[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


  STEMMING A RECEDING TIDE: HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIC VALUES IN ASIA

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

         SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC AND NONPROLIFERATION

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________

                           September 22, 2020
                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-113
                               __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
        
        
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]        


       Available:  http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://
                            docs.house.gov, 
                       or http://www.govinfo.gov
                       
                       
                              ___________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
41-961PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2022                          
                       
                       
                       
                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                   ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York, Chairman

BRAD SHERMAN, California             MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Ranking 
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York               Member
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey		     CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia	     STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida	     JOE WILSON, South Carolina
KAREN BASS, California		     SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts	     TED S. YOHO, Florida
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island	     ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
AMI BERA, California		     LEE ZELDIN, New York
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas		     JIM SENSENBRENNER, Wisconsin
DINA TITUS, Nevada		     ANN WAGNER, Missouri
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York	     BRIAN MAST, Florida
TED LIEU, California		     FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania	     BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota	     JOHN CURTIS, Utah
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota		     KEN BUCK, Colorado
COLIN ALLRED, Texas		     RON WRIGHT, Texas
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan		     GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia	     TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee	
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania	     GREG PENCE, Indiana
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey	     STEVE WATKINS, Kansas
DAVID TRONE, Maryland		     MIKE GUEST, Mississippi
JIM COSTA, California
JUAN VARGAS, California
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas


                    Jason Steinbaum, Staff Director
               Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director
                                 ------                                

         Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and Nonproliferation


                    AMI BERA, California, Chairman,

DINA TITUS, Nevada                   TED YOHO, Florida, Ranking Member
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania	     SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
GERALD CONNOLLY, Virginia	     ANN WAGNER, Missouri
ANDY LEVIN. Michigan		     BRIAN MAST, Florida
ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia	     JOHN CURTIS, Utah

                                                                                                                                                   
                    Nikole Burroughs, Staff Director


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                               WITNESSES

Mitchell, the Honorale Derek, President, National Democratic 
  Institute......................................................     7
Ayres, Dr. Alyssa, Senior Fellow for India, Pakistan and South 
  Asia, Council on Foreign Relations.............................    15
Twining, Dr. Daniel, President, International Republican 
  Institute......................................................    30

                                APPENDIX

Hearing Notice...................................................    63
Hearing Minutes..................................................    64
Hearing Attendance...............................................    65

                   STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Statement submitted for the record from Representative Connolly..    66

                      AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL LETTER

Amensty International letter submitted for the record............    68

 
  STEMMING A RECEDING TIDE: HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIC VALUES IN ASIA

                      Tuesday, September 22, 2020

                           House of Representatives
             Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and
                                   Nonproliferation
                       Committee on Foreign Affairs
                                                    Washington, DC,

    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in 
room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ami Bera 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Mr. Bera. The Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and 
Nonproliferation will come to order. Without objection, the 
chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any 
point, and all members will have 5 days to submit statements, 
extraneous materials, and questions for the record, subject to 
the length limitation in the rules.
    To insert something into the record, please have your staff 
email the previously mentioned address or contact full 
committee staff.
    As a reminder to members, please keep your video function 
on at all times, even when you are not recognized by the chair. 
Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves, and 
please remember to mute yourself after you finish speaking.
    Consistent with the House Resolution 965 and the 
accompanying regulations, staff will only mute members and 
witnesses as appropriate when they are not under recognition to 
eliminate background noise.
    I ask unanimous consent that the--that Representatives 
Trone and Chabot participate in this hearing.
    I see that we have a quorum and will now recognize myself 
for opening remarks. Pursuant to notice, we are holding a 
hearing to discuss human rights and democracy in Asia.
    Last year, under the leadership of Congressman Sherman, 
this subcommittee held a series of hearings examining human 
rights and democratic governance in Asia, and that reflects a 
long-standing interest in the importance this subcommittee and 
the full committee holds for human rights and democratic 
values.
    Human rights and democratic governance have not only been 
central to the concerns of Congress; they have traditionally 
been core to the conduct of American foreign policy.
    One of the greatest strengths of the United States lies in 
our values, including our respect for democratic and human 
rights. As I often tell our friends and partners, we will not 
always be perfect but we should at least try.
    The United States has its own faults and shortcomings when 
it comes to living up to our own values, from disparate 
treatment of communities of color and immigrants to 
institutions increasingly influenced more by ideology than the 
rule of law.
    That said, we welcome criticism and feedback just as our 
partners around the world and in the region should also 
recognize and welcome our feedback and criticism.
    This is part of what being a mature democracy is. You know, 
I have a genuine interest in the developing democracies in the 
region and over the last year, year and a half, I have had the 
chance to visit some emerging democracies in Malaysia, in Sri 
Lanka, in Nepal, and, certainly, am very interested in hearing 
from our witnesses as to what we can do to help these emerging 
democracies become stronger democracies and become mature 
democracies.
    We also--this subcommittee has in recent weeks had a 
hearing on what is happening in Burma and Bangladesh with the 
Rohingya population. Clearly, the tragedy with this population 
is one that not just the subcommittee but the full Congress and 
the world should recognize and work to resolve.
    In addition, in recent weeks we have also had a briefing on 
what is happening to the Uighur population in Xinjiang and, 
again, issues like that should not happen in the 21st century 
and, certainly, very interested in hearing from the witnesses 
on the current status.
    Last, in the current global pandemic with COVID-19 we have 
seen human rights and governance challenges be exacerbated by 
the pandemic.
    Nations have enacted public health measures that may be 
designed to limit the spread of COVID-19 but also, 
intentionally or unintentionally, limit civil liberties and 
individual rights.
    I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and their 
insight on human rights and democratic values.
    And with that, let me turn it over to my good friend and 
the ranking member, Mr. Yoho, for 5 minutes for the purposes of 
his opening remarks.
    Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this timely 
hearing, and thank you to each of our witnesses for joining us 
today on the important human rights issue facing the Indo-
Pacific region.
    I look forward to hearing from each of you regarding 
ongoing human rights conditions in specific countries as well 
as how the United States has done to facilitate the overall 
improvement of rights protection in the region.
    Many countries of the world, primarily Western democracies, 
have done a lot to promote human rights. But I feel no country 
has done more to promote human rights in all the regions of the 
world than the United States. Not to say that we are perfect, 
as the chairman pointed out.
    We are a work in progress. But we are advancing more 
steadily to make sure that human rights is protected all over 
the world.
    We do this not just because it is in our interests and the 
interests of governments around the world to preserve basic 
rights and freedoms for their people, but also because it is 
one of the founding principles of our Nation and has served as 
one of the cornerstones of our foreign policy.
    When we look at the Asia Pacific region today, we can see 
many successes in preserving and protecting human rights--
excuse me, protecting human rights.
    South Korea and Taiwan, nations that used to be ruled by 
brutal dictatorships, are now modern exemplars of a flourishing 
democracy.
    Mongolia, which used to be under the Soviet rule, just 
celebrated its 30th anniversary since its democratic transition 
and recently held another free and fair election with record 
turnout.
    Despite big successes for certain countries in Asia, the 
region remains a flashpoint for some of the worst human rights 
abuses in the world, with some of the worst offenders being 
North Korea, China, and most recently, Cambodia, where the 
government has effectively instituted one-party rule, jailed or 
exiled any political opposition, and has stepped away from its 
democratic roots toward some of the harshest restrictions on 
civil society in all of Southeast Asia, even though it's 
embedded in their constitution.
    Last year, I introduced the bipartisan Cambodia Democracy 
Act, which passed the House overwhelmingly. It would impose 
sanctions on those in Cambodia responsible for undermining 
democratic rule of law in the country.
    We must be especially cognizant of democracies in Asia in 
danger of backsliding into autocracy with China's help with 
their alternative to Western democracies, and that is Chinese 
socialism with Chinese characteristics. That is communism, 
regardless of how they paint it and try to rename it.
    Another country that deserves a good amount of attention 
during this hearing is Myanmar. Many of you may remember a 
hearing this committee held just over a month ago on the 
persecution and genocide of the Rohingya population in Myanmar, 
which has displaced nearly a million and killed tens of 
thousands.
    The stories coming from that country of State-sponsored 
violence, rape, and torture are horrible, and I wish I could 
say its experience was an isolated incident in the region. We 
know this not to be true, unfortunately.
    Where countries like Myanmar and North Korea have highly 
received--have rightly received international condemnation, 
sanctions, and punishment for their human rights abuses, one 
country in particular has remained relatively unscathed.
    China, one of the world's worst abusers of human rights, 
has escaped the kind of condemnation experienced by its bad 
neighbors for decades, despite being a repeat offender toward 
populations of millions.
    Just this past week, the CCP, the Chinese Communist Party, 
released a white paper regarding its detention of Uighurs, 
which this committee has focused extensively on, where it 
admitted to incarcerating on an average of 1.3 million Uighurs 
per year in a so-called reeducation centers from 2014 to 2019, 
compared to previously estimations of just over a million 
people total.
    This new admission confirms that China subjected 
potentially up to 8 million innocent people to imprisonment, 
brainwashing, torture, rape, forced sterilization in 
concentration camps for their religion, ethnicity, skin color, 
language, and even facial hair.
    If this is what the CCP regime in Beijing will publicly 
admit to, imagine what is actually going on behind the scenes.
    This is not even to mention the gross human rights abuses 
that continue to this day in China including the hostile 
takeover of Hong Kong and abuse of peaceful protestors, 
disappearance of Falun Gong members through imprisonment, the 
forced organ harvesting, harsh repression of the Tibetan 
people, and the erasure of the culture and ethnic history of 
the inhabitants of Inner Mongolia.
    Congress and the administration has taken significant 
actions over the past years on human rights, including the 
passage of the Uighur Human Rights Act, the Hong Kong Autonomy 
Act, and the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, and 
passed by both the House and the Senate. The Uighur Act, which 
would impose the harshest export restrictions yet in response 
to China's cultural genocide.
    The next never again is happening right before our eyes. We 
have heard this over and over again. It is up to our leaders 
and the people decide whether we will live up to those words or 
continue to be willfully blind as bystanders.
    Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses 
on these important issues.
    Mr. Bera. Thank you, Ranking Member Yoho.
    I will now introduce our witnesses. Our witnesses for 
today's hearing are the Honorable Derek Mitchell, Dr. Alyssa 
Ayres, and Dr. Daniel Twining.
    I would like to thank all of our witnesses for being here 
today.
    The Honorable Derek Mitchell is currently president of the 
National Democratic Institute. He previously served as the 
first Ambassador to Burma in 22 years and as the State 
Department's first special representative and policy 
coordinator for Burma.
    Dr. Alyssa Ayres is a senior fellow for India, Pakistan, 
and South Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations. She 
previously served as deputy assistant secretary of State for 
South Asia from 2010 to 2013.
    Dr. Daniel Twining is the president of the International 
Republican Institute. He has previously served on the State 
Department policy planning staff and as a foreign policy 
advisor to Senator McCain.
    I will now recognize each witness for 5 minutes, and 
without objection your prepared written statements will be made 
part of the record.
    I will first call on Ambassador Mitchell for his testimony.
    Ambassador Mitchell.

