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

                         THE BALKANS: POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
                         FOR THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                DECEMBER 8, 2020

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 116-141

                                   __________

            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
    42-496PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2021

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          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 PHILLPS, 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

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   WITNESSES

    Albright, Hon. Madeleine K., Former Secretary of State...........    11
    Serwer, Dr. Daniel, Director, American Foreign Policy, Director,
      Conflict Management, School of Advanced International Studies,
      Johns Hopkins University.......................................    17
    Bugajski, Mr. Janusz, Senior Fellow, The Jamestown Foundation....    23

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing Notice...................................................    67
    Hearing Minutes..................................................    68
    Hearing Attendance...............................................    69

                       STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

    Statement submitted for the record from Representative Connolly..    70

                RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

    Responses to questions submitted for the record from
      Representative Omar............................................    72

        THE BALKANS: POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION

                           Tuesday, December 8, 2020

                              House of Representatives,
                          Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                         Washington, DC

        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m., in
    room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eliot L. Engel
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Chairman Engel. The Committee on Foreign Affairs will come
    to order.
        Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
    recess of the committee at any point. All members will have 5
    days to submit statements, extraneous materials, and questions
    for the record, subject to the limitation in the rule. To
    insert something into the record, please have your staff email
    the previously circulated address or contact full committee
    staff.
        As a reminder to members, staff, and others physically
    present in this room for guidance from the Office of Attending
    Physician, masks must be worn at all times during today's
    proceedings, except when a member or witness is speaking.
        Please also sanitize your seating area. The chair views
    these measures as a safety issue, and, therefore, an important
    matter of order and decorum for this proceeding.
        For members participating remotely, 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 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 and noise.
        I see that we have a quorum, and I now recognize myself for
    opening remarks.
        When I entered Congress over 30 years ago, more than
    anything else the majority leader at the time, Tom Foley, who
    was later to become Speaker, asked what my top three choices
    for committee assignments would be. I told him Foreign Affairs,
    Foreign Affairs, and Foreign Affairs. For as long as I could
    remember, I had followed the Middle East, the cold war, and, of
    course, like everyone from my generation, the Vietnam War. But
    little did I know the passion I would develop for a small
    corner of Europe called the Balkans. Sure, I knew about
    Yugoslavia. They hosted the Olympics in 1976. World War I
    started there. But beyond that, my knowledge was somewhat
    limited.
        Yet, days after I was first elected to the House in 1988, I
    was visited in my Bronx office by my now-close friend, Harry
    Bajraktari. Harry told me of a place called Kosovo, or Kosova,
    in Yugoslavia, which was populated largely by Albanians.
    Confused, I asked him how this place could find itself Kosovar
    or Yugoslavian or Albanian. Thus began my education about a
    region for which I am now considered an expert, the Balkans.
        I have traveled to every country in the Western Balkans
    several times, met with so many leaders from so many parties,
    and come to love the rich variety of cultures, ethnicities, and
    religions. But no place has touched my heart more than Kosovo.
        My first days in the House of Representatives in 1989 were
    followed shortly thereafter by a now infamous speech by then-
    Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic. That speech is seen by many
    as the beginning of several years of war and ethnic cleansing,
    ending with the breakup of Yugoslavia, and the creation of
    seven independent countries.
        I spent many of my first years in the House of
    Representatives with a small, bipartisan group of Congress
    Members, fighting the horrors. Only a few of us still Serbia
    today--Steny Hoyer, myself, Pete King, Alcee Hastings--but our
    efforts never had a partisan flavor. We stood together on the
    House floor, we traveled to the region, and we demanded
    American leadership to end the killing.
        In many ways, American involvement in the Balkan Wars of
    the 1990's was the pinnacle of our post-cold war power and
    influence. It also represented how such leadership can be put
    to good use. We stopped the killing and, along with our NATO
    allies, stepped in with peacekeepers to prevent the brutality
    from recurring. We stopped genocide in Europe cold.
        In Bosnia, the conflict ended with the Dayton Accords, and
    in Kosova, most of the world moved to recognize the new
    republic. But while we did so much good, we did--there also
    remains a large amount of unfinished business, not only in
    those two countries, but throughout the region, demanding
    American leadership and closer work with our European partners.
        I would like to start in Kosova. First, the good: Kosova is
    an independent country, and it has been for more than a decade.
