Durbin. Congressman Kolbe.
        Mr. Kolbe. Yeah, Mr. Chairman and Senator Durbin, I have
    just been noted that IRI, International Republican Institute,
    has a program called The Beacon Project that is funded through
    some grants through these agencies that you fund and it's a
    partner in Europe to counter Russian propaganda and it uses
    social media as its major component. So, we are trying. I think
    we can do better but we're working to stay ahead of the curve.
        Senator Durbin. The analogy I think back to is Radio Free
    Europe, Radio Marti where we couldn't rely on the official
    origins of news and information in various countries and
    therefore had to super-impose our own message above it. I don't
    know if that is an analogy for social media today but it might
    be necessary if you're dealing with adversary when it comes to
    news sources.
        Mr. Kolbe. It's just so much more diverse today.
        Mr. Hadley. We'd be delighted if the members of the
    subcommittee would come down to USIP and we can brief you on
    Peace Tech Lab which is trying to use social media,
    communication technology, big data and data analytics to try to
    empower peace builders to deal with conflict in this bottom up
    way. It's the new frontier.
        Senator Graham [presiding]. For the record, we had $100
    million set up in the last--the fiscal year 2017 budget to deal
    counter Russia, to help front line states deal with the threats
    they have from Russia, cyber and other areas. Senator Shaheen.
        Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of
    all, let me say, my answer is yes to all of those questions
    that you asked the panelists so just to be clear. I want to
    follow up on this a little bit because I think it's one of the
    real significant challenges that we face today. And I had a
    chance with Senators Murphy and Johnson to meet with the Prime
    Minister from Georgia and some of the other Georgian officials
    who were here yesterday and they were talking about this very
    issue and one of the things I asked them was whether it was
    helpful to have something like Radio Liberty that can continue
    to broadcast into Georgia to set the record straight on what
    the facts are and they said, yes. In fact, that's very helpful
    and we would like more. We would like more opportunities to
    counter that Russian propaganda and yet as we look at the--what
    we know about the budget proposal coming out of this
    administration, they would zero out the Broadcasting Board of
    Governors and those programs. So, I think we need to look at
    what has worked and what is working as we think about what we
    need to continue to fund.

                            GLOBAL WOMEN'S PROGRAMS

        Mr. Hadley, I want to ask you about the Institute of Peace
    which has done critical work on women's participation and I can
    pose this question to Secretary Albright as well. But, can you
    talk about how important it is to continue to support the
    efforts to empower women around the world?
        Mr. Hadley. One of the areas that USIP has gotten into is
    focusing on the role that women play in building peace and in
    fighting violent extremism. And I'll just give you two examples
    in a program called Women Preventing Extremist Violence in
    Nigeria and Kenya in 2013. It was launched in 2013. It convenes
    grass roots women's' groups to detect and counter early stages
    of radicalization in the communities. In some sense, to talk to
    their kids and to monitor their kids and see when one seems to
    be going in the wrong direction. They've created dialogues.
    They've tried to create trust and cooperative environments with
    local law enforcement to try to nip incipient extremists before
    they go wrong. This is just an example. There are a number of
    similar organizations and activities that USIP is doing in this
    space. It's an important one.
        Senator Shaheen. So, Secretary Albright, how important do
    you think it is for us to continue to support the efforts of
    global women's issues that has been started in the State
    Department?
        Ms. Albright. I think, Senator, it's absolutely essential
    because we know that societies are more stable when women are
    politically and economically empowered. And what NDI has been
    doing for some time now is developing a whole system for
    supporting women in terms of running for office and learning
    from each other. And I was just in Mexico last week to meet a
    group of women that NDI had supported in terms of enlarging the
    number of women that not only run but also changing the laws so
    that 50 percent of people running need to be women. So, it
    requires that kind of support. The other part though is nothing
    ever is simple. What has happened is there continues to be
    violence against women who do run for office. And so, NDI has
    also been working with the United Nations in order to try to
    make sure that that is dealt with internationally and the
    economic empowerment I think is important and also we just gave
    an award to a group of women in Central African Republic that
    are able to work across various tribal groups and different
    ethnic groups. And so, I think it's essential. Women are
    actually pretty good about talking to each other.
        Senator Shaheen. That's right. And that's progress that
    it's nice to see in long-established democracies like France,
    right? I was very pleased to hear President Macron say that he
    wanted to recruit 50 percent women candidates for the
    Parliamentary elections so I think we could take a page out of
    that book here in America. Secretary Albright, let me also ask
    you and this is really for anybody, you've all mentioned the
    importance of our principles and our values as we do work
    around the world. So, in terms of encouraging democratic
    movements in Russia and in other autocratic countries, what
    message did it send when Secretary Tillerson visited Russia
    recently and he did not meet with civil society groups?
        Ms. Albright. Senator, I think it is very important for
    America always to make clear who we are and not take direction
    from authoritarian governments as to with whom we meet or do
    not meet. And in the past, Secretaries and various visitors
    have met with groups and we do not need to take direction in
    that particular part. I also am concerned if we do not keep our
    values and our principles top. You don't have to--it doesn't
    have to be the first thing you say to a leader or do it in a
    press conference, but it has to always be on the agenda. And
    even in places that we disagree with their government as I
    mentioned, we can never not speak about it and we do need to
    meet with the civil society groups because they gain strength
    from that and we're not trying to subvert their government. We
    are trying to show that a more stable government is one where
    people can express their views.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Oh,
    Mr. Hadley.
        Mr. Hadley. Senator, if I could just say one word perhaps
    in defense of Secretary Tillerson. You know one of the
    questions is what do you do publicly and what do you do
    privately in terms of this advancing human rights. And I think
    it's--while I would not have made the choice he made, I would
    have met with civil society groups in Russia, it is interesting
    that they have been successful in getting some long standing
    human rights cases released in Egypt and China. So, let's give
    it some time. It does seem that they are working behind the
    scenes and that they're getting some results. And again, it's
    this issue of how much do you do publicly, how much do you do
    privately.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you and thank you all very much.
        Mr. Weber. Senator, can I quickly make--we have submitted
    to the record a program called Malam Darfur funded by the NED
    in Sudan which goes to your point. It talks about organizing
    and training women peace ambassadors with great success. I
    think you'd find it interesting.
        Senator Shaheen. Thanks very much.
        Senator Graham. Senator Van Hollen then Murphy.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
    thank all our witnesses for your service to our country and
    your testimony here today and I think you have all made the
    points very well that Senator John McCain outlined in his op-ed
    piece in the New York Times, the integral relationship between
    our values and our foreign policy interests which travel
    together in so many places.
        Mr. Kolbe, Congressman Kolbe, good to see you. You
    mentioned you were on the board of Freedom House and a little
    while ago, I think about a week ago, I had the honor of making
    a few opening remarks at Freedom House when they released their
    report on the state of freedom of the press in 2017. And if you
    take a look at the introduction by the President of Freedom
    House, Michael Abramowitz, it was a pretty clear statement
    about the threat we see today. And the title of it is
    ``Hobbling a Champion of Global Press,'' and Mr. Abramowitz
    starts out by writing, ``Never in the 38 years that Freedom
    House has been monitoring press freedom has the United States
    figured as much in the public debate about the topic as in 2016
    and the first months of 2017.'' He then goes on to talk about
    the growing threat to the press in places like Russia, China
    and other places around the world, but then writes, ``But it is
    the far-reaching attacks on the news media and their place in a
    democratic society by Donald Trump that fuel predictions of
    further setbacks in the years to come.'' He goes on to point
    out that President Trump has borrowed a term that was
    popularized by the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin when Donald
    Trump labeled the news media ``the enemy of the people.'' This
    is in the introduction to the report. And he concludes and I
    quote ``that,'' well first he goes on to point out he thinks
    the United States is pretty resilient, that we will withstand
    many of these attacks, but points out the negative impact this
    will have on our ability to speak with any moral authority
    overseas and the impact it will have. And he goes on to
    conclude and I quote, ``A greater danger is that the United
    States will stop being a model and aspirational standard for
    other countries. When political leaders in the United States
    lambast the media, it encourages their counterparts abroad to
    do the same.''
        So, my question for each of you is that when the person who
    is supposed to be leading the free world attacks the press in
    the ways that we've seen, does that give greater license to
    other leaders, especially authoritarian leaders around the
    world to clamp down on press freedoms in their country? Madam
    Secretary.

                              FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

        Ms. Albright. Senator, I am deeply troubled by the whole
    question of all this because one of the things that happens, I
    do travel abroad an awful lot. I'm still a diplomat and I find
    it hard to criticize my own country when I'm abroad. But I've
    been asked this question and the power of our example here is
    wrong because in fact people do say to us when I talk to them
    about their freedom of the press, they say, ``Yeah, what about
    you guys?'' And I think that I know a lot of people, there's
    always this cliche, it's not the example of our power but the
    power of our example. In this particular way, the power of our
    example is damaging and I hope very much that we are able to
    rectify this because it is very hard for us to go and tell
    other countries what to do and the press is the basis of a free
    society and that is something that we talk about when we travel
    abroad, how to establish the rule of law, what's the role of
    different institutions and the media is absolutely central. A
    free media that is able to speak out on behalf of the people.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. Any other comments on that
    point? Mr. Kolbe.
        Mr. Kolbe. Well, just without--since you addressed the
    Freedom House, without wading into the political debate here, I
    would say that a free press is absolutely essential and we do
    set the example in the United States in so many different
    places and in so many different ways. And it's very important
    that the United States maintain its strong commitment to not
    only democracy but the specifics of it, including freedom of
    the press. I think we have a lot of resilience in this area but
    I think that we need to make it--we need to be a good example
    for the rest of the world.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Congressman Kolbe. The
    reason I raise Freedom House is because I think all of us on
    this panel know it has the reputation of being a nonpartisan
    organization speaking out whether you have Republican
    administrations or Democratic administrations. The difference
    is now we have a great departure in what has been a bipartisan
    tradition in how the United States speaks about these issues.
    And so, it is important to I think look very carefully at the
    impact our statement and example has around the world.
        Mr. Kolbe. I can assure you the debates within the board
    are very lively on that topic.
        Senator Van Hollen. I'm sure of that. Thank you.
        Senator Graham. Senator Murphy.
        Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you for
    your laser-like focus on this issue of figuring out the right
    sides of our toolkit as we try to protect our interests
    internationally. I think that's the right discussion to be
    having and I think most of our panelists have hit the nail on
    the head by recognizing that the rest of the world has changed
    their toolkits and the challenges facing the United States have
    changed and we still sit here with essentially the same balance
    between military tools and non-military tools, one that coming
    from a state that makes a lot of the things that we supply to
    the military still seems pretty out of whack when you have
    twice as many people working in military grocery stores as you
    have diplomats in the entirety of the State Department.
        But, I think this focus we're having today on democracy
    assistance is really important because, you know, a lot of our
    constituents are hyper confused about how we approach democracy
    assistance abroad. I'm all for it. I understand the value of it
    and the example that the United States sets but just help me
    explain how we should explain the places where our interests in
    democracy promotion and our interest in advancing our own
    security depart, right? It seems as if sometimes we are willing
    to speak out for democracy when authoritarian regimes are weak
    or when authoritarian regimes are operating contrary to our
    interests. But when authoritarian regimes are strong and they
    are operating in accordance with our interests, we're not so
    interested in talking about democracy. Egypt for a long period
    of time would be on that list. Today, Saudi Arabia would
    certainly be on that list. Do we just admit that there are
    times when democracy isn't that important to us and just make
    that clear advertisement that sometimes like with the Saudis we
    have more important irons in the fire or do we try to explain
    away why we seem to pay attention to it in some places and not
    in other places? People notice this, right? I mean it's not
    that people don't notice that we seem to care a lot about
    democracy and undermining authoritarian regimes in some places
    but not in other places. How do we deal with that? I
    understand--and I accept that it may be an inevitable aspect of
    our foreign policy but you guys have thought a lot about this.
    How do we explain that?

                 CONSIDERATIONS FOR DEMOCRACY PROMOTION ABROAD

        Mr. Hadley. I would say we've got to be able to walk and
    chew gum at the same time and we should always be talking about
    democracy and freedom even in situations where we have other
    interests that we're dealing with in the country. It depends a
    little bit how you do it, how much you do publicly, how much
    you do privately. I tend to think that some of the countries we
    have most difficulty are some of our traditional friends and
    allies and you have to accompany a little public prodding, some
    private counseling about democracy but also putting our arm
    around them and showing that we stand with them and help them
    solve some of these states that have real security challenges
    that need to be addressed. I would argue oddly enough that we
    need to--the problem is even more acute with strong
    authoritarian states. Look at what Russia is doing now. They
    are challenging democratic principles and our paradigm at home
    and abroad in a very active campaign and that is very corrosive
    to America's role in the world and to the kind of world we're
    trying to build. We need to have not just be talking about
    democracy; we've got to have a conscious strategy for how to
    counter what they're doing and to get more on the offensive
    about democracy promotion because we're losing this debate.
    We're losing it.
        Ms. Albright. I agree. We have to remember who we are and
    that the world is counting on us, or the people of the world in
    terms of speaking up. I have to say Steve and I have just done
    a project together on Middle East and we were in both in Egypt
    and in Saudi Arabia and talking about to them in terms of their
    evolution and development that they have to open up, understand
    what kind of a system they need in terms of allowing themselves
    to operate in the 21st Century. But I do think that we never
    can forget who we are but I do think that it's an issue of how
    and where. I have spent quite a lot of time actually telling
    some really nasty people that they needed to change and I do
    think if we don't do that, then we are not true to what this
    country is about. But it isn't always done in exactly the same
    mechanism. I also agree with Steve, we have to push back on
    what the Russia's are doing. The Russian mode now is to try to
    make sure that democracies don't function and I think that we
    have to make absolutely sure that we strengthen our friends and
    allies in terms of what needs to be done for them to be able to
    exist side by side and be able to push forward. So, I think we
    can't just decide that what the Russians are doing that's their
    business. It's our business.
        Senator Murphy. I appreciate your call for consistency. I
    think that double standard that sometimes we reinforce here,
    people notice it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Graham. Thank you all. If having hearings is
    pushing back against Russia, we're pushing back but it's going
    to take more than that. It's going to take some money; it's
    going to take some action; and to our subcommittee, to our
    witnesses, you've really helped the cause of justifying a
    pushback against a budget cut that would be devastating. I know
    these are tough times. I want to rebuild the military but not
    by destroying the State Department. To the extent that we can
    reform the State Department and save money by being more
    efficient, modernize the State Department, count me in. But the
    tools in our toolbox would be dramatically diminished if the 29
    percent cut were enacted and quite frankly, we need to
    modernize our toolbox and that's going to take some
    transitional funding. The Institute of Peace is a good
    investment from my point of view. All of your organizations I
    know very well, IRI, NDI. Vin, you've done a great job being
    the chairman of the board of NED. $2.3 billion is a lot of
    money where I come from but in terms of the Federal budget,
    it's a very small amount in terms of what we get for it. It's a
    great return on investment, maybe one of the best in the entire
    Federal budget.
        Secretary Albright, thanks for coming. I know you're a busy
    lady. You could be almost anywhere in the world and that's true
    of all of you and I appreciate your coming here today. We'll
    take your counsel and advice and we'll try to work with
    administration to get a budget that recognizes who we are as a
    people, that soft power sometimes is not soft. That's a good
    way of saying it, Mr. Hadley. People representing our country
    in the State Department and other nongovernmental organizations
    are very much in danger. These four operating bases, these
    Provincial Reconstruction Teams that I visited in Iraq and
    Afghanistan are some of the most dangerous places you could be.
    They deserve our respect and our support as much as our men and
    women heroes of the military.
        I'd ask the subcommittee Members to submit questions for
    the record until Friday the 12th by 5 p.m.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Graham. We have two hearings coming up, May 23, on
    U.S. assistance for the Northern Triangle of Central America
    and June 13, the President's fiscal year 2018 budget request
    for the 150 account.
        Thank you all. The subcommittee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:59 p.m., Tuesday, May 9, the subcommittee
    was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of Chair.]

                 TESTIMONY FROM DEMOCRACY PROGRAM BENEFICIARIES

                                  ----------

                                Al Tahreer
        Prepared Statement of the Al-Tahreer Association for Development
                                                        April 24, 2017.
    Rahman K Aljebouri, Senior Program Officer,
    Middle East & North Africa,
    National Endowment for Democracy (NED),
    1025 F Street, NW, Suite 800,
    Washington, DC 20004.

    Dear Mr. Aljebouri,

        Altahreer Association for Development would like to thank NED
    (National Endowment for Democracy) for supporting its projects in
    institutional improvement, building democratic leadership, and policy
    making. Our cooperation with NED started about a decade ago through
    which we have worked on several activities to support peace and
    democracy in Iraq.
        After ISIS took over control in Mosul, our organization lost its
    office and most of its resources. At that time we were struggling to
    survive rather than helping the people in our affected society. NED's
    support gave us the hope to reestablish our work and grow bigger than
    before. Now, we have two licensed offices in Kurdistan region: Erbil
    and Dohuk from which we took initiatives in several ambitious projects.
    Throughout the past years and with the help from NED, we created
    partnerships with more than 7 other international organizations. In
    2013, our association was recognized by UNAMI (United Nations
    Assistance Mission for Iraq) as the best Iraqi NGO working in the field
    of human rights. In terms of building democratic leadership, our
    association has worked in several projects in the four governorates
    affected by ISIS, Nineveh, Saladin, Al Anbar, and Diyala. Our strategy
    in this regard includes four stages: observe youth leadership, attract
    them, engage them in workshops to improve their skills, and provide
    them with the support to take initiatives to help their societies.
    Following this strategy, our organization substantially helped in
    founding 15 volunteering groups who are actively working in the four
    governorates. In terms of policy making, we have held several
    conferences and workshops to gather the leaders of the society
    (professors, tribal leader . . . etc.) in Nineveh and other regions. In
    these conferences discussions are initiated with the Iraqi Federal
    Government and the international society through the embassies and
    UNAMl. Such activities were effective in making clear policy targeting
    peace in the society and rebuilding the trust between the government
    and the society and among people themselves. Our association have
    worked on several other projects while many more are still in our plan
    waiting for more support to start.
        We would like to show our gratitude to NED again. We could not have
    accomplished all of these successful projects without their financial
    and emotional support. ln the same time, we are looking for more
    support and cooperation between our organizations to build peace and
    democracy in our society.

                Best Regards,
                                      Abdalaziz Younis Aljarba,
                                                    Executive Director.

                                     ______

                              Alasania Irakli deg.
     Prepared Statement of Ambassador Irakli Alasania, Former Minister of
    Defense of Georgia 2012-2014, and Mr. Shalva Shavgulidze, Former Member
                            of Parliament 2011-2016
        Since Georgia got independence in 1991, myself and other likeminded
    people around me, have been tirelessly fighting for the democracy
    building in the country. After we saw that individual effort wasn't
    enough to save young democracy to fail, in 2009, I, along with my
    fellow friends established a political party Free Democrats, which till
    today continues to fight for the consolidation or democracy in Georgia.
    Since day one, IRI Georgia's support has been instrumental in
    developing party structure and its capacity to become a strong voice in
    Georgia's political life.
        Georgia had its first peaceful transfer of power in fall 2012 after
    parliamentary elections. But, the challenge of making Georgia a
    democratic state did not end there. In fact, it remains a work in
    progress and continues to have vast political polarization and
    democracy promotion remains as important now as it did then. Democracy
    doesn't happen overnight or even over a single election and transfer of
    power.
        Political culture in Georgia remains immature. Approximately 80
    percent of the voting Georgian population was born during Soviet rule
    and a large part of their lives spent in the communist system. To them
    it's not what they can do for political parties but what can parties--
    usually financially--do for them. It's important for democracy
    promotion be there for the young generation but for them as well.
    Political parties in Georgia not only face the challenge of these
    voters, but also problems with fundraising and access to media.
        Georgia and its emerging democracy faces many challenges and no one
    would like to see it's democracy fail more than Russia. In the past 4
    years the country has seen a noticeable growth in the use of soft power
    and Russian propaganda and the first pro-Russian party of Alliance of
    Patriots being present in the new parliament. It is vital that pro-
    democratic parties continue to strengthen and grow and that comes from
    the help of organizations like the International Republican Institute.
        In July 2016 when I was Chairman or the Free Democrats party, I had
    the opportunity to meet with [then] Secretary Kerry. We not only spoke
    about the upcoming parliamentary elections but also democracy promotion
    in Georgia. It was then I personally asked for increased financing or
    IRI (and NDI) in Georgia. The democratic process has started, but not
    yet finished we need intuitions like IRI to work with political parties
    to ensure the political environment is open and competitive. This is
    especially important when talking about political pluralism. In 2016
    the ruling party obtained almost 70 percent or all party donations. In
    order for others to continue to grow and develop it's of the utmost
    importance to have continued assistance from IRI and other democracy
    development institutes.

                                            Shalva Shavgulidze,
                                              Chairman, Free Democrats.
                                               Irakli Alasania,
             Founder, Chairman in 2009-2012, 2014-2017, Free Democrats.

                                     ______

                             Alexeeva Ludmilla deg.

              [From the Washington Post, Opinions, Feb. 24, 2016]

         IN RUSSIA, HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS NEED WESTERN AID MORE THAN EVER

                             (By Ludmilla Alexeeva)

    Ludmilla Alexeeva is chair and a founding member of the Moscow Helsinki
            Group.

        This year marks the 25th anniversary of the collapse of the Soviet
    Union and the rebirth of Russia. One of the most remarkable features of
    that rebirth was the rapid creation, after 70 years of Soviet
    repression and atomization, of Russia's vast, vibrant and effective
    civil society. The history of the human rights movement in Russia is
    also the story of my life, because I was a dissident in the Soviet era
    and today proudly chair the Moscow Helsinki Group, the oldest human
    rights organization working in Russia.
        In the 1990s, our country was poor, and rights groups could find
    hardly any funding in Russia. We were fortunate to have Western donors
    who supported our work. Even as Russia got back on its feet, thanks
    largely to a dramatic rise in oil prices, it still wasn't easy to find
    financial assistance in Russia for human rights work. There were many
    reasons for this, not least of which was that potential donors did not
    want to risk the Kremlin's wrath by supporting potentially sensitive
    causes. And let's face it, human rights work can be sensitive.
        During Vladimir Putin's 15 years in power, the Kremlin has
    attempted to cast human rights values as alien to Russia--especially in
    the wake of events in Ukraine 2 years ago. Criticism of the government
    has come to equal disloyalty or, worse, treason. Under a law adopted in
    2012, more than 100 groups that receive even small amounts of foreign
    funding have been branded ``foreign agents''--which in Russia can only
    mean ``traitor.''
        It's not only that the Kremlin and state-controlled media have
    poisoned the public mind against independent groups in this way. There
    are also real legal consequences for leaders of civic groups, including
    up to 2 years in prison if they refuse to comply with the law. Dozens
    of groups are tied up in lawsuits with the government. Many have had to
    close. The Justice Ministry recently accused Memorial, a leading human
    rights organization, of using foreign funding to harm Russia and asked
    the Prosecutor General's Office to investigate.
        Another part of this anti-foreigner witch hunt was last year's law
    banning ``undesirable'' foreign organizations that supposedly undermine
    Russia's defense, security or constitutional order. But the real target
    is still Russians: Those of us with ties to these ``undesirables'' risk
    up to 6 years in prison. The aim is to isolate us and deepen the divide
    between Russia and the West.
        It wasn't long before Russian senators asked the Prosecutor
    General's Office to ban 12 organizations as ``undesirable.'' The list
    included donors who helped Russian groups get off the ground 25 years
    ago and remain a crucial source of support to this day. First the
    National Endowment for Democracy was banned, followed a few months
    later by the Open Society Foundations. The MacArthur Foundation and the
    Charles Stewart Mott Foundation were also on the list and decided to
    stop their Russia work, citing the increasingly hostile political
    climate. I could not have been sadder. These foundations had done so
    much to help my country.
        Now only a pitifully small number of donors remain willing to
    continue funding human rights work in Russia. It's easy to understand
    that. All donors want to see results from their investments, but what
    results can be expected here, when a new kind of iron curtain seems to
    be lowering? Who wants it on their conscience if the leader of a group
    they are supporting is imprisoned, or worse?
        Several years ago, my organization stopped accepting foreign
    funding because I felt I couldn't ask my team to take the risks that
    came with the label of ``foreign agent.'' But I fully support my
    colleagues in the human rights movement who have courageously withstood
    the legal and political onslaught.
        I don't have answers to the hard questions. But I refuse to abandon
    hope.
        So do the hundreds of activists who are putting everything on the
    line--their freedom, their families--to continue human rights work in
    Russia. They're fighting for the values that attracted Western aid in
    the first place. Donors need to find ways to support them. Surely they
    have faced bigger challenges elsewhere in the world. Surely the project
    of defending freedom in Russia is worth pursuing while there are
    Russians willing to stand up for it.
        At a meeting a few months ago, I asked Putin directly to repeal the
    ugly ``foreign agents'' law. I told him that the government should not
    accuse us of something for which we are not guilty. He has not yet
    acted on my request. Call me foolish, but I can still hope. If I were
    to meet today with all the Western donors who have invested in human
    rights in Russia, I would praise them for the confidence they had in us
    25 years ago, at the hopeful beginning, and plead with them not to
    abandon their Russian partners now that the going has gotten tough.