  STATEMENT OF DEREK MITCHELL, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC 
                           INSTITUTE

    Mr. Mitchell. Well, thank you, and good morning, Chairman 
Bera, Ranking Member Yoho, distinguished members of this 
committee.
    I do want to thank you for inviting me to testify today 
about a critical region and an issue very close to my heart 
that I consider crucial to America's strategic interests, 
democracy and human rights.
    For nearly four decades, my organization, the National 
Democratic Institute, working alongside our partners at the 
International Republican Institute and the National Endowment 
for Democracy, has assisted the spread and institutionalization 
of democracy around the world.
    Let me say at the start that we can only do this work 
thanks to the sustained bipartisan support of Congress, 
including from this subcommittee. So for that, we are truly 
grateful.
    NDI has a long history of democracy building in Asia, 
beginning with the first international election mission that 
NDI and IRI jointly observed in 1986 in the Philippines.
    Today, NDI maintains nearly a dozen offices in the Indo-
Pacific region, and last week, we just received clearance from 
the Taiwan government to open an office in Taipei, which we 
will do soon.
    In my view, the defining issue of our time is what rules, 
norms, and values will guide nations and serve as the 
foundation of the international system in the 21st century.
    Given the weight of its economic, demographic, military, 
and cultural power, how political developments play out in Asia 
will go far to determine the outcome of this contest and that, 
in turn, will have a direct impact on American security and 
prosperity in the coming century.
    It is no secret, however, that democracy in Asia, like 
elsewhere, faces increasing headwinds. Economic 
underdevelopment, weak institutions, corrupt elites, and 
deepening ethnic, religious, and socioeconomic divisions have 
created a well of insecurity and popular dissatisfaction that 
is being exploited by undemocratic actors.
    Authoritarian opportunists are seizing on the pandemic to 
close civic space and assault fundamental freedoms. New digital 
technologies have both empowered and undermined democratic 
forces.
    Disinformation over social media platforms continues to 
exacerbate social and political divisions, undermine democratic 
discourse, and promote hate against targeted typically minority 
populations.
    And while not the main reason for democratic regression in 
Asia, China's growing power and influence is a critical enabler 
for the spread of illiberal values throughout the region.
    China's policies consistently support the maintenance of 
autocratic systems in neighboring countries. Its testing and 
deployment of an Orwellian State surveillance system to 
ruthlessly control the Uighur population in Xinjiang is not 
staying in Xinjiang.
    The Communist Party fears free and open debate at home but 
then seeks to exploit open societies to make its deceptive case 
abroad.
    But through its handling of Hong Kong, Tibet, the Uighurs, 
Taiwan, and other matters foreign and domestic, the world can 
now see clearly the emptiness and coercive violence at the core 
of the CCP system.
    The CCP's need for its surveillance State may demonstrate 
their system's weakness, but that makes it no less dangerous to 
the health and wellbeing of others.
    Despite troubling trends in Asia, we should not be blind to 
positive signals, though. The democratic values remain strongly 
embedded in the region.
    An expanding number of Asian nations are holding credible 
elections on a regular basis. Civil society watchdog 
organizations and the media continue to fight for their rights 
to preserve democratic norms and protect civic space. Mass 
popular movements throughout the region demonstrate widespread 
demand for political reform and government accountability.
    Young people, including many women, are driving many of 
these movements for change and they are beginning to form 
networks such as the so-called Milk Tea Alliance among netizens 
from Thailand, Taiwan, and Hong Kong to show democratic 
solidarity across borders.
    These young people represent an alternative vital future 
for democracy in Asia, despite current headwinds. It is 
essential, therefore, that those who believe in principles of 
freedom and democracy stand together like those young people in 
solidarity across borders to promote and defend these values. 
Tides that recede can roll in again, but they rarely do without 
assistance, gravitational or otherwise.
    America must lead but cannot and should not stand alone in 
its support. Our closest democratic partners in Asia--Japan, 
Korea, Australia, India, Indonesia, Taiwan, and others--can 
also help us to promote democratic values and provide tangible 
support for transparent, accountable, inclusive, and 
representative governance.
    We should build partnerships with civil society and the 
private sector, creating networks of common purpose to create a 
normative model for the region.
    We must demand that digital technologies and platforms do 
their part to serve as responsible stewards of civic 
empowerment.
    We must elevate the democratic rights of women, young 
people, and other traditionally marginalized communities to 
bring new generations and perspectives to the table and ensure 
fresh approaches are applied to fresh challenges.
    And, finally, the United States and its allies must be 
prepared for the long game. Democracy is never easy, it is 
rarely linear, it is forever a work in progress.
    We must stay engaged over the long term. When the political 
conditions seem to be advancing or receding, we must succumb 
neither to euphoria nor fatalism, never lose heart or lose 
faith, and that is why NDI is redoubling its efforts throughout 
Asia, and with Congress's support, we and our partners will 
continue to do our part to affirm the essential dignity of 
every individual and protect the sovereign independence of 
every Asian nation and its citizen to control their own future 
without malign interference.
    So, again, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member 
and members of this committee for your support for U.S. 
democracy assistance worldwide, and I look forward to our 
discussion.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Bera. Thank you, Ambassador.
    I will now call on Dr. Ayres.

    STATEMENT OF DR. ALYSSA AYRES, SENIOR FELLOW FOR INDIA, 
     PAKISTAN AND SOUTH ASIA, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

    Dr. Ayres. Thank you very much, Chairman Bera, Ranking 
Member Yoho, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the 
invitation to appear before you on the question of human rights 
and democratic values in Asia.
    I am honored to be part of this distinguished panel and to 
join my former colleagues, Ambassador Derek Mitchell and Dr. 
Daniel Twining, this morning.
    And thank you for convening this hearing on a critically 
important topic. Ten years ago, South Asia appeared to be a 
region of promise and an overall strengthening of democracy 
region wide. India had witnessed the world's largest exercise 
of democracy at its 2009 general election. Bangladesh had a 
democratically elected government after a period of caretaker 
rule.
    Nepal has come out of a decades-long civil war and is 
writing a new constitution. The Maldives had an elected 
government after decades of dictatorship.
    Challenges in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Sri Lanka 
remained. But combined with the positive shifts in the region, 
democracy appeared to be on the upswing.
    Today, the regional picture looks less bright and this, of 
course, comes against the larger backdrop of China's 
assertiveness and its strengthened ties with most South Asian 
countries, offering assistance and touting the benefits of 
authoritarian rule.
    Global trends offer reason for concern as well. So South 
Asia, unfortunately, tracks developments elsewhere. In that 
respect, the United States' single most important foreign 
policy tool to encourage and strengthen human rights and 
democratic values around the world lies in the power of our 
example.
    Although this hearing focuses on Asia, I cannot help but 
observe that the problems here on the home front have tarnished 
our appeal and undermined our ability to urge others to live up 
to the highest ideals.
    Now, my written statement provides highlights of some of 
the most urgent concerns in South Asia along with some indices 
for reference. But, of course, it only offers a select set of 
issues, given the constraints of time.
    The world's largest democracy, India, has experienced 
substantial upheavals since the reelection of Prime Minister 
Narendra Modi's government last year and to the steps the 
government has taken that have spurred concern about the future 
of Indian secularism and the place of minorities, particularly 
Muslims.
    These steps include the abrogation of Kashmir's traditional 
autonomy, accompanied but a security crackdown, and prevented 
detention of politicians. The issue of the Citizenship 
Amendment Act and the proposed scenario of a national 
citizenship register led to mass protests in the country and 
created fears about possible Statelessness.
    India remains the one country in South Asia that Freedom 
House categorizes as free, and that is by a wide margin 
compared with every other country in the region.
    The third party assessments of the health of Indian 
democracy including the health of the institutions of liberal 
democracy see things moving in a negative direction. Because 
India is so important to the strength of the global democratic 
order at a time of great strain, challenges in India are ones 
we should all care about deeply.
    Bangladesh has been moving toward a more authoritarian 
system, despite its electoral democracy, and it struggles with 
labor rights and workplace safety.
    On the bright side, it has served as a place of refuge for 
nearly 1 million Rohingya refugees. But this long-running 
humanitarian emergency has not end in sight.
    Sri Lanka, after a 5-year period of improvement, is now 
moving in the other direction with the return of the Rajapaksa 
government.
    The new political configuration will not pursue progress on 
reconciliation and accountability for the end of the civil war, 
and the newly elected parliament is already hard at work with a 
constitutional amendment to expand Presidential powers.
    Pakistan has struggled with democracy for much of its 
existence with civil-military tensions, a long-standing 
problem, along with terrorism, sectarian violence, and the 
persecution of religious minorities.
    Afghanistan is in Freedom Houses' ``not free'' category, 
the only such country in the region. A peace process is 
currently underway and the international security presence is 
shrinking. So the question of protecting human rights gains, 
especially for women, looms large.
    Nepal and Maldives are challenged in their own ways but are 
the two countries in the region currently with an upward 
trajectory on human rights and democracy, and on Nepal we 
should not forget about the pressures the government faces from 
China on the issue of Tibetan refugees.
    I want to underscore that the United States can provide a 
more powerful example by improving our own human rights and 
democracy here at home. Congress's role in shining a spotlight 
on these questions is an important signal in and of itself.
    In South Asia, there is no substitute for diplomacy on 
these issues and Congress should urge the Trump Administration 
to elevate the priority of the issues outlined in my written 
statement.
    While engagement on defense and security issues should 
remain a priority, South Asia is a vital part of the Indo-
Pacific region.
    A better balance with the complete range of bilateral 
issues, including human rights and democracy, should be 
restored. Strengthening the State Department, filling empty 
positions, and empowering the department with a budget 
appropriate for the challenges, and providing USAID with 
appropriate democracy and government support to ensure this 
important area does not get crowded out by more substantially 
resourced accounts, should be the highest umbrella priorities 
toward rebalancing our own diplomatic engagement on these 
questions.
    Thank you very much, and I look forward to the discussion.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Ayres follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Bera. Thank you, Dr. Ayres.
    And finally, Dr. Twining.