    Frankly, if you run the clock back three decades, this was a
    mere dream. I never thought I would actually utter those words,
    but today, Kosova has joined the World Bank and the IMF. And
    more than 110 other countries recognize its independence,
    including, of course, the United States, the United Kingdom,
    France, Germany, Japan, and so many other important nations.
        Kosovars are showing up as leaders in a variety of
    professions, including some world-famous popular singers and
    soccer players and in my hometown of New York City, as
    successful real eState owners, popular restaurateurs, and so
    much more.
        Yet, the end of the story has not been written, and serious
    challenges remain. Most importantly, it is time for Serbia to
    move on. Kosova is independent. It is never going back.
    Frankly, blocking Kosova's recognition in places around the
    world and its membership in the United Nations only holds up
    Serbia, because its bid to join the European Union will not be
    approved until it recognizes Kosova.
        So I call upon Serbia to get on with it, so all of the
    people of the region, regardless of nationality, ethnicity, or
    religion can take their rightful place as citizens of Europe,
    alongside their French, German, Italian, and other brothers and
    sisters across the continent.
        You know, but I am very, very proud of what we did in 1999.
    We prevented genocide on the European Continent and that is a
    major, major undertaking and something which we should be very
    proud of. But it is not the end of the discussion. So many
    people were killed then, 1999, disappeared, maimed, and raped,
    during the Kosova War. And justice remains a long way off. We
    had a hearing not long ago in this committee about the
    atrocities committed against Albanian women during the 1999
    problems.
        Justice remains a long way off. In Serbia, bodies are still
    emerging from mass graves. Of Kosova, Albanians struck back and
    quickly buried to hide the magnitude of the crime. Three
    Americans, the Bytyci brothers, were among those murdered. The
    families of these victims deserve justice, but have been given
    little, if any.
        The International Criminal Tribunal for the former
    Yugoslavia closed. And Serbian prosecutors have brought very
    few criminal cases, despite the evidence. President Vucic even
    promised then-Vice President, now President-elect Biden, Vice
    President Pence, and me, that he would ensure justice for the
    Bytycis. We have seen absolutely none.
        While most of the crimes during the war were committed by
    Milosevic and his brutal army, the international community has
    forced Kosova, not Serbia, to set up a special court to deal
    with wartime crimes. The court came about in response to a
    report by a European parliamentarian, in large part, about a
    debunked claim of organ trafficking by the Kosovo Liberation
    Army. Yet, the Specialist Chambers remains.
        Let me be absolutely clear. Anyone who committed war crimes
    on any side should be prosecuted and brought to justice.
    Period. But I must ask: What is justice in the wake of the
    Kosovo War? Right now, it seems like Serbia, the party
    responsible for most of the war crimes, faces virtually no
    pressure at home, or from international communities to bring
    its perpetrators to account.
        At the same time, the victim in the war, Kosovo, is forced
    to create a hybrid court with an international prosecutor and
    judges. Friends, if this was Denmark, we would be thinking
    something was rotten here.
        As I said, if the Kosovars committed war crimes, they
    should be held to account. But here is the problem: I have read
    the statute that created the court, and nowhere does it says
    that it should prosecute only one ethnicity, but that is
    exactly what is happening. I know my tenure in Congress is
    coming to a close, but the problems with this court are
    continuing, and I strongly caution the courts, the United
    States, and our allies, that we must now--we must not allow it
    to become an ethnic court, because if we do, we are only
    perpetuating problems, which cause the region's difficulties
    and conflicts and divisions in the first place.
        Read the law. The Court has jurisdiction over all war
    crimes committed in Kosovo, no matter which side committed
    them, all war crimes during the wartime period, and it must
    carry out its mandate fairly without ethnic bias. Still, this
    court is part of a larger problem with how the United States
    has been approaching Kosovo. We only see it partially as an
    independent State, not as a true sovereign partner, not as a
    regular country with which we have normal bilateral relation.
        Too often, we deal with Kosova as a war in the dialog with
    Serbia. We subsume our bilateral ties to such an extent that
    we, the United States, are limiting Kosova's sovereign choices
    to avoid to offending Belgrade. We told Kosovo it cannot base
    its trade with Serbia on the principle of reciprocity, one of
    the cornerstones of international trade law.
        Sadly, the Trump Administration actions were a contributing
    factor in the fall of the Kosovo Government not too long ago.
    We have even put the brakes on Kosovo's tiny defensive
    military. These things have to stop. And I hope President-elect
    Biden's Administration will reground our relationship with
    Kosovo on its own terms, not on irrational fears emanating from
    its larger neighbor.
        Now that larger neighbor has its own problems and concerns,
    first and foremost, its robust relationship with Russia. As
    U.S. Ambassador Hoyt Yee has said, Serbia cannot sit on two
    chairs at the same time. Serbia has been importing Russian
    fighters and tanks and conducting military exercises with the
    Russian Army. A U.S. Defense Department report told us that
    Belgrade's drift toward Moscow has mostly occurred since
    President Vucic took power.
        At the same time, Democratic space in Serbia has shrunk in
    recent years. Freedom House describes Serbia as a, quote,
    ``hybrid regime,'' unquote; not a democracy, because of
    declining standards in governance, justice, elections, and
    media freedom. If Serbia wants to become part of the European