    Read more on this topic:

    The Post's View: Russia cracks down on an important voice for human
    rights

    Carl Gershman : Russia's crackdown on civil society shows the regime's
    weakness

    Vladislav Inozemtsev: Putin's self-destructing economy
                                     ______

                               Aljazeera America
    http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/8/russians-exiled-back-to-
    the-kitchen.html

                      RUSSIANS EXILED BACK TO THE KITCHEN

    The Kremlin is trying to create a paternalistic relationship between
            the state and its citizens

    August 19, 2015 2:00AM ET

                           (by Svetlana Gannushkina)

        On July 28, Russia designated the National Endowment for Democracy,
    a Washington-based nonprofit, which has supported human rights and
    civil society groups in the country, as ``undesirable'' and banned it.
        The clampdown is reminiscent of life before the fall of communism.
    In the Soviet era, the kitchen was considered a safe place to
    congregate, speak freely and exchange ideas away from prying neighbors
    and without fear of reprisal. The ongoing crackdown on pro-democracy
    groups may force Russians back into the kitchen.
        Relations between the Russian Government and the people are
    strained amid a growing sense of mistrust. Local nongovernmental
    organizations are being deemed ``foreign agents'' and their
    international sponsors are seen as ``undesirable.''
        ``The activities of the foundation present a threat to the
    constitutional order, national defense and security,'' the Prosecutor
    General's office said in the statement announcing NED's ban. But what
    exactly are these activities that pose such a grave threat to Russia?
        I am grateful to NED, which over the last decade has supported my
    work at the Civic Assistance Committee (CAC) and Memorial Human Rights
    Center. Both centers provide legal and social assistance to refugees,
    asylum seekers and migrants. NED has also provided partial support to
    CAC's Education Project, which aims to prepare migrants for exams in
    Russian language and history and to improve access to education for the
    children of migrants. Learning the national language and adapting to a
    new society poses no threat to Russia. And the Russian courts have
    affirmed that children of migrants should have unfettered access to
    education.
        On June 15, a District Court in Tver, Russia, ruled in favor of two
    children who had been excluded from school because they were
    undocumented, arguing the schools' mandate is to educate children, not
    to check their immigration status. On Aug. 10, the Ministry of
    Education finally concurred that schools must enroll children
    regardless of their immigration status. (Both suits were brought by CAC
    on behalf of the plaintiffs.)
        At the same time, we are also fighting the government's proposed
    eviction of CAC's center for adaptation and education of refugee
    children from its premises in Moscow.
        NED has sustained our education work for many years. But without
    funding, we will have to rely on volunteers to continue this work. NED
    has also provided funding for CAC's anticorruption project, which
    produced expert analysis on existing and draft laws' potential for
    corruption. Russian enemies would probably want to see corruption
    spread across the country, but NED has supported efforts to fight it
    using Russia's own anti-corruption law. Had the project's
    recommendations threatened Russia's national security interests, CAC
    would not have received a state-funded presidential grant to pursue the
    same goals.
        Russian authorities believe that if foreign organizations are
    financing the activities of Russian nonprofits, the financiers control
    the content and the outcome of the projects.
        At the root of the current crackdown is control. Russian
    authorities wish to create a paternalistic relationship between the
    government and its citizens. As in the Soviet times, they want to
    ensure that the people are dependent on those in power. If citizens see
    the state as feeding them and caring for them, they will come to
    recognize its ability to give or take away those benefits at will.
        He who pays the piper, orders the tune, Russian President Vladimir
    Putin and other government officials have repeatedly said regarding
    foreign funding of human rights groups. The recent clamp down on local
    NGOs and their foreign backers is simply an extension of this logic. In
    other words, Russian authorities believe that if foreign organizations
    are financing the activities of Russian nonprofits, the financiers
    control the content and the outcome of the projects. Perhaps their view
    of Russian civil society's autonomy is rooted in the authorities own
    behavior. Putin's administration finances organizations that engage in
    pro-government propaganda, such as Nashi and the anti-Maidan movement.
        It is disingenuous and disheartening to suggest that foreign actors
    would buy off Russian human rights activists for 30 pieces of silver. I
    come from a family with a long history of serving Russia and its
    people. My grandfather, Peter Gannushkin, was a famous psychiatrist,
    who lectured in Europe and could have easily emigrated after the
    revolution. But he chose to stay and dedicated his life to treating
    patients and teaching students, irrespective of political positions.
        My grandmother's brother, Evgenii Klumov, was also a doctor and
    went to treat chronic diseases in Belarus under difficult conditions
    during World War II. He remained in his post during the German
    occupation and helped the partisans, risking his life. Toward the wars
    end, the retreating Germans shot him and his wife after he refused to
    flee with them. In February 1944, he was posthumously awarded the order
    ``Hero of the Soviet Union,'' the highest honor bestowed by the Soviet
    state. My father built Tupolev airplanes and was awarded a government
    prize. The rest of my family did not receive such honors, but they too
    taught, treated, built and defended this country.
        This is true for many of my colleagues within the Russian human
    rights community. Ultimately, the state's harassment and intimidation
    will not stop our work. We will have to restructure some aspects of our
    advocacy, but we will endure. Some Russians may go back to the kitchen
    and work there. We cannot. Right now 60 migrants and asylum seekers,
    who need urgent services, are waiting for me in the corridor. And they
    will not fit in my kitchen.

        Svetlana Gannushkina is a mathematician and human rights activist
    in Russia. She is chair of the Civic Assistance Committee, director of
    Memorial's Migration Rights Network and has been nominated for the
    Nobel Peace Prize.

        The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not
    necessarily reflect Al Jazeera America's editorial policy.

                                     ______

                         Allahdad Sharifa Shirzad deg.
    Prepared Statement of Ms. Sharifa Shirzad Allahdad, Provincial Council
                      Member, Kabul Province, Afghanistan
        I have an interesting trajectory in my career in social work and
    politics. During the time of the Taliban, when I was only 13, I ran 32
    home-based classrooms in my neighborhood in the western part of Kabul
    city. Years later, as the head of Turkmen Valley Youth Association of
    Ghorband District of Parwan province, I knew that it would be very
    difficult to educate myself and run for the Provincial Council
    elections in 2009. I truly gained a lot of skills from the Campaign
    School that NDI held in the lead up to those Provincial Councils
    elections. I am here now as a member of the Provincial Council because
    of the Institute's workshops and conferences. I remember how the
    techniques and skills that I learned from workshops and conferences
    helped me to compete against very strong rivals in my district.
        When I was elected to the Kabul Provincial Council, I felt that I
    entered into a highly important role to serve my people. Every day, I
    learn more about politicians, civil society organizations, governance
    trends and challenges. Being in politics is not easy, particularly for
    women in my country, but I always keep in mind the people that
    supported and voted for me.
        I am grateful to the international community--specifically, very
    thankful to the U.S. Government and its partners such as NDI--for
    supporting Afghan women. I am particularly grateful for their technical
    support and training programs on women's participation in political
    process--for instance, for parliamentary elections, provincial council
    elections and special quotas for women in provincial councils and
    parliament. NDI provided training sessions and workshops impartially
    and equally to all candidates, both independent and from political
    parties. I often think that if there was no international community
    support and if the women's quota was not brought up by the
    international community, what would we have to allow a minimal level of
    involvement in politics? What would be the condition of women in
    politics in Afghanistan?
        After the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001, the international
    community--and particularly the intervention of U.S. Government
    assistance--was a good thing towards positive change in our society.
    The assistance brought many changes in all sectors throughout the
    entire country including education, human rights, the economy and
    economic opportunities for women. But I wished to see how to better
    harmonize the efforts of both the Afghan Government and international
    community, and how to keep these sustainable. To support transparency
    and ensure that international aid for development is not wasted, I
    request that the international community have strict policies for
    evaluation and monitoring. I also request that the international
    community, especially the U.S. Government, assist in maintaining
    security in our country. Security helps us succeed in our development
    and rehabilitation efforts.
        The international community should continue to support democracy in
    this country. We are still facing a lot of obstacles, and I am
    concerned about the upcoming parliamentary elections. There are still
    major gaps to fill to support women in Afghanistan. The international
    community should continue to help women gain skills and knowledge and
    strengthen their voices.

                                     ______

                              Bakradze David deg.
    Prepared Statement of His Excellency David Bakradze, The Ambassador of
                          Georgia to the United States
        The International Republican Institute has been actively engaged
    with Georgia since 1998 supporting its democratic development by
    vigorously improving Georgia's democratic institutions, and helping
    create a multiparty democratic environment in Georgia. IRI has also
    helped to substantially level the playing field for elections through
    bolstering local and regional institutions in Georgia. IRI's engagement
    in developing a multiparty democracy, supporting the improvement of the
    electoral process and increasing the involvement of women and youth in
    ongoing political processes has been indispensable.
        Today, Georgia's democratic development serves as an exemplar to
    the region and the world. The Georgian people are the main heroes of
    this story--making hard sacrifices and committing to a constructive
    path for the future--but American support through IRI and other
    organizations is crucial to our success. IRI's strong involvement with
    Georgia throughout the years demonstrates the organization's vital
    importance to creating a long-lasting tradition of democracy and
    responsible governance in Georgia.
        More specifically, in terms of helping develop multi-party
    democracy, IRI maintains strong relations with all major political
    parties and supports them as they develop their regional party
    structures, build and improve their intra-party democracy, and enhance
    the professional skills of their members. Furthermore, IRI develops
    training modules, conducts trainings/seminars, and provides technical
    support according to the individual needs of parties. In addition, IRI
    helps candidates prepare for elections by providing trainings on
    election campaigning, media relations, public speaking, door-to-door
    campaigning, and also supports the elected officials by providing them
    information on their duties and responsibilities.
        In support of improving electoral processes, IRI has been crucial
    in monitoring elections in Georgia through an international election
    observation mission, and providing recommendations to the government on
    the improvement of the existing electoral system. Furthermore, IRI
    conducts the training of trainers on electoral issues in order to
    prepare party trainers, who later train their respective party
    representatives for elections. The IRI-trained trainers taught around
    55,000 party observers and representatives throughout Georgia for the
    most recent 2016 parliamentary elections. Through these activities, IRI
    supports the improvement of the entire electoral process in Georgia.
    IRI also has deployed short-term international observation missions for
    the 2013 Presidential election, both rounds of the 2014 local elections
    and international long and short-term observation missions for both
    rounds of the 2012 and 2016 parliamentary elections. These efforts have
    helped share tangible proof of Georgia's improvement with the wider
    world.
        Additionally, IRI's work with youth and women to help them develop
    policy awareness and strengthen their positions in party structures is
    of enormous importance. Specifically, the goal of IRI's women's
    programming to support women's participation in politics and their
    development as political decision-makers. This program empowers and
    strengthens the party women organizations, enhances their skills
    necessary to propose and lobby for measures that will altogether
    increase women's participation in national parliament and in local
    councils. Furthermore, IRI supports Georgia's youth by organizing TV
    debates in which all major party youth members participate and debate
    various important issues. Many of the debate alumni have become active
    politicians and have successfully run for parliament.
        IRI's work around the world is not just a noble endeavor to bring
    the best practices of democracy to some societies while helping other
    young democracies stand strong on their feet, create their own history
    of democratic development, and flourish and progress toward a better
    future. In fact, IRI's engagement with Georgia has long surpassed that
    initial phase, and has become critical for Georgia's democratic
    consolidation--a strategic imperative for the Georgian Government and
    nation. Georgia's substantial democratic achievements that stand out in
    the region and beyond may be partially attributed to IRI's active
    promotion of democracy in Georgia.
        In view of the considerable impact produced by the activities of
    IRI in Georgia for almost two decades, we believe all Americans should
    be proud of the hallmark work done by this organization in the country.
    IRI's efforts proved to be significant for overall change, and made a
    key difference by helping domestic political parties broaden their
    appeal; and by assisting Georgia's thriving civil society to ensure
    responsive governance by imparting global knowledge and experiences. We
    fully expect that IRI will be able to continue its work to strengthen
    democratic institutions and political parties in an impartial and
    balanced manner.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Bougainville Women's Federation
                                                        April 21, 2017.

    Ms Madeleine Albright Chairperson,
    National Democratic Institute.

    Re:  Democracy assistance in the Autonomous Region of Bougainville,
    Papua New Guinea

        In mid-2015 the Bougainville Women's Federation was a recipient of
    financial and technical support from the United States Agency for
    International Development to mount a citizen-led, region-wide,
    nonpartisan election observation project. Through USAID's development
    partners, IFES and the National Democratic Institute, BWF gained
    valuable know-how for strategic, operational, and systematic deployment
    of an election observation effort.
        Held in May for the election of the region's president and members
    of the House of Representative, BWF deployed 62 male and female long-
    term and short-term observers in 29 of the 31 constituencies. They
    observed the campaign and 2 of the week-long polling days, which
    covered 136 polling events that yielded close to 1,000 voting day
    reports.
        In those elections, BWF and partners IFES and NDI made several
    recommendations to improve voter registration and verification
    processes, voter education, candidate nominations, political campaign,
    accounting of political and electoral finance, and the conduct of the
    voting and counting, etc.
        As this is written the candidate nomination process for the PNG
    National Election has started here in Buka. Yours truly was reminded of
    the good work we had done with our partners back in 2015. BWF is
    currently rolling out the voter education program picking up from the
    outcomes of election observation in 2015. Communities are speaking
    highly of this awareness as most of them particularly those living in
    the very remote areas of Bougainville. In past they did not know the
    importance of elections and choosing a good leaders. Most importantly
    they now understand the secrecy of voting and their democratic rights
    to vote for whom they think fit. In the past the head of the family
    makes the decision for the family.
        BWF has skilled community trainers in the 43 community government.
    Because of multiple elections occurring in Papua New Guinea and the
    Autonomous Region of Bougainville, it is very important for the people
    of Bougainville to fully understand the election processes to ensure
    the importance of maintaining the integrity, transparency and
    legitimacy of the process is well understood by voters, particularly
    those who missed out in formal education.
        Election observation has also increased BWF's awareness of the
    political and electoral environments and has supported the federation's
    strong, albeit nonpartisan, push for the involvement of women in
    politics and governance.
        To conclude the observation paved a way by creating a foundation
    for the organization and those who participated particularly the youths
    whom we continue to engage in community awareness, becoming polling
    officials and recognising their potential leadership skills back in the
    village.
        The voter education has also created a good and respectful working
    relationship with the OBEC and the community leaders.
        Thank you again NDI for your support.

                Very sincerely yours,
                                                 Barbara Tanne,
                                                     Executive Manager.

                                     ______

                               Butora Martin deg.
             Prepared Statement of Ambassador (Ret.) Martin Butora

      (Advisor to the President of the Slovak Republic Andrej Kiska (from
    2014); Slovak Ambassador to the U.S. (1999-2003); Advisor to President
        Vaclav Havel (1990-1992); Co-founder of Public Against Violence
                          movement in Slovakia (1989))

                                            Bratislava, April 28, 2017.

     Democracy at Risk: The Need for U.S. Re-Engagement in Central Europe
      and its Eastern Neighborhood and the Role of National Endowment for
                                   Democracy

    Dear Senators, members of the subcommittee,

        Let me express my appreciation for having an opportunity to share
    my thoughts and perspective on the importance of continued U.S.
    involvement in coping with both external and internal threats to
    democracy.
        We live in times when threats to Western-style democracy are in
    peril worldwide. The causes for it are multiple, often mutually
    intertwined. The rise of populist anti-establishment, anti-American,
    anti-EU political forces in Europe and elsewhere; attacks on
    international rule based order and Euro-Atlantic democratic community
    by Russia's destabilizing policies; resurgence of nationalism and
    growing skepticism towards globalization; the increase of conspiracy
    theories; the upsurge of ``post-truth era''; decline of trust to
    mainstream media.
        It is not only times of ``liquid modernity'' as well as times of
    ``liquid anger''--it is also an era of liquid uncertainties, liquid
    fears. During the Cold War, the world has been facing a horrible
    threat--cataclysm caused by devastating effects of nuclear war. Though
    such an outlook was desperate, the danger was evident, understandable,
    and one-dimensional. Today, growing pile of troubles is scattered,
    dispersed and disseminated in various forms, various dangers, pains,
    disturbances, in different and numerous failures, declines,
    regressions.
        All in all, we seem to live in a period when democracy experiences
    ``a sinking wave''. Declining trust in democratic procedures and
    institutions is not only a threat to vitality of democracy as ``the
    only game in town''--it can have serious security consequences.
        In this situation, besides domestic efforts to cope with these
    challenges, for pro-Western democratic actors in Europe and its
    neighborhood a revitalized partnership with U.S. players and
    institutions is of critical importance. In this context, democracy
    assistance is not about ``regime change''--rather, it is about
    promoting and sustaining democratic rule as a crucial pillar, defense
    and guard against authoritarian temptations, ``populist Zeitgeist'' and
    widespread Russian interference.
        National Endowment for Democracy has a long history of providing
    such assistance. In the period of resistance--and I limit myself only
    to help offered to Czechoslovakia, and later, Slovakia--NED was a
    supporter to Charter 77 and the Czech and Slovak dissidents and human
    rights activists, to initiatives publishing samizdats. In 1989, the
    ``year of miracles'' and shortly afterwards, NED, through National
    Democratic Institute and International Republican Institute, supported
    the successful efforts of Civic Forum and Public Against Violence in
    the first free elections. In the following years of building democracy,
    NED supported initiatives and projects that have been carrying ideas
    and legacy of Vaclav Havel, such as People in Need or Forum 2000.
        NED has been helping Slovakia in its road to democracy in the 90s
    when local NGOs entered struggle against the non-democratic practices
    of then Prime Minister Vladimir Meciar and his government. With the
    parliamentary elections in September 1998, a platform of NGOs launched
    the civic campaign known as OK 1998 to increase citizens' awareness
    about the elections, to encourage them to vote and to guarantee a fair
    ballot through independent civic supervision. Dozens of NGOs organized
    educational projects, cultural events, concerts, and discussion forums
    and issued publications, video-clips and films. Hundreds of volunteers
    across the country attracted thousands of concerned citizens to
    election-related events. In this period, NED supported many of the
    first and leading Slovak NGOs and think tanks in the 1990s, like the
    Milan Simecka Foundation, Institute for Public Affairs, People and
    Water, Pontis, MEMO 98, Civic Eye, and lots of others. The campaign
    contributed to the record 84 percent turnout, and the Meciar's cabinet
    was ousted. NED was the crucial funder of the ``Rock the Vote'' and
    associated civic campaigns around the 1998 and 2002 elections.
        In the following years, NED helped NGOs like Pontis, People in
    Peril, and others to carry out their crossborder programs in the
    Balkans, Belarus, etc. aimed at sharing successful Slovak experiences
    with our partners abroad. These programs continued with INEKO, MESA 10,
    and others.
        After 2005, when Slovakia ``has matured'' and projects inside the
    country could not be supported, NED has involved Slovak NGOs in
    regional programs. NDI has conducted a regional Roma program that
    included Slovakia and had a Slovak office.
        During the next period, after the Maidan protests and Russia's
    invasion of Ukraine, NED began reengaging in Central Europe to monitor,
    spotlight and counter internal (political polarization, extremism,
    corruption) and external challenges (Russian disinformation and
    influence) to the democratic gains made after 1989. This work is being
    done on a regional basis and includes Slovak partners such as Institute
    for Public Affairs and Globsec. NED support Globsec's ``Information War
    Monitor for Central Europe'' and other programs against Russian
    disinformation.

    ------

        Over the last three decades, civil society in Slovakia has created
    a uniquely rich, diverse and flexible network of forms, organizational
    schemes, initiatives and ideas, which have moved society forward. It
    has built up an intellectual foundation for societal reforms, provided
    a mechanism for control of power, helped the country to become a part
    of democratic Euro-Atlantic community, defended the interests of
    various groups of citizens, offered useful services, joined in
    resolving environmental, social and health problems and reacted to the
    needs of communities, towns and regions of Slovakia. Despite a
    complicated heritage of undemocratic conditions, backwardness and
    discontinuity, civic actors and volunteers managed to engage and
    motivate a broader public because they offered understandable,
    acceptable concepts of freedom, solidarity and activism, which were in
    line with democratic modernization and which broke down the prevailing
    ethos of civic helplessness, as well as the tendency toward preferring
    the promotion of individual interests instead of the public good. They
    have exhibited an outstanding ability to weave together meaningful
    activities, engage in social campaigns, find ways to help socially
    excluded groups, engage local elites in useful, pro-social activities
    in many fields and find support for all of it both at home and abroad.
    They have expanded social capital and improved the quality of life in
    Slovakia. And in spite of persistent troubles with financial
    sustainability, they present an important and influential voice in
    current struggle to preserve democratic order in Slovakia, to avoid
    backlash, to challenge populist and autocratic tendencies in some other
    Central European countries. It is also thanks to Slovakia's civil
    society that the country is doing relatively well in recent Freedom
    House report monitoring decline of freedom.
        And it is beyond any doubt that this was possible also with the
    help from abroad and assistance provided by National Endowment for
    Democracy.

    ------

    Dear Senators,

        In July 2009, a group of Central and Eastern European public
    figures, including former presidents Valdas Adamkus, Emil
    Constantinescu, Vaclav Havel, Michal Kovac, Alexander Kwasniewski,
    Vaira Vike-Freiberga and Lech Walesa, wrote an open letter to the Obama
    administration.
        They--or allow me to say ``we'', as I belonged to 22 signatories of
    this letter--expressed our gratitude to our American friends: ``U.S.
    engagement and support was essential for the success of our democratic
    transitions after the Iron Curtain fell twenty years ago. Without
    Washington's vision and leadership, it is doubtful that we would be in
    NATO and even the EU today.'' We also added, that our nations ``have
    worked to reciprocate and make this relationship a two-way street'',
    been engaged alongside the United States: ``We have been among your
    strongest supporters when it comes to promoting democracy and human
    rights around the world.''
        However, the letter continued, ``twenty years after the end of the
    Cold War, we see that Central and Eastern European countries are no
    longer at the heart of American foreign policy. Indeed, at times we
    have the impression that many American officials have now concluded
    that our region is fixed once and for all. Many on both sides assume
    that the region's transatlantic orientation, as well as its stability
    and prosperity, would last forever. That view is premature. Central and
    Eastern Europe is at a political crossroads and today there is a
    growing sense of nervousness in the region. The current political and
    economic turmoil and the fallout from the global economic crisis
    provide additional opportunities for the forces of nationalism,
    extremism, populism, and anti-Semitism across the continent but also in
    some our countries.''
        The letter also expressed worries about Russia: ``Our hopes that
    relations with Russia would improve and that Moscow would finally fully
    accept our complete sovereignty and independence after joining NATO and
    the EU have not been fulfilled. Instead, Russia is back as a
    revisionist power pursuing a 19th-century agenda with 21st-century
    tactics and methods. Vis-a-vis our nations, it increasingly acts as a
    revisionist one. It uses overt and covert means of economic warfare,
    ranging from energy blockades and politically motivated investments to
    bribery and media manipulation in order to advance its interests and to
    challenge the transatlantic orientation of Central and Eastern
    Europe.''
        At that time, arguments did not find fertile grounds and our
    recommendations remained unaccomplished. The policy of reset prevailed.
        Five years after this letter, in 2014, Russia annexed Crimea,
    expanded its propaganda, involved intelligence services in influencing
    politics in other countries. And we all see the current scope of
    Russia's actions and policies to undermine Western democracies. An
    attack on one is an attack on all``--this rule should be applied in
    coping with this threat.
        And a part of developing a stronger transatlantic response to
    Russian interference in democracy is to support activities of NED.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Cambodia National Rescue Party
        If Americans seek to effectively drive resources towards its
    values, there are few better avenues than direct assistance to
    democratic actors abroad. The case of Cambodia clearly demonstrates
    that U.S. democracy assistance actualizes American democratic values in
    concrete terms. Relatively small investments in technical projects,
    like election observation or political party training, have
    disproportionately significant outcomes in the integrity of democratic
    processes abroad.
        Since the early 1990s, Cambodians have tirelessly advocated for
    their democracy. Political activists, labor unions and civil society
    organizations have ensured our budding democratic system has remained
    intact despite decades of increasingly autocratic leadership. Our
    determination has endured against great odds, though the country now
    faces a crucial test: the 2018 national election.
        The election is the first legislative poll since 2013, when the
    ruling Cambodian People's Party was nearly unseated by the opposition
    Cambodia National Rescue Party, the party I now lead. The votes came
    within a historically close margin, and mass protest followed
    revelations that the election may have been fixed. The revelation was
    the direct result of civil society's diligent election observation
    efforts, efforts that may have been impossible without United States
    support. The technical and material assistance provided by USAID
    empowered Cambodians to identify irregularities in their electoral
    process. It empowered Cambodians with reliable evidence and renewed
    conviction that their democracy can serve them better.
        U.S. assistance has strengthened Cambodian activists and
    organizations far beyond election cycles. Through organizations like
    NDI, U.S.-supported programming has maintained a critical momentum
    behind civic engagement efforts. Trainings for party officials and
    candidates from less represented groups, particularly women and youth,
    have prepared hundreds for political leadership in our emerging
    democracy. Most recently, NDl's direct campaign consultations with
    Cambodian political parties have not only improved the CNRP's voter
    contact strategy; each has strengthened the integrity of the multi-
    party process.
        In a global environment in which democratic values are increasingly
    under threat, U.S. democracy assistance has never been more critical to
    the actors benefiting from it. The resilience of Cambodian
    organizations and their global peers depend on it.

        [This statement was submitted by Kem Sokha, President.]
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Cambodia National Rescue Party
        Since 1992, NDI has greatly contributed to the democratization of
    Cambodia with its training programs centered on four important
    components of a system of democratic governance:
                          political party development
        The work NDI did was particularly relevant as for more than half a
    century, Cambodian politicians and people had known only one-party and
    autocratic systems of government. The concept of rule of law was
    totally alien to most Cambodians, they had been so used to the rule of
    violence. What has helped our Party the most over the 20+ years that it
    grew up to become the main and only opposition party in Parliament, is
    NDI's party organization programs such as its Training Program on Women
    and Youth Caucuses and on Party Integrity.
                            free and fair elections
        In a former communist country where oppression and intimidation of
    the population are still widespread, the mere presence of U.S.-based
    organizations such as NDI has been essential in progressively
    encouraging voters, candidates and other players to exercise their
    rights to free and fair elections. NDI's Civic Education on Elections
    Programs and Candidate Debate Programs succeeded in allowing many
    people to better understand the importance of free and fair elections.
    Other activities of NDI such as its Electoral Monitoring or its Voter
    Registration Audits \1\ brought to light fraudulent practices on voting
    day or during the voter registration period respectively.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Four Voter Registration Audits were conducted in the local
    elections of 2007 and 2017, and in the national elections of 2008 and
    2013.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                decentralization
        NDI convinced our party leadership that our party would be more
    efficient if leaders at each level of the organization were elected by
    their grassroots members and responsible for their own budget. As a
    result of the process of internal decentralization that started in
    2004, our party today is decentralized by province, each province being
    totally autonomous even on important issues such as leaders/candidates
    selection, fund-raising and budget spending.
        In parallel to party internal decentralization, and as our party
    started being represented in locally-elected councils from 2002 on, NDI
    offered training programs on Strengthening Local Governments.
                                 accountability
        A very helpful program of NDI was the Constituency Dialogue
    Program, that created from 2004 to 2015, a range of opportunities for
    elected Members of Parliament to directly listen to and interact with
    their constituents. Most of the 340 such Constituency Dialogues
    organized in 12 provinces were radio broadcast nationwide. Given the de
    facto monopoly of the ruling party over Cambodia's mass media, this
    kind of program is important in terms of making the playing field more
    even.
        Overall, the role played by NDI since 1992 as seen by one of the
    most active stakeholders, has been of utmost importance for promoting
    democracy in Cambodia.