   STATEMENT OF DR. DANIEL TWINING, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL 
                      REPUBLICAN INSTITUTE

    Dr. Twining. Thank you, Chairman Bera, Ranking Member Yoho, 
members of the committee. Thanks for you vital leadership in 
holding this important hearing.
    IRI is a nonprofit nonpartisan organization working in over 
90 countries around the world. We trace our roots back to 
President Reagan's belief that freedom is not the sole 
prerogative of a lucky few but the inalienable and universal 
right of all human beings.
    Senator John McCain was our chairman for 25 years and in 
his spirit we believe support for democracy abroad is not a 
Republican or Democratic Party value. It is an American value 
that advances our national interest.
    More people live under democracy in Asia than in any other 
region of the world. But too many countries still grapple with 
low-level institutions, weak democratic cultures, endemic 
corruption, and internal conflict.
    When we rightly celebrate democratic bright spots in the 
region, from the Maldives to Taiwan, Asia's democratic deficits 
have been exacerbated by the COVID pandemic.
    We should be clear-eyed about the challenges but we should 
not lose hope or falter in our commitment to stand with 
billions of people who want nothing more than to live in free, 
prosperous, and just societies.
    China is home to four-fifths of those still living under 
authoritarianism globally. Inside the country, the Communist 
Party brutally crushes dissent and runs a ruthless surveillance 
State.
    The CCP is carrying out a campaign of forced detention and 
population control in the Xinjiang and has unilaterally revoked 
political freedoms in Hong Kong, the richest part of China 
where citizens do not accept the party's offer of prosperity 
without rights.
    China's leaders want to make the world safe for autocracy. 
Across Asia, Beijing bolsters the fortunes of illiberal actors 
and provides tools and talking points to justify repression.
    Manipulation of the information space in many countries 
weakens institutions like free media and civil society that 
otherwise would expose the dangers of China's opaque deal 
making and corrupt practices.
    Beyond China, the past year has seen countries once viewed 
as bright spots for democracy, like Malaysia and Sri Lanka, 
regress due to political infighting, personality politics, and 
failure to deliver promised reforms.
    The Rohingya refugee crisis hampers Burma's democratic 
development. The Philippines is one of the deadliest countries 
in the world for human rights defenders. Crackdowns on press 
freedom under the cover of COVID have been prevalent in the 
Philippines, Fiji, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, and Bangladesh.
    Despite these substantial challenges, we, IRI, like my 
colleagues, remain hopeful about this region's democratic 
future.
    There are more than 1 billion young people between the age 
of 15 and 29 in Asia. Asian youth make up over 60 percent of 
the world's youth. They make up more than 25 percent of Asia's 
population.
    In Hong Kong and Thailand, young people are leading the way 
in protest movements to push back on authoritarianism. Young 
leaders in Malaysia were the driving force behind lowering the 
voting age from 21 to 18, which could add 4 million youth to 
its voter rolls.
    Youth in Nepal have held the government to account for a 
lackluster response to COVID. President Reagan said, quote, 
``Democracy is not a fragile flower. Still, it needs 
cultivating.''
    Democratic gains from Indonesia to Mongolia offer proof of 
the value of U.S. assistance in, quote, ``cultivating 
democracy.'' Congress, including this committee, has played a 
decisive role in supporting Asians' quest for freedom, and that 
work is not done.
    To support those fighting for free societies, America must 
continue bolstering the capacity of civil society, political 
parties, and independent media. These institutions are 
essential to building solid democracies and pushing back 
against democratic erosion.
    America should continue supporting dynamic young activists 
with the knowledge and skills to be democratic leaders in their 
communities.
    Our support for democracies strengthens Asian countries' 
sovereignty. It helps them make independent choices that 
benefit their people, not some foreign power. Chinese 
assistance too often entraps countries in debt or corrupts 
their elites.
    By contrast, U.S. support for accountability, transparency, 
and democratic decisionmaking helps ensure we have capable 
partners who can make their own choices, including in foreign 
policy.
    The United States needs to use all the tools in our toolkit 
of leadership. China pursues its interests not only by 
projecting force but very much through sharp power instruments 
of influence: information operations, united front tactics, 
export of surveillance technologies, and forms of political 
corruption and economic capture.
    Bolstering democratic resiliency in Asia against malign 
foreign influence is a U.S. national security interest. Our 
military strength is pivotal and our economic depth attracts 
partners, but our best Asian allies are democracies.
    The core values of liberty, justice, and equality should 
remain at the heart of our regional engagement. They are 
universal ideals to which people across Asia still aspire and 
they are also what China's leaders fear most.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Twining follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Bera. Thank you to all the witnesses. I will now 
recognize members for 5 minutes each, and pursuant to House 
rules, all time yielded is for the purposes of questioning our 
witnesses.
    Because of the hybrid format of this hearing, I will 
recognize members by committee seniority, alternating between 
Democrats and Republicans. If you miss your turn, please let 
our staff know and we will circle back to you.
    If you seek recognition, you must unmute your microphone 
and address the chair verbally. I will start by recognizing 
myself for 5 minutes.
    You know, I appreciate the testimony of all there 
witnesses. A year ago, almost exactly a year ago, we were--had 
the opportunity to travel to Malaysia and the Philippines, and 
in Malaysia with the Mahathir government you saw young 
burgeoning democracy by you also--you know, I think it was very 
evident to the members who were traveling with me the fragility 
of these young parliamentarians who were trying to figure out 
how to be successful. And we had our folks from the embassy and 
our staff on the ground.
    The same thing in the Philippines. We had a chance to meet 
with some of the young parliamentarians that were dynamics but 
very much have interest in democratic values and the rights of 
their citizens, again, against the backdrop of Duterte.
    I had a chance in February to travel to Sri Lanka shortly 
after the Rajapaksa government came in, to really try to urge 
them on a path of reconciliation.
    I had the chance to visit India last February and, again, 
just deliver a message that India's strength is being a secular 
democracy where you can have 750 million Hindus living side by 
side with 250 Muslims and still be functioning, and also on 
that same trip had a chance to visit Nepal where there is a 
sense of optimism. They are trying.
    I guess the question for Ambassador Mitchell and Dr. 
Twining both NDI and IRI are working extremely hard to take 
these young emerging democracies and create sustainable 
democracies.
    What are the things that we should be focused on in 
Congress and the tools that you have that can help these 
democracies become more successful?
    And we see that fragility in Nepal, Sri Lanka, Malaysia. 
What accounts for this fragility and what are some of the tools 
that NDI and IRI are seeing that actually are working very well 
on the ground?
    I guess I will start with Ambassador Mitchell.
    Mr. Mitchell. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that 
question, and let me just say, first, it is great to hear how 
you have gone to the region, gone to these places and 
represented these values, as you had suggested, of making the 
case as to why this matters to the United States, why it 
matters to the U.S. Congress, and I am sure many of the other 
members of the committee have done the same.
    I think that is very important for ensuring that there is 
at least a floor amidst this backsliding to show that America 
is still engaged and aware and alert and concerned.
    What we do--what we have to recognize is, as we said before 
and as you recognize, too, is that things move forward and 
back. We have to be patient, first of all. There are not silver 
bullets to this.
    But what we try to do is create at least some guardrails 
and some safeguards. What is critical when these things happen 
is that at least there are some institutions, civil society 
organizations that are protected, media organizations that get 
support, capacity is built, that things still are moving 
forward even if at the national level it seems to be 
regressing.
    So I think focusing on the youth empowerment. I mean, the 
problem in many of these countries you have the same old guys. 
When you look at Nepal, the demographics of the leadership in 
Nepal, these guys have been doing the same thing for 40 years 
together.
    You can say that in Malaysia with Mahathir and Anwar and 
the UMNO kind of gamesmanship.
    Sri Lanka Rajapaksas have been around for a while. There is 
a lot of the old guard holding on, doing the same old things 
and there is just a lot of frustration beneath the surface.
    So it may seem that there is not much progress and, 
certainly, there is regression in these places and there is 
turmoil and there is frustration. Steps forward in the Sri 
Lanka election or a step forward in Malaysia suddenly gets sort 
of turned back because people get frustrated that the 
government is not delivering.
    I think what we can try to do when democracy has a chance, 
when it has its moment and there is a moment where there is 
some more--there is hope, that government needs to deliver and 
we need to help it deliver the goods--economic goods, political 
goods, give space and try to encourage these governments that 
if you do not do that it will regress and it will leave space 
for demagogues.
    Mr. Bera. Right. Dr. Twining?
    Dr. Twining, do you want to add?
    [No response.]
    Dr. Twining. Can you hear me now?
    Mr. Bera. We can hear you now. Thank you.
    Dr. Twining. Sorry about that. I had a microphone issue.
    Just very quickly, there is no silver bullet, sir. But 
staying the course, supporting independent institutions so that 
power is not concentrated in one man, one woman, one actor in 
the executive branch.
    Those civil society watchdogs, those youth groups, those 
activities are vital. That free media. We saw in Indonesia a 
huge U.S. emphasis on democracy support in the first decade 
after its transition and then, frankly, the U.S. stepped back 
from a lot of that support, thinking that the work was done, 
and we have seen some slippage in Indonesia.
    The work is, unfortunately, not done anywhere in Asia. The 
kind of parliamentary engagement you offer, and your 
colleagues, matters in helping build parliamentary oversight 
capabilities, really getting youth involved and invested in 
politics.
    Connecting them into political parties, connecting them 
into public life is really, in terms of the long--the long game 
how Asian democracy succeeds because a lot of it is for them, 
not the old guys Derek mentioned.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Bera. Great. Thank you.
    Let me go--let me go and recognize the ranking member, Mr. 
Yoho, for 5 minutes of questions.
    Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate all of 
our witnesses.
    You know, as I hear the testimony and Dr. Ayres, you 
brought up how we need to fill vacancies, do more funding, more 
vacancies filled, and I agree with all of that.
    But this is not a new issue. This is something that is--you 
know, we have looked at this and as I hear all the testimoneys, 
we look at our foreign policy, we can look back 20, 30, 40 
years and those policies go to good governance, democracy, lack 
of corruption, and all these things and the American taxpayers 
have spent hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars to 
do this around the world. Yet, we are backsliding.
    And so we need a new game plan, especially with the horizon 
of China offering their form of democracy with Chinese 
characteristics. There is a lot of money going out there and 
money corrupts people if there's people around, and certainly 
we have our own problems in this country.
    So starting with you, Ambassador Mitchell, you have been 
around this, I think, since 1971 or I forget what--no, it 
wouldn't be that long. You'd be a lot older than what you look 
like on the screen.
    But you have been around this for a while. What--I mean, 