    Union and the North Atlantic family of Nations, it needs to get
    off the fence and embrace a Western path.
        I would like to shift gears now and talk briefly about
    Bosnia. Before I do that, let me say as an American, any
    American--I have been to Kosova many, many times--any American
    comes to Kosovo, they are treated like royalty. I have never
    seen anything like it. I traveled the world but the people of
    Kosova love Americans, love everything American, and understand
    that we are be mainly responsible for their freedom, for the
    fact that they are a free and independent nation.
        So, if you go there, people will talk with you. People will
    approach you. People will hug you. It is just an amazing thing
    that I've seen nowhere else the world, the great affection that
    they have for Americans. When they put their independence and
    declare independence, there were as many, and even more
    American flags flying all over Kosova than there were Kosova
    flags or Albanian flags. The American flag was paramount
    because Kosovars really appreciate what we did for them by
    presenting--preventing a genocide on the European Continent.
        So I would like to shift gears now and talk briefly about
    Bosnia. Next week marks the 25th anniversary of the formal
    signing of the Dayton Accords, which ended the war in Bosnia.
    That negotiation was very difficult, but finally brought the
    horrors to a permanent conclusion.
        But Dayton only created a stalemate. Under the agreement
    only a unanimous decision of the collective presidency
    comprised of ethnic-controlled republics could move the country
    forward.
        Bosnia became stuck, unable to advance. We see now that
    this system has not worked. In so many ways, it put Bosnia in a
    deep freeze, where Republica Srpska blocks decisions in the
    country's national interests in favor of widely expanding
    autonomy and a loosely veiled breakaway agenda. This has to
    end.
        The incoming Biden Administration needs to ask a simple
    question: Dayton has taken Bosnia as far as it could, but it no
    longer works and it has not for years. So what should come
    next, and how do we get there?
        Friends, this is the last hearing I will conduct on the
    Balkans. And it has allowed me to remember some of the high
    points of my work in the region. In the 1990's, in Kosovo, I
    remember seeing walls built in schools to separate Albanians
    from Serbs and to separate healthcare system created by the
    Nation's Kosovar majority. I remember cutting the ribbon on the
    USIA office in Prishtina in 1996, an outpost we sometimes
    called the first American embassy in Kosovo.
        I remember talking to President Clinton and Secretary
    Albright about the need to step in and halt the ethnic
    cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo.
        Thank you, Madam Secretary, for everything you did and all
    your work. Everything you did is an inspiration to us all.
    Thank you for everything you did.
        I have been honored to address the parliaments of several
    countries in the region, and to be present when we opened--when
    we cut--opened the beautiful new U.S. Embassy in Prishtina.
    Cutting the ribbon was just--meant so much to me.
        And, Madeleine, Secretary Albright, I am so glad that you
    are, again, testifying for the Foreign Affairs Committee during
    one of my final hearings as chairman. We have known each other
    a long time, and I see the world change a great deal, and I am
    honored to count you among my friends.
        Today, it is hard to recognize the region which I first
    visited in 1993. Countries are independent, democratic, and
    developing. They have young, intelligent population, ready to
    liberate their entrepreneurial spirit, their rich cultural
    heritage, and so much more.
        Let's finish the work we began when I first entered
    Congress. Let's stand with the people of this region and let's
    lead the international community and complete the job of
    bringing every country of the Balkans into the heart of Europe.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
        First, I will yield to my good friend, the ranking member,
    Mr. McCaul of Texas, for any opening remarks he may have.
        Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I am so glad that Speaker Foley appointed you to the
    Foreign Affairs so many years ago. You have certainly
    distinguished this committee. It has been an honor to serve
    with you, and it is fitting, I think, and appropriate to one of
    your last hearings to be on Kosovo, which I know you have
    been--have done so much for the people of Kosovo and the
    country.
        The collapse of Yugoslavia three decades ago brought
    substantial chaos and suffering to the Balkan region. Yet over
    the last 30 years we have seen significant progress. Today the
    Western Balkans is largely at peace, and it has made great
    progress on its path toward Western integration. Earlier this
    year, we welcomed North Macedonia into NATO. They are now
    anchored to the world's most successful political, military
    alliance, and to the West.
        However, serious challenges still exist and keeping the
    Western Balkan countries on the path toward security and
    stability will require active engagement by the United States
    and our European allies.
        One such challenge currently facing the region is the
    political division in Bosnia. Last month, we celebrated the
    25th anniversary of the Dayton Accords, which brought an end to
    almost 4 years of fighting in Bosnia. However, Bosnia has still
    not been able to establish a sustainable democracy. In
    addition, American leadership will be especially critical to
    the normalization of relations between Kosovo and Serbia.
        In that vein, I want to praise the U.S.-led agreement
    signed this September to increase economic cooperation between
    Kosovo and Serbia. I urge the next Administration to work with
    our European allies to build on this agreement. We must
    continue to support these two countries as they work to reach a
    political resolution centered on mutual recognition.
        At a full committee hearing last year, we heard heart-
    wrenching testimonials from witnesses that had firsthand
    experience of the atrocities that occurred during the Kosovo