        [This statement was submitted by TIOULONG Saumura (Ms), MP, Vice-
    chair of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the National Assembly of
    the Kingdom of Cambodia.]
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Center for Democracy and Human Rights
        I founded Center for Democracy and Human Rights (CEDEM) sometime in
    the end of 1997 when Milosevic's regime had still firmly been in place
    in the former federation of Serbia of Montenegro (``Federal Republic of
    Yugoslavia''). CEDEM actually was the first think tank established in
    Montenegro and was a kind of experiment at the time. Our goal was to
    create an institute for promoting democracy in the country whose regime
    was in fundamental conflict with democratic values. The situation in
    Montenegro was complicated and dangerous as its government had just
    been broken with Milosevic and had to manouver on the brink of the
    potential conflict.
        Until the mid-1998 we struggled in financing our projects. Than our
    contacts with NED completely turned the situation in favor of CEDEM's
    future work. NED decided to support some of our key projects and it was
    a decisive breakthrough for the CEDEM's mission. From that moment on
    CEDEM established itself as the most serious think tank in the country
    for decades to come.
        NED also opened an avenue for CEDEM to the World Movement of
    Democracy and thus CEDEM became one of its founding organizations. It
    connected us with most active democracy defending organizations not
    only in the Central and Eastern Europe, but also in different part of
    the world. Later on CEDEM developed its division for public opinion
    surveys that by time became the most reliable one in the country and
    proved it in many elections in the 1990s and 2000s. It was possible
    only by building on the solid base previously established by NED
    staunch support.
        One of the most important moments in CEDEM's cooperation with NED
    was the support provided to Serbian civil society organizations and
    political activists in resisting Milosevic regime after NATO
    intervention in the FRY in 1999. We have always been proud for at least
    a small contribution in depriving Serbia and our region of Milosevic's
    authoritarian regime.
        After accepted to serve as Montenegrin ambassador to the U.S. in
    2010 I had to quit my work in CEDEM and the same is today when I'm
    serving as the nation's foreign minister. But, when remembering my days
    in CEDEM I always have in mind that we could have never gonna make it
    without substantial role NED played in our work. It is what have made
    me and my former colleagues in CEDEM, NED's friends forever.

        [This statement was submitted by Prof. Dr. Srdjan Darmanovic,
    Minister of Foreign Affairs of Montenegro.]
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Center for Research, Transparency and
                             Accountability (CRTA)
        After more than 15 years of democratic transition, Serbia is still
    an emerging, fledgling democracy. With the lack of democratic culture,
    unestablished system of checks and balances, and floundering oversight
    and accountability institutions, the concentrated executive power
    continues to pervade and influence all segments of society, remaining
    out of the reach of public scrutiny and engagement. In such an
    environment the space for growth and spreading of undemocratic and
    authoritarian tendencies remains open, posing a serious threat of
    democratic reversals in the country.
        While the path of democratic change is not linear and easy one, it
    requires a strong effort, commitment and persistence, and openness to
    learning from developed democratic societies and challenges they
    stumbled upon on their democratic path. Democratic assistance and
    partnerships are of the utmost importance in supporting the democratic
    development through maintaining achieved stability and improving the
    quality of democratic processes.
        Being an active civil society advocates committed to strengthening
    democratic processes and opening up the institutions in Serbia's
    volatile and turbulent political environment, we at the Center for
    Research, Transparency and Accountability (CRTA) are well aware of the
    importance of democratic assistance in bringing the knowledge, tools
    and mechanisms that help establish the building blocks of democracy.
    Support from the National Democratic Institute proved to be invaluable
    in raising our understanding of how democracy works in practice, as
    well as capacities to utilize the best models and approaches for
    influencing democratic changes. In a situation where citizens continue
    to lose trust in institutions and lack opportunities to engage and act
    as agents of change, the most recent National Democratic Institute's
    support to CRTA's election observation mission Citizens on Watch was
    crucial in safeguarding the integrity and democratic character of the
    elections, and protecting citizens' voting rights. It proved that
    democratic assistance provides a critical framework for advancement and
    promotion of core democratic values and principles, particularly in an
    environment where the potential for regression rises with many
    challenges to democracy.
        While we need to act now towards furthering democratic progress
    that would yield long-term benefits for generations to come, the
    democratic assistance and support through the transfer of know-how,
    best practice models and examples will be crucial for strengthening the
    rule of law and democratic governance, and building the democratic
    culture in which citizens are free, have the power to engage and fully
    exercise their democratic rights.
        As there is no magic wand to pave the way to democracy, partnership
    with true friends of democracy certainly brings an optimistic prospects
    on our journey to establish the democratic culture in Serbia.
    Recognizing that democratic transition is long and demanding process,
    we hope that our partners will stand by our side in our commitment to
    bring about a self-supported and self-respected democracy to Serbia, as
    the National Democratic Institute has done with true dedication in
    previous years. We believe that only through sincere partnerships,
    mutual learning and flow of knowledge in both directions would we be
    able to make Serbia more receptive to democratic change and allow
    democracy to thrive.

        [This statement was submitted by Vukosava Crnjanski, CRTA
    Director.]
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of China Aid in Support of NED
                                                        April 17, 2017.

    Dear Honorable Members of the Senate State, Foreign Operations
    Subcommittee,

        As a NED grantee for the past decade, China Aid can testify with
    absolute confidence that the continuing U.S. assistance through the
    funding effort of the NED is critical to our work and to advancing
    democratic values, religious freedom, and access to justice in China.
        The NED grant has enabled and empowered us to advance religious
    freedom and rule of law in China by taking up cases for legal defense,
    engaging rule of law (ROL) trainings to grassroots leaders and
    cultivating a new generation of Chinese human rights lawyers.
        As a result of our NED funded projects on rule of law training and
    legal defense support in the past 10 years, we have fostered a number
    of positive changes:

      --We have helped many people and groups with legal representation,
            including secular human rights activists and Chinese religious
            believers of every sort (and, recently, members of government
            sanctioned religious groups). We now receive increasing numbers
            of reports of persecution and other rule of law violations from
            China, along with requests for legal assistance for persecution
            victims.
      --We have played a key role in persuading, training, protecting and
            supporting members of the Chinese bar who handle human rights
            cases. Besides the Weiquan lawyers of ``Gao Zhisheng''
            generation, more and more younger human rights lawyers and
            defenders are emerging inside China such as Wang Jun, Chen
            Tianshi, Lin Qilei, Ms Xiao Guozhen and Zhang Kai in Beijing,
            Si Weijiang in Shanghai, Liu Weiguo in Shandong and Sui Muqing,
            Chen Wuquan in Guangdong. We work with and support others like
            them.
      --We have learned to take up cases in the earliest stages of
            development--and often can do so because we have sources of
            information regarding persecution developments at region,
            village and area levels.
      --More and more international and domestic media outlets are
            interested in exposing religious and pro-democracy cases, and
            we regularly provide information to them--and to Congress and
            the U.S. Government--about these cases.

        As the conditions on religious freedom, rule of law and human
    rights have deteriorated since President Xi Jinping took power, more
    than ever, Chinese rights defenders and citizens are counting on the
    United States to back their bold efforts in defense of these universal
    democratic values that we hold so dear. Whether China cherishes or
    despises these values will determine the security of our children and
    grandchildren in the 21st century. For this reason, democracy
    assistance should be treated as a critical component of U.S. national
    security interests. Thank you.

        [This statement was submitted by Bob Fu, Founder and President of
    China Aid.]
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Citizens' Alliance for North Korean Human
                                     Rights
    Honorable Members:

        The Citizens' Alliance for North Korean Human Rights (NKHR) was
    established on May 4, 1996 in Seoul, Republic of Korea as the first
    non-governmental organization in the world devoted solely to promoting
    human rights in North Korea. At the time of our founding, the
    organization faced several challenges both domestically and
    internationally.
        In the mid-1990s, the international community did not pay much
    attention to the seriousness of the North Korean human rights
    situation, partially because of a lack of credible information and
    testimonies coming out of the country and partially because no
    international network existed to advance such a cause. Domestically,
    the progressive government's policy of engagement and warming relations
    with North Korea meant that advancing the cause of North Korean human
    rights and democracy was viewed as hostile to the North Korean regime
    and counter to the policy of rapprochement. This created obstacles not
    only to NGOs that wanted to focus on this issue, but also rendered it
    impossible to create a domestic public discourse that would pressure
    South Korean government to advance this issue vis-a-vis North Korea.
        Having no support domestically or internationally, it was the U.S.
    that first recognized the necessity and legitimacy of the North Korean
    human rights cause and provided us with crucial assistance. In 1999,
    the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) reached out to NKHR to help
    us both financially and with building an international network that
    would be able to carry out the work on North Korea. Without the
    material and institutional support of NED, the North Korean human
    rights movement as we know it today would not have existed. The
    material support of NED has always constituted the only sustained
    financial assistance that allowed NKHR and other South Korean NGOs to
    expand its work on North Korea.
        It was the support of the NED that enabled us to organize the first
    international conferences, bringing the plight of the victims and human
    rights violations in North Korea to the attention of the world.
    Consequently, we were able to establish relationships with
    organizations and government officials around the globe, including the
    Late President Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic, who was an avid
    supporter of the burgeoning North Korean human rights movement. With
    NED support, the first journals produced by NKHR with testimonies and
    articles documenting abuses in North Korea were distributed in South
    Korea, USA, Japan and institutions worldwide at a time when little
    other reliable information on North Korean human rights situation
    existed.
        Most importantly, the NED's support allowed NKHR to begin targeted
    advocacy work at the United Nations alongside an international network
    (initially mostly U.S. individuals and NGOs) that was built during the
    Conferences. Such advocacy resulted in early successes, such as the
    appointment of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human
    Rights in North Korea in 2004. Finally, in December 2012, the NKHR
    staff and two victims of political prison camps in North Korea met with
    Navi Pillay, then U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights to convince
    her Office to prioritize work on North Korea through the establishment
    of the U.N. Commission of Inquiry (COI) for the DPRK. Her call for the
    COI after the meeting allowed NKHR and its network to convince many
    states that such Commission should be established.
        The successful establishment of the U.N. COI was the culmination of
    the groundwork laid by almost two decades of advocacy, alliance-
    building, and distribution of materials for growing public awareness of
    the need for a North Korean human rights and democracy movement.
    Without specialized and on-going support of many South Korean and
    American organizations, the COI would not have come to fruition in
    order to create its milestone report. Significantly, the COI's call for
    referral of the North Korean leadership to the international criminal
    justice mechanism for crimes against humanity committed by the regime
    has been a great success in the arena of North Korean human rights.
    That call has also been carried forward by the same network that has
    been built with the U.S support since 1999.
        Many NGOs and foreign governments recognize the North Korean human
    rights movement as a success story. This is the greatest testimony to
    the unwavering support of the U.S institutions that first recognized
    the importance of this issue. At such an important time when the
    movement has finally gained international momentum, continued U.S.
    support is crucial to accomplish the goal of promoting human rights and
    democracy in North Korea and bringing justice to the North Korean
    victims.

        [This statement was submitted by Benjamin Hyun YOON, Founder and
    Honorary Chairman.]
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Committee for Free and Fair Elections in
                               Cambodia (COMFREL)
        To Cambodian politicians, civil society organizations, and
    activists alike, the U.S. is seen as a model for our emerging
    democracy. The liberal democratic values and civil rights upheld by
    U.S. institutions is the kind of government Cambodian actors have been
    advocating for since the early 1990s. Our democracy has faced countless
    obstacles in the decades since, though the resiliency of the Cambodian
    democrats has been amplified by U.S. support year after year. This
    support has never been more crucial than now.
        I am the executive director of the Committee for Free and Fair
    Elections in Cambodia (COMFREL), an organization that has witnessed the
    impact U.S. support for democracy abroad can have. In 2013, USAID
    supported the audit of the Cambodian voter list, exposing several
    irregularities that compromised the election's outcome in favor of the
    ruling party. The evidence provided the basis for several electoral
    reform recommendations. Many of these recommendations were adopted by
    the National Election Committee.
        U.S. support is likely to have an even greater impact in 2017 and
    2018, as Cambodians head to the polls in the upcoming local and
    national elections. With USAID funding, NDI has provided technical and
    material support for COMFREL's voter registration audit, which found
    significant improvements in the voter list over the previous cycle.
    This direct assistance is critical in building a cautious confidence
    among Cambodians in the integrity of their elections, and thus in the
    possibility of a vibrant and effective democracy in our country.
        U.S. support for Cambodian democracy goes well beyond its financial
    assistance or technical consultations. It is a source of inspiration.
    It communicates to principled democrats in Cambodia and around the
    world that democracy is worth advocating for. As Cambodia readies
    itself for the fast approaching elections, and the uncertain result
    that will follow, its civil society depends on the continued commitment
    of the U.S. to advocate for the integrity of the process. Without it,
    the future of Cambodian democracy may become increasingly uncertain.

        [This statement was submitted by Koul Panha, Executive Director,
    COMFREL, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.]
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Conferencia Episcopal Timorense (CET)
            Observatorio da Igreja Para Os Assuntos Sociais (OIPAS)
                                                        April 26, 2017.
    Ms. Madeleine Albright,  Chairperson,
    National Democratic Institute.

    Re: Democracy assistance in Timor-Leste

        In 2007, for the first time, Timor-Leste had a nonpartisan national
    organization to observe the presidential and parliamentary elections.
    We have been able to do so through the support of some organizations,
    such as the United States Agency for International Development, through
    USAID-NDI and other organizations such as AusAid, Canada Fund, UNIFEM,
    PROGRESSIO Timor-Leste and Caritas Japan. A coalition for the
    monitoring of general elections, KOMEG (Koligasaun ba Monitorizasaun ba
    Eleisaun General, in Tetum), was composed of 16 civil society
    organizations. The observers were all young men and women and were
    present at all polling stations. But before that, they were trained, so
    they watched the elections and made a good report.
        In the general elections held in mid-2012, OIPAS (Church
    Observatory for Social Affairs, in Portuguese) received help from USAID
    through IRI and AusAid to observe the elections. It had the opportunity
    to mobilize around 1,800 observers, made up of young men and women for
    the presidential and parliamentary elections. Observers were trained
    and received the credential card from the Technical Secretariat of the
    Electoral Administration, in Portuguese (STAE) to observe the elections
    and were present at all polling stations throughout the territory.
        For this year's presidential election, which was held on March 20,
    2017, OIPAS received USAID financial and technical assistance through
    NDI and managed to mobilize around 300 young men and women throughout
    the territory to observe the elections. Now the organization is
    preparing around 900 observers to place in all polling stations for the
    parliamentary elections. In addition, they would observe the campaign
    process and at the same time increase their ability to use technology
    to collect observer data on the ground on voting day and report.
        Throughout our monitoring of the elections, individuals and
    organizations, both international and national, have had good
    impressions and assessments of OIPAS, as it is impartial and credible.
    It has contributed a lot in this young country, through participation
    of young people with enthusiasm and energy to create democracy and the
    political environment that is positive, as has happened in the election
    process.
        Even so, we have to recognize that, for our part as an
    organization, we have to improve ourselves from day to day, because
    life is a process of learning and walking.
        Timor-Leste's STAE has been instrumental in recognizing OIPAS as a
    national organization for election monitoring, which is impartial, so
    it has produced cards to make it easier for us to speak during these
    periods. The commission has been very helpful to us because they know
    that our observers are impartial, so that they create a certain
    credibility, transparency and, in this way, democracy can be improved
    in this country.
        Finally, as our key contribution, and with the help of our donors,
    we need to protect democracy in this young country, which is a process
    that needs to happen in coordination with other forces, naturally; we
    will continue to support a healthy democracy in this country, where
    ``the voice of the people is the supreme law''.
        Many thanks to the people of USA through USAID and NDI and other
    organizations that have contributed throughout these times to help
    OIPAS in order to strengthen democracy in Timor-Leste.

    Pe. Agostinho de J. Soares, SDB, Director
                                     ______

                      Prepared Statement of the Dalai Lama
                                                         28 April 2017.
    Mr. Carl Gershman, President,
    National Endowment For Democracy,
    1025 F Street, NW, Suite 800,
    Washington, DC 20004-1409,
    U.S.A.

        Dear Mr. Gershman,

        Thank you for your communication on the valuable work that the
    National Endowment for Democracy (NED) does in promoting democratic
    values around the world, including in the Tibetan community.
        I admire your work for supporting freedom worldwide. In particular,
    I am aware of your active and consistent grants for strengthening
    democratic culture and institutions of our Tibetan community in exile
    for the past many years. I have no doubt that such initiatives have
    also been source of encouragement to the Tibetan democratic experience,
    which we began in 1960, a year after our freedom in exile.
        I have always admired the United States for its fundamental values
    of democracy, freedom and rule of law, and so its institutions and
    people have the ability to help and cncourage the promotion of these
    positive principles.
        As we have discussed during our meetings over the years as well as
    during my visit to NED last year, your work on promotion of freedom is
    vitally important givcn the current volatile situation in many parts of
    the world and the threat these pose to peace and freedom.
        I wish your Foundation continued success in your work. Above all, I
    earnestly hope that the United States of America, the leading nation of
    the free world, will continue its responsible leadership role in
    bringing about a more peaceful and compassionate community of citizens
    of the world.
        With prayers and good wishes,

                Yours sincerely,
                                                 Lhamo Dondrub.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the DVB Multimedia Group
        Media is important tool used by established democracies like the
    U.S. and European nations to support democracy movements around the
    world and enhance information out-flow initiatives from closed
    countries like Burma/Myanmar.
        Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB) was established in 1992 in Oslo,
    Norway following Daw Aung San Su Kyi's, Nobel Peace Prize award in
    1991. Starting with shortwave radio, and then launching satellite TV in
    2005, DVB has become the most watched independent news channel in
    Myanmar reaching more than 12 million viewers (according to a recent
    2016 BBC survey). Following the political transition, DVB since 2012
    gradually moved operations into Burma/Myanmar, and is now fully
    operating from inside the country. More information about can be found
    at www.dvb.no.
        DVB is being supported by National Endowment for Democracy (NED)
    and some government and semi-governmental organizations from Europe to
    enable continued coverage and reporting about political and social
    situations in Burma/Myanmar since the beginning of DVB establishment.
    NED hosted a DVB meeting with like-minded donors in October 2004 at
    their Headquarters in Washington DC discussing to launch DVB satellite
    TV. NED doubled funding to DVB since 2005 making the launch of
    satellite TV possible. Whenever there is important political event in
    Burma/Myanmar- general elections in 2010 and 2015 and production of
    investigative documentary ``Burma Nuclear Ambitions in 2010'' for
    example--NED comes up with additional funding allowing DVB to
    accomplish these important initiatives. It is also NED bridging DVB and
    other exiled media groups including the ones from North Korea sharing
    experiences and lesson-learning with each other.
        In addition, during times of dramatic events within Burma/Myanmar--
    for example demonstration led by Buddhist monks in September 2007,
    known as Saffron Revolution; and the deadliest natural disaster in
    Burma/Myanmar history, the Nargis Cyclones in May 2008 leaving 135,000
    death and 2 millions homeless--DVB was the one exposing news and
    footage while the military government was trying to hide from the
    international community. International governments including the U.S
    adopted appropriate policies to respond worsening the political and
    social situation in Burma/Myanmar at the time. Performance of DVB's
    undercover media operations during those days were compiled into an
    award-winning documentary ``Burma VJ'' which was nominated for Oscar in
    2010.
        Now DVB is in the forefront of media reform in Myanmar together
    with other stakeholders including the Ministry of Information. These
    efforts will help lay the ground work for a new independent and diverse
    media environment which is essential for safeguarding the further
    development of democracy and human rights within the country. The
    successes of DVB have inspired many other similar exiled media outlets
    around the world.
        All DVB's accomplishments would be difficult to realize without
    continued supports from NED since 1993.

        [This statement was submitted by Khin Maung Win, Founding member of
    DVB and Deputy Executive Director, Democratic Voice of Burma.]
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Free and Fair Election Forum of Afghanistan
                                     (FEFA)

    To:  National Democratic Institute (NDI)--HQ Office, Washington, DC

    Re:  Democracy and Governance Assistance Programs to Afghanistan

    To Whom It May Concern:

        Since the fall of Taliban regime, Afghanistan with the contribution
    of international community has begun new steps on democratic
    development. Through all these efforts, FEFA has realized about the
    great role and assistance of international community, particularly the
    U.S. Government to Afghanistan that have been carried out during the
    past several years with many institutions and the local partners for
    democratic development around the country.
        Under this U.S. Government assistance, NDI as one of key partner
    has supported FEFA to build its capacity as a local observation body in
    2004 which was extremely cooperative in the area of elections
    transparency and confidence building. FEFA under this assistance
    developed its capacity to perform as a professional local organization
    on election observation, advocacy and promoting citizen participation
    in all elections-democratic processes. Today, Afghanistan has many
    similar organizations to FEFA but since NDI under the U.S. Government
    assistance, worked generously on FEFA's capacity development,
    conducting regular assessment and providing with the tools and options,
    FEFA is in the leading role, and stockholders count on it as a
    principal organization in the field of elections.
        Additionally, the international community and the U.S. Government
    assistance programs have worked with elected provincial council members
    on how to tackle their legal mandate to help the local governance on a
    better planning of the provincial development, how PC can effectively
    and efficiently run their oversight role from the local development
    projects, and how to provide a report of findings with proper and
    practical recommendations to the Afghan Government. Many of
    international community and the U.S. Government assistance programs
    were designed in a manner that later can be followed by its local
    partners with a great amount o honor, ownership and sustainable
    approach. Today, we see that each organization they have received
    support from the U.S. Government programs, is actively working for the
    values of democracy a defending the last decade' achievements to be not
    lost. The international community and the U.S. Government's recent
    assistance with FEFA, AYNSO and many other Civil Society Organizations
    on election reform is very substantial and FEFA highly recommend the
    continuation of such assistance to support key institutions that they
    are not corrupt, and don't seek this support to become the country's
    businessmen in the future. Indeed, these support with organizations
    that they are envisioning for a democratic country, and broader civic
    participation of the citizen is really needed.
        At the same-time, the U.S. Government and international community
    assistance programs with political parties to become key actor of
    political development based on a platform to run meaningfully for
    elected positions, specially on election-campaign-planning, management
    and targeting their constituencies and believing to a peaceful culture
    of power transition is very importance program. FEFA see substantial
    need of U.S. Government assistance to continue with political parties
    and political campaign offices to properly run, plan and oversight from
    the work of government by political oppositions and parties.
        FEFA also noticed that the U.S. Government programs with polling
    agents in the provinces was really interesting and helpful. Providing
    training on elections observations and providing tools and technic to
    polling agents to monitor elections and report elections violence to
    the party or candidates' offices worked much for elections transparency
    and its monitoring.
        It is also worth mentioning that they support of the U.S.
    Government and generally international community worked a lot with
    women groups that how they can actively and broadly engage and
    participate in elections. This activity also helped women group to
    fight with the challenges and ensure a meaningful participation in
    elections. The trainings that provided to them, and additionally many
    other programs have enhanced good coordination's and follow-up sessions
    with key Afghan policy-makers to support women.
        More importantly, the U.S. Government supported programs monitored
    Afghan elections by its experts with the help of its Afghan staff to
    observe and analyze situation in Afghanistan for elections. All these
    missions for elections assessment and observations were so much helpful
    with addressing key recommendations for reforms. FEFA as an Afghan-lead
    organization highly appreciate the valuable assistance of U.S.
    Government and international community with Afghanistan programs and
    with its partners.

                Sincerely,
                                       Mohammad Yousuf Rasheed,
                                                    Executive Director.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Freedom Research Association
        Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Leahy and esteemed members of the
    subcommittee, I would like to thank you for holding this important
    meeting and the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee.
        Freedom Research Association is a public policy research
    organization dedicated to civil liberties, rule of law, free markets
    and peace. Although relatively new (2014), FRA has been one of the
    loudest voices defending these values as a strictly independent and
    non-partisan think-tank.
        On April 16, Turkey has accepted a constitutional amendment which
    transforms the country to a presidential system in a contested public
    vote. Although the final report is not out, initial OSCE briefing
    stated that the stakes were not at all equal between YES and NO camps:
        ``Supporters of the `No' campaign faced a number of undue
    limitations on their freedom to campaign. Many `No' campaigners
    suffered physical attacks. A high number were arrested, most often on
    charges of organizing unlawful public events or insulting the
    president.'' (http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/turkey/
    311721?download=
    true).
        YES vote has been promoted via extensive use of public resources
    including the State TV Turkish Radio Television, as can be seen by the
    allocated air times on media to both campaigns. YES campaign received
    disproportionately more TV coverage than the NO in the media including
    state TVs.
        The content of the amendment transfers extensive powers to the
    executive (the president) in a system design which significantly lacks
    checks and balances. (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/
    2017/04/13/the-turkish-constitutional-
    referendum-explained/).
        This has only been the latest development in a series of democratic
    setbacks in Turkey. After the bloody July 15 coup attempt, a state of
    emergency was declared to deal with the alleged FETO (Fethullah Gulen
    Terror Organization) and lustration of the state. Although it is a
    legitimate goal to hold the perpetrators of the coup plot accountable,
    it led to the dismissal/suspension of 120.000+ public officials without
    any due process which directly or indirectly affected an estimated 1
    million plus citizens.
        Journalists and civil society activists are purged either through
    legal cases, asset freezes, travel bans or detentions and imprisonment.
    The precautions went so far as to implement travel bans to relatives of
    suspects without any charge! More than 7000 academics have been fired
    without any due process based on allegations of allegiance to different
    groups or simply for signing a declaration.
        Yet, Turkish society is not mournful and there are plenty of
    different organizations and individuals who are willing to stand up for
    democracy, the rule of law and human rights. Hundreds of different
    lawyer associations, journalist networks, environmentalist groups,
    human rights activists and civil society organizations are being
    established, and they continue to operate with the support of their
    fellow citizens and international partners despite the increasingly
    difficult circumstances. They stand for universal values. These values
    are not in exclusive possession of any single nation, rather, they are
    properly upheld if defended together on a global scale.
        Many Turkish NGOs are in a good collaboration and exchange with
    international counterparts like IRI to advance democracy, peace, and
    stability in a particularly delicate region like ours. Their efforts,
    we believe, help tackle the problems as mentioned earlier. Their
    continued support for democratic and non-partisan NGOs, in particular
    for those who work for defending democracy, the rule of law and human
    rights is an invaluable and essential asset.
        Recent referendum result is a sign that Turkish people are very
    careful towards any further sign of going back from democratic status
    quo. All the crackdown and silencing efforts on the opposition as well
    as the deployment of vast public resources could only produce a minimal
    victory for the proposed amendment. NGOs and civil society activists
    engaged with the campaigning process in the face of serious risks.
        Turkey has been experiencing a continuous influx of Syrian refugees
    for the last 5 years, with an unending civil war right in front of her
    southern border. What makes Turkey so adamant in such a difficult
    region is her well-established democratic institutions of which the
    civil society is an important part. Turkish Parliament is one of the
    most visited parliaments in the world which is a sign of active civic
    engagement.
        It is of paramount importance for a stable future of the region and
    the world that Turkey stays true to democratic ideals. To ensure that,
    its civil society must keep playing its proper role while remaining
    engaged with the world. As the civil society is already facing various
    challenges in this democratic process, the support and solidarity of
    international partners are critical.