you, obviously, have a perspective where you can say, well, you 
guys up in Washington redirect this and tell us to do something 
different from the State Department.
    I would like to hear your thoughts on that, and anybody 
else that wants to weigh in on that.
    Mr. Mitchell. Well, thank you. Yes, 1971 I was, I think, 7 
years old. I am showing my age.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Yoho. You were just ahead of your time.
    Mr. Mitchell. Indeed. Well, look, first of all, I would 
take issue with respect on the amount of money that has been 
put into this, in fact.
    I mean, the militarization, the use of the military in 
whether it is Iraq or Afghanistan, that is the trillions of 
dollars. That wasn't really about democracy building. There was 
a component of that nation building.
    But the work that we do are really in the hundreds of 
millions for a global fight and billions over the years. So it 
is actually cost effective, and I would also say that there is 
a lot more--as I suggest, there's a lot more happening beneath 
the surface.
    This stuff seems to regress but Sam Huntington used to talk 
about tides and waves of democracy. They go out and they 
recede, and he actually predicted in 1991, going back to then, 
I think it was a piece in 1991, 1992, that there will be a 
receding tide, and he actually predicted the conditions upon 
which that would happen and those are things that are exactly 
happening.
    When you talk about technology, talk about the rise of new 
great powers, he talked about regression in Russia and in 
Eastern Europe, I mean, it is remarkable.
    So but what we have now, what we have been able to build is 
an expectation among people that this is not satisfactory. But, 
unfortunately, people are voting for some of these demagogues 
and voting for some of these authoritarian leaders.
    Those authoritarian leaders get in, they start chipping 
away at the safeguards and at the liberal components--you know, 
the civil society, the media, free media, and all the rest.
    But people are fighting back. This is not over. So what we 
have done is created the kind of expectation. We have created 
the capacities. We have created, I think, networks and 
generations of people that expect and demand something 
different.
    Unfortunately, it has only been, really, a generation, when 
you think about it--the 1990's. I think we declared victory too 
soon, as Dan Twining, I think, suggested. This is a long-term 
fight. It will have forward and back.
    So I think--I do not want to say stay the course. We have 
to adjust. We have to deal with things like the new 
technologies. We have to deal----
    Mr. Yoho. Right. Let me--let me break in here, because you 
brought up something, and if we go back to Ben Franklin, I 
think it was in 1779 where he said, when asked what kind of 
government we have, he said, ``A republic, if you can keep 
it.''
    So we know these things are difficult. We know having a 
democratic process to form a government is difficult. But yet, 
it is worth it because what you brought up or somebody brought 
up, liberty and freedom is not something innate or is not 
something solely for the American people.
    It's an innate quality that has been bestowed upon us by 
our Creator that all people aspire to around the world.
    And I guess what I want to do is move on, and I appreciate 
your comments, is to move on to how do we--and I do not want to 
say force--how do we compel the leaders of those countries to 
say, you know what, we want what you have, and bring them this 
way and pull them with our foreign policy and with our--with 
the tools we have?
    You know, and, of course, the DFC is a new tool that we can 
use to get them to come this way and have metrics in there if 
they do not meet that to be willing to take it away from them.
    Anybody? I have got 16 seconds.
    Dr. Twining. Mr. Yoho, I would just say, U.S. engagement 
has been an extraordinary source of democratization in Asia----
    Mr. Yoho. I agree. I agree.
    Mr. Twining [continuing]. Not just through democracy 
assistance but through our alliance and security relationships. 
When we think about the dictatorships you mentioned--South 
Korea, Taiwan--these are now very strong democracies, and our 
engagement helps countries steer themselves on the right 
course.
    But that requires making sure that democracy is at the 
center of our engagement. We should also note that China is so 
vociferously attacking democracy, including in allied nations, 
including in very robust democracies like Australia, where they 
have insinuated themselves into domestic political life and 
information and free media because the Chinese see this as a 
way to weaken our leadership and hurt our friends.
    So we should care about democracy for that reason, too.
    Mr. Yoho. Absolutely. I agree. I have got to yield back 
because I am over my time, and thank you all.
    Mr. Bera. Let me recognize my good friend from California, 
Mr. Sherman.
    Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chair, I thank you for having this 
hearing, and building on the series of human rights hearings we 
did in this subcommittee last year.
    To reprise some of the things we learned in those hearings, 
we've seen a government in Burma--Myanmar--installed in part 
because of human rights concerns around the world, in fact, 
turn out to be a catastrophe with regard to the human rights of 
the Rohingya people, intent upon ethnic cleansing if not 
genocide.
    We saw the Philippines devolve from an imperfect democracy 
into a country where democratic values are barely adhered to. 
We saw that in Pakistan in the southern province of Sindh, 
Hindu girls kidnapped, forced to convert and marry to old men, 
and we see political activists there imprisoned and 
disappeared.
    And, finally, and this probably should be underlined 
because it can get lost, is we see China getting $1 billion $2 
billion in World Bank concessionary loans.
    This is outrageous because, first, China does not need 
concessionary loans. It has all the capital it needs. Second, 
because this finances a government that oppresses its people, 
and third, because it steals World Bank resources from those 
governments that are really trying to help their people rather 
than using their economic power to, say, take over the South 
China Sea.
    Our witnesses have brought a couple of important points to 
our attention. I like the phrase ``making the world safe for 
autocracy'' and I will point out that when we make a mockery of 
democracy in the United States or as they try to make a mockery 
with their interference in our election, they make it--they do 
more to make the world safe for autocracy.
    And Dr. Ayres reminded us that Freedom House has indicated 
that India is--has the highest rating, really, in South Asia 
and continues to be a vibrant democracy. Of course, at hearings 
last year we explored some issues in India as well.
    The question is what can the United States do. We are 
focused on the floor this week on the Uighurs. Several weeks 
ago, we passed and we saw signed into law the Hong Kong 
Autonomy Act, and I want to thank Ranking Member Yoho and 
Senators Van Hollen and Toomey for their work in getting that 
passed into law.
    Today, we will deal with--or today or tomorrow we will deal 
with the Uighur Forced Labor Prevention Act. This also builds 
on Congresswoman Wexton's bill to force disclosures of forced 
labor and indentured labor in Xinjiang.
    I would ask our witnesses do they have any insight into 
what percentage of goods imported from China are manufactured 
in the forced labor camps of--by the Uighurs and can the United 
States be effective.
    Last week, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued 
five withhold release orders on products with State forced 
labor in Xinjiang, Uighur autonomous regions.
    So can we be effective in determining which goods are made 
by slave labor?
    Mr. Mitchell. Do you want me to take that? I do not know, 
myself, whether it is worth the effort--it is worth finding out 
and tracing it back. I think that it is absolutely essential.
    And I have to say another component of the Uighur issue of 
the approach that we have to take is yes, we have to lead and 
we are on a bipartisan basis, which is extremely important.
    But we also need partners around the world. We are finding 
too many other countries, including Islamic countries, who are 
giving China a pass because of economics or just ideological 
considerations.
    Mr. Sherman. I would point out how many Muslim countries 
are deliberately ignoring, even returning to China dissidents, 
and the bad rap the United States gets in the world as somehow 
being anti-Islam and anti-Muslims when it is the United States 
that took the strongest action with regard to the Rohingya and 
it is the United States that bombed Serbia in order to protect 
the people of Kosovo and the Muslims of Bosnia.
    My time has expired.
    Mr. Bera. Let me go and recognize my good friend from the 
State of Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry.
    Mr. Perry. Thanks, Chairman Bera.
    Dr. Ayres, in your witness testimony you mentioned that the 
United States is guilty of disruptions to democracy here at 
home and that undermines our ability to sell democratic values 
overseas. I am just wondering, do you--do you believe there is 
any real comparison or moral relativism between China and the 
United States in the way we treat our respective citizens?
    Dr. Ayres. Thank you, sir. I certainly do not believe there 
is any comparison or moral relativism there. But I do think 
that when we are at our best in upholding our highest ideals, 
we are a much more persuasive power on the world stage. That is 
what I meant by my comments as I wrote in my written statement.
    Mr. Perry. Well, I would agree that we want to be at our 
best all the time. The CCP, on the other hand, has thrown 1+ 
million people into concentration camps. They forcibly 
sterilized women and facilitated a permissive rape culture in 
Xinjiang province.
    They have harvested the organs of untold members of the 
Falun Gong practitioners. They regularly punish those who yearn 
for fundamental freedoms. We absolutely can and must call out 
evil, and while our Nation may have issues of its own, which 
nation does not?
    Any of the issues that we have, all of the issues that we 
have pale in comparison to the evil of the Communist Chinese 
Party.
    Dr. Twining or Twinning--I am sorry if I butchered your 
name there--is China promoting authoritarianism abroad? I just 
wonder how do especially Asian governments and elites and 
public view Chinese policies on human rights? I mean, do they 
affect their attitudes toward a relationship with China or is 
it--is it more transactional, especially on economic terms? And 
in either case, how should we be responding to that?
    Dr. Twining. Great question, sir. So the answer depends on 
what kind of government it is. As Mr. Yoho mentioned, in 
Cambodia a dictator there laps up Chinese investment, is trying 
to build a Chinese style firewall around the internet, puts the 
opposition in prison, makes political opposition essentially 
illegal.
    So he is aping the Chinese style in order to cling on to 
power he has held for decades, including by running fake 
elections.
    So there, China's influence is welcome. Obviously, that is 
a net negative for the Cambodian people and for U.S. interests. 
In many countries, however, countries, frankly, leaders worry 
very much about Chinese meddling, about Chinese involvement in 
their information space, about China's united front tactics 
that suggest that somehow a Chinese Indonesian, an Indonesian 
of Chinese descent is really Chinese and not Indonesian.
    So people all over the region worry about the corrupting 
influence of these closed-door infrastructure deals that China 
does that are very nontransparent.
    So countries are going to transact economically with China 
but they want balance very much. They want to have many options 
and very much want to hold on to their sovereignty and their 
independence. That is a core principle of ASEAN.
    The great threat to countries' independence and sovereignty 
today is not the United States. That was the argument maybe 
decades ago.
    It is China, and it is meddling in many of these countries, 
and our response should not be to make it us versus China but 
it should very much be about supporting what the people of 
those countries want, which is free and accountable 
institutions, leaders who answer to them, and not Beijing or 
anything else.
    Mr. Perry. Well, then continuing on, I know that there are 
criticisms about the Indo-Pacific strategy, even while we went 
decades, in my opinion, without a coherent strategy.
    While there might be apt criticism of that strategy right 
now, at least we have one.
    Where would you say we are excelling and where would you 
say we are falling short and need further--some changes or 
course corrections regarding the Indo-Pacific--the current 
Indo-Pacific strategy?