    War. Too many of the perpetrators of those war crimes remain at
    large. One way for these two countries to move forward together
    would be to focus on bringing these war criminals to justice.
    Only when they can find closure and peace can a truly lasting
    political solution be achieved.
        The people of Kosovo deserve to live in an independent and
    democratic country that is fully incorporated into the
    international community. Serbia, too, must demonstrate that it
    sees its future in the West. Reversing the unacceptable
    deepening of security cooperation with Russia would be an
    important step for Belgrade.
        The Serbian leaders must knowledge that both Vladimir Putin
    and Xi Jinping are not their friends. But the consequence of
    malign influence by authoritarian regimes, like Russia and
    China, are not specific to Serbia. Unfortunately, while the
    United States and its European allies seek to help the Western
    Balkans build a more secure, prosperous, and democratic future,
    the Putin regime is promoting a destructive addenda. By sowing
    division and inciting ethnic tension, Putin and his cronies aim
    to stifle the democratic progress being made in the region and
    obstruct Western integration.
        Meanwhile, the Chinese Communist Party is making dangerous
    inroads in the region, exporting corruption, environmental
    instruction, and debt traps through its Belt and Road
    Initiatives. The CCP's goal is to create vulnerabilities in
    these countries that can later be leveraged for geopolitical
    gain. In the face of these threats, the West must Act. We
    cannot leave a political vacuum in the Western Balkans for Mr.
    Putin and the CCP to exploit. I hope today's witnesses will
    provide concrete recommendations on how we can confront Russia
    and China, their malign influence throughout the region.
        Madam Secretary, it is such a great honor to welcome you
    this morning. I will never forget our dinner at the Munich
    Security Conference a couple of years ago. Your steadfast
    support for NATO intervention that ended the ethnic cleansing
    by Serbian forces and liberating the people of Kosovo has been
    inspiring to all of us.
        Finally, I would like to thank my good friend, Chairman
    Engel, for holding this hearing. As all of you know, Eliot has
    been Kosovo's greatest champion in the U.S. Congress. He was
    among the first U.S. lawmakers to call on the Clinton
    Administration to intervene in the Kosovo War against Serbian
    forces, and he was the most outspoken advocate in Congress for
    U.S. recognition of Kosovo when it declared its independence in
    2008.
        To honor Mr. Engel's dedication to promoting peace, the
    people of Kosovo named a street after him in the town of Peja,
    as well as a highway that runs from Albania to Kosovo. In
    addition, the chairman appears on a stamp in Kosovo. That is
    quite an accomplishment. I am not aware of any other Member of
    Congress that has his own stamp in a foreign country or a
    street named after him. So I urge my colleagues to work to
    continue his legacy to advance the cause for an independent
    Kosovo, fully integrated into the international community.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
        Chairman Engel. I thank the ranking member, and I thank him
    for his kind words. It has been a pleasure to work with him, to
    be a partner of his, and I know it is going to continue, even
    after into the indefinite future. So thank you. Thank you so
    much, Mr. McCaul. Thank you.
        It is now my honor to talk about our panelists. Let me
    start with Secretary Albright. Dr. Madeleine K. Albright is the
    chair of Albright Stonebridge Group, and was the 64th Secretary
    of State of the United States, at the time becoming the highest
    ranking woman in the history of the U.S. Government. Prior to
    serving as the Secretary of State, Dr. Albright served as
    permanent representative to the United Nations from 1993 to
    1997.
        She previously also served as a member of President Jimmy
    Carter's National Security Council and White House staff, and
    served as Chief Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator Edmund S.
    Muskie.
        And I must add that Secretary Albright is a good friend of
    mine, and I am honored to be her friend, and I so respect her.
    I am really in awe of the work she does and how she conducts
    herself, and how smart and effective she is.
        So, Madam Secretary, thank you for coming here to testify.
        Professor Daniel Serwer directs the Conflict Management
    Program at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International
    Studies, and is a senior fellow at the Center for Transatlantic
    Relations, and affiliated as a scholar with the Middle East
    Institute. His current interests focus on the civilian
    instruments needed to protect U.S. national security, as well
    as transition in State-building in the Middle East, North
    Africa, and the Balkans. Formerly vice president for Centers of
    Peacebuilding Innovation at the United States Institute of
    Peace, he led teams there, working on rule of law, religion,
    economics, media, technology, security sector governance, and
    agenda. He was also vice president for peace and stability
    operations at USIP, where he led the peace-building work in
    Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, and the Balkans and served as
    executive director of the Hamilton-Baker Iraq Study Group.
        Mr. Serwer has worked on preventing interethnic and
    sectarian conflict in Iraq and has facilitated dialog between
    Serbs and Albanians in the Balkans, also a stellar witness.
        Janusz Bugajski is a Senior Fellow at the Jamestown
    Foundation. He is the host of a television show, ``New Bugajski
    Hour,'' broadcast in the Balkans. Mr. Bugajski has authored 20
    books on Europe, Russia, and transatlantic relations, and is a
    columnist for several media outlets.
        Without objection, the witness' complete testimony will be
    made a part of the record of this hearing. I will recognize all
    of our witnesses for 5 minutes each to summarize their
    testimony and then we will have a chance to question.
        Let's begin with Secretary Albright.
        Madeleine, welcome back to the committee. It is great to
    see you.

     STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT, FORMER SECRETARY OF
                                 STATE

        Ms. Albright. Thank you, Chairman Engel and Ranking Member
    McCaul.
        Good morning, and thank you for convening this hearing on a
    topic of great interest to me, and of great importance to U.S.
    national interests.
        I want to begin by saying how grateful I am to you,
    Chairman Engel, for your relentless focus on the Balkans, even
    when attention in Washington was directed elsewhere. You have
    always been a critical ally for those working on behalf of
    peace and democracy in the region. They are going to miss your
    leadership in Congress, as will I. But we also know that you
    will remain a great advocate and partner for years to come.
        And, Congressman Meeks, I am looking forward to working
    with you on the full range of critical issues confronting this
    committee.
        More than two decades have now passed since the U.S.
    military intervened in Kosova, and next week will mark 25 years
    since the formal signing of the Dayton Accords, which brought
    the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina to an end. I believe the
    United States and our allies did the right thing by taking
    action to end the bloodshed in both places. And whenever I am
    asked about my proudest accomplishment, I talk about our
    efforts in Bosnia and Kosovo, which show the difference that
    U.S. leadership and American diplomacy backed by force can
    make.
        Our hearing this morning will focus, as it should, on the
    many challenges that face the region. But it is important to
    begin this conversation with some perspective. Today, the
    Balkans are more peaceful and stable than many thought possible
    25 years ago. The countries have not disintegrated or returned