        [This statement was submitted by Medeni Sungur, Executive
    Director.]
                                     ______

                       Prepared Statement of Fundamedios
        When we signed our first grant agreement with the National
    Endowment for Democracy in 2008, Fundamedios was a nascent organization
    with no experience in the defense of freedom of expression and freedom
    of the press and had no other links to international networks. Nine
    years later, with the continual support of the NED, Fundamedios has
    become the leading freedom of expression watchdog organization in
    Ecuador. It is an important actor before the universal and Inter-
    American human rights systems, and serves as a constant reference for
    researchers, media, and political actors working on human rights and
    press freedom issues in Ecuador and the Andean region.
        Given the government's hostility toward Ecuador's news media,
    Fundamedios' work has been crucial in sustaining a free press in
    Ecuador, both in the traditional media sector and the developing
    digital media ecosystem. The key to Fundamedios' success in positioning
    itself in the forefront of this work has been the organization's
    thoroughness in monitoring and documenting attacks on press freedom.
    This system, known as the Network to Monitor Attacks on Freedom of
    Expression, is a project that the NED has supported from the outset of
    our partnership. This monitoring system has become a reference and
    model for other organizations in the region. Currently, NED has
    supported the development of the first fact-checking initiative in
    Ecuador, Ecuador Chequea.
        Without support from NED, the growth and development of Fundamedios
    undoubtedly would have been severely hampered. The same would have
    happened with other organizations in Ecuador, such as Plan V or Mil
    Hojas and today with Ecuador Chequea. For these reasons, I can say that
    NED's presence and support has been decisive in many ways for the
    sustainability of a civil society constantly under threat in Ecuador.

        [This statement was submitted by Cesar Ricaurte, Executive
    Director.]

                                     ______

                                Gawgzeh Ali deg.
      Prepared Statement of Dr. Ali Gawgzeh, Mayor Jerash, The Hashemite
                               Kingdom of Jordan
        Jordan is facing tremendous challenges to its political and
    economic development, as well as existential threats to its security
    and stability. With conflict and instability all around us,
    particularly in Syria and Iraq to our north and east, maintaining our
    security and stability is imperative. Regional and international
    partnerships are critical to our advancement as a society and our
    development as a democracy in the Middle East. As these partnerships
    have developed over time, we as local officials have come to better
    understand just how critical good governance at the local level is to
    the stability of the country as a whole.
        Jordan has been fortunate to forge important partnerships with the
    United States and other countries in support of our development, and
    like many communities throughout Jordan, Jerash has been proud to
    partner with a variety of international organizations supporting a
    large number of initiatives. These initiatives have been invaluable to
    our community as we continue to embrace the principles of
    accountability in representative government.
        Since being elected mayor in 2013, my municipal administration has
    gained significant knowledge from international partners on public
    administration, financial management, decisionmaking processes,
    resource management, transparency, and citizen outreach to name a few.
    No partnership has been more beneficial than the cooperation the Jerash
    municipality has built with the International Republican Institute
    (IRI). IRI has earned the trust of the municipality staff as well as
    the citizens through continuous engagement, responsive programming, and
    a commitment to a genuine partnership at the grassroots level.
        IRI's program in Jerash has shared knowledge and expertise from
    years of lessons learned in local governance in America and other
    countries. Through enabling us to make evidenced-based decisions,
    supporting our capacity to communicate with citizens on issues they
    care most about, and exposing us to approaches and techniques other
    communities in the U.S. and elsewhere have deployed has been extremely
    important.
        For example, IRI in Jordan partnered with the Jerash municipality
    to conduct public opinion surveys with our local citizens. Public
    opinion polling is not well known in Jordan so this was a new
    experience for many of us in the municipality. Historically, decisions
    were made based on whoever had influence over the decision maker, which
    did not always result decision reflective of the best interest of the
    people. With our participation in IRI's ``Baldytak'' (English: ``Our
    Municipality'') public opinion survey program, we were able to develop
    a much clearer picture of what the citizens were demanding from their
    locally elected officials. As we learned more and more about the
    priorities of the citizens, we were more informed and better equipped
    to make resource allocation decisions based on that evidence, which
    enabled us to target and spend our limited resources much more
    efficiently. Simply put, this process transformation would not have
    been possible without the partnership and expertise of IRI in Jordan.
        Secondly, IRI has played an instrumental role in exposing Jordanian
    local leaders to the innovative approaches other communities, both in
    Jordan and around the world, have taken to address some of their most
    pressing challenges. In many cases, challenges we face in Jerash have
    been effectively confronted by other communities. Capitalizing on the
    trust built over several years, IRI has convened a number of local
    governance forums, brought in international experts, and even hosted a
    mayoral exchange trip to Columbia to learn more about the extraordinary
    transformation local communities have enjoyed over the last decade.
    These shared experiences have proven invaluable to my work as a local
    elected official. As a result, I and many of my mayoral colleagues have
    pursued governance strengthening initiatives, such as one-stop-shops,
    we learned more about during these various exchanges of ideas and
    knowledge sharing opportunities.
        We have come a long way, both in Jerash and also in Jordan, but
    still have a long way to go. We continue to make progress and
    partnerships such as our cooperation with IRI Jordan are critical to
    our development. These partnerships strengthen the bonds between our
    two countries and help us provide better services to our constituents.
    Improved services play an instrumental role in maintaining a secure,
    stable, and prosperous community.
        Should IRI's ability to continue to engage in this fruitful
    partnership be diminished or eliminated, it would represent a
    significant step backward for us as a community and have a negative
    effect on our work. In an austere budget environment as a result of
    regional conflicts impacting tourism and other revenue generation,
    small levels of support enabling us to better engage with our citizens
    through data driven decisionmaking processes or learning about the
    successes and failures of others who have walked a similar path are
    extremely helpful.
                             mayor dr. ali gawgzeh
        Greater Jarash Municipality has 260,000 residents, in addition to
    42,000 Syrian refugees. Mayor Gawgzeh is a lawyer by training, as well
    as previously serving as the Director of the Legal Department for
    Jarash Municipality.

                                     ______

                           Gombojav Zandanshatar deg.
    Prepared Statement of Zandanshatar Gombojav, Member of the State Great
           Hural (Parliament) and Former Foreign Minister of Mongolia
        Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen: Thank you for the opportunity to
    testify for the U.S. Senate, the relationship between Mongolia and the
    United States has been consequential and the role that international
    support for democratic ideals is crucial to ensuring freedom of
    thought, trade and movement.
               how u.s. leadership supported mongolia's democracy
        Immediately following Mongolia's peaceful transition to democracy
    in 1990, the United States took quick and bold steps to support my
    country's nascent democratic institutions by bolstering the development
    of political parties and Parliament, assisting the country's electoral
    processes by working with the General Election Commission and helping
    to address the challenges of corruption through working with local
    government officials and civil society organizations.
        This long-standing support from the United States has had a major
    positive impact on Mongolia's democratic development. Through such
    support, the United States has helped political parties compete
    competitively in free and fair democratic elections. Likewise, as a
    result of this sustained commitment from the United States, Mongolian
    members of have received technical assistance through U.S.-funded
    parliamentary strengthening programs, which have directly led to
    members of parliament, my colleagues in the State Great Hural, to
    improve their ability to effectively represent constituents and respond
    to the needs and aspirations of our country's dear citizens.
        During this 27-year period following our democratic revolution,
    Mongolia has created and strengthened democratic institutions,
    including the national legislature, the judiciary, political parties
    and civil society. However, despite many positive developments,
    Mongolia continues to face serious challenges to the consolidation of
    these democratic gains. As such, the United States continues to play a
    vital role in assisting Mongolia with addressing a range of current
    issues, including addressing corruption and even supporting Mongolia's
    efforts to share its democratic experiences and lessons learned with
    other countries in the region and beyond.
        Despite all of Mongolia's achievements, U.S. support for Mongolian
    democracy is now more important than ever. Asia is a dynamic region
    that not only holds much promise and opportunity, but is also
    confronting many challenges. In recent years several nations in the
    region have experienced setbacks in terms of political freedoms and
    democratic governance and although Mongolia has firmly stood by its
    commitments to maintaining a free and open democracy, partnership and
    solidarity from democratic allies such as the United States is crucial
    in shielding developing democracies such as Mongolia from being
    affected by the influence of hybrid regimes and authoritarian
    countries.
                   why u.s. support for democracy is crucial
        The goal for the United States to support these programs and
    initiatives that strengthen democracies abroad is not to help others
    over Americans, but it is precisely because the United States helps
    others that it is also strengthened. The question is what sort of a
    world do we want--I have personally seen the benefits that strong,
    inclusive democracies can have and I do not want to see my country, my
    region, my world turn back now. Without the leadership of the United
    States, there will be others that fill the void, others that do not
    share the values of freedom of speech, freedom of association and
    freedom to choose. We cannot risk this when we have come so far.
        Democracy does not guarantee financial success or a smooth
    political system but it guarantees something far greater--the ability
    to choose your own path. To have a voice in your community and in your
    government. Without the ability to choose, people lose the ability to
    think for themselves and rely on others to do for them. Surely the
    reliance on ``someone else'' is a poor arrangement to sustain the
    entrepreneurship, innovation and big thinking that has led to some of
    the greater ideas the world has seen in my lifetime.
          how shared democratic values bring the u.s.-mongolia closer
        Through the numerous activities and initiatives that have been
    undertaken jointly by the United States and Mongolia, the United States
    has had a positive impact on my country. As the most important of our
    ``third neighbors,'' we look to the United States for inspiration--
    leading Mongolia to serve in important international initiatives such
    as the Community of Democracies, United Nations, Open Government
    Partnership and many others. Without the support we received decades
    ago from the United States, perhaps the democratic trajectory of
    Mongolia would be different.
        There are thousands of Mongolians who study in the United States,
    gaining valuable knowledge and experience, as I myself did at Stanford
    University. During my time in California I had the opportunity to study
    political systems, understand how the freedoms of association, choice
    and speech were integral to the development of a country and of a
    people. I have taken those lessons with me back into my life in public
    service here in Mongolia. Recently, I spearheaded an initiative to pass
    legislation requiring the use of public hearings in the development and
    passage of legislation and we are presently organizing a deliberative
    poll--a process which ensures that citizens are informed about policy
    options and then asked to make choices about the direction of our
    country. Without the opportunities I had by studying in the United
    States and engaging in United States-funded democracy support programs
    here in Mongolia, I may never have known about these practices or been
    inclined to use them.
        In conclusion, the case for the continued engagement of the United
    States through democracy support programs is clear to me: without the
    leadership of the United States, who will speak up for these values we
    share? These values that protect our communities and enrich our
    economies. Who will stand firm in the face of authoritarianism? For if
    our greatest ``third neighbor'' cannot, how can we?
        I call upon you, Honorable Members of the United States Senate, to
    make sure that the United States maintains its funding for democracy
    support programs and stands up for the democratic values we know
    America was founded on, the values we all hold so dear.

                                     ______

                                  Hashimi deg.
     Prepared Statement of Aqeel Najam Hashimi, Mayor Bahawalpur, Punjab,
             Central Chief Coordinator, PML-N Youth Wing, Pakistan
        It is an immense pleasure for me to write down my experience with
    NDI. NDI has conducted many training programmes for the capacity
    building of political workers of different political parties of
    Pakistan over the years. Currently, NDI is conducting a training
    programme for polling agents and are training approximately 4,000
    master trainers from across the Pakistan and this exercise will produce
    approximately 373,320 polling agents.
        This NDI polling agent program will be a useful and helping tool
    for forthcoming elections in the country. Pakistan is a country with a
    vision of peace and whose founder was the democratic leader par
    excellence who envisioned a real political, parliamentary, democratic
    system for the country. This assistance from NDI has paved the way
    towards achieving this goal.
        I am of the opinion that all sessions of NDI are so informative and
    essential for fulfilling the wish of our founder to make Pakistan a
    stable, peaceful, and sovereign state in the region. I wish NDI to
    continue demonstrating the same spirit and assistance for making
    Pakistan a stable and peaceful country through the ballot.

                                     ______

                                Hing Soksam deg.
      Prepared Statement of Soksan Hing, President of CNRP Youth Wing and
               Deputy Secretary General of the National Assembly
        Cambodia stands at a critical juncture in its history. For the
    first time, youth born after the Khmer Rouge genocide--which resulted
    in the death of nearly a quarter of Cambodia's population--will take to
    the polls to voice their opinions in the June 2017 Commune Council
    Elections and July 2018 General Elections. Amidst this tense period of
    constricting political space which puts pressure on opposition
    political parties, civil society, human rights defenders and
    independent media, the ability of youth to shape the future of Cambodia
    is all the more important. Their opinions of Cambodia are no longer
    driven by fear of war or instability--they want to see Cambodia
    transform economically like other countries in Southeast Asia with
    quality education and economic growth to provide them with a bright
    future.
        It is for these reasons that Cambodia needs the continued support
    of the international community. Such support would elevate and preserve
    the promise of peace brought forth by the Paris Peace Accords 25 years
    ago. The United States, and other signatories of the Accords, need to
    send a clear signal that they stand with the Cambodian people. In that
    vein, U.S. democracy assistance is absolutely necessary to this cause.
    Democracy assistance and continued engagement of the United States in
    Cambodia is necessary for the conduct of free and fair elections where
    all political parties can stand on equal ground, and where civil
    society and citizens can be free from fear of intimidation, coercion
    and violence.
        I can personally attest to the importance of U.S. democracy
    assistance, because such support made me who I am today. When I was a
    young boy growing up in Takeo province in the south of Cambodia--close
    to the border with Vietnam--my father, who was a politician himself,
    and my mother instilled within me the importance of political
    participation. ``If you are a good doctor you can treat a hundred or
    two-hundred people,'' my mother told me, ``but if you're a good
    politician, you can help millions.'' It was after I heard her words
    that I became determined to become a politician myself.
        However, it wasn't until I finished high school and came to Phnom
    Penh in 1997 that I truly began to understand what it takes to become
    an effective politician who can serve the needs of constituents and
    improve the future of the country. As a member of the local youth group
    Students' Movement for Democracy I came across an international non-
    profit that was educating young Cambodians on the importance of a
    multi-party democracy, and robust political and civic education through
    programs called the Advanced Democracy and Living Democracy Seminars.
    That organization was called the International Republican Institute
    (IRI). By participating in the Living Democracy Seminar I gained a
    sense of hope that youth in Cambodia would bring about the positive
    change that the country sorely needs.
        For the next two decades, I participated in numerous trainings and
    workshops, debate programs and activities conducted by IRI, including
    the Youth Leadership Challenge, Next Generation, Future Leaders and
    various voter registration drives. My participation in these programs
    allowed me to receive training on international best practices for
    democratic governance and tangible skills for public opinion research,
    campaigning, messaging, public speaking and debate. I've used all of
    the lessoned learned from IRI's trainings to advance democracy in
    Cambodia by training Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) commune
    council candidates for the forthcoming elections and sharing skills for
    effective communication with party youth. I also intend to use these
    skills to go back to my roots in Takeo province as a candidate for
    Member of Parliament in the 2018 General Elections.
        During that time, the experiences dearest to me were my ability to
    compete in the Youth Leadership Challenge debate in 2007 and the Next
    Generation debate in 2013. As a part of IRI's debate programs, I
    discussed pressing issues impacting the Cambodian people, including
    youth involvement in politics, education, healthcare and sanitation
    services, and ASEAN economic integration. It was a great honor for me
    to win both debates, and as a prize I traveled to the United States for
    my first time to see for myself the benefits of a strong democracy.
        These IRI programs launched my career. I am now the Deputy
    Secretary General of the National Assembly of the Kingdom of Cambodia
    and President of CNRP's Youth Wing. But I am merely one of millions of
    youth in Cambodia; more youth need to be empowered and educated to
    better understand the importance of democracy and political
    participation. If we want to see positive change in Cambodia, then we
    must start with youth.
        For youth in Cambodia to have these experiences, democracy
    assistance from the United States to organizations like IRI, the
    National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the National Endowment for
    Democracy (NED) is crucial and must continue. Because of U.S. democracy
    assistance from these organizations, Cambodians better know their
    rights and have the courage to stand up and voice their opinions. But
    without this support during such a critical time in Cambodia's
    development, progress made to date could be quickly erased.
        Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Leahy, and members of the
    subcommittee, I can proudly say that IRI is a part of me today, and I
    can be who I am today because of IRI. I implore you to continue to
    support U.S. democracy assistance in Cambodia and other countries
    around the world, so that other youth everywhere are able to stand up
    for democracy and let their voices be heard.

                                     ______

                                Hopko Hanna deg.
       Prepared Statement of Hanna Hopko, Chairwoman of the Committee on
         Foreign Affairs of the Ukrainian Parliament, Ph.D. in Social
                                 Communications
        Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Leahy and members of the
    subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to thank you for the
    bipartisan support and assistance that has been provided to Ukraine
    through various programs, including foreign military financing.
        Sizable U.S. international assistance has been invested in European
    security and Ukraine's democratic transformation. It has helped to slow
    Russia's aggression against Ukraine and has given us the opportunity to
    rebuild our army from scratch. Ukrainians have shown a readiness to
    fearlessly defend freedom and now can share with partners how to defend
    themselves against the Russians phenomenon of hybrid warfare in
    practice. Let me express ``thank you'' to the United States for being
    the world leader in providing practical security assistance to the
    Ukrainian Armed Forces. We value the trainings provided by the United
    States to the Ukrainian military. A strong Ukraine, defending its own
    territory, also keeps Russia at bay as a global threat to the Euro-
    Atlantic space--so we are contributing to transatlantic security.
        USAID's assistance to Ukraine has played decisive role in its
    democratic transformation. Through USAID, the U.S. has been supporting
    important reform directions which are of critical importance for
    Ukraine as well as beneficial for U.S. interests and investments,
    namely:

      --Support of court system reform, which is currently under way in
            Ukraine and can ensure that U.S. investments are protected with
            fair justice and rule of law;
      --Support of energy sector reform, and such projects as the
            Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), which
            will allow U.S. companies to enter Ukraine's energy market in
            the near future;
      --Support of foreign trade promotion policy and strategy development,
            where Ukraine will be promoting fair trade rules and
            principles, thus enhancing bilateral trade relations between
            the U.S. and Ukraine; and
      --Support of agricultural and rural development reform, whereas
            developing the agrarian sector brings additional opportunities
            for U.S. companies doing business in Ukraine and makes a
            significant contribution to global food security.

        In addition, USAID has been supporting extremely important policy
    development in areas such as healthcare reform, decentralization and
    regional development reform, reform of the Ukrainian Parliament and
    modernizing its procedures in policy analysis and drafting and adopting
    legislation.
        Ukraine continues pursuing it path towards energy independence and
    making the energy sector efficient and stable. We have already achieved
    great progress in this direction and adopted important laws, such as
    the Law on Natural Gas Market, the Law on the National Commission for
    State Regulation of Energy and Public Utilities, the Electricity Market
    Law and other laws important in terms of strengthening national energy
    security and increasing the efficiency of energy reforms in Ukraine.
    All this important legislation was passed during last 3 years, with
    skilled experts and consultancies financed by USAID.
        U.S. aid to Ukraine is particularly effective at promoting reforms
    when it is made conditional, applying ``more reforms--more financial
    support'' principles, and staying in close coordination with other
    donors. Since the Revolution of Dignity, the U.S. has invested a lot
    into the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of
    Ukraine (NABU)--the new law enforcement agency--which has been set up
    from scratch and is now pursuing criminal cases against corrupt
    politicians. The most recent cases are against the head of the state
    fiscal service of Ukraine and the former head of the energy committee
    of the Parliament of Ukraine. The U.S. Government invested funds into
    computers, trainings for NABU detectives, and ensured that NABU is free
    from political interference. The establishment of NABU was possible
    because it was a strong demand from Ukrainian society and a condition
    of IMF loans to Ukraine. The same goes for the requirements for asset
    disclosure by public officials--the new system was launched back in
    October 2016 because of IMF conditionalities.
        U.S. aid to civil society organizations has helped to nurture
    hundreds and thousands of activists across the country, who are now
    watchdogging the government. This includes also independent
    investigative journalists, who regularly report cases of corruption.
    Civil society, which receives support from the U.S. Government, is
    encouraging the Ukrainian Government to deliver results in reforms and
    anti-corruption. Many civil society activists came to parliament and
    government to change the country from inside, even though they are
    still in a minority.
        Ukraine is thus re-building its state institutions and updating its
    democratic procedures in response to demands from its society and with
    help from the U.S. in many spheres.
        Countering information warfare is one of our priorities. At a time
    when Russian propaganda floods Ukraine with inaccuracies and/or
    distortions, Ukrainians rely on Voice of America's and Radio Free
    Europe ``Radio Liberty'' credibility and accuracy. For example, VOA
    Ukrainian's daily coverage provides U.S. officials, experts, members of
    diaspora community and visiting Ukrainian leaders a direct line of
    communication with the people of Ukraine so they can hear and respond
    to accurate coverage in their native language, therefore countering
    disinformation coming from Kremlin-sponsored media outlets. The
    Ukrainian service would like to expand its partnerships with Ukrainian
    TV channels and provide fuller coverage of Congress, the State
    Department and White House. This would help to give Ukrainian citizens
    a broader and more balanced view of world affairs.
        As the head of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Ukrainian
    Parliament, I'm working closely with the NDI and IRI offices in Kyiv
    and would like to highlight their support to the democratic
    transformation.
        In April of this year, as a member of a mixed group of Ukrainian
    and Lithuanian MPs, I visited Washington to introduce a new European
    plan for Ukraine, adopted by the Seimas of Lithuania, based on the 2017
    092020 Strategy for Support of Ukraine. During several meetings with
    think tanks, Congressmen, and National Security Council representatives
    we discussed the importance of a strong U.S. position on containing
    Russian aggression. We also discussed the linkages between Ukraine's
    strength and U.S. national interests. I will share some of the key
    points here.

    1. a secure and stable ukraine is crucial for strengthening
            transatlantic ties

        Russia's hybrid war in Ukraine is a blatant violation of European
    security. Russian success in Ukraine would lead directly to the
    destabilization of the continent. Global security would be profoundly
    wounded. It would also encourage Russia to deploy similar tactics
    elsewhere in Europe. In such a scenario, the U.S. would find it even
    more difficult to stay out. If exposed to unchecked Russian aggression,
    Europe could rapidly become a problem rather than a partner. The U.S.
    would then find itself having to invest resources to support stability
    in Europe, rather than enjoying the benefits of united transatlantic
    actions on geopolitical issues elsewhere.
        Just recently I visited the conflict line in Eastern Ukraine. It
    was on Monday, 24 of April--the same tragic day when an American
    paramedic from the OSCE SMM was killed by Russian proxies. We are
    supporting the U.S. in the demand for a timely and fair investigation.
    Putin will not stop unless he is stopped.

    2. global nuclear non-proliferation is at stake

        Abandoning Ukraine would deal a major blow to nuclear
    nonproliferation efforts--something President Trump himself identified
    in December 2016 as one of America's top foreign policy priorities.
    Under the terms of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine surrendered
    the world's third largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for security
    assurances from the U.S., UK and Russia, who all committed to respect
    Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. Russian aggression
    against Ukraine, along with the restrained response of the
    international community, has exposed these assurances as hollow.

    3. ukraine's security directly affects the u.s. economy

        Guaranteed security is a prerequisite for sustainable trade and
    investment in the transatlantic region. Future European security is
    unimaginable without a secure Ukraine. If Russia succeeds in invading
    and annexing Ukrainian territory, no country in the region will feel
    secure from similar attacks. The entire security shape of the post-WWII
    world will collapse, bringing down all manner of economic
    relationships. This makes Ukrainian security an important factor in US
    economic welfare. Total U.S.-EU trade in goods and services in 2015
    amounted to USD 1.15 trillion. The EU is America's top trading partner.
    European security is essential for a prosperous America, and a
    sovereign Ukraine is essential for European security.

    4. supporting ukrainian democracy is a us foreign policy priority

        Considerable material and political support has been provided by
    the U.S. to Ukraine since 1991--especially since the 2014 Revolution of
    Dignity. This makes Ukraine's domestic reforms a test case for U.S.
    credibility as a democracy supporter. Abandoning Ukraine would severely
    undermine U.S. authority around the world, while also writing off a key
    regional relationship at a critical point in its development.
        Over the last 3 years, Ukrainians have demonstrated their ability
    to implement fundamental and far-reaching reforms. Since 2014, there
    has been more progress in overcoming the country's Soviet inheritance
    than in the previous two decades of independence. The U.S. has a major
    role to play in making sure this progress continues. It is also very
    much in American interests to do so. Ukraine has sufficient resources
    and potential to become the most significant foreign policy success
    story of the current presidency. This success could transform the
    entire post-Soviet region.
        Supporting Ukraine is also the most logical and practical US
    foreign policy response to Russia's hostile actions. Continued support
    for Ukraine allows the White House to avoid entering into direct
    confrontation with the Kremlin, while presenting the opportunity to
    make a tremendous impact on the security of the region. In contrast,
    withdrawing support for Ukraine would undermine the momentum of the
    Ukrainian reform process and create a favorable environment for further
    Russian advances. Such an outcome would fail to satisfy virtually any
    interpretation of U.S. foreign policy objectives.