    Dr. Twining. Sir, if that is for me, I would just say, very 
quickly, the--our allies in the Indo-Pacific want all of the 
engagement and all the U.S. attention they can get. It is a big 
world. We are a global power, but they appreciate all those 
congressional visits, all those leadership visits from U.S. 
principals.
    I would say we are doing well as a country with Taiwan. 
That relationship has grown strongly. We are still doing well 
with India, partly because Indians have an acute security 
dilemma with China and many other external concerns, and see 
America as their most decisive partner, even though it is not 
an alliance--that we are their most important security partner.
    We could certainly do more just in connecting with people. 
Not necessarily leaders, but people in Southeast Asia, the 
Pacific Islands. The Chinese are engaged in all sorts of 
scholarships, all sorts of cultural diplomacy, including in 
these tiny little outposts in the South Pacific. They see them 
as very strategic.
    We should want to make sure that all those countries remain 
free and independent so that they can be good partners and 
allies and provide security to their people and, again, not be 
answerable to a foreign country.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield.
    Mr. Bera. Great. Let me recognize my good friend, the 
gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Houlahan.
    Ms. Houlahan. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much 
to the witnesses who are here virtually. My question--my first 
couple of questions are for Mr. Mitchell and for Dr. Twining.
    My question--you mentioned briefly a bit about technology--
is what is the role that technology is playing right now in 
human rights abuses through Asia, particularly in China, 
Vietnam, and Thailand, and do we, as the U.S., have any 
diplomatic tools available to help shape international norms 
regarding the use of surveillance technology in human rights 
protections?
    Mr. Mitchell. Well, there are a number of factors, and you 
mentioned particular countries. I think a broader issue 
throughout Asia with technology is the proliferation of 
disinformation, which is in hate and division.
    That is extremely important. Again, when I was Ambassador 
in Burma it was decisive in many ways and we are seeing that in 
other countries.
    In the closed societies, it is the challenge of the digital 
firewall of having sort of sovereign--digital sovereignty by an 
individual country where there is not an open internet and, 
therefore, people, if they do try to communicate with each 
other or organize or exercise their freedoms, that they will 
have the authorities come in immediately and grab them. Or 
companies that abide by that that say, well, that's the local 
law. Therefore, we have to abide by it. That is simply 
unacceptable.
    I think what we need to do is help--not just talk to the 
companies but help the people subvert that kind of firewall and 
so that they are able to speak freely and engage freely with 
each other.
    Ms. Houlahan. So do we have any diplomatic tools? You 
mentioned a couplet that are sort of maybe more domestic in 
nature and, of course, the subversion. But is there anything in 
the diplomatic space that we have as the U.S.--and from the 
U.S.'s perspective?
    Mr. Mitchell. I am sorry. I will ask Dan to--do you want 
to?
    Dr. Twining. The administration has this--Congresswoman, a 
great question. The administration has this new initiative 
which is about the security of supply lines and including 
digital supply line that Under Secretary of State Keith Krach 
has been leading. That feels like a valuable initiative.
    More broadly, really, we should just, I think, understand 
that the contest underway in the world between freedom and 
autocracy, between democracy and what the Chinese have to 
offer, is very much taking place in the digital domain 
including in the information domain.
    We have had lots of churn at the U.S. broadcasters, 
including Radio Free Asia and these other instruments that are 
supposed to be getting free and independent news out there--
VOA. We have--we have seen the Chinese really doubling down on 
engaging with media, again, including in very friendly 
countries to us like Australia, as well as just across the 
region.
    And so paying more attention to media freedom issues, 
paying more attention to kind of making sure that U.S. 
broadcasting gets into these countries and also that democracy 
activists have digital tools so that democracy can fight back 
so that it's not simply China providing the surveillance suite 
to dictators but that democratic civil society activists have 
their own suite of technologies they can use to organize and 
hold governments accountable and demand more responsiveness and 
transparency.
    Ms. Houlahan. Thank you. I very much appreciate the answers 
and the thoughtfulness.
    My next question is for Mr. Mitchell again and Dr. Ayres 
about the Rohingya women who are, of course, suffering gross 
human rights abuses at the hands of the Burmese military, who 
are using systematically gender-based violence tactics.
    The current environment in which Rohingya women and girls 
are finding themselves in does not appear to be any safer than 
it has historically. What is the status of women and girls in 
Bangladesh refugee camps and what more can be done to address 
gender-based violence in this crisis?
    And, specifically, how can we better include women in their 
own discussions of human rights and protection? Perhaps Dr. 
Ayres could start here.
    Dr. Ayres. Thank you. Thank you, Congresswoman. I wasn't 
sure if I should step in.
    I would be happy to get back to you with more specific 
information on the status of women and girls in the refugees 
camps.
    But I can certainly say without having that detail 
immediately in front of me that the conditions of the camps are 
something that has long been a concern, and as this State of 
emergency and the fact that they are having to continue to live 
in what should only have been temporary, as long as this 
extends forever with no place for them to go, this becomes a 
real issue that needs some kind of a solution.
    The Bangladeshi government keeps seeking a repatriation 
effort, and I think we all know that there is no security for 
the refugees in their homes in Rakhine State.
    I do not know if Ambassador Mitchell has more information 
on this. Of course, he has spent so much of his career working 
directly on this issue.
    Ms. Houlahan. I have----
    Mr. Mitchell. Thank you.
    Ms. Houlahan. Go ahead. Go ahead.
    Mr. Mitchell. Do I have time here? Yes.
    Ms. Houlahan. Yes.
    Mr. Mitchell. Just very quickly. The issue of gender-based 
violence, there are two aspects to it. One is what the Burmese 
military and the Burmese side has done to the Rohingya--to 
women, to men, to all--and then there is what is happening in 
the camps and the fact that when you are stuck in that kind of 
situation the frustration, the lack of access, the lack of any 
kind of policing or hope has created an endemic of gender-based 
violence against women.
    We have to focus on this. It gets to the broader issue of 
the Rohingya. Not only do we have to figure out the political 
aspects of it but the personal aspects of their dire situation 
day by day, and taking care of them as human beings and it 
must, as you say, include the issue of what is happening to the 
women.
    Ms. Houlahan. I apologize. I have run out of time, and I 
yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Bera. Thank you.
    Let me go ahead and recognize my good friend from the State 
of--the gentleman from the State of Michigan who joins us 
virtually, Mr. Levin.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 
thank our witnesses for helping us in this really important 
hearing.
    This month, Disney released its live action version of 
``Mulan.'' Viewers quickly noticed that the credits included 
``Thank you'' to the authorities in Xinjiang where the movie 
filmed and where China has detained an estimated 1 million or 
more Uighurs and other largely Muslim ethnic minorities. A 
``Thank you'' even went to the Turpan Police Security Bureau, 
which runs the internment camps, or some of them.
    Hollywood taking pains to ensure films succeed in China is 
not new. Last month, PEN America put out a report describing 
how film makers make decisions about and even changes to films 
to appease Chinese censors.
    But here, and I will emphasize, it is not clear this 
necessarily happened. It seems possible Disney might have 
coordinated to some extent with the same authorities committing 
crimes that include torture, forced sterilization, and forced 
labor.
    Even if Hollywood does not cooperate with Chinese 
authorities outright, they could self-censor, as the PEN 
America report points out.
    If studios do not want to anger the Chinese government, 
they are not going to tell stories about the oppression of 
Uighurs or Tibet or about 1989, and if those stories aren't 
told it'll be that much easier for Chinese authorities to 
continue their abuses.
    So I will pose this question to Mr. Mitchell and Dr. 
Twining. What can be done to tackle this problem?
    Mr. Mitchell. I will start, I suppose.
    Well, look, money talks for--in businesses, including 
Hollywood, unfortunately. But exposing this, I think. 
Transparency. This is what China hates, I think what also 
anyone who is doing something that is abhorrent in terms of 
values hates the most.
    So I think PEN America did a tremendous service in their 
extensive report. I think you and others in the U.S. Congress 
spotlighting this is extremely important.
    I think their recommendation ensuring that whatever is done 
in terms of censorship, in terms of editing, in terms of 
violating these liberal--these democratic and human rights 
norms should be exposed, to be transparent about what they are 
doing, and I think there is a lot more attention to it in the 
United States and elsewhere that will create boycotts and other 
things that can have a great impact. That will talk probably 
most to companies than anything else.
    Dr. Twining. Congressman, thank you for flagging this. I 
mean, the issue is not new, but China's ambitions actually are. 
We are seeing a Chinese Communist Party effort to censor and 
control speech, not just in China, which has always been the 
case, but now outside of China.
    We have seen with BNBA, we have seen with Disney, as you 
correctly point out, that they want to change the conversation 
in America about sensitive topics in China. And I suspect you 
will agree that Americans will not stand for that. That is not 
something that will go over well with America and our free 
speech traditions.
    I should add that the Chinese Communist Party, as part of 
this extraordinary national security law they imposed 
unilaterally in Hong Kong, have made it a crime to support 
freedom for Hong Kong, to support the basic rights of Hong Kong 
citizens as enshrined in their constitution.
    They have made it a crime to support those rights anywhere 
in the world. They have sanctioned Derek Mitchell and me 
personally for our support for the people of Hong Kong.
    So this is an extraterritorial attempt, again, to make the 
world safer for Chinese autocracy in the digital domain, in the 
cultural domain with movies, and free society should not stand 
for it.
    Mr. Levin. Well, absolutely. And let me stick you with the 
Uighurs for a minute. Let me ask both of you, what do you think 
are the areas of the U.S.-China relationship that give us the 
greatest leverage to use to try to influence Chinese policies 
and activities in Xinjiang.
    Do you have any ideas about things that we as the Congress 
could do in this regard? Or the administration, I guess.
    Mr. Mitchell. Yes. It is difficult--too much leverage when 
China wants to do something on their own turf like this.
    But I do think that embarrassing them, exposing it, they 
hate that. They absolutely hate that, and sending around word 
to allies, to partners, to the world, I think that has a huge 
impact as we have seen already when this was exposed as it was 
in Hong Kong and otherwise, and Tibet.
    I think sanctioning individuals and targeting sanctions is 
very important. I think that also hurts them where it matters. 
I think the economics, as you say, of targeting those 
businesses that do the--American business, Western businesses, 
any businesses that are doing work there, that hits them where 
they hurt.
    What the Chinese Communist Party most wants is they want to 
maintain their hold in their country, and how they do that is 
via economic development.
    So the degree that you can hit them in the pocketbook and 
in their reputation in the glory of the new Chinese 
rejuvenation I think is the best leverage you can have.
    Mr. Levin. Well, thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired. I could ask 
questions about Burma and the Rohingya refugee camps and so 
forth but I better yield back.
    Thank you so much.
    Mr. Bera. Thank you. Let me go ahead and recognize the 
gentlelady from the great State of Virginia, Ms. Spanberger, 
who joins us virtually.
    Ms. Spanberger. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you to the witnesses for being here today.
    Mr. Mitchell, I would like to begin with a conversation and 
a question for you. Terrorism and COVID-19 are very real risks 
and, unfortunately, in some cases we do see governments 
manipulating these real risks for political convenience in 
order to justify repression and democratic backsliding, and we 
can see this in Xinjiang and in Hong Kong as well as other 
places.
    I am curious for your perspective on how we have seen this 
play out in the past few years. Do you believe this trend is 
getting worse and could you speak a little bit within the 
COVID-19 context of what has been the experience on the ground 
and what you have witnessed?
    Mr. Mitchell. Well, thank you for the question, 
Congresswoman.
    Absolutely. I mean, look, authoritarian is the enemy of 
democracy. When you inspire fear and you say the terrorists are 
coming or we have an enemy within or whatever it is or through 
the pandemic, which is real scary--all of that is real--then 
you can say, look, you have to give us more power.
    We have to centralize the power to ensuring our security, 
and then that is ripe for demagogues. And we are seeing that 
today within the China sphere. We are seeing that in Cambodia. 
We have seen that in the Philippines. We have seen that all 
over the place.
    You will see that in Sri Lanka after the Easter day--Easter 
Sunday bombing. And in Burma they say, look, we were attacked 
by the Rohingya.
    Now we have to go and attack them, and they have been 
saying it for 70 years--we have enemies within, therefore you 
need the military in the middle here. Otherwise, we will fall 
apart and our security will be destroyed.
    So we are seeing it--you know, you do not need an excuse 
for a pandemic. The pandemic gave a perfect excuse to--for 
Cambodia and others to declare these emergencies and crack down 
on civil society and the media or any that say that you are not 
living up to the democratic promise that you give us.
    Ms. Spanberger. And a little bit of followup then. What 
advice would you have for governments or for civil society 
efforts that are working to ensure these threats are not 
exaggerated, that there are--that they are not utilized as 
justifications for limitations on civil liberties and for 
organizations trying to get the real facts of both being 
aggressive against this virus but ensuring that that fear that 
comes with the virus isn't being utilized as a tool.
    Mr. Mitchell. Yes. Well, I think keeping that fight going. 
I mean, keep it going. But, look, you can point to where there 
have been successes in Asia. They can point to where things 
have happened in the world, but we are talking about Asia.
    Look what happened in Korea--South Korea. Look what 
happened in Taiwan. Look what happened in New Zealand and other 
places where these democracies they partnered with civil 
society. They partnered with young people who took--with the 
technologies that exist.
    They did not use surveillance to oppress people. They used 
surveillance to get good information out and they then bounded 
that surveillance with--by saying we will only use it for this 
amount of time and it will be under the control of a 
nongovernmental actor.
    It will be transparent. It will be under law and through 
those partnerships. I mean, Taiwan has seven deaths. I mean, it 
is incredible.
    In Korea--South Korea--same thing. They had an election 
where no one--they had an election where people during the 
pandemic came out with their masks and nobody died.
    So it is able to be done, and you can point to these 
circumstances where, yes, other conditions are--other places 
have different conditions and you have to be careful. But 
partnering, being transparent, operating under law is not 
weakness. That is strength and that is the only way you build 
the civic trust. You get people to go along with you and to 
deal with the pandemic in a thoughtful and sustained way.
    Ms. Spanberger. And, Mr. Mitchell, that is such a good 
point, particularly as we have crossed the threshold of 200,000 
lives lost here in the United States. So just recognizing the 
success other nations have had without the limitations on civil 
liberties I think is important.
    And, Dr. Ayres, with the remaining time, if I could put it 
over to you, very briefly. Telehealth has been a major priority 
of mine. I represent rural communities throughout central 
Virginia, although our suburban communities love telehealth 
access as well.
    One of the things I am hearing from many of my constituents 
with families back home, particularly in Kashmir, have been 
related to access to health care, particularly given some of 
the communications limitations that exist.
    Could you speak to the limitations that you have seen, what 
is the ever evolving circumstance on the ground, and provide 
any comments for us to have a clear understanding of what 
continues to be the on-the-ground experience in Kashmir?
    Dr. Ayres. Thank you very much for that important question.
    Yes, as I think the world saw the abrogation of Kashmir's 
traditional autonomy more than a year ago was accompanied by, 
essentially, a communications blackout.
    Now, communications have slowly been restored. It was 
restored first in the Jammu region, not yet in--then later 
restoration in the Muslim majority region of Kashmir.
    There was an important Supreme Court ruling, actually, that 
took place in India in January of this year where the Supreme 
Court stated that communications disruptions or communications 
blackout cannot go on indefinitely.
    So that formed the basis for which--under which the 
restoration of communications very slowly was restored into the 
Kashmir region.
    It is my understanding that communications, including 
mobile communications at the 2G level have largely been 
restored, although there may be some districts in Kashmir that 
do not always have 4G access.
    I saw a press report in August that there were a couple 
districts in Kashmir as recently as August of this year that 
had sporadic 4G access. There is a security concern, which I am 
sure you can appreciate, about the ability of terrorists to use 
4G in order to coordinate.
    So that is another layer on top of all of this. But I think 
the important check and balance on this question is the fact 
that the Supreme Court did have that decision about the 
importance of the fundamental right of access to 
communications.
    Ms. Spanberger. Doctor, thank you for handling that.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to go over with my 
time, and I yield back.
    Mr. Bera. Thank you.
    Let me go ahead and recognize the gentleman from Virginia, 
Mr. Connolly, who joins us virtually.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
holding this hearing. I am sorry I am late. I had three 
conflicts at 10 o'clock and I have not got tri-location down 
yet.
    I would like to pick up on--you know, I cannot see who said 
it to Ms. Spanberger but you were talking about progress and 
you cited South Korea and Taiwan. But it looks to me, frankly, 
like Asia, if anything, has regressed.
    Whether it is the Philippines, whether it is even India, 
certainly China we seem to have regressed with respect to any 
kind of semblance of a free press that is unfettered and free 
expression and outright human rights violations.
    And I wonder if you could just talk about the regression 
part because what can we do? What leverage have we got to try 
to reverse some of these stringent measures that have been 
undertaken by even so-called ally countries like Philippines 
that have been rather extraordinary in the last few years?
    Dr. Twining. Derek, do you want to start?
    Mr. Mitchell. I start? Okay.
    Well, look, there are--first of all, we cannot lose hope. 
We have to recognize that--as we talked a little bit earlier on 
this that we have to be quite patient with this, that things go 
forward and back, and that there are some old guards here that 
continue to push things in a regressive direction.
    And we have younger generations and mass movements and 
other things going on beneath the surface that are not giving 
up and that are demonstrating resilience against this backward 
tide.
    And we have to maintain our support, strong support. We 
have to put the U.S., along with our allies--we have to get our 
allies involved in the region. We have, as I mentioned, these 
democratic allies of Japan and Taiwan and Korea and the others 
to be with us on this.
    We have to fortify civil society. We have to support them 
that exist via oversight, to continue to be resilient against 
the backsliding to raise a flag. But in some ways, we cannot 
control what happens in these countries, going back to some old 
instincts.
    But there are new generations that see things differently, 
that have different expectations.
    So as we see things happening, I am not being complacent 
and I am not suggesting you are wrong. We are seeing regression 
worldwide.
    We also have to recognize that beneath the surface there 
are economics and expectations that are quite positive and that 
we need to invest in women as well in order to turn this tide 
and not lose faith.
    Mr. Connolly. And if I could just interrupt. But I would 
assume that, obviously, having the president of the United 
States either ignore human rights discussions when he meets 
with foreign leaders or converses with them is a huge problem 
because let us take a leader like Duterte in the Philippines.
    He, clearly, takes the signal that that is not a priority 
and that is an enabling and empowering fact in and of itself, 
the absence of that conversation, the absence of an insistence 
on civil society, human rights respect, and so forth.
    Would you say that that fact has also perhaps aggravated 
ongoing problems in the region because of lack of this vacuum 
we have created in terms of American outspokenness and 
insistence on adherence to these valued?
    Mr. Mitchell. Well, I won't speak to the politics because 
we are not involved in the domestic politics and we should not 
be as NDI or IRI.
    Mr. Connolly. Hold it. Hold it. I am not talking about 
domestic politics. I am talking about statements from the 
president of the United States to foreign leaders and 
conversations with foreign leaders, and whether, from your 
perspective, it has had a deleterious impact on the work we are 
talking about.
    Mr. Mitchell. Right. Well, let me--let me put it this way. 
I think the American model is extremely important. I think 
America's voice is extraordinarily important. I mean, my 
friend, Professor Ayres--Dr. Ayres mentioned this--is that, 
look, we matter.
    America's leadership and its model has mattered for 
generations, and we have never been perfect. We have never 
been--we have always been a work in progress. But our voice in 
support of this that the U.S. Congress certainly maintains and 
other voices in the United States maintained is extraordinarily 
important to push back against the tide and the liberal forces 
globally need to hear that.
    They need to see it, and the stronger our democracy the 
stronger we can demonstrate what it means to the proxy and 
that--and that it creates a stability and security for us, that 
we are a multi-ethnic multi-religious society.
    That will be extremely--it just puts wind behind the work 
that we do. So in that regard, Congressman, I completely agree 
with you.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I do not know if I have any more time, but if 
I do perhaps another panellist would also like to address that.
    Dr. Twining. Congressman, I can pick it up. Thanks for all 
your support. You know, we have been so struck by congressional 
support in this recent period, and I think in Asia it's been 
noticed.
    You all have increased support for the National Endowment 
for Democracy. You have protected those democracy rights and 
governance accounts in the foreign aid bills, the foreign 
operations bills.
    So, I think we feel a strong degree of support for the work 
we are doing with partners across Asia from the U.S. Congress 
and that matters very much in Asia.
    So it's not just about one particular leader. It's very 
much about the U.S. system, and Congress has really stepped up 
and played a major role here and we are grateful.
    Thank you.
    Dr. Ayres. Is there time for me to quickly comment?
    Mr. Bera. Sure. Go ahead.
    Dr. Ayres. Thank you.
    Congressman, thank you for that observation. I would just 
note that from the perspective of our ability to speak out on 
the importance of human rights, it was extremely distressing 
earlier this year when the president visited India and a riot 
unfolded as he was there.
    And I recognize that diplomacy can be delicate and 
difficult. You do not want to necessarily get in public 