    5. ukraine's success would enhance regional security

        If Ukraine falls back under Moscow's control, the Kremlin will have
    a platform to project its influence with far greater effectiveness into
    Central Europe, the Balkans, the Middle East, the Black Sea region, and
    further afield. In order to safeguard its independence, Ukraine has
    little choice but to make a success of its post-Maidan transition
    towards a more transparent and democratic model of governance. A
    reformed Ukraine would become a democratic champion in the post-Soviet
    space, providing a strong counter-argument to Russia's hybrid
    interventions while inspiring calls for similar transformations
    elsewhere in the neighborhood. Supporting Ukraine's transition is not
    only strategically smart within the current foreign policy context--it
    could also bring long-term dividends throughout the post-Soviet region.
                                   conclusion
        For the U.S., a democratic Ukraine would represent an expansion of
    the borders of freedom. A stable Ukraine would represent a reliable
    defense of the Eastern border of the rules-based world. A prosperous
    Ukraine would be a success story of U.S. foreign policy and assistance.
    A successful Ukraine would have a positive impact on the whole region,
    peacefully containing Russia.
        The Ukrainian Government, NGOs, and business community are
    continuing to push forward with tough reforms. No one wants a strong,
    independent and free Ukraine that is part of the Euro-Atlantic family
    more than the Ukrainian people, but continued U.S. support and
    assistance is critical to this process and the path would be much more
    difficult without it. It is better and cheaper to invest into
    democratic transition, thus creating a strong state, than to send
    peacekeeping troops and provide multi-billion dollar security
    assistance to eternally weak states.
        Ukraine chose to ally with the West--and is facing punishment for
    this choice in the form of Russian aggression. This makes Ukraine a
    precedent that can heavily tilt the global scale one way or another.
    Losing Ukraine would mean giving the upper hand to those in Europe who
    openly challenge America. This would be a major step towards restoring
    Cold War realities, but with a dynamic in Russia's favor.
        Ukraine chose democracy on its own, against all odds. It rebelled
    against dictatorship twice within a decade. It is ready to fight for
    its beliefs. All we ask is for reliable support from our allies who
    share our faith. With the EU going through turbulent times, only
    America can effectively support Ukraine in standing up to Russia's
    bullying.
        We are counting on you.
                                     ______

                         Prepared Statement of I(dh)eas
                 litigio estrategico en derechos humanos, a.c.
        I(dh)eas is a Mexican human rights organization which engages in
    strategic litigation to protect victims of torture and other violations
    of human rights and their families, and combat impunity through
    structural and institutional reforms.
        Since 2006, Mexico has been under a persistent state of citizen
    insecurity and an expansion of organized crime that has led to a
    significant increase in human rights violations and high levels of
    impunity. These present a clear threat to the stability of the country
    and to the rule of law.
        Between 2006 and 2016, more than 172,000 homicides took place,
    including 7,500 women murdered since the beginning of President Enrique
    Pena Nieto's mandate. Nearly 31,000 disappearances have been reported,
    and more than half of these cases occurred in the last 5 years alone.
    The Inter-American Commission for Human Rights summarized the situation
    in its 2016 report on Mexico: ``the human rights situation in the past
    years is evident in greater allegations of forced disappearances,
    extrajudicial killings and torture, a regression in citizen security,
    lack of access to justice, and impunity.''
        In 2014, we revised our strategic plan to refocus our institutional
    efforts on monitoring forced disappearances and empowering victims'
    families through strategic litigation. Back then, NED was the first
    organization to believe in our strategy, demonstrating its
    understanding of the local context and believing in the potential of
    local civil society groups in advancing innovative strategies. Support
    from the National Endowment for Democracy has enabled I(dh)eas to carry
    out activities in support of the victims of serious human rights
    violations in Mexico, particularly victims of forced disappearances and
    their families. It has enabled the implementation of 23 training
    workshops aimed at relatives of missing persons in more than 15 states
    across Mexico. NED's support has also allowed us to open new avenues
    for access to justice for victims and their relatives in Mexico,
    setting important precedents, such as the presentation in December 2015
    of the three first cases of forced disappearances before the United
    Nations Human Rights Committee. NED's support has also been crucial in
    the consolidation of our organization. In 3 years, I(dh)eas became a
    solid organization and a leader in monitoring cases of grave violations
    of human rights, recognized by its peers and by the victims themselves
    and by international donors, who are increasingly relying on our work.
        Another element that distinguishes NED from other donors is the
    trust it builds with its local partners and the continuity of support
    over several years. For an organization working on strategic
    litigation, this continuity is critical.
        NED's support has enabled organizations such as I(dh)eas to give a
    voice to thousands of victims who have long been invisible and to form
    a common front to fight against injustice and impunity, as well as to
    advance legislation that recognizes the rights and dignity of victims.

        [This statement was submitted by Juan Carlos Gutierrez Contreras,
    General Director.]
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the International Coalition of Sites of
                                   Conscience

             Memory is the greatest human weapon against barbarity.

        The National Endowment for Democracy, as reflected in its visionary
    and stalwart support for the International Coalition of Sites of
    Conscience (ICSC), recognizes that lasting democracy in any country
    ensures stability and security far beyond its borders, and enduring
    democracy depends on deep roots.
        We at ICSC know from almost 20 years working at the grassroots
    level with victims and survivors around the world who find themselves
    at that crucial point, the point at which they either turn towards
    violence and extremism in response to their experiences, or--with
    steady support from trusted sources and proven models to build on--they
    instead play a pivotal role in nourishing democratic roots, in
    cultivating a society that values and demands truth, justice and
    accountability. Their strength is grounded in the power of memory.
        The support of the NED allows ICSC to help societies in countries
    facing increased repression, transitioning from conflict or emerging
    from dictatorship to develop memorialization and civic engagement
    programs. Our work stands apart from others as we focus first on
    individuals and the power of their past experiences to shape a
    different future: victims, survivors, families of the missing, women,
    and youth, who often find themselves stigmatized and excluded from
    formal channels to engage in transitional justice and rebuilding, but
    all of whom are in fact essential to ensuring lasting peace, as all
    have a story to share about what life is like without freedom, dignity
    or respect for human rights.
        We have seen time and again in countries from Cambodia to Colombia
    that it is only through providing a platform for survivors to share
    their stories--stories of violence, atrocity or conflict, of repression
    or mass abuse--that societies can identify shared experiences, begin to
    bridge differences and truly understand the risk, indeed the likelihood
    of recurrence of violence or abuse if they do not take ownership over
    their individual and collective future. We at ICSC, with the NED's
    support, help societies undertake that transformative process through
    memorialization, laying the groundwork for lasting peace and a
    collective commitment ensuring that these events never happen again,
    there or anywhere else in the world.
        Here are a few examples of ICSC programs made possible by support
    from the NED:
     digital mapping and documentation in the middle east and north africa
                                     (mena)
        In recognition of the risk of destruction posed by violence and
    volatility in the MENA region, ICSC MENA Regional Network members have
    undertaken a region-wide digital mapping and documentation initiative
    to document sites of atrocity and human rights violations. The
    accessible online archive will support local initiatives designed to
    ensure that the abuses committed at these sites are acknowledged and
    addressed, and the collected information put to use in pursuit of
    justice and accountability.
        The sites--including sites of detention or torture and unmarked and
    mass graves--will be presented in map form, with layered documentation
    that entails victim testimonies, media reports and visual material. The
    platform will act as a key instrument to engage communities across the
    region in promoting a rights-based society through the lens of memory.
    The data will preserve past incidents that can be used as evidence in
    future transitional justice processes, and establish the groundwork
    that allows trained actors in the region to lead democracy-building
    processes.
          collective action in pursuit of peace and democracy in asia
        Religious and ethnic intolerance are among the most virulent causes
    of instability and conflict globally. To ensure such hostilities do not
    fester within a region or spread to others, it is crucial to promote
    tolerance and democracy among two factions in particular: youth, who
    are prime targets for extremists looking to grow their ranks, and;
    women, whose political participation has proven central to solidifying
    peace and democracy.
        Asia has become of particular concern in recent years as Islamic
    militants appear to have increased their focus on the region. ICSC
    programs at Asian Sites of Conscience offer unique opportunities to
    turn the tide, serving as trusted spaces where youth begin to
    understand the root causes of past conflict and how they can engage in
    ensuring a democratic future. In Cambodia, for instance, youth are
    particularly affected by poverty, discrimination, violence, and sex
    trafficking--legacies of the Khmer Rouge regime. Through programs at
    mass killing sites, ICSC member Youth for Peace educates young people
    about this history and how to peacefully deal with conflict and reduce
    stereotypes and discrimination today. The youth then pursue social
    enhancement projects in their communities, orphanages, schools, and
    impoverished areas. One 15-year-old participant recently said,
    ``Learning about the past is a way to prevent genocide from happening
    again in my country and in the world too.''
        In Sri Lanka, a country rife with unresolved ethnic and religious
    divisions that threaten official efforts to move from unrest and
    atrocity toward a democratic future, ICSC convenes women conflict
    survivors from across ethnic divides and disenfranchised communities to
    work collectively to foster reconciliation and peace through projects
    that tackle gender based violence and threats to the right to
    livelihood. ICSC is also leading the 9-member Global Initiative for
    Justice, Truth and Reconciliation (GIJTR) that works closely with Sites
    of Conscience and Sri Lankan civil society organizations to build their
    capacity to engage in the current transitional justice process in an
    informed and sustained manner. Through a series of victim-focused local
    as well as high-level consultations, participatory transitional justice
    workshops and roundtables, participants in ICSC-led activities
    contribute to post-conflict peace-building, stability and rebuilding
    efforts by ensuring that multiple stakeholders--particularly youth,
    women and survivors of conflict--are able to engage with nascent
    transitional justice process.
                   protecting democracy in russia and beyond
        From its increasing repression to its possible role in elections in
    the U.S. and France, Russia has signaled that it poses a sizable and
    far-reaching threat to democracy and U.S. security. As proof of the
    power of memory, the Russian Government recently took over and rewrote
    the interpretation of Site of Conscience Perm-36, a former labor camp
    that served as the only Russian museum presenting the history of
    political repression in that country. In an effort to preserve this
    history, ICSC is working through select channels to ensure that the
    stories of Perm-36 are preserved and shared, by bringing together
    activists and heritage professionals from Sites of Conscience across
    Russia and Eastern Europe for training on promoting transparent and
    democratic societies, ultimately serving to support and amplify pro-
    democracy voices in the region.
                civic engagement in colombia democracy-building
        ICSC's 2016 needs assessment in Colombia demonstrates the crucial
    role survivors, their families and communities must play in creating
    successful and sustainable transitional justice mechanisms. ICSC
    findings identified the immediate need to develop truth-telling
    programs parallel to established formal processes, through which
    ordinary Colombians can come together to share their experiences of
    conflict and then turn to rebuilding their communities. In Colombia
    ICSC and the GIJTR are at the beginning stages of working to promote a
    just and inclusive society, grounded in respect for human rights, by
    ensuring that multiple stakeholders--particularly youth, women,
    indigenous groups, families of the missing and disappeared and
    survivors of conflict--are able to fully engage in activities that
    support reconciliation and peace, such as collecting and sharing
    survivor testimonies and engaging in advocacy.

                                     ______

                                Khine Thet deg.
        Prepared Statement of Dr. Thet Thet Khine, National League for
                   Democracy and Member of the Pyithu Hluttaw
                                                        April 24, 2017.
    Senator Lindsey Graham, Chairman,
    U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations
            and Related Programs.

    Re:  Democracy Assistance to Myanmar

    Dear Mr. Chairman,
        When the people of Myanmar voted National League for Democracy
    (NLD) wholeheartedly in the 2015's General Election, NLD won by
    landslide, which was a game changer in Myanmar politics. Our victory
    made it possible the first civilian government in more than 50 years in
    the country. Myanmar has been a success story in getting the military
    junta out of its way, although military regimes have evidently been
    extremely difficult to get rid of throughout the world's history. Even
    when overthrown, they often leaves a country in chaos. Nevertheless,
    Myanmar maintains law and order today. The smooth transition into an
    embryonic democracy took place in March 2016. However people in Myanmar
    are still not certain whether democracy will prevail in the end. A
    successful outcome of the current process depends on whether we, as a
    people, can steer ourselves toward the right direction in our
    democratic journey.
        Myanmar needs the world to embrace and encourage its advancement in
    its democratization. In fact, the moment we felt the energy of the
    world's democratic society beaming toward us, prompted our hope for
    peace, security, happiness, and better life. However, we are aware of
    the fact that we have yet much to do to install a long-lasting
    democracy in our country. We have been blessed with true friends like
    the U.S. ever since the time we were fighting against the military
    tyranny. This friendship opened the new opportunities we are living
    currently and will also be advantageous to the democratization process
    in Myanmar. Therefore, we do not want it slipping away. Yes, Myanmar
    has been a success story, but it is not the end of our journey yet.
        We envision further success in democratizing our-nation and I am
    sure the whole world shares this vision. As a citizen, a member of
    parliament, and someone who appreciates the benefits of a true
    democracy. I would like to insist that the U.S. Government continue
    assistance for our democratization process. As Myanmar democratizes,
    its people will have much better lives, as they deserve.

                                     ______

                               Maaytah Musa deg.
       Prepared Statement of Musa H. Maaytah, Minister of Political and
                    Parliamentary Affairs, Minister of State
                                                           May 9, 2017.
    Hon. Dr. Madeleine K. Albright, Chairman,
    The National Democratic Institute for International Affairs.

        The Government of Jordan has witnessed how international support,
    with American leadership in this area, can play important role in
    Jordan's forward-looking future, and help further promote Jordan's
    commitment to peace and political reform. As an important example, the
    programs and support offered by the National Democratic Institute (NDI)
    have contributed significantly to a constructive and inclusive
    political landscape that has fostered security; helped maintain peace;
    helped created social cohesion in the country; and helped build
    citizens' trust in Jordanian institutions.
        Through its relationships with key institutions, including the
    Ministries of Interior, Municipal Affairs, Political and Parliamentary
    Affairs, as well as the Prime Ministry, NDI has provided support in
    fostering democratic practices, raised the awareness of government
    institutions about openness, transparency and inclusiveness and
    responded to the needs and aspirations of the citizens by engaging
    women and youth in the political process through civic education
    programs, support for domestic election monitoring, and capacity
    building efforts for civil society organizations. Additionally, NDI has
    implemented important good governance initiatives and provided
    assistance to members in the Jordanian parliament to strengthen the
    legislative process.
        As Jordanians continue undeterred in moving forward with
    implementing widespread reforms, and in face of the economic and
    security challenges amidst the influx of more than 1.3 million Syrian
    refugees, international development programs such as those of NDI
    funded by the U.S. Government are vital to providing the much needed
    assistance and expertise to continue to sustain Jordan's prospective
    future.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of Malam Darfur Peace and Development
    Country: Sudan
    Dates of NED Support: 2014-Present
    Director: Lukman Ahmed, BBC Arabic correspondent based in DC who is
            originally from Malam, South Darfur

        ``NED provided Malam Darfur Peace and Development (MDPD) with its
    first grant in 2014, when MDPD was a new organization. MDPD was born
    with some difficulties, such as limited resources and a far-reaching
    agenda. That very first grant from NED was a lifting factor and helped
    to increase the capacity of the organization. MDPD was able to move
    forward and gain more trust from other international and local
    partners. The organization jumped from being an institution that
    largely depended on small fundraising events to a solid institution
    with a huge network of local, regional, and international partners.
    MDPD would never have reached its current success as a strong partner
    in the peacebuilding world without NED's technical and financial
    support, and without input and feedback from NED staff. NED has
    enriched MDPD's experience as a young partner organization working to
    promote democracy in Sudan.
        We at MDPD realized that ending the catastrophe in Darfur required
    mobilizing resources, engaging the local communities, and building
    trust between the different communities in the region. Our partnership
    with NED was especially vital in allowing us to dive extensively into
    this field. NED's efforts in supporting MDPD had a large impact on the
    resurgence of life in the Darfur localities of Malam, Mershing, and
    eastern Jebel Marra. This impact now continues to spread to all five
    states of Darfur.
        Because of the generous support of NED, MDPD was able to achieve a
    historic milestone in the organization's agenda: reconciliation and
    peacebuilding between the different communities in these localities,
    which were once epicenters of violence and bloodshed. In October 2014,
    NED supported an initiative to organize and train Women Peace
    Ambassadors, who were able to encourage their respective communities,
    who previously fought against one another, to come together to start
    discussing their problems. This was the most substantial breakthrough
    in talks between these rival communities since the conflict erupted in
    2003. The Women Peace Ambassadors continued their work, and eventually
    the group included more local leaders and morphed into a larger Peace
    Committee. The Peace Committee hosted meetings and signed a peace
    document on behalf of the communities living in eastern Jebel Marra.
    NED's support has led to the creation of a solid peace platform. As a
    result, internally displaced persons (IDPs) have started returning to
    their villages of origin and gearing up to become actively involved in
    Darfur's transformation. With help from other development partners, the
    communities have started agricultural and commercial ventures to
    rebuild local economies, a critical step towards ensuring that emerging
    peace is born to last. NED's grants helped MDPD establish an
    encouraging environment that motivates other IDPs to return home and
    seek reintegration into society, a key factor in ending conflict.
        MDPD continues to engage the communities in this post-conflict
    phase to increase the capacity of local leadership, encourage the
    participation of women and minority groups, and bridge the divide
    between different ethnic groups. Over the last 3 years, MDPD has
    witnessed the positive results of the first NED grant proliferating
    every day, as trust between communities is restored.

                Sincerely,
                                                  Lukman Ahmed,
                                                      MDPD's President.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and
                               Opposition Forces
     american support for the national coalition of syrian revolution and
                               opposition forces
        Honorable chairman of Congress, distinguished members of the
    congressional committee, and directors of projects supporting democracy
    assistance programs: First, the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution
    and Opposition Forces (SOC) thanks you for providing this opportunity
    to testify to Congress on the role of the State Department's assistance
    in shaping the situation in Syria and the establishment of a democratic
    alternative to the chemical regime.
        We in the SOC have worked with your organizations in the past years
    on different projects and various grants, which generally focused on
    legitimizing the SOC by strengthening communications between us and
    Syrians both inside and outside Syria.
        After the eruption of the Syrian revolution, suppression, violence,
    killing, and destruction progressed until the Syrian people started
    defending themselves. Shortly after, splits in the military and police
    apparatuses reached thousands from various ranks including tens of
    thousands of officers and individuals from state run institutions, and
    even reaching the defection of Syrian Prime Minister Riyad Hijab to the
    revolution, which could not be stopped. Despite the regime's use of all
    kinds of weaponry, destruction, arrests of hundreds of thousands and
    killing of tens of thousands by torture, the revolution could not be
    stopped. After the regime's military institutions and security services
    weakened, it turned to Iranian, Iraqi and Lebanese sectarian militias
    and then Russia intervened directly.
        Politically, the international community has been unable to deter
    the regime and its allies from killing the Syrian people because of
    Russia's repeated veto. The Russians and regime alleged that the
    opposition was divided and dispersed and had no representatives that
    they could engage in dialogue.
        And at this point, Syrians from the revolutionary forces,
    opposition and national figures worked together to form representative
    bodies, which led to the establishment of the SOC. The SOC became the
    official representative body of the Syrian people recognized by the
    majority of the international community. It was a necessary political
    entity that emerged after the revolution to become an umbrella with
    which the broad spectrum of opposition forces operated under--inclusive
    of people from multiple intellectual, political and ethnic backgrounds.
    The SOC includes structures from:

      --Syrian National Coalition;
      --Movement for Free and Democratic Syria;
      --Moutana Movement;
      --National Union of Syrian Scholars;
      --Writers Union;
      --Syrian Business Forum;
      --Kurdish National Council;
      --Turkmen Component;
      --Democratic Forum;
      --Local councils of all the opposition governorates and
            representatives from military fractions and some independent
            national figures; and
      --Free National Assembly.

        Syrian Interim Government (SIG): The SIG is a government elected
    and tasked by the SOC to act as the executive arm operating inside
    Syria. It is a revolutionary government working from within its
    institutions to serve the people of Syria organizing and administrating
    in Syria's regions. It partners with organizations and national figures
    to actualize stability and revive Syrian society aiming to strengthen
    Syrian unity and strive for a civil and just country.
        In a recent visit to the city of al Bab in northern Syria--recently
    liberated from ISIS by the Turkish-led operation Euphrates Shield, we
    stressed an urgent need for the SOC to be present in the area to
    guarantee the hierarchical structure of the state. After the
    liberation, the al-Bab local council, which receives direct support
    from one side of the conflict, became convinced of its full
    independence from surrounding local councils and higher structures such
    as the provincial councils, directorates of the interim government,
    ministries and the SOC coalition. This narrow view will lead to a state
    of division, which will make it very difficult to return to a structure
    of state institutions unless there is also devoted efforts to support
    institutional building and develop the capacity of workers and enable
    them to use tools to connect the institutions together. This is the
    role that friendly countries and supporting bodies can play, a role
    that is constructive (long-term) and not only for emergencies (a
    reaction).
        Syrians have lived many long years dreaming of a democratic country
    that respects human dignity and it was your (America) democratic
    experience that has been a guiding light for them. But when they took
    the hardest steps towards their dreams by starting a revolution against
    the murderous regime, they did not find what they expected with regards
    to assistance to remove the deadly tyrant--instead saw international
    complacency and leniency with him. The same tyrant that ignored all
    international laws and norms and indulged in using prohibited weapons
    against civilians, which killed many.
        Syrians realize that democracy is a building process and cannot be
    achieved in the first try. But they also realize that democratic
    countries carry a moral responsibility in supporting these building
    efforts and there will not be a transition to a democratic county
    unless they actualize the foundations that serve as the base of
    democracy.
        Syrians realize that the journey from a period of regional chaos to
    the establishment of democracy, practiced in a correct way, will take
    practice and will likely have missteps. Though, this process will not
    be possible without support from friendly countries for the opposition
    as a partner and not as an interest seeker. The foundation of building
    a modern democracy starts with Syrians themselves and while experiences
    until now have not reached the level needed, this does not negate the
    state of construction needed for institutions to reach the desired
    goal.
        In the past years, American foreign policy has played an important
    role in in influencing the situation in Syria. Though, the slow pace of
    U.S. involvement negatively affected the image of the United States and
    its role in the world. Though, it cannot be denied the soft influence
    pursued by the former administration, which supported a vision of
    democracy through the life and culture of the people, did not have an
    effect--it did; especially on the ground among local activists and in
    the building of small institutions such as local councils, and medical,
    educational and media organizations. And if this support suddenly stops
    altogether, a state of chaos will return, which will weaken local
    cities and destabilize local government already built and established.
        The errors and practices in previous stages that delayed the
    emergence of opposition institutions cannot be overlooked. However, in
    the opinion of the opposition and forces on the ground, most of these
    errors were due to the absence of state structures. In getting rid of
    these negatives practices, there will be support for a vision that
    permits networks and coordination between all efforts made so that the
    situation does not return to one of destruction. It is important to
    structure support so that it enhances primary channels that pour into
    state-building. One of the most important steps that needs to be worked
    on in the next stage is structure of support and the bringing together
    of channels, not the draining and demolition of that structure.
        The SOC has benefited from a number of grants from the American
    administration in the past years--all of which aimed to reinforce the
    SOC's legitimacy and strengthen its ties with Syrians. The grants
    helped the SOC tackle primary challenges confronting Syrians and
    attempts to organize general frameworks. By laying out policies carried
    out and implemented by the government and organizations, it ensured
    integration instead of a conflict of interests. The SOC has also
    benefited from grants that supported its position in the Geneva
    negotiations, especially those that focused on strategy and helped with
    logistics, which included actualizing a media image through the
    creation of an information system. It drove the opinion of the
    opposition globally in the face of Russia and Iran's support for the
    regime despite Assad's crimes or trembling and haggard arguments and
    speeches.
        As the conflict became more complicated in Syria, Russia used the
    regime and its institutions as a tool to achieve regional gains, and to
    that end, Iran used the regime and Hizballah as a means to actualize
    its gains in the region using various terrorist acts to increase chaos
    and fuel conflict. As a result, all efforts to find a political
    solution failed. All of this places international actors in a weak
    position unless the United States, with all the power in the world,
    takes the initiative with regards to supporting democracy programs,
    protecting constituents, and organizing actions in cooperation with the
    moderate Syrian opposition to establish important steps in creating a
    path to end the criminal regime.
        Thank you for this opportunity and we hope that the next stage is a
    decisive stage towards the end of a criminal regime and the building of
    a democratic alternative.

                                             Abdul Illah Fahad,
                                          Former SOC General Secretary.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the National League for Democracy
                                                        April 24, 2017.
    Senator Lindsey Graham, Chairman,
    U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations
            and Related Programs.

    Dear Mr. Chairman,

        I write to express my strong recommendation for the U.S. Government
    to continue its support to build democratic institutions in Myanmar and
    meet the aspirations of Myanmar people to live in a free and prosperous
    society. After nearly 30 years of political struggle, my party, the
    National League for Democracy (NLD), has won the first democratic
    elections in Myanmar. In November 2015, NLD obtained nearly 80 percent
    of the electable seats in the Union Parliament. However, while
    delighted to receive such an overwhelming support, we are aware that we
    have a monumental task before us. The institutions need to be
    fundamentally transformed.
        Despite the good will, our new government is facing many challenges
    to deliver the needed change. Having been prevented from fair political
    competition for many years before, most of NLD MPs are serving for the
    first time and lack the experience as legislators. The same is true for
    our government ministers. The civil service, inherited from the
    previous system, is yet to build a culture of service to the citizens.
    The judiciary needs to be reformed to serve as an independent
    institution that has the credibility to deliver justice. On the other
    hand, expectations of Myanmar people after casting their democratic
    vote are high, perhaps, unrealistically high.
        It will be difficult for our governrnent to meet high expectations
    of Myanmar people without the support of the U.S. Governrnent. We need
    this support to complete our transition to a fully-fledged democracy.
    We believe that only in democracy will all citizens feel included and
    able to participate in shaping their destiny. We believe that building
    effec tive institutions that are responsive to people's needs is the
    best way to create stability, peace and prosperity for all. That is
    what our struggle was about. And our struggle was also inspired by the
    freedom and prosperity that the United States exemplify.
        The continuous support from the U.S. Government has helped us to
    get here, and we have come too far to allow our peoples' hopes to be
    dashed now. We cannot stop and we will not stop but we hope--in the
    process--we can count on the U.S. to continue championing expansion of
    freedom around the world.

                                                   U Win Htein,
                                          Member of the NLD Secretariat
                                     ______

                        Prepared Statement of OjoPublico
        Asociacion de Periodismo de Investigacion Ojo Publico (OjoPublico)
    is a digital media outlet focusing on investigative journalism to
    promote, protect and further high quality, accurate information on
    issues of public interest. Ojo Publico believes in the role of media in
    informing and encouraging civil society and citizens to monitor public
    officials, corporate interests, and other powerful interest groups.
    Founded in 2014, and based in Lima, Ojo Publico aims to expand its
    coverage to all of Peru's territory.
        The National Endowment for Democracy's support is decisive for our
    work, as it was one of the first organizations to establish a
    partnership with OjoPublico to advance transparency, accountability,
    and the fight against corruption in Peru. Today, 2 years after the
    beginning of this relationship, we believe that NED support has enable
    us to implement a high-impact project in support of civil society--one
    that has changed Peru's public policies to help sustain the country's
    democracy.
        OjoPublico has found in the NED an essential partner due to its
    prestige and its rigorous monitoring and attention to the
    implementation of our projects. The NED understands the problems
    democracies face in this part of the hemisphere and the challenges that
    OjoPublico confronts at the local level. Undoubtedly, this quality sets
    the NED apart from other partners.
        Without the NED's support, OjoPublico would not have been able to
    build the capacity of investigative journalists to report on political,
    business, and judicial corruption, especially in these trying times
    when political corruption have shaken up various governments in Latin
    America. Countless illicit acts would have remained outside the reach
    of news media and public officials as well as of other civil society
    organizations if the NED had not decided to support OjoPublico. Without
    a doubt, NED support in the past 2 years has made a great difference.

                Sincerely yours,
                                             Oscar Castilla C.,
                                                    Executive Director.

                                     ______

                                Ouamprathum deg.
                   Prepared Statement of Somporn Ouamprathum
                                                         26 April 2017.