comments about severe problems in another country. That is for 
a private message.
    But the fact that our president did not even speak a word 
of grief about the deaths of people as it was unfolding I found 
extremely distressing, and I believe that that also undermines 
our ability to speak out about the importance of protecting 
human rights.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bera. Thank you.
    Let me go ahead and recognize my good friend from the State 
of Maryland, Mr. Trone, who, I think, joins us virtually.
    Mr. Trone [continuing]. On May 2020. This enabled 
individuals that have lived in Kashmir for periods of 7 years 
for students and 15 years for those that have worked there to 
claim residency in the province. What are your concerns about 
the law and what has been the impact?
    Dr. Ayres. Is this for me?
    Mr. Trone. Yes.
    Dr. Ayres. Thank you very much.
    So this has just begun. I think what the larger concern is 
that you hear people discussing in India and outside of India 
is whether this will potentially change the demographic 
balance. That is, I think, the umbrella concern here.
    This is all so new that we do not yet have much of a sense 
of how it is affecting the region. In fact, I would say we 
would need more time to understand it.
    But this definitely does appear that it will create, 
perhaps, a different kind of ethnic balance in the place that 
is India's one Muslim majority territory. So that--I think that 
is the concern that you are addressing.
    Mr. Trone. Serious--a very serious concern we all have.
    Dr. Mitchell, in your testimony you mentioned your 
democratic partners and allies in Asia can, quote, ``do more to 
strengthen democracies at home as a way to help stem the tide 
of the democratic erosions on the continent.''
    A few weeks ago, the New York Times reported on the 
situation in Jammu and Kashmir. They noted that many political 
moderates in the area who had one been aligned with the Indian 
government have become disillusioned by recent developments.
    Some were even arrested and detained by the Indian 
government last year following the status change. Disengagement 
among political moderates strikes me as a bad sign.
    What kind of support does the government enjoy among 
residents in Jammu and Kashmir and what type of measures should 
the Indian government be taking to shore up democracy?
    Mr. Mitchell. Well, thank you for that question.
    The--look, India is the largest--we would say is the 
largest democracy in the world. It is extremely important that 
its democracy and its values stay on the side of small I 
liberal values, and what happened in Kashmir, as you suggest, 
was a kind of emblematic of a regression and an increase in the 
kind of Hindu nationalism that is concerning to folks.
    And, as you say, it is pushing people to extremes. It is 
encouraging one extreme and it is isolating moderates. Keeping 
to that middle, I think, is extremely important for the future 
idea of India, and to the degree that it is an ally in the 
global fight for democracy and human rights, as suggested in 
the previous question, the way that we model that at home will 
be very important for the credibility of our work abroad.
    Mr. Trone. Dr. Ayres again, could you provide an assessment 
on the impact of India's citizenship amendment bill on year in, 
and has the passage of this bill played out? How has it played 
out in the following year and impacted Muslims in India?
    Dr. Ayres. Yes. Thank you for that important question. That 
was something that I also addressed in my written statement. It 
has certainly been the focus of intensive protests within India 
and has caught substantial attention in the United States and 
in other countries around the world.
    The citizenship amendment itself, in and of itself, was a 
point of protest in India because it introduced a religion 
question--a religious test for eligibility to fast track access 
to citizenship, and that issue was in and of itself disturbing 
to some Indian citizens because it is a secular democracy.
    But there is a companion issue that presented a scenario 
that also captured global attention including the attention of 
the U.N. secretary general, and that was this issue, as I 
outlined in my written statement.
    There was a national register of citizenship exercise 
carried out in one Indian State, in the State of Assam, and 
that is a unique process for that State that goes back to 
partition in 1947.
    But there were a number of cases of India's home minister 
stating that they would seek to carry out a similar exercise 
around the country.
    Now, people began to worry in India that such an exercise 
if individuals were unable to provide the necessary 
documentation to prove their citizenship affirmatively, 
Muslims, who were not named, not a named religion in the 
citizenship amendment, would not then be able to apply for and 
have access to citizenship and that might be, potentially, 
stateless.
    That combination of factors is what led to the sustained 
protests that you saw across India.
    Now, as I said in my written statement, India is a Federal 
democracy. You saw a series of Indian States say they would not 
implement this or they would not implement a national register 
were one to be proposed nationwide.
    The prime minister later stated in late December 2019 that 
there had not been a discussion of a nationwide roll out of a 
citizenship register.
    So for the time being, that question appears to be on hold. 
But, certainly, this has been a concern. It continues to be a 
concern within India.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Trone. Thank you, Doctor. I yield back.
    Mr. Bera. Thank you.
    Let me go ahead and recognize our colleague, the gentlelady 
from Nevada, Ms. Titus, who joins us virtually.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
holding this hearing today with this esteemed panel of 
witnesses.
    I can certainly attest to the really valuable work that NDI 
and IRI do around the country as a member of the House 
Democracy Partnership we have worked together on in many 
instances, and I am always amazed at what all they do building 
citizenship, working within NGO's, teaching people how to run 
for office, getting out the vote, dealing with corruption.
    It is just amazing, and they do it with so few resources. I 
want to say thank you and please keep it up. It is such an 
important part of our soft power.
    Mr. Mitchell, you mentioned, I think, at the beginning of 
your comments that democracies need public support. They need 
for people to have confidence in them, especially in 
legislatures, that they--the countries will be able to take 
care of them, of their citizenry, whether it is a pandemic or 
in an economic crisis, and that they can do that while still 
keeping in place or even expanding democratic norms.
    That means that we, as the United States, need to help to 
demonstrate to countries that they can thrive economically and 
that they can defeat a virus or they can handle national 
security while at the same time respecting rules of law and 
human rights while protecting civil liberties, supporting an 
independent media, implementing other democratic principles.
    Unfortunately, the United States is not setting the best 
example right now. We have seen that with the recent protests, 
our inability to defeat the pandemic, our lack of a plan for an 
economic recovery. So we are not being the best example 
setters. It is kind of do as we say, not as we do.
    So I wonder how the United States can help instill public 
confidence in democratic institution and actors and the 
abilities of their countries to deliver for them.
    What specific areas are there that we can help countries to 
achieve their goals of being more democratic while also proving 
to their citizens that these democratic principles really will 
work to their best interest?
    Mr. Mitchell. I will start on that.
    First of all, Representative Titus, thank you so much for 
the support on HDP, which is a really important program and one 
of my favorites, frankly, in working with our colleagues in 
IRI, and the support of Congress and yourself is extremely 
valuable. So thank you for that.
    Look, democracy has--is challenged in these ways. Forgive 
me. I am forgetting the question now.
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Titus. Well, it was--it was rather convoluted. I just--
how do we help governments ensure their publics that democracy 
works to their advantage when they are facing a pandemic or an 
economic crisis or pressure from some less democratic powers 
perhaps in their region.
    Mr. Mitchell. Right. Well, look, the institution building, 
the foundations of the society institutions need to be 
strengthened.
    People need to see that their government is transparent. We 
have to encourage that kind of accountability and transparency 
so people can feel that they are working--the government is 
working for them, that something has changed.
    You know, you can change--you can have an election. You can 
have even a parliament. You can have institutions that kind of 
go through the motions. But the mindsets take much longer.
    But people need to see that the new system, the new 
processes, are actually responsive to them. There is no sort of 
single thing that you can do. But people need to feel that it 
is--that somehow it is different than the old autocratic ways.
    How we can help is we should be investing not just in the 
NDIs and IRIs in the political sphere. We have to be investing 
in the economic sphere, in the aid and assistance sphere.
    We have to, when we see the openings, not just walk away 
and say, well, they have an election or democracy. We have to 
invest in the economies and the businesses, try to encourage 
greater private sector engagement so that people can get jobs.
    Because, fundamentally, if people do not get jobs, if they 
do not see economic progress, people will say, this is nice but 
I am not taking care of my families and I will turn to somebody 
who will tell me easy solutions to these more difficult 
problems.
    There is no silver bullet on this. But I think the economic 
component to what we are talking about is extremely important.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you. Now, we often say in those meetings 
it is not just the elections that are important but what 
happens between the elections that really make the difference 
to build those institutions.
    Thank you very much. Anybody else care to----
    Dr. Twining. Congresswoman, could I just say thanks for all 
your support on HDP and your leadership? You know, we need to 
make--we need to show that democracy works, and in Asia we 
should not forget the most successful, most prosperous 
societies in Asia are all rule of law countries with very 
strong institutions.
    From Japan to South Korea to across the board, down to 
Australia and over. Indonesia and Malaysia have their own 
democratic transitions here over the past few decades, that 
what China has to offer still is not proven.
    The premise from the Chinese Communist Party, that we can 
help you be prosperous but without political rights, was 
rejected by the richest people in China, which is the people of 
Hong Kong. Their per capita incomes are, like, five times 
higher than people in the rest of China.
    They do not accept the proposition that prosperity without 
rights is a deal. They want both, just like rising Asians have 
wanted both as their countries have grown economically and 
politically.
    So let us remember what actually delivers that prosperity, 
which is rule of law, property rights, strong institutions.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you.
    Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bera. Thank you.
    If the witnesses would indulge me, I would actually like to 
ask another question, and just, again, listening to some of the 
comments that came up. Maybe this one would be for Ambassador 
Mitchell and Dr. Twining.
    Again, listening to your assessment of the region and how 
we strengthen democracy, it does occur to me that 
multilateralism, working with our like-minded colleagues in 
countries like Korea, Japan, Australia, India, and taking a 
multilateral approach.
    So, I think a question for the two of you would be what 
tools and instruments already exist where we can take that 
approach, we take it in the geopolitical realm of maritime 
security and freedom of navigation but in democracy building, 
how we can leverage that?
    And then maybe for Ms. Ayres, I do have some concern that 
China uses economic coercion. You know, we could use the Sri 
Lankan port example, and is China using that economic coercion 
to undermine democratic principles in some of these smaller 
Asian nations or emerging democracies.
    So maybe, first, Dr. Mitchell--Ambassador Mitchell and Dr. 
Twining and then Dr. Ayres.
    Mr. Mitchell. Well, thank you for that question and, again, 
I completely agree that we need to be leveraging. It cannot 
just simply the U.S. and China, for instance.