    Subject:  Collaboration between civil society in Samut Sakhon province
    and NDI

        The civil society in Samut Sakhon has collaborated with NDI over
    the past 4 years (2013-2016) whereby it has received great support in
    promoting democracy in the forms of technical assistance and activity/
    project. Particularly, NDI has offered platforms for young people, both
    in formal and informal education systems, to exchange opinions and
    develop their capacity in the application of democratic principles
    appropriate to their ages.
        In addition, NDI has successfully coordinated and created
    opportunities for the civil society in the province to the extent that
    it has been able to extend the results to respond to various issues of
    concern in the province on the basis of participatory democracy.
        I therefore would like to express my gratitude to NDI.

                                       Mr. Somporn Ouamprathum,
                 Head of Civic Development Center of King Prajadhipok's
                                        Institute in Samut Sakhon Province.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Pakistan Institute for Parliamentary Services
        Over the years the United States of America has generously invested
    its taxpayer's money in Pakistan to support and strengthen democracy.
    Presently I am Executive Director of Pakistan Institute for
    Parliamentary Services (PIPS) that works with the legislatures at the
    Federal and provincial levels to provide research, legislative support,
    trainings and parliamentary outreach services. The PIPS campus in
    Islamabad is a living and lasting example of American people's support
    to help build a permanent institution through the USAID in 2012. Today
    the Institute serves 1,256 Federal and provincial legislators and more
    than 5,000 officials through indigenous resources provided by the
    Parliament of Pakistan. The PIPS is a living example of sustainable
    support once extended by the USAID through Pakistan Legislative Support
    Program.
        Before joining the PIPS I headed a dynamic civil society organizat
    ion, Centre for Civic Education Pakistan (September 2004-April 2016).
    The Centre was/is generously and continuously supported by the National
    Endowment for Democracy (NED). The Centre conducted civic education and
    constitutional literacy campaigns besides training the citizens to
    peacefully articulate their democratic demands and make the difference
    through the power of their vote i.e. right to be governed
    democratically. The Centre's work with thousands of citizens to engage
    them in democratic conversations and dialogue on democracy,
    constitutionality, civility, rule of law and vital institutional
    reforms would have not been possible without the NED's willingness to
    support innovative ideas. With the support of NED the Centre was able
    to interact with mandate and duty bearers and many of these initiatives
    are now part of the official policies. The journey continues!
        Civil society is weak and evolving but definitely gaining grounds
    and strength in Pakistan where democracy is witnessing transition with
    increased institutional confidence. In this regard the support from the
    NED has catalyzed many relevant processes by extending cooperation to
    civil society organizations. The opportunities to network and share
    experiences with democracy activists, practioners and scholars from all
    over the globe at the platform World Assemblies convened by the World
    Movement for Democracy (WMD) enriched democracy debates and discourses
    . The knowledge products produced by the NED and generously shared
    stimulate democratic thinking and motivate to assign substantive
    meanings to democratic experiences. As member of the Steering Committee
    of the WMD I can testify that it is the only global forum to share
    values and experiences of democracy in different societies under one
    roof.
        Democracy is always a work in progress and the support extended by
    the NED help attain many new milestones in this journey. This journey
    must continue as the long-term investment for posterity, democratic co-
    existence and the peaceful planet.

        [This statement was submitted by Zafarullah Khan, Executive
    Director.]
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf
                                                        April 28, 2017.

    Madeleine K. Albright,  Chairman,
    National Democratic Institute,
    455 Massachusetts Ave, NW, 8th Floor,
    Washington, DC 20001-2621.

    Dear Madam Albright,

        The National Democratic Institute has played a pivotal role in
    strengthening the democratic institutions of Pakistan. In particular,
    NDI is currently training polling agent master trainers across the
    country to ensure all polling stations have trained polling agents
    (known as poll watchers in the U.S.) in future elections.
        As an ex Foreign Minister of Pakistan, having dealt with several
    International aid organizations and having been involved in the U.S.-
    Pakistan strategic dialogue, I have the following views to offer:

        It is important to note that at present approximately 500,000
    polling agents are required as part of the General Elections process
    within Pakistan. In the previous election held in 2013, the credibility
    of the entire election process and the mandate of the governing party
    were put into question as a majority of the opposition parties raised
    the issue of election rigging & violation of applicable laws. Effective
    training for polling agents on the applicable laws and procedures is
    important to eradicate rigging/fraud, and goes to the heart of
    transparency and credibility of the entire electoral process.
        It is pertinent to note that strengthening democracy in a country
    such as Pakistan goes a long way towards providing stability in the
    country. This in turn has a positive impact on improving the security
    situation, not only in Pakistan, but in the entire region. NDI has a
    constructive and important role to play in democracy assistance. While
    doing so, it is imperative that in order to get a good value for your
    money and make an effective contribution, discussions with local
    political parties are important in order to determine their
    requirements for such assistance, and program design should be
    according to their respective needs.
        Democracy is understood differently in each society but the core
    values remain the same. It is important to be well versed with local
    sensitivities of a country in order to provide assistance where it is
    most required.
        Pakistanis would be averse to any efforts aimed at indoctrination
    of ideologies that are not applicable to or are against the norms and
    traditions of the country. However, all assistance that strengthens the
    democratic landscape is always welcome and we will always continue to
    be appreciative of any such efforts.
        When implementing any kind of program in Pakistan, it is important
    to employ local personnel in organizations such as the NDI, as people,
    especially in rural areas, tend to respond more positively if there is
    no language/cultural barrier.
        Finally, I would like to thank the U.S. Government for the
    democracy assistance it has been providing with regard to strengthening
    of the democratic framework in Pakistan, including parliamentary and
    other political institutions.
        The ideology and vision of PTI is based on justice for all and the
    belief that strong and impartial democratic institutions play a key
    role in empowering citizens and removing the sense of deprivation and
    marginalization from society. Consequently, empowered citizens are more
    likely to fight the extremist ideological mindset and be the impetus
    for greater security and economic wellbeing.

                Yours sincerely,
                                          Shah Mahmood Qureshi,
                         Vice Chairman and Deputy Parliamentary Leader.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the People's Alliance for Credible Elections
                                     (PACE)
                                                        April 26, 2017.
    Senator Lindsey Graham, Chairman,
    U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations
            and Related Programs.

    Dear Mr. Chairman,

        In November 2015, the people of Myanmar, also known as Burma,
    elected its first civilian-led government in decades. These elections
    were a testament to the work and commitment to democracy of millions of
    Myanmar citizens, civil servants, political leaders and civic
    activists. They are also a testament to the support we received, as a
    country and as individual organizations, from the international
    community.
        The People's Alliance for Credible Elections (PACE) had the
    privilege to become the first civic organization in the history of
    Myanmar to be accredited to observe an election. The systematic
    information gathered by our more than 2,700 observers provided an
    unbiased assessment of key aspects of the election process, from the
    pre-election period to the tabulation of results, and allowed PACE to
    issue recommendations to improve election laws and regulations before
    the next national elections in 2020. Just as importantly, election
    observation by PACE and other groups created unprecedented political
    space for citizens to engage in the political process.
        We could not have done this alone. From the National Democratic
    Institute (NDI) we learned systematic observation methodologies that
    have been developed and fine tuned throughout the years in elections
    all around the world. These methodologies allowed PACE to be an
    independent and credible voice throughout the process, trusted by
    election authorities, political parties and other civic organizations.
    Our work was also made possible by financial contributions from the
    National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and, through NOI, from the U.S.
    Agency for International Development (USAID) and the United Kingdom's
    Department for International Development (DFID). International
    assistance to other actors also contributed to a successful election
    process. International organizations assisted the election authorities
    to compile and update the voter list, accredit observers and educate
    voters; prepared candidates from multiple parties to participate in
    competitive elections; and supported other civic groups to provide
    voter education and observe the elections . In particular. assistance
    funded by the United States Government was critical to enable Myanmar's
    transition to democracy.
        The 2015 elections were just a first step to full democracy in
    Myanmar. The country is pursuing an ambitious peace process to end
    conflict in the border states. Citizens have begun to seek a different
    relationship with their elected leaders, one based on respect for
    freedom of speech and other fundamental freedoms. Parliamentarians,
    most of whom have not held public office before, are learning about
    their roles and responsibilities in a democratic system. Civil society
    is finding ways to contribute to this democratic transition as an
    independent but constructive voice . The success of this democratic
    transition will require the full commitment of the leaders,
    institutions and citizens of Myanmar. I believe that it also will
    require the continued support and assistance of the United States
    Government and others in the international community to further empower
    those in public office and across the broad spectrum of civil society
    to fulfill our complementary roles and strengthen our country's
    democracy. The path ahead will not be easy but, with continued support,
    organizations like PACE stand ready to do our part to fulfill the dream
    of a democratic Myanmar.

                Respectfully yours,
                                        Sai Ye Kyaw Swar Myint,
                                                    Executive Director.

                                     ______

                                Prlic Lana deg.
      Prepared Statement of Lana Prlic, VP of Social Democratic Party of
                             Bosnia and Herzegovina
        Before I begin my story about my IRI chapter, I would like to
    briefly introduce myself and help you understand this story, a chapter
    that started in 2011 and is still going on. My name is Lana Prlic, I am
    24 years old, I have a masters degree in International Business and
    Finance and I am the Vice President of the Social Democratic Party of
    Bosnia and Herzegovina. I am also ``mixed marriage'' child, born to a
    Croatian father and a Bosniak Muslim mother. I celebrate both Christmas
    and Eid, as well as Orthodox holidays with my friends and relatives. I
    was born and still live in the beautiful city of Mostar, which holds
    the sad title of Bosnia's most divided city, politically and
    ethnically. Those divisions are ruining it day by day, and they are
    ripping its heart and soul, in a way that is difficult to imagine in
    the 21th century in Europe.
        The deep ethnic divide in my hometown is something I never learned
    to live with and I will never understand how it can be acceptable to
    anyone. For all my life, I've been taught that no ethnic group or
    nation is superior to another and that there are only good or bad
    people. This understanding is something I feed most strongly about and
    it has shaped me and all decision I have made in my adult life. Perhaps
    this is one of the reasons I have, at a very young age, developed a
    passion for politics.
        I still remember vividly my childhood days, when I was watching the
    evening news every night with my mother and my grandparents, and trying
    to grasp what is going on with undivided attention. My friends use to
    laugh at me because of this, teasing me that I surely would become a
    boring politician when I grow older.
        It didn't take long before I actually started my venture into
    politics. What prompted my decision to join the Social Democratic Party
    (SDP) in 2010, was the fact that I was going to high school in my
    hometown of Mostar, which was (and still is) a prime example of school
    segregation. It's a phenomenon called ``two schools under one roof,''
    where children of Bosniak ethnicity and Croat ethnicity are physically
    divided in the school. This practice is truly the worst form of
    discrimination in our education system and a threat to the multi-ethnic
    society that we once had and that we should be trying to rebuild. The
    segregation of children in my hometown and in my country has motivated
    me to enter politics. Of all the issues this fragile country has, this
    is the one I feel most strongly about and I am determined to fight
    ethnic segregation until we put an end to this horrific practice.
        In 2011, I moved to Sarajevo and received a call from a party
    colleague, suggesting me to apply for IRI's 3-year professional
    development program for a group of young women with different ethnic
    and political background. The Young Women's Leadership Academy has
    shaped me and my political career in ways I could not have imagined
    when I first joined the program. I was the youngest in the group and as
    an 18-year old my political knowledge and experience was not
    impressive, to say the least. The group included 19 young women from
    all over the country. The group was as diverse as it could be and it
    proved to be our greatest strength. Throughout the 3-year program we
    learned to appreciate our differences, we openly debated political and
    social issues and learned to listen to each other. Looking back, I
    realize just how much the program enabled us to realize that we share
    the same problems and hopes for the future. We went from being program
    participants, to becoming friends.
        The program combined training programs and a mentorship program
    that allowed us to grow individually and work on our skills and address
    our weaknesses. In many ways, this program laid the foundation of our
    political careers and offered us the opportunity to learn from renowned
    trainers and leaders how to communicate, how to conduct effective
    political campaign and how to become responsive and accountable
    political leaders. We learned about fundraising, public relations,
    public opinion research and leadership. We were shown how to use our
    skills to become the progressive and reform-oriented leaders our
    country so desperately needs.
        Women are one of the most marginalized groups in Bosnian politics.
    Political parties and their leaders have systematically excluded women
    from all decisionmaking processes over the years. The value of IRI's
    program was not only in that it provided a unique opportunity to learn
    from the best and the brightest, but also that it offered us support,
    understanding and mentorship that most of us did not get from our
    political parties. It was reassuring to know that I always have someone
    to turn to, to seek advice from, knowing that they have my best
    interest in mind.
        I became fully aware of the impact the program had on me when I
    became vice-president of my party in 2014, with only 21 years I was the
    youngest VP in the party's history. Despite my very young age, I was
    praised for handling the limelight and the media scrutiny very well. I
    credit IRI's program for that. In the 3 years with IRI, I learned how
    to communicate, how to react to criticism and how to get up when
    somebody pulls you down. Most importantly, this program has steadily
    built the confidence of all 19 women who participated in it. Self-
    confidence is like a muscle, you can build it up, but to do that, you
    need a support system, a partner who will provide you with the tools,
    lead you throughout this process and empower you every step of the way.
    For me, IRI was just that.
        What made this program so unique and innovative was IRI's decision
    to work with the same group of promising young women leaders for 3
    years. This allowed them to witness our development and customize their
    program to address our weaknesses over the course of these 3 years. We
    grew as individuals and we grew as leaders. I strongly believe that
    this approach produces visible results and brings about change that we
    want to see in developing countries. When I joined the program, I was a
    young party activist. When I completed the program, I was holding the
    position of VP of one of the strongest political parties in the
    country.
        The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina ended 22 years ago, but the scars
    it left are still visible. The country is deeply divided, the youth
    unemployment rate at almost 60 percent is the biggest in the world, and
    the political stalemate has seriously affected the country's prospects
    of joining the EU and NATO. It is a very fertile ground for corruption
    and certain political elites have an interest in maintaining this
    situation as it is. Only a new generation of reform-oriented,
    progressive and accountable leaders can rebuild this war-torn country,
    regain the trust of its citizens and provide much-needed economic
    security and prosperity. IRI's programs are aimed at exactly those
    young people, who are capable of leading Bosnia and Herzegovina into a
    better future. Thousands of young, educated people have already left
    the country and thousands more are planning on leaving in the near
    future. I believe we owe it to this generation, and future generations,
    to build a strong state, to respect the rule of law, to create a
    prosperous society in which everyone can accomplish their goals and to
    have responsive leaders whom we can trust. Having said that, I am fully
    aware of the obstacles everyone who has tried to do that is facing. IRI
    has been a champion of advancing democracy in this country.
        A great number of young leaders have emerged from IRI's programs
    and they are now holding key positions in the parliaments and in
    government institutions, working tirelessly on political and economic
    reforms. IRI's work in Bosnia and Herzegovina is having an important
    and positive impact. I will forever appreciate and cherish my
    experience with IRI and the incredible support I have received. In
    today's world, IRI's work around the world, and particularly in
    vulnerable countries such as mine, remains as important as ever.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Red Latinoamericana y del Caribe por la
                                   Democracia
        The Red Latinoamericana y del Caribe por la Democracia (Redlad) is
    a network that brings together more than 400 organizations and
    activists from the region who work to strengthen their countries'
    democracy and to promote and defend human rights. Redlad emerged as a
    regional initiative of the World Movement for Democracy and has been
    supported by the National Endowment for Democracy since its inception
    in 2008.
        In its almost 10 years of existence, Redlad has reached more than
    50,000 beneficiaries in more than 40 workshops and 10 courses, offered
    approximately 100 meetings in defense of the Inter-American Human
    Rights System, gathered more than 2,000 attendees in meetings and
    events, and produced nearly 200 alerts received by at least 13,000
    people. Redlad has been able to defend activists at risk as well as
    organizations that have been threatened or attacked by authoritarian
    regimes. Redlad has denounced setbacks in civil society's enabling
    environment in the region and, in alliance with global networks and
    movements, publicized the threats faced by activists in the region. In
    addition, Redlad has strengthened the capacity of civil society to
    influence public policy and to act in a coordinated manner in the
    Inter-American system. NED's support to Redlad has not been only
    financial: It has served as an inspiring point of contact with hundreds
    of organizations around the world, providing mutual support to other
    relevant political actors and a means of conveying civil society's most
    urgent needs to the highest levels.
        If NED had not supported us, Redlad would not have been created or
    would have failed in its attempt to become a space for collective
    dialogue and action for civil society in the region. We would not have
    been able to defend the Inter-American human rights system, or include
    minority voices in high-level, hemisphere-wide settings. In addition,
    we would not have been able to strengthen the Venezuelan youth
    movement, give voice to unprotected communities, or fight against
    authoritarian regimes.
        Do not hesitate in contacting me if you need more information.

                Faithfully yours,
                                                Gina Romero R.,
                                                    Executive Director.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Republican Party of Afghanistan
                               Secretariat Office
        Events and Achievements after the fall of Taliban.--After the fall
    of Taliban and the establishment of the United Front forces in Kabul,
    based on the United Nations demand and agreement of national
    influential figures of Afghanistan leaders of the United Front, the
    Bonn conference was held on 06/09/1380, under the supervision of United
    Nations and hosted by Germany, to determine Afghanistan's national
    cabinet. The participants of this conference were from Rome Group, the
    Cyprus Group, 11 members from the United Front led by Mohammad Yunus
    Qanooni, a delegation from Iran, the European Union, Saudi Arabia and
    others. The agreement of the Bonn conference after nine days of
    consultations was to form an interim administration for 6 months and a
    2-year interim government and convene the Loya Jirga, led by Hamid
    Karzai and five deputies.
        The important tasks that have been done since then, with the help
    of the international community, are:

      --The formation of an interim administration.
      --The formation of Loya Jirga commission for the ratification of
            constitution law.
      --The formation of the Supreme Court as an independent body of
            government in the country.
      --The Formation of a commission for refugees by the support of UN.
      --The Formation of a commission to supervise the candidacy process.
      --Ratification of the laws for political parties in Afghanistan.
      --The creation of electoral commissions.
      --The creation of the human rights commission.
      --Developments in education, opening of school doors for males and
            females.
      --Developments in the health sector and establishment of health
            centers.
      --Developments in transportation.
      --Developments in operational budget and increase in gross production
            and increase in developments budget by the foreign support.
      --Formation of private and public banks.
      --Progress in development projects, and developments in creation of
            electricity dams.
      --The total foreign aid to Afghanistan from 2001- 2014 reached $104
            billion.
      --For better governance, security and poverty reduction, a conference
            was held in London (focused on the Afghanistan National
            Development Strategy) with the participation of 70 countries,
            and demonstrated their commitment to Afghanistan in all sectors
            includes self-sufficiency of Afghan National army, Afghan
            National police forces and National Directorate for Security.
      --The 2002 Tokyo conference, 2004 Berlin conference, 2006 Paris
            Conference, 2008 London conference in 2008, 2010 Kabul and
            London conferences, and 2012 Bonn and Chicago conferences were
            all held to support economic aid for Afghanistan.
      --The signing of a U.S.-Afghanistan bilateral agreement with US for
            long term support in 2005, and declarations in 2008 and 2009 by
            the Afghan foreign ministry and US secretary of state.
      --The signing a U.S.-Afghanistan bilateral agreement for long term
            support in the educational sector, and the training and
            strengthening of the security sector until 2025.
      --The signing of 12 different international conventions and accession
            of Afghanistan into nine international conventions.
      --Afghanistan currently has unilateral and bilateral relations with
            88 countries of the world.
      --Afghanistan has membership in regional economic organizations,
            SARC, UNESCO, EICO, World Bank, Asian Bank, ICB and others.
      --The formation of the women affairs ministry.
      --Developments in CSOs activities and the creation of political and
            social institutions.
      --The creation and ratification of the law of elimination of violence
            against women.
      --The ratification of regulation on prohibiting women harassment.
      --The ratification of resolution (1325) for women rights and their
            support.
      --The National Democratic lnstitute's (NDI) role in cohesion of
            political parties and support for the provincial council and
            parliamentary elections candidates.
      --The growth of democracy in Afghanistan.
      --Women's growth in commerce, politics, social and economic sectors.

    Recommendations:

      --Comprehensive support on better governance and security, the
            reduction of poverty and unemployment, and joint cooperation
            with the international community, United Nations and the U.S.
            on eliminating corruption.
      --Comprehensive support on maintaining security, political stability
            and preventing neighbors from interfering In the Internal
            Issues of Afghanistan.
      --Support in the educational sector and higher education all over the
            country.
      --Strengthening civil society institutions, and supporting political
            parties as an important element of democracy.
      --Comprehensive support in eliminating international terrorism, Al-
            qaida and Daesh as phenomena of violence for the whole world.
      --Comprehensive support on eliminating the cultivation and
            trafficking of drugs.
      --Maintaining the current achievements in Afghanistan in the areas of
            peace, political stability, citizen's immunity, the prevention
            of foreign interference in internal matters of Afghanistan, and
            the creation of joint understanding regionally and
            internationally.
      --Comprehensive efforts of the international community, the United
            Nations, and especially USA to stop Pakistan's interference in
            internal affairs of Afghanistan, and common efforts in fighting
            terrorists and Daesh who are operating violence against the
            people of Afghanistan from across the border.

        [This statement was submitted by Adelah Bahram Nizami, Elected
    chief of the Republican Party and Civil Society Senior Advisor to the
    President of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.]

                                     ______

                                Sag Junaidi deg.
     Prepared Statement of Mr. Junaidi SAg MH Aceh Election Commissioner,
                                   Indonesia
        Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Leahy, and subcommittee members,
    thank you for granting me the opportunity to submit testimony for this
    important hearing. I am elected as Aceh Election Commissioner from
    2013-2018. Unlike past elections, the 2017 election was not marred by
    violence and was credible, peaceful and transparent. The success of
    this election will further stabilize and consolidate democracy in Aceh,
    positively contributing to the stability of Indonesia at-large.
        Leading up to the election, domestic and international observers
    were worried about large-scale outbreaks of violence. Aceh had a
    history of violence during past elections, particularly during local
    elections in 2006 and 2012, when as a candidate experienced electoral
    violence first-hand. The violence undermined efforts to build a
    credible democracy in Aceh, which led to larger concerns about
    instability in a region of Indonesia that was in a state of conflict
    with the central government for over than 30 years until the signing of
    the 2005 Helsinki Agreement.
        One of the reasons this election took place peacefully was that
    candidates contesting the election deployed party agent observers to
    monitor polling stations on Election Day. This was a large undertaking
    from all candidates to minimize violence and ensure a fair electoral
    process. On Election Day, candidates deployed party agents to all of
    Aceh's nearly 9,400 polling stations. These observers served as a
    strong deterrence to those who wished to disrupt and delegitimize the
    election.
        In total candidates deployed over 70,000 party agents to observe
    polling stations. While each candidate opposed each other on the
    ballot, each worked together on this endeavor because all believed it
    was important to create an environment on Election Day where voters
    could cast their ballots without fearing for their safety, and where
    all candidates contesting the election could feel confident that they
    were taking part in a credible and fair process.
        This massive party agent election observation effort would not have
    been possible without the support of the International Republican
    Institute (IRI). All candidates worked with IRI under a grant provided
    by the U.S. Department of State to train over 2,500 party agent
    trainers, who subsequently went on to train thousands more. IRI played
    a vital role in not only teaching party agents how to perform their
    duties on Election Day, but also in convening opposing campaigns in a
    manner that built trust and enabled us to work together to ensure a
    peaceful and stable electoral environment.
        Without support from IRI and the Department of State, the number of
    party agents present at polling stations would have been much lower,
    reducing their collective ability to serve as a deterrence to electoral
    violence. An outbreak of violence would have called the credibility of
    the election into question, potentially destabilized Aceh, with
    troubling ramifications for greater Indonesia, the Southeast Asia
    region and beyond.
        The support provided by IRI and the Department of State not only
    had a positive impact on this election, but will have a lasting impact
    as Indonesia moves toward national elections in 2019. These elections
    will be an important indicator of the status of democracy and stability
    in Indonesia, and continued investment from international donors will
    keep Indonesia moving in the right direction.
        Mr. Chairman, Aceh has come a long way since the signing of the
    Helsinki Accords and the 2006 election. I am proud to have worked with
    IRI to promote stability in Aceh, and hope there will continue to be
    opportunities to do so in the future. Thank you again for granting me
    the opportunity to submit testimony on this important matter.
                                     ______

                          Prepared Statement of SILAKA
        Since its founding in 1993, SILAKA has committed itself to the
    cause of Cambodian democracy. We believe equitable economic
    development, environmental protections, and social justice can only
    come from a free and fair democratic system. This vision of democracy
    has often been clouded by the heavy restrictions on the opposition and
    civil society in Cambodia, but we have yet to lose sight of our goal.
    This may not have been the case if it were not for the reliable
    commitment and support of the United States.
        The United States has partnered with SILAKA from its very first
    days to build the capacity of Cambodian individuals and organizations
    to advocate for change. USAID support, provided through NDI, has
    allowed us to prepare agents of the two major parties to train
    committed and talented women candidates for the upcoming commune
    council election. The outcomes of the project go far beyond the
    critically important goal of electing women to local office. Our
    trainings for officials on both sides strengthen the ability of their
    parties to communicate their policy position to voters.
        To me, however, the most significant achievement of the program is
    the bipartisan collaboration fostered between incumbent and opposition
    leadership, from curriculum development to training day. U.S.
    assistance has allowed us to develop this example of bipartisan,
    solution-oriented democracy, with the hope of its spread throughout the
    country.
        Ensuring that the voice of every Cambodian is heard in government
    is essential to the development of our country. U.S. assistance through
    NDI has not only supported our advocacy for democracy; it has supported
    our advocacy on behalf of the marginalized. Women and youth have an
    unprecedented chance at greater representation in the upcoming
    election. This representation is critically important in a country as
    young as Cambodia. Continued U.S. support, putting our shared values to
    action, can help realize the just, equitable democracy we envision.

        [This statement was submitted by Thida Khus, Executive Director,
    SILAKA, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.)

                                     ______

                               Silva Ulisses deg.
               Prepared Statement of Jose Ulisses Correia e Silva
                            Republica de Cabo Verde
                                primeir0-minisro
                                              Praia, 28th April , 2017.

    Mr. Ken Wollack, President,
    National Democratic Institute (NDI),
    455 Massachusetts Ave, NW,
    Washington, DC 20001.

    Excellency,

        I am writing to you today to demonstrate my support for and
    appreciation of the importance of assistance to democratic development
    in Africa, particularly in Cabo Verde, by the National Democratic
    Institute.
        Cabo Verde is recognized as one of Africa's success stories in
    promoting democracy and I believe this was only possible with the help
    from organizations like NDI. In recent years, Cabo Verde-NDI relations
    have reached extraordinary levels and, through NDI, Cabo Verde has been
    able to share and export its knowledge of democratic development to
    other countries in the region and the world.
        Cabo Verde was a one-party state until democracy was introduced in
    1991 when, for the first time, a multi-party election was organized.
    The democratic system in Cabo Verde is now recognized as successful and
    stable. With a democratic system in place, Cape Verde introduced major
    economic, political and social reforms leading to an increase and
    diversification in the country's trade and commercial development with
    other countries.
        In the most recent parliamentary elections held March 20, 2016, I
    was elected Prime Minister ending 15 years of PAICV-ruled government.
    When I took office, I announced the following priorities: economic
    expansion and job growth; poverty reduction; infrastructure and
    business environment enhancements; expanded foreign direct investment
    (FDI); crime reduction measures; government transparency;
    accountability; and national security with a focus on combating drug
    trafficking.
        With the return to power by my MPD party after 15 years in
    opposition, it was very important to collaborate with institutions such
    as NDI to assist with the transition of power. NDI support was vital to
    insure that the transition was accomplished in a peaceful and effective
    manner. As a result, Cabo Verde strengthened its reputation as a model
    of democratic governance. Now with the help of NDI, we have been able
    to share our experiences through a regional conference on Democracy
    Transfer hosted in Praia, Cabo Verde and, most recently, with a mission
    led by our Cabo Verde Ambassador in Washington, DC to Gambia for an
    assessment trip to assist the Gambian new administration in the
    transition of its own authority.
        Such collaboration between Cabo Verde and NDI is an outstanding
    example to show that the democratic system can work. In today's world,
    I know that many people still doubt in the effectiveness of democracy
    but our experience in Cabo Verde proves the opposite. With NDl's
    support, Cabo Verde can take a leading role in demonstrating that
    despite challenges, democracy works and we can do this by sharing our
    knowledge and experience in our region and beyond.

        Please accept the assurances of my highest consideration.

                                     ______

                            Stanowski Krzysztof deg.
    Prepared Statement of Krzysztof Stanowski, Former Director, Polish Fund
                          for International Solidarity
        In the 1980s NED brings hope and provide assistance to democracy
    activists and human rights defenders in Eastern Europe. In the 1990s by
    supporting cross-border programs, NED has played a crucial role in
    establishing relations between civil society and independent media
    leaders from Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Finally, NED encouraged
    us and support to provide solidarity with partners from Eastern Europe,
    Central Asia, and Mongolia. Establishing World Movement for Democracy
    provide a unique platform to exchange experiences with partners from
    other regions.
        NED was important as a model in debate on supporting democracy on
    behalf of the EU. During Polish Presidency of EU Council European
    Endowment for Democracy was established to promote the European values
    of freedom and democracy and assist pro-democratic civil society
    organizations, movements and individual activists in the EU
    Neighbourhood. In the same year, Poland established Solidarity Fund
    PL--Polish democracy support agency.

                                     ______

                                Stroe Ionut deg.
       Prepared Statement of Ionut Stroe, Member of Parliament of Romania
        IRI's partnership with the National Liberal Party (PNL) and lately
    with Save Romania Union (USR) political parties has been one of the
    most challenging but at the same time rewarding experiences I have had
    as a politician in my country. In the context of a very turbulent
    political situation in Romania over the past few years, the journey we,
    Romanian politicians, are going through is as compelling as it is
    challenging--and organizations such as IRI have been key in helping us
    reform ourselves to adapt to this changing situation. Looking at the
    details of my personal experience, the relationship between IRI and my
    party, the (PNL) has two important aspects: party work and political
    training, and also the need to address transparency as one of the most
    important lines in political behavior.
        Political Work: Together with IRI, PNL has been working hard to try
    and understand current political and sociological evolutions in my
    country and a new conundrum that is not so dissimilar to the United
    States. With help from IRI, we have been fed with ideas on how to adapt
    to new trends and to act as a stabilizing force in Romanian politics--
    with the idea to help convince politicians to force their structures to
    modernize and open up to the new society emerging from the ashes of the
    financial, economic and social crisis of the past decade. Such
    assistance includes one-on-one meetings with leadership and key
    political actors of PNL, trainings with campaign specialists for PNL
    candidates in the last legislative elections, and participation of the
    PNL leadership in IRI's democracy summits over the past 2 years,
    including a general summit with all players to agree on the causes of
    the current democratic distress (and consequent vulnerability to
    Russian influence) on our continent, and the other one this year
    dedicated to maximize our opposition work in a constructive,
    constitutional and positive way for our nation. Together, we have
    identified plenty of debate points and issues we need to address as a
    result of our meetings--in this sense, IRI has helped us move forward
    in a way no other organization could have. For instance, one of the
    main concerns in our discussion was the need to find solutions in order
    to achieve political stability facing extremist threats, or the
    radicalization of public or political speeches. Moreover, we have
    established that one way of fighting against these types of political
    behavior could be only by implementing transparency in political
    decisionmaking so that extremist forces can be stopped from getting
    more power.
        Without encroaching on our own sovereignty, organizations such as
    IRI encourage a debate held among us as Romanian MPs and decision
    makers within PNL that is both healthy and in the end very comforting
    because we understand that, disregarding a certain state of
    disappointment from public opinion and provided we do what we believe
    is the right job, we can counter real extremist parties that want to
    harm our quest for freedom, and can find solutions to counter or re-
    center politicians that tend to radicalize their public outlook taking
    advantage of the social situation.
        Transparency: With regard to transparency, Romania has a firm
    legislative background, but needs political will to tackle the issue,
    and organizations like IRI help us strengthen the latter, a quite
    unique skill I have to say. In Romania there is a tendency of governing
    through emergency ordinance. Our relationship with IRI helps us re-
    think our action so that we can be more connected with good practices
    and cement our integration into the western world through a trustful,
    fruitful bilateral relationship.
        IRI has been pushing hard with the help of politicians and partners
    across Romania for a healthy debate on transparency that would include
    all actors, may it be government, party politicians (something that is
    very often absent in the Romanian public debate) and civil society, in
    order to push for a consensus for more transparent practices in the
    public sphere. Such efforts include a multiparty Romanian Transparency
    conference organized in September 2016, as well as exchanges with
    politicians from the Dacian Ciolos government in 2016 and party
    politicians, notably from PNL and USR, on the how to constructively
    push for more transparency reforms in Romania.
        Unfortunately, in U.S.A., Romania is often associated with images
    of poverty and corruption. And although these two images are cliches
    that do not necessarily reflect reality. What is less known is that
    there is a drive from parties such as PNL to tackle poverty and
    corruption, and in some cases we have shown great success in improving
    transparency. Thanks to the IRI-organized roundtable in Romania, in
    partnership with some NGO's and the political partners, we were able,
    in a politically neutral context, to remind ourselves of the good work
    done, but also of the challenges ahead.
        We have received a lot of good feedback from our partners, speakers
    and participants who took part in our common activity and expressed
    surprise at seeing important personalities actually publically talking
    to each other--one of them even mentioned the ``tour de force'' of
    having all parties represented in a roundtable only 3 months before
    legislative elections, discussing their respective roles in making
    Romania more transparent in a co-operative mode.
        All political actors in Romania agreed to the formation of a
    technocratic government that has done much to promote more transparency
    in the administration and beyond. This was partly due to the unique
    position of an apolitical government comprised of technocrats, CSO
    representatives, and party politicians being united to reinsert trust
    in the political system, which is exactly the kind of political work
    that IRI, through their politically-savvy but yet cross-party approach,
    encourage. Unfortunately, as recent legislative elections and their
    aftermath have shown, the political game and its traditional divisions
    have re-emerged, putting further progress on anti-corruption on the
    backburner, and we need more than ever the discrete, though extremely
    helpful and constructive facilitation that organizations like IRI
    provide.
        IRI's work to promote transparency, epitomized in the conference on
    ``transparency and integrity in the Romanian public sphere,'' is a step
    forward not only because it puts all the relevant actors together for
    dialogue, but also because it pushes them to talk and listen to one
    another without devolving into the all-too-common habit of trying to
    point fingers at each other. Without encroaching upon our sovereign
    rights as MPs and political actors of our country, IRI thereby pushes
    us to go forward with reforms and make our system more transparent, and
    more business friendly. I believe this is good for our own business,
    because it makes it more attractive to foreign investment, but it is
    also good for American business, because it makes us all more alike,
    and our common business more predictable.
        Young Politicians: One of the most compelling themes in our
    discussions with IRI is to empower young and emerging politicians. IRI
    representatives have been a real force in supporting youth to enter in
    politics and to take more political responsibility. In PNL there is a
    rejuvenation process, with a lot of young, refreshing people who went
    through IRI's trainings and activities and were elected as MPs in the
    December 2016 elections, who help us in our re-questioning of
    ourselves, and I believe will be the key to our adapting to the
    emerging new world. IRI is training youth who are politically
    conscious, politically active, but the problem encountered in Romania
    is that youth in general is much more cynical than it used to be. There
    is less political participation in general, and much more cynicism
    about politics in general than there used to be--if nothing is done, I
    fear that this cynicism we inherited from Communism will prevail again,
    pushing Romania in new dark ages. After almost 30 years since the fall
    of the Ceausescu regime, I guess we can try to sort this problem on our
    own--and I still think ultimately we will prevail. But having the
    support and help from our American friends to continue in the path that
    I believe is positive for each of us would be even better.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Supporting Organization for Afghanistan Civil
                                    Society
        Dear Senator Graham: My name is Khalil Parsa; I survived an
    assassination attempt last September because of my efforts combatting
    corruption in Afghanistan. I lead a nonprofit organization, Supporting
    Organization for Afghanistan Civil Society (SOACS), promoting good
    governance in Herat province, West Afghanistan. I am deeply honored and
    looking forward to receive the NED's Democracy Award on June 7.
    Currently I am a Reagan Fascell Democracy fellow at NED.
        On behalf of my community and colleagues at SOACS, I thank you for
    your strong support to the NED, which backed our campaign for
    transparency and accountability of local governments in my hometown of
    Herat, where citizens can directly call and report corruption. Our
    campaign made local officials responsive and mindful of SOACS as a
    civic watchdog. Recently, SOACS received a written complaint about a
    powerful official, the Chairman of Herat Provincial Council, who was
    involved in bribes and drug trade. We referred his case to our Rule of
    Law Committee chaired by the governor of Herat who informed local
    security officials and officials in Kabul accordingly. The case became
    public and led to the imprisonment of the said official. Such corrupt
    officials who cover up for criminal networks threaten our freedom. I
    was gunned down on September 24, 2016 by two masked gunmen on a
    motorbike and had seven bullets. I survived miraculously. The attempt
    on my life will not stop our fight. We will continue our efforts and
    ask for yours and NED's continued assistance in promoting good
    governance and accountability in Afghanistan.
        Allow me to share a few details on how we combat corruption. We
    maintain a grassroots advocacy campaign, encouraging public
    participation, including petitioning. NED was the first to recognize
    and support our campaign. With NED support, we launched a hotline for
    citizens to report on bribes and other forms of corruption, installed
    complaint boxes on main neighborhoods where citizens safely report
    incidents of corruption and fraud. We trained our own investigators and
    representatives from 30 other civil society groups and launched
    committees to review and verify allegations of corruption. We also
    built bridges with state and government bodies and advocated for
    redress and necessary reforms.
        We know that combatting corruption in Afghanistan is an uphill
    struggle. Surely, with persistence and increased awareness we will
    triumph. Today, we collaborate with local media, radio and TV, we have
    banners and billboards throughout Herat on citizens' rights, and we
    receive and follow up on hundreds of complaints, reporting bribes. One
    good story is that of Gholam Hossein. He is a local farmer who reached
    out to us asking for help on a land dispute issue where a judge asked
    him to pay a large bribe. He refused. SOACS investigated his claim,
    found it credible, and referred his case to our rule of law committee,
    on which a prominent judge and police chief sit. The committee verified
    the facts filed charges, and the police chief arrested the corrupt
    judge. This and many other cases testify to the effectiveness of our
    footprint in combating corruption in my hometown. We would have not
    been able to do any of this work had it not been for the NED's
    continued support.
        I want you to know that NED's assistance is a lifeline for civil
    society groups like us that raise awareness on good governance and on
    daily basis fight the rampant corruption, which is a lethal threat to
    Afghanistan' s security and political stability.

                Thank you,
                                                  Khalil Parsa,
                                                    Executive Director.
                                     ______

                        Prepared Statement of Tounissiet
        Since the 2011 revolution in Tunisia, local civil society has
    played a key role in the development of democracy and democratic
    institutions. One such organization is our association Tounissiet,
    founded in 2011 on the eve of the revolution, and focuses on advocating
    women's rights and gender equality. Our association received its grant
    from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which has allowed us
    to develop institutionally by acquiring permanent headquarters and
    staff, solidifying our vision, and opening additional new branches in
    Gabes, Bousalem, and Beni Kheir.
        Since then, additional support from NED has enabled our association
    to rapidly expand its scope and activities that include:

      --Establishing robust partnerships with international organizations
            such as the United Nations Women's Fund, the International
            Center for Transitional Justice, the United Nations High
            Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations Development
            Fund, and the Carter Center for Democracy and the Center for
            Reports.
      --Capacity building for partner associations in multiple regions of
            Tunisia on national issues related to women.
      --Attracting additional international donors.
      --Participating in hearing sessions with local councils on laws
            pertaining to women and women's rights, including draft laws
            aiming to eradicate violence against women and create gender
            equality in inheritance.
      --Publishing a 50-page report on the views and recommendations of our
            Association and its proposals on the anti-violence draft law to
            the parliament.
      --Contributing to the discussions and activities of constitutional
            bodies, including the Truth and Dignity Commission and the
            Anti-Corruption Commission.

        NED funding has allowed our association to develop into a
    sophisticated NGO that is a force in local Tunisian issues and
    positioned well to be reactive to social shifts within Tunisian
    society. Without NED funding, our association would be forced to
    considerably shrink the scope of its activities, which would hurt the
    quality of its programs and its impact on democratic consolidation in
    Tunisia.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Transparency International, Cambodia (TI-C)
        The United States has been a crucial ally to democratic actors in
    Cambodia since the early 1990s. By connecting Cambodian civil society
    organizations with internationally-acclaimed expertise, United States
    support has helped Cambodia navigate a tense post-conflict period to an
    institutional framework suited for democracy and in support of the
    implementation of the democratic roadmap stipulated in the 1991 Paris
    Peace Accords signed by all Cambodian leaders and factions.
        Our democracy, however, has yet to be consolidated. An increasingly
    restrictive space for opposition politics and civil society activities
    has threatened the momentum behind emerging civic values in our
    country. This is where U.S. assistance becomes crucial: U.S. support
    for voter education has prepared the next generation for political
    leadership in our multi-party system. Civic engagement programs have
    equipped women candidates with the skills necessary for elected
    leadership, while youth activist trainings have imparted the critical
    value of government accountability. The democratic mindset adopted by
    Cambodian youth is in part owed to the U.S. commitment to
    representative government, a commitment we are proud to share.
        Transparency International Cambodia, the organization I lead, has
    partnered with U.S. organizations to take our shared commitment to
    democracy from theory to practice in the observation of Cambodia's
    upcoming elections. U.S. material and technical assistance has prepared
    hundreds of observers, mostly youth, to monitor polling stations in
    both 2017's local election and the crucial 2018 national poll. In the
    previous cycle, the evidence of irregularities uncovered by U.S.-
    supported observation efforts empowered civil society to successfully
    lobby for electoral reform. If similar irregularities occur in the
    current electoral cycle, we'll be there to report them, thanks to
    continuing U.S. assistance for organizations with shared values
    overseas.
        Cambodia may be on the verge of a monumental transition in its
    history. The opportunity presented by the upcoming elections is rare
    chance for our country to become the democratic example of Southeast
    Asia. Since Cambodian advocacy began, U.S. assistance has been multi-
    faceted, wide-reaching, and crucially important to the realization of
    Cambodian democracy. It will only become more so in the aftermath of
    our elections, regardless of their result.
        We strongly appeal to the American people and her Government to
    continue supporting Cambodia in this noble democratic path until key
    pillars and foundation for democracy and good governance are built and
    are irreversible.

        [This statement was submitted by Kol Preap, Executive Director.]

                                     ______

                             Usupashvili David deg.
       Prepared Statement of the Hon. David Usupashvili, Speaker of the
                      Parliament of Georgia from 2012-2016
        It is no doubt rare for representatives of any U.S. assistance
    recipient country to say that ``we no longer need your financial and
    technical support, because you have many other domestic needs and we
    can find support elsewhere.'' Initially I feared that my statement
    could be almost meaningless for the distinguished Senators. However,
    when I looked to the issue from the other angle, as a representative of
    a strategic partner of the United States, I realized that I had a duty
    to write.
        I strongly believe that the world can become better for everybody
    only if the U.S. continues its leadership in promoting democracy, peace
    and prosperity around the globe. This leadership is at its most
    effective when less democratic, less peaceful and less prosperous
    nations, who are truly applying their own resources to the same tasks,
    are treated as long term partners. The demonstrated successes of such
    countries can better initiate increased demand for change in other
    closed and non-democratic societies than anything else.
        From my practical experience of more than 20 years, the work of IRI
    and NDI in Georgia is not just about providing needed assistance, but
    also about building and strengthening the strategic partnership between
    our countries. This model of mutually beneficial, well established
    partnership, has become possible due to two decades of hard work from
    both sides. This must be protected, promoted and shared. When NDI
    opened its first office in Tbilisi in the early 1990s, I was among the
    Georgians who were assisting them, personally teaching the Americans
    how to turn on handmade heaters and power generators in their offices
    and apartments, which in those days did not have electricity, gas or
    water supply.
        That early team was later joined by the current President of
    Georgia, Giorgi Margvelashvili. The changes in my country since then--
    not only in utility services, but also good governance, rule of law,
    media freedom, civil society, multiparty democracy, judicial
    independence, parliamentary openness, and self-governance--would not
    have been possible without the help of our American friends and
    advisors. This fact is well recognized across the political spectrum
    and, most importantly, by the ordinary people.
        Georgia was lucky to have extraordinary people serving in both IRI
    and NDI offices for years. We never felt that they were foreigners
    looking to fulfill contractual obligations. The impression was and is
    that they are de-facto citizens of Georgia, caring about it, being
    proud of its success, and feeling its pain in difficult moments. For
    this reason, our government and people have metaphorically
    ``nationalized'' IRI and NDI (along with a few others), as we feel that
    they are as much ``ours'' as they are ``yours''. Their presence is much
    greater than their projects.
        If they are closed or their presence visibly reduced, I believe
    Russia will interpret it in only one way--as a green light for
    expanding its ``backyard.'' This will also be a dangerous signal to the
    segment of society, who hear Russian propaganda and long for the Soviet
    past, causing them to question Georgia's Euro-Atlantic orientation. Let
    me be less diplomatic and share the public comment of one popular
    Georgian politician following U.S. Ambassador Ian Kelly's remarks on
    the importance of independent media: ``Can anybody explain to this guy
    that things have changed? Did not he hear about the policy of his own
    new president about restraining from involvement of other countries
    domestic affairs?''
        This is how certain things are understood and interpreted these
    days. The battle between the light and dark is taking on new dimensions
    in post-soviet countries, and the U.S. should be thinking about
    increasing engagement and cooperation with countries like Georgia. This
    is the same message of today's events in Tbilisi. As the countries of
    the Former Soviet Union celebrate Victory Day over Nazi Germany,
    Georgia is also privileged to also celebrate the 25th anniversary of
    the U.S.-Georgia strategic partnership, with the attendance of the
    President and Prime Minister of Georgia and four former U.S.
    Ambassadors to Georgia.

                                     ______

                                 Vejjajiva deg.
       Prepared Statement of Abhisit Vejjajiva, Former Prime Minister of
                                    Thailand
        Throughout the years, the NDI has been involved in capacity
    building work for politicians and staff in a number of areas, notably
    women and youth issues, as well as engagement with local communities.
    They have done this in partnership with political parties, foundations,
    academics and non-governmental organizations.
        Such work has contributed significantly to the development of
    democracy in Thailand. By broadening the experience of political
    stakeholders in a tangible manner, not only does the work of the NDI
    strengthen the soft infrastructure for a maturing democracy, but also
    adds another dimension to the U.S.--Thai relations at the people-to-
    people level.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Youth for Youth Association
                      with ned support, hope is possible!
        Through collaboration with the National Endowment for Democracy
    (NED), our association Youth for Youth Association (AJJ) has
    strengthened its position as one of the emerging initiatives of
    democratic youth movement that aspires to build a Morocco that is
    accommodating to all, entrench democratic reform, and be reactive and
    vigilant to any backsliding to democracy in the country.
        Through NED support, we were able to contribute to the
    constitutional reforms by submitting recommendations to the committee
    tasked with drafting the 2011 constitution. In addition to this, NED-
    funding allowed us to achieve the following:

      --Cement our organization's national role as one of the national
            leaders for the youth movement that promotes democratic values
            and advocates political reform in Morocco.
      --Maintain our ongoing transformation into a national level
            organization that works on initiatives to improve youth
            political participation and giving them a role in influencing
            public policy process in Morocco.
      --Develop the ``Tamkeen-Empowerment'' program as an initiative that
            enabled youth to track and evaluate policies specific to their
            issues and participate side by side with government
            representatives in drafting the National Integrated Youth
            Strategy 2015-2030.
      --Play a critical role in advocating youth rights through the
            establishment of a coalition of 150 non-governmental youth
            organizations.

        In addition to this, NED funding has allowed our association to
    grow institutionally and develop strategic partnerships with various
    organizations and donors. Case in point is the partnership with the
    World Bank and the Ministry of Youth and Sport, to lead a socio-
    economic empowerment program that targeted over 400 vulnerable and
    marginalized youth.
        NED support also provided us credibility and visibility that
    offered our association an opportunity to receive recognition from
    international organizations, including the Mediterranean Youth Network
    of UNESCO, and the Education and Youth Sector of the Council of Europe
    to list just few.
        Through NED-funded ``Eye on the budget'' project, our association
    developed a model for a participatory process for youth inclusion in
    the municipal budget planning in the city of Larache in the North of
    Morocco. This project has helped create bridges of dialogue for youth
    to participate and advocate good governance practices, keep up with
    institutional changes, and participate in local decisionmaking process.
        While our association is a capable organization, NED support has
    made a significant difference in allowing us to lead effective
    initiatives, professionalize our work, and leverage partnerships.
    Without NED initial support, our association could not have become a
    prominent actor in promoting democratic ideas, advocating good
    governance and accountability, and influencing the public policy
    process.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Youth Initiative for Advocacy, Growth &
                          Advancement (YIAGA)--Nigeria
        With any iota of doubt, NED is the most youth friendly and
    supportive organization we have worked since YIAGA was established in
    2007. Our first grant was given to us by NED to mobilize youth voices
    for electoral reforms and active citizenship. The foundation of YIAGA
    is strongly built on NED's support. Today YIAGA has grown as one of the
    most respected civil society organizations promoting democracy in
    Nigeria. Beyond promoting institutional reform through the provision of
    technical assistance, NED's support also contributed to peaceful
    democratic transition in Nigeria. NED's grant to YIAGA has been and
    will continue to be grant with the highest level of impact. NED's
    consistency is phenomenal and the technical support provided alongside
    the provision of funds is remarkable.
        NED's support has contributed to building a movement of active
    citizens demanding accountability at the state and national level. One
    significant difference is the area of raising citizens awareness on
    democratic principles and mobilizing them to take action in defense of
    democracy. This enhanced the competitive nature of politics in Nigeria
    as citizens demands has kept public leaders and politicians on their
    toes.
        NED's support has transformed the capacity of local groups to
    engage in democratic processes. YIAGA technical capacity has been
    enhanced leading to organizational growth and development. YIAGA
    engages in high level policy engagement with state institutions. The
    current Nigerian Youth Policy has been reviewed with inputs from NED
    support engagements. NED's supported Youth Organizing School laid the
    foundation for the evolution of the Not Too Young To Run global
    movement.
        NED's support has promoted solidarity amongst civic actors and
    cross boarder collaboration. This has improved the quality of democracy
    in Nigeria and other countries within the region where YIAGA is
    currently working. The opportunities created by NED's support for peer
    learning and experience sharing has made a huge difference. Beyond
    expanding our horizon and scope of impact it has led to the evolution
    of a youth movement, African Movement for Democracy.
        Without NED, YIAGA won't be existing today and the leadership role
    we are playing wouldn't have been possible. At a time where there was
    no support for youth organizations or startups, NED rose to the
    occasion to provide support thereby closing that huge gap. We would
    have lost faith in democracy but for NED's support which gives us hope
    that we can change our society. There would have been no Not Too Young
    To Run movement today or the Young Legislators Forum in the national
    parliament if NED's support was not provided to YIAGA at the material
    time the support was received.

        [This statement was submitted by Samson Itodo, Head of Research,
    Policy and Advocacy.]

                                     ______

                                Yunas Leyla deg.
     Prepared Statement of Dr. Leyla Yunas in Support for Civil Society in
                                   Azerbaijan
                   Preserves Hope for Democratic Development
        I began my human rights work in the Soviet Union as a member of the
    underground movement ``National Minorities Enslaved by the Bolsheviks''
    and in the 1980s became a correspondent for the first human rights
    samizdat newspaper Ekspress-Khronika. I also became one of the founders
    of the Popular Front of Azerbaijan and one of authors of the party's
    program which sought to establish an independent and democratic
    Azerbaijan. I have been compiling lists of political prisoners in
    Azerbaijan since 1988 and in 1995 I founded the Institute for Peace and
    Democracy (IPD), the most prominent and respected independent human
    rights organization in Azerbaijan. I have conducted numerous studies
    and reports about conditions in Azerbaijan--including reports about
    political prisoners, illegal seizures of property, human trafficking,
    and corruption and abuses by top government officials. In the summer of
    2014 in retaliation for this lifetime of human rights activism, I was
    arrested along with my husband Arif Yunus on false charges of state
    treason. We spent nearly 2 years in prison and were released thanks
    only to persistent international pressure. Currently, we are continuing
    the IPD's work from the Netherlands.
        Looking back at the many years of work and all the different
    programs that we have undertaken, NED stands out as a reliable,
    knowledgeable, and flexible partner that seeks to accommodate the needs
    of civil society in authoritarian settings. As Azerbaijan and other
    states throughout Eurasia become even more repressive, the civil
    society requires even greater American support and solidarity. Over the
    last decade, the problems in our region have multiplied but the funding
    from foreign donors has declined. To respond adequately to the growing
    challenges, the U.S. Congress should not only sustain but expand the
    work of NED and other U.S. funded programs to support civil society in
    Azerbaijan and other authoritarian countries.
        With support of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), IPD has
    undertaken a variety of human rights programs as well as important
    research projects. Azerbaijani citizens approached our independent
    organization for help defending their rights, including their property
    rights. We conducted research into crimes and corruption within a
    variety of ministries, and the government's illegal seizure of the
    property of over 100,000 Baku residents. Even before September 11,
    2001, IPD began researching the rise of Islam in Azerbaijan. From 2004
    to 2013, IPD published three books, which explored in detail the rise
    of Shia Islam, with the financial support of Iran as well as the growth
    of Arab and Turkish forms of Sunni Islam in Azerbaijan. By working with
    religious communities and promoting tolerance among confessions, civil
    society promotes peace and stability and counteracts the spread of
    extremism.
        In authoritarian countries like Azerbaijan, where there is no
    separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial
    branches of government, where election results are falsified and the
    courts lack independence--civil society are the only truly independent
    actors. In authoritarian settings NGOs and media organizations must
    rely on foreign assistance from U.S. and European donors. By avoiding
    financial dependence on Azerbaijan's mafia-like and clan-based
    political authorities, NGOs are the only institutions that protect the
    population from abuses, which can serve the public good, and provide
    examples of ethical, democratic behavior. NGOs are incubators of
    democratic norms and processes in authoritarian settings.
        If permitted to flourish, with both diplomatic and material support
    from U.S. and Europe, civil society holds out hope for a better more
    stable and free future for everyone.