    We have to galvanize the democratic world, whether it is in 
Asia or elsewhere, because these values work for all of us, and 
the more that we can demonstrate that China is--this is not 
some--not simply a great power competition but China versus the 
world or China versus its neighbors, it gives us extra 
leverage.
    Look, I think one way we have to do this, we have to 
coordinate better. We do not think about governance as a core 
component of American foreign policy in promoting this. We all 
agree that this is important.
    But, I have been promoting this notion of a fourth D in 
U.S. foreign policy because of the centrality of democratic 
governance to our international security. It is not just a nice 
thing. It is essential for our future stability and prosperity.
    When I say fourth D, that is, in addition to diplomacy, 
development, and defense to be democratic governance. And I 
think we should be talking to them about integrating it into 
everything that we do, and to our diplomacy, certainly. But 
also when we have investment--our foreign investment, we should 
be integrating democratic values, accountability, transparency, 
inclusion.
    All these things are not simply important for the 
governance of countries but governance of the international 
system of rule of law when it comes to maritime law. We want to 
have following international law. This is very important for 
our security.
    So getting Japan, getting India, getting Australia. I think 
they are already starting to get this. I, frankly, think the 
China factor is helping in that regard.
    People are seeing what the alternative as China is out 
there doing this. They are shaping these norms according to 
their interests and their image, and we need to be much more 
mindful with our allies in not just the military stuff, that 
security side, which I have a background at the Pentagon.
    I understand that stuff. I was at State Department. I 
understand diplomacy. But on the values, we tend to think those 
are nice things. Those are important things but they may not be 
as strategic for--as integrated into what we do. You know, I 
think we need to be talking to our partners in that way.
    Again, not simply vis-a-vis China but simply as a positive 
sum whereby doing this we make the world more healthy. You 
know, in health, education, all these other outcomes are much 
more likely to come out in positive--in a positive sum 
direction.
    Mr. Bera. Dr. Twining?
    Dr. Twining. Thanks, Congressman. I second what Ambassador 
Mitchell said. I would also just add, in a more workman like 
fashion a lot of our work these days is not about people like 
Derek and me flying to Asia and telling them what to do.
    They do not need to hear it from us. A lot of our work is 
about taking lessons learned in Asia and having Asians share 
those with other Asians.
    So as Derek mentioned earlier, NDI and IRI are both opening 
offices in Taiwan. Taiwan does not need a lot of help with its 
democracy. It's a very strong and robust democracy.
    But the Taiwanese have many lessons to offer other Asian 
countries about how, for instance, China runs disinformation 
campaigns in an effort to swing Taiwanese elections, to take 
the vote away from Taiwanese voters and put them in the hands 
of a foreign power.
    So we--to give another example, we have taken Indonesians 
to the Maldives after the Maldives had a transition from 
dictatorship to democracy to talk about how do you run a smart 
transition, how do you root out corruption from the old regime, 
et cetera.
    And there are a lot of lessons for Asians from within Asia 
because Asians have been fighting for these values for many, 
many years, irrespective and independent of the United States.
    But finally, I would just say our greatest allies and 
partners in the region are democracies, from Japan to India and 
many countries in between, and we should not be too shy about 
new mini-lateral and multi-lateral instruments--the Quad, for 
instance--U.S., Japan, Australia, India. The D-10 concept of 
kind of the G-7 plus the three big Asian democracies.
    We should not shy away from the idea that there is a role 
in geopolitics for working very closely, much more closely with 
our fellow democracies because we share, frankly, just a set of 
interests as well as a set of values.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Bera. Great. Thank you.
    Dr. Ayres, if you would take a quick moment on the economic 
coercion piece.
    Dr. Ayres. Yes. Thank you for asking that, Chairman Bera. 
That is a very important component here, and I think this is 
something we have to remember. The United States is not the 
only actor in this region.
    China is an increasingly important and influential actor as 
it has strengthened its ties with virtually every one of the 
countries in South Asia with the exception of India, where 
there is now a border standoff. That is a subject of another 
discussion, obviously.
    The economic coercion piece is part of this, as we have 
seen over and over again. All these cases of Belt and Road 
investments, sometimes the investments appear to be politically 
driven.
    In other cases, of course, it happens quickly. There is no 
environmental review. There is no governance review. There is 
none of the normal checks that would go into a development bank 
funding of an infrastructure project.
    And, of course, along with that economic investment and 
economic relationship with the smaller countries, one of the 
things I have been noticing is the way China has been setting 
up party-to-party kinds of relations and consultations.
    There was a video conference between the Chinese Communist 
Party and a multi-party group in Sri Lanka a few months ago. 
There was a consultation, what, late July or early August 
between the Nepal Communist Party and the Chinese Communist 
Party.
    So we are seeing a kind of direct engagement party-to-party 
as opposed to government-to-government, which is another 
development that I think we should all keep our eyes on.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Bera. Great. Thank you.
    Let me recognize the ranking member, Mr. Yoho, if he has 
any closing remarks or questions.
    Mr. Yoho. I do, and I appreciate it. And, Mr. Chairman, 
again you have done a great job. This is a very informative 
meeting.
    Dr. Ayres, you just brought up a point I wanted to bring 
up, and how China is not just going country to country. They 
are going with in that country to the different political 
parties.
    In fact, I was just reading last night that they are 
engaged in over 400 parties around the world in different 
countries. There was a great expose. It was 60 Minutes of 
Australia and the topic is why is China on the move in the 
South Pacific. I recommend that highly to everybody.
    And, as we know, the world is in a tectonic shift of world 
powers we have not seen since World War II, and we see China is 
the destabilizing factor. Of course, they blame us. But we see 
by their actions and their--what their intent is, and they are 
offering their form of government.
    And so it is easy for these weaker nations to bow down, be 
complacent, and be coerced by China's money. And with the DFC 
being out there to counter the BRI, where do you think we need 
to put the biggest emphasis on?
    And I think it was Dr. Twining, you were talking about we 
have to get in there and stay with promoting democracies and 
building those but we also have to have the ability to have the 
metrics in there and if that country does not meet it to pull 
that back.
    If you guys have comments on that, I would sure love to 
hear it.
    Dr. Twining. Alyssa, do you want to go first?
    Mr. Yoho. Dr. Ayres, go ahead.
    Dr. Ayres. I will take--thank you. Thank you.
    I do believe that the creation of the DFC is important. It 
is my understanding that it is not quite up and running 100 
percent. So we have yet to really see what it can do as a 
potential alternate to these kinds of infrastructure 
underwritings.
    The other piece of the DFC is that it is in part designed 
to help crowd in private sector engagement and private sector 
investment, so that is another part of the story.
    I think we may need more time before we are able to see how 
effective this mechanism can be.
    I would note that we also have another very effective 
source of U.S. Government assistance that depends on, is 
premised on, good governance indicators and that is the 
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
    And I would just caution that in the South Asia region we 
have now seen two examples, in Nepal and in Sri Lanka, where 
the long process of engaging toward a Millennium Challenge 
compact agreement large investments, about $500 million in each 
case, toward transportation and power infrastructure.
    These have actually been held up in both of those countries 
because of political concerns. The Nepali government does not 
want to be part of the U.S.-Indo-Pacific strategy or feel that 
it is somehow being brought into the Indo-Pacific strategy.
    The Rajapaksa government is suspicious of the U.S. MCC. So 
I would just offer those two examples as cases where we have 
got a terrific tool but it has run into some challenges for 
political reasons in the countries concerned.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Yoho. Thank you. Let me see if Dr. Twining has any 
comments.
    Dr. Twining. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Thank you, Congressman. 
You have been such a leader, including with your Cambodia 
Democracy Act and that is a reminder that we do have tools and 
leverage.
    The Europeans in Cambodia have suspended trading privileges 
that they had offered to Cambodia. Cambodia is very reliant on 
our GSP still.
    So some of these economic instruments matter in both a 
negative sense but also in a positive sense when countries do 
well. We should be working with them on new trade and financial 
arrangements. The Chinese do come in and do this in their own 
way and we should get back to that as a country.
    Mr. Yoho. I agree.
    Dr. Twining. Sir, you mentioned, do we withdraw support 
when a country backslides on democracy. I would argue that most 
of our support for countries should not go directly to their 
governments.
    It should go to independent civil society, free media, 
independent institutions, and not just go into a central coffer 
that disappears.
    In the past--we have gotten a lot smarter about this as a 
country, but in the past a lot of U.S. development assistance 
disappeared because we were giving it to friendly autocracies, 
in some cases, who did not have any means of accounting for it.
    So let us make sure that we invest in these democracy and 
governance instruments because we want to make sure that U.S. 
taxpayer money is being used well, and for all our investments 
in nutrition and health and infrastructure and nondemocracy 
areas.
    Without some accountability and transparency, we do not 
know where that money is going. So the democracy and governance 
investments that Congress makes actually helps us make sure 
that America gets more bang for the buck on all these other 
forms of assistance beyond democracy and good governance.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Yoho. Ambassador Mitchell, do you have any final 
comments?
    Mr. Mitchell. Well, let me just reaffirm something I said 
at the start and what you are suggesting, Congressman. We are 
in a competition of norms and values and standards now.
    Mr. Yoho. We sure are.
    Mr. Mitchell. And the Chinese are out there shaping things 
in their--according to their norms and they are out there 
fighting this very actively and very consciously, and we need 
to be similar.
    We need to be strategic, we need to be thoughtful, and we 
cannot fight it simply by fighting on their turf in their ways. 
We have an alternative model as suggested, and that 
transparent, accountable, inclusive--that we actually care to 
invest in countries, not extract from them, and that we look 
for partnerships.
    And it is that model that created the peace and stability 
of the last, as you say, 75 years.
    Mr. Yoho. Right.
    Mr. Mitchell. And it is now at risk and we need to be out 
there shaping these very actively.
    Mr. Yoho. Thank you. I appreciate everybody, and Mr. 
Chairman, another great hearing and the witnesses were awesome. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Bera. Great. Thank you, Ranking Member Yoho.
    I also want to thank our witnesses and the members who 
participated in this very important and interesting hybrid 
hearing.
    And with that, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                APPENDIX
                                
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                   STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                      AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL LETTER

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                                 [all]