                Sincerely,

    Dr. Leyla Yunus,
    Director of Institute for Peace and Democracy
    Chevalier of the French Legion of Honor
    Winner of International Theodore Hacker Award
    Winner of Polish Sergio Vieira de Mello Award
    Winner of Battle of Crete Award
    Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought of the European Parliament
    Finalist

         OUTSIDE WITNESS TESTIMONY SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE HEARING

                                  ----------

     Prepared Statement of the Center for International Private Enterprise

                            Democracy Pays Dividends

       cipe democracy support programs create jobs and reduce corruption
        CIPE has more than 100 projects in over 50 countries that are
    impacting democratic and economic development in some of the world's
    most challenging regions. CIPE's projects ensure that business people
    are active participants in the democratic process through their
    engagement with local and national governments. These programs have had
    a significant impact on local communities by providing economic
    opportunities and thereby enhancing the quality of life throughout the
    society.

      --In Afghanistan, CIPE and the local Afghan business community
            developed an initiative that is helping spur economic growth
            and create jobs in the provincial areas of the country
            particularly hard hit by the reduction in international
            development spending. Public-private dialogue between the local
            business community and provincial governments is a key element
            in the democratic process and essential for building economic
            growth. Recent impacts of this dialogue include Afghan
            Government investment in an industrial park in Kandahar that is
            expected to provide 3,900 jobs. Entrepreneurship in the
            province has also been boosted through the issue of 960 new
            licenses to shopkeepers. In Nangarhar province, increased
            access to land, electricity and security at an industrial park
            has enabled 23 factories to open, creating over 2,500 new jobs.
            These are locally-driven reforms that are the result of CIPE-
            supported advocacy by the local business community.
      --In recent years, women-owned businesses have driven women's
            economic empowerment in Bangladesh. CIPE has worked with the
            Bangladesh Women's Chamber of Commerce and Industry on an
            initiative to increase access to credit by women entrepreneurs.
            Through engaging businesswomen in policy development and
            advocacy, the program ensures women are a key part of the
            democratic process. As a result of the program, $93 million in
            loans to small and medium enterprises have been provided to
            almost 10,000 women, helping create tens of thousands of new
            jobs. Overall, the proportion of women entrepreneurs in the
            country receiving commercial bank loans has increased from 19
            percent in 2007 to over 50 percent today. More than 65 percent
            of the country's banks now have dedicated desks for female
            borrowers, staffed with personnel trained to cater to
            businesswomen's needs.
      --Endemic corruption is undermining democracy in Cambodia. A CIPE
            program is tackling corruption at the provincial level by
            training local citizens in public procurement monitoring. The
            program has assembled a coalition of local non-profits,
            businesses, and village leaders to function as an anti-
            corruption watchdog. The group monitors public procurement and
            publicizes its findings. The project has improved transparency
            and government accountability, and increased citizen engagement
            with public policy as evidenced by increased attendance at
            public dialogues. The more competitive tender process has also
            resulted in an average 50 percent reduction in the cost of
            contracts, greatly increasing the amount of projects and
            services that can be provided by local governments. This
            program is now being replicated and extended to other
            communities in Cambodia.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of
                                    America
                                                           May 9, 2017.

    Hon. Lindsey Graham, Chairman,       Hon. Patrick Leahy, Ranking Member,
    Subcommittee on State, Foreign       Subcommittee on State, Foreign
     Operations, and Related Programs,    Operations, and Related Programs,
    Committee on Appropriations,         Committee on Appropriations,
    United States Senate,                United States Senate,
    Washington, DC 20510.                Washington, DC 20510.

    Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Leahy:

        The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports the continued funding for
    democracy programming by the Federal Government through the National
    Endowment for Democracy (NED), of which the Chamber's non-profit
    affiliate, the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), is a
    core institute, and appreciates the Subcommittee holding today's
    hearing.
        U.S. foreign assistance programs in support of democracy, rights,
    and governance abroad provide technical assistance to partners in
    developing countries, helping them build stronger political, economic,
    and legal policy regimes. At a time when export opportunities represent
    such critical growth potential to the U.S. economy and domestic job
    creation, these programs are a valuable contribution to creating
    competitive markets for American businesses throughout the world.
        The work of the NED and its four core institutes is an essential
    element of American soft power, as these organizations help our friends
    build stable and peaceful democracies, often in extremely complex or
    repressive environments. Consequently, the NED enjoys widespread
    support from the U.S. business community because it is a cost effective
    investment that advances national security and economic interests.
    This, in turn, enables an organization, such as CIPE, to assist the
    business community in emerging market countries to advocate effectively
    for the economic reforms that are necessary to improve their own
    commercial and social environment.
        As detailed in the attachment, the Endowment is especially
    important because it funds programs in countries that Federal
    Government agencies often cannot effectively reach. In fully funding
    NED, the United States supports an important institution that advances
    America's fundamental values and interests.
        Thank you again for holding today's hearing highlighting the
    importance of democracy programs in advancing U.S. interests abroad.

                Sincerely,
                                               Neil L. Bradley,
                          Senior Vice President & Chief Policy Officer.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the International Foundation for Electoral
                                    Systems
        As Chairman of the Board of the International Foundation for
    Electoral Systems (IFES), a former Ohio Secretary of State responsible
    for election administration, and a former U.S. Ambassador to the United
    Nations Human Rights Commission, I respectfully urge this subcommittee
    and the U.S. Congress to continue its tradition of bipartisan support
    for democracy, rights and governance (DRG). Relatively small, strategic
    investments in electoral assistance will continue to contribute to a
    more prosperous, secure America.
        To support the DRG sector, we ask that in fiscal year 2018,
    Congress provide $2,308,517,000 for democracy programs under Title VII
    General Provisions, including ``shall'' language that protects DRG
    funding from reprogramming to other sectors, and $210,500,000 for the
    Democracy Fund under Title III Bilateral Economic Assistance.
                     about ifes: ``a vote for every voice''
        For 30 years, IFES--a 501(c)3 nonpartisan nonprofit--has worked in
    over 145 countries to support citizens' right to participate in free
    and fair elections. Credible elections are the cornerstone of a healthy
    democracy and enable all persons to exercise their basic human right to
    have a say in how they are governed.\1\ In many emerging democracies, a
    transparent and accurate election is the best evidence to citizens that
    their government can fairly deliver a public service to the entire
    nation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Article 21, The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human
    Rights.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Currently, IFES works in nearly 30 countries to build capacity and
    strengthen democratic processes across the electoral cycle.
    International norms and best practices inform our programming, and our
    work with both state and non-state actors enhances trust between
    citizens and government officials, supports the power of citizens to
    democratically sanction or remove government officials for
    unsatisfactory performance, and promotes systems and processes that
    provide the purest expression of citizen will.
        IFES' core service lines include the long-term capacity building of
    election commissions; the broadening of citizen participation and
    inclusion; the empowerment of marginalized groups; and research and
    surveys that inform our work and further the DRG discipline. IFES
    achieves its goals by providing targeted technical assistance to local
    partners on electoral frameworks; election dispute resolution; fraud
    and malpractice mitigation; political finance regulation; civic and
    voter education; leadership and advocacy; electoral security; the
    constructive relationship between the media and electoral stakeholders;
    innovative technology; and codes of conduct that support
    professionalism and high standards of ethical behavior.
        In 2016 alone, IFES trained 5,791 election offices; reached over
    7,000,000 individuals through voter and civic education; produced 244
    electoral recommendations through collaboration and advice; and trained
    4,402 stakeholders on electoral and political processes.
            electoral assistance: a long-term development commitment
        No team makes it to a championship without hard work in the pre-
    and regular seasons, as well as some intense post-season analysis and
    rebuilding. Similarly, although Election Day may be the ``Super Bowl''
    of the electoral cycle (see Figure 1), it is simply one event in a long
    process.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       Figure 1. The Electoral Cycle, International IDEA (Institute for
                      Democracy and Electoral Assistance)

        To this end, effective electoral assistance demands investment
    several years in advance of an election date and in the period between
    elections. At the heart of a strong electoral cycle is the
    professionalism of the electoral management body (EMB) and an empowered
    civil society.
        Consistent, long-term support throughout the electoral cycle also
    enhances stability during uncertain democracy building processes.
    Shorter term or immediate assistance does not allow for capacity
    building, the introduction of technology (or the training and public
    education necessitated by it), or strategic planning.
                electoral assistance advances american interests
        Stable democracies make for better trading partners, provide new
    market opportunities, improve global health outcomes, and promote
    economic freedom and regional security.

        For example:

      --IFES' technical support ensured Guatemala's fall 2015 elections
            were conducted in a peaceful and transparent manner. IFES
            helped implement the Inter-Institutional Security Committee,
            through which electoral authorities and other government
            agencies monitored and coordinated a prompt and adequate
            response to electoral violence. Credible elections contribute
            to a more stable Guatemala, removing incentives for its
            citizens to emigrate north.
      --Nigeria's watershed 2015 elections--despite taking place at the
            height of the Boko Haram insurgency--ensured stability through
            the first democratic transfer of power in the country's history
            and its continuation as one of the United States' largest
            African trading partners.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The USG role in the elections' success was acknowledged by
    President Muhammadu Buhari in July 2015: ``The contributions of the
    IRI, NDI and IFES to the success of the 2015 general elections in
    Nigeria are well documented. I would like to use this opportunity to
    thank them for their partnership and support to the democratization
    process in Nigeria.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --Tunisia, a bright spot in a rough neighborhood, has held three
            credible elections to date with U.S. Agency for International
            Development (USAID)-supported IFES technical assistance, and
            continues to welcome IFES support as it prepares for local
            elections in 2017. With USG assistance, Tunisia has resisted
            authoritarianism and failed statehood, and is a reliable
            partner in the fight against Daesh and violent extremism.
      --Myanmar's historic 2015 general elections saw a landslide victory
            of Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD) and
            ushered in a new era of democratic process. Much of its success
            was due to USG assistance--as stated by the Chairman of the
            Union Election Commission after Election Day, ``We wouldn't be
            standing here if not for IFES.'' Not only has Myanmar's
            democratic transition helped open space for improved human
            rights, but will enhance U.S.-Myanmar cooperation on such
            international security issues as nuclear nonproliferation and
            North Korean arms sales.
    Syria: Preparing for the Inevitable Political Transition
        No matter how or when the Syria crisis begins to resolve, Syrian
    citizens must prepare for the inevitable political and electoral
    transition. Since 2013, IFES was worked to enhance the capacity of
    government and political leaders, civil society actors, women's groups,
    and citizens at the grassroots level to support the establishment of
    inclusive and effective democratic processes and institutions in Syria.
        IFES engages with local partners, including a network of civil
    society organizations and other stakeholders that IFES helped to
    establish, to share information about international standards and
    practices with the wider Syrian community and create opportunities for
    discussion about principles of democracy and governance, human rights,
    and conflict management. IFES also works with local partners on
    conflict mitigation, civic education and civil society capacity
    building efforts, while preparing government-level stakeholders to
    address critical governance issues and collaborate with key groups and
    organizations. Additionally, IFES engages with the Syrian diaspora to
    create linkages between citizens, non-governmental stakeholders, and
    government institutions to encourage the establishment of inclusive and
    effective democratic processes and institutions in Syria.
        IFES' recent work in Syria has focused on displaced Syrian youth, a
    group at risk for radicalization--young Syrians have few avenues to
    express their desperation and even fewer platforms for civic
    engagement. In 2016, IFES assisted Syrian organizations based in
    Gaziantep, Turkey to found Musharaka, a forum to encourage civic
    engagement of Syrians living in Gaziantep. In its first year, Musharaka
    has reached over 1,060 Syrian youth in Gaziantep, an astounding 48
    percent of whom have been young women. The popularity of the Youth
    Forum has led to the creation of a distinct Adolescents' Forum,
    designed to meet the unique needs and worldview of this youngest
    segment of Syrian activists. Today, the Youth and Adolescents' Forums
    are engaged in a leadership development program that focuses on
    fostering critical skills for young activists by placing them in
    leadership roles. Both the Youth and Adolescents' Forums have elected
    representatives from among their ranks to engage with Syrian opposition
    leaders and Turkish officials on a variety of issues, including the
    crisis of education facing young Syrians in Turkey. Through the
    Musharaka Forum, IFES and its local partners have established a beacon
    of hope and optimism where few others have realized success and
    meaningful impact.
                 electoral assistance advances american values
        In addition to the tangible benefits, DRG also promotes American
    values. For example, electoral assistance helps such traditionally
    marginalized groups as youth, women, and persons with disabilities gain
    equal access to public institutions, win economic and political self-
    determination, and fully realize their individual rights. Inclusion and
    empowerment activities also help strengthen the credibility and
    stability of democracies more broadly, as democratic institutions
    flourish when all groups of society are represented.
        IFES works to strengthen political participation and inclusion by
    conducting civic and voter education activities via diverse media,
    including face-to-face, radio, social media, creative print mediums
    (such as comic books), and street theater; providing technical
    assistance to government officials on how to implement international
    standards; empowering civil society organizations; and assisting
    citizen-led efforts to define best practices.
    Combatting Violence Against Women in Elections
        In every country where IFES works, women represent the largest pool
    of potential voters. Violence against women in elections is a threat to
    the integrity of the electoral process--violence or the threat of
    violence can affect women's participation as voters, candidates,
    election officials, activists, and political party leaders, and it
    undermines the free, fair, and inclusive democratic process. To better
    understand and address the ways in which electoral violence creates a
    barrier to women's participation, IFES developed the Violence Against
    Women in Elections (VAWIE) Framework to specifically identify and
    address the unique issues related to gender-based election violence.
    Through analysis and program implementation focused on increasing
    women's participation and leadership in democracy assistance, the VAWIE
    Framework makes narratives of violence against women in elections in
    their homes, political arenas and public spaces more visible.
    Empowering Persons with Disabilities
        IFES seeks to empower civil society to sustainably advocate for
    equal rights. The General Election Network for Disability Access
    (AGENDA)--currently funded by the Australian Department of Foreign
    Affairs and Trade, but by initiated with USAID funding from 2011 to
    2013--was established as a forum to improve access to political and
    electoral opportunities for persons with disabilities in Southeast Asia
    through increased public awareness and advocacy for change. AGENDA is a
    creative partnership between IFES, disabled persons organizations,
    election-focused civil society organizations, and EMBs. The AGENDA
    network's principal objectives have been to promote election access in
    Southeast Asia and ensure that access to disability-inclusive political
    processes is on the human rights agenda of regional bodies, especially
    the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
        In the first phase of the AGENDA network, with USAID support, the
    project expanded its network to seven countries; conducted research in
    five countries to publish the ``Accessible Elections for Persons with
    Disabilities in the Southeast Asian Countries'' handbook; created the
    first ever checklist for monitoring election accessibility; and
    developed a training module for election administrators to increase
    awareness regarding electoral issues impacting the inclusion of persons
    with disabilities. IFES has leveraged USAID's initial investment in the
    development of the election access observation checklist, conducting a
    total of 10 observations in four countries using the tool.
        The AGENDA network has established a strong reputation among key
    stakeholders, including organizations focusing on politics and human
    rights, election commissions, the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on
    Human Rights, and other ASEAN and Asia-Pacific officials. The AGENDA
    partnership is now considered the lead Southeast Asian regional actor
    promoting the political rights of persons with disabilities.
                  case study: electoral assistance in georgia
        Georgia--squeezed between Russia and Turkey--is, quite literally,
    in a tough neighborhood. Despite its challenging geography, as well as
    continued encroachments by Russia on its territory, Georgia continues
    to be a vital trading partner and security ally of the United States.
        Georgia and the United States belong to a number of the same
    international organizations, including the United Nations, Euro-
    Atlantic Partnership Council, Organization for Security and Cooperation
    in Europe, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and World Trade
    Organization. Georgia also is an observer to the Organization of
    American States, a participant in the North Atlantic Treaty
    Organization's (NATO) Partnership for Peace program, and a partner
    legislature of the House Democracy Partnership.
        Additionally, Georgia is the largest non-NATO and largest per
    capita contributor to the war in Afghanistan. As Georgia's border with
    Russia links it to Chechnya and Dagestan, this ally serves as an
    essential barrier to the flow of foreign jihadists from Russia to the
    Middle East.
        Given its strategic importance to the United States, as well as its
    dedication to strengthening its still-evolving democracy, IFES has been
    honored to play a pivotal, multifaceted role in Georgia's elections
    since 1995. For example, IFES' partnership has been key to the Central
    Election Commission (CEC), as the two organizations cooperated on a
    broad sphere of work which led to successive, peaceful elections and
    the first change of power to an opposition political party, a watershed
    event in Georgia's post-Soviet history.
    Police Partnership Piloted
        Of particular significance in preparations for Georgia's October
    2016 parliamentary elections was IFES' assistance in strengthening
    electoral security by establishing new procedures and clear
    responsibilities of the CEC and Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA).
    This took the form of training for the CEC and development of strict
    protocols through which EMBs and law enforcement interact. Electoral
    security is a new area of work for IFES in Georgia, and the assistance
    delivered had a positive impact by creating an electoral security
    coordination body between the CEC and MIA to discuss security threats
    and share information. This also led to the signing of a Memorandum of
    Understanding between the CEC and MIA outlining improved coordination
    and delineation of roles and responsibilities for addressing security
    on Election Day. The effects of this closer coordination were realized
    on Election Day in 2016, when a Provincial Election Commission and law
    enforcement in the city of Marneuli worked effectively together to
    prevent an attack on a polling station, ensure the safety of voters and
    ballots, and raise the level of confidence in the election management
    bodies.
    Civic Education for Youth
        To build the foundation for sustained civic and political
    engagement, IFES works with educational institutions and other youth-
    serving organizations around the world to provide both school-based and
    non-school based civic education for young people. In Georgia, IFES has
    partnered with 27 institutions of higher learning to implement a fully
    accredited university-level civic education course; there are more than
    7,000 course alumni throughout the country. The curriculum requires
    students to apply the theoretical knowledge gained through classroom
    work to real-world situations in their communities, analyzing their
    communities and then designing and implementing projects to address
    identified issues. Student projects have focused on a broad array of
    topics including peer-to-peer voter education in ethnic minority
    regions and youth actions to promote disability rights throughout the
    country.
    Adoption of Management Plan
        IFES has worked intensively with the Georgian CEC to finalize and
    implement an Electoral Integrity Management Plan. This project started
    with an Electoral Integrity Assessment and has included collaboration
    between IFES experts, CEC Chairperson Tamar Zhvania, CEC members and
    other key stakeholders on the development of a comprehensive plan to
    support electoral integrity. Through IFES assistance, the CEC served as
    host and made key presentations at an annual conference of
    international EMBs, and has emerged as a leader in adhering to the
    highest standards of electoral integrity by planning for and addressing
    areas of vulnerability within the electoral process. Other IFES
    assistance to the CEC is ongoing in the lead up to the 2018 local
    elections, including: improving efficient and effective election
    administration at all levels through development of learning modules
    and direct training; providing support and training to the commission
    on public relations; assisting in outreach to persons with
    disabilities, women and representatives of ethnic minority communities
    to improve electoral enfranchisement; organizing Building Resources in
    Democracy, Governance and Elections (BRIDGE) trainings for all 365
    District Election Commission (DEC) members; supporting finalization of
    accessibility adaptations to the CEC's website; supporting CEC civic
    education initiatives in ethnic minority and remote areas; and planning
    joint IFES-CEC training for CEC and DEC representatives to improve
    their written legal products.
      the case for electoral support: strengthening the american ``brand''
        IFES' nonpartisan and technical approach allows us to work in some
    of democracy's most challenging environments. However, our ability to
    make an impact is also thanks to America's democratic ``brand.''
    Historically, champions for democracy around the world have held the
    United States as a model in electoral security, transparency, and
    accessibility.
        It is important to maintain and strengthen this reputation, which
    has shown some signs of weakening. Each national American election,
    IFES holds its United States Election Program (USEP). In 2016, the USEP
    united 501 participants from 90 countries to witness American democracy
    in action. The focal point of the USEP is the polling tour, which takes
    participants to polling stations throughout the District of Columbia,
    Maryland, and Virginia. At these polling stations, participants ask
    questions of voting precinct personnel, voters, and members of Congress
    and congressional candidates.
        In the 20 years that IFES has hosted the USEP, participants have
    been deeply impressed by the American political culture of trust.
    However, in 2016, participants' common refrain was ``You Americans
    don't put your money where your mouth is,'' as electoral equipment and
    technical support did not match the recommendations provided by IFES
    and other democracy organizations or reflect American values of
    accessibility, sanctity of the ballot, and transparency of results.
        I respectfully urge the President to uphold the American ``brand''
    by promoting credible elections both at home and abroad. Supporting DRG
    funding is one such way to honor America's long tradition of electoral
    authority.
             key accounts and recommendations for fiscal year 2018
        I thank the Congress--and particularly this subcommittee--for its
    continued support of DRG in even the most challenging budget
    environments. In the Consolidated Appropriations Acts of both 2016 and
    2017, Congress mandated that the administration spend no less than $2.3
    billion on democracy programs. Congress' provision of a funding floor
    protects critical programming. For example, actual spending on all DRG
    programming was only $2.087 billion for fiscal year 2014--27 percent
    less than Congress enacted. The full funding of DRG programs is
    necessary to properly address democratic backsliding, to consolidate
    gains from economic development efforts, and to contribute to a more
    stable and prosperous world. We ask for Congress to continue funding
    DRG at existing levels.
    Development Assistance
        Development Assistance funds help further USAID's goal of promoting
    resilient, democratic societies. DRG assistance supports new and
    fragile democracies by helping them develop policies and practices to
    build effective, transparent, and accountable governments that can
    deliver political and socioeconomic benefits to their citizens.
        Unfortunately, the leaked, draft administration budget document
    obtained by Foreign Policy \3\ eliminates entirely the Development
    Assistance account. This would severely restrict the United States'
    ability to achieve its longer-term development goals.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/04/24/u-s-agency-for-
    international-development-foreign-aid-state-department-trump-slash-
    foreign-funding/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Economic Support Funds
        Through the Economic Support Funds (ESF), the U.S. Department of
    State and USAID help partner countries meet short- and long-term
    political and economic needs so that they can transition to developed
    economies. Programs address the economic despair and lack of political
    participation that violent extremist groups exploit among youth, the
    unemployed, and marginalized members of society. DRG assistance
    empowers citizens to ensure broad-based participation; strengthens the
    rule of law; mitigates conflict; and cultivates respect for the
    democratic process.
        ESF support many of IFES' programs both directly and through
    USAID's Elections and Political Transitions (EPT) Leader with
    Associates award. The EPT--held by IFES, the International Republic
    Institute (IRI), and the National Democratic Institute (NDI)--is a pre-
    competed mechanism that allows USAID Missions to respond rapidly to
    urgent needs across the globe.
        We support robust funding for ESF, particularly to help address the
    alienation of youth and the unemployed who are targeted by violent
    extremism, build local capacity to conduct credible elections, and
    strengthen civil society.
    Democracy Fund
        Through the Democracy Fund, State's Bureau of Democracy, Human
    Rights and Labor and USAID's Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and
    Humanitarian Assistance support democracy activists worldwide, minimize
    human rights abuses, including human trafficking, open political space,
    and enable positive transnational change.
        The Democracy Fund allocates specific amounts for State and USAID.
    In recent years, increasing amounts have been shifted to State and away
    from USAID. I respectfully encourage Congress to split the Fund evenly
    between the two agencies, to ensure each agency's unique approach and
    priorities are honored.
    Assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia (AEECA)
        This account--discontinued at the administration's request in
    fiscal year 2013 and reinstated in fiscal year 2016--was also ``zeroed
    out'' in the April 2017 leaked administration document. The AEECA is
    critical to strengthening our allies in the region (including Georgia),
    particularly via DRG.
    National Endowment for Democracy
        The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a critical component
    of the USG's foreign aid strategy. However, the vast majority of its
    funding is reserved for its four core institutes, and does not support
    many critical organizations, like IFES, that have emerged in the more
    than three decades since its initial legislative establishment. To this
    end, it is vital that the other accounts for DRG remain amply funded.
           looking ahead: the continued need for electoral assistance
        With the continued support of the U.S. Congress, DRG will further
    promote American interests and values abroad. Investment in electoral
    assistance simply cannot wait, and must be advanced in fiscal year
    2018. Such pressing challenges include Yemen's civil war (to which U.S.
    Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has called for a political solution \4\);
    Kenya's August 2017 national elections; 2018 elections in Georgia,
    Mali, and Pakistan; and Indonesia's 2019 presidential elections
    (Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim democracy and holds the
    largest single-day elections in the world).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/04/18/Mattis-calls-
    on-UN-brokered-end-to-Yemen-civil-war/7751492529467/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        DRG funding is also critical to global migration crisis, which
    could prove to be both a humanitarian and democratic disaster. IFES is
    at the forefront of promoting the electoral rights of internally
    displaced persons (IDPs), of which there are over 40 million worldwide.
    For instance, IFES has begun reviewing electoral laws concerning the
    rights of displaced persons. If political solutions through the ballot
    box are critical to the reestablishment of political legitimacy and
    future governments in countries ranging from Ukraine to Iraq and Syria,
    then the rights of displaced voters require serious examination. This
    process parallels with work already underway with many election
    commissions mandated to conduct overseas diaspora voting.
        Again, I thank the subcommittee for its continued dedication to
    DRG.

        [This statement was submitted by Hon. J. Kenneth Blackwell.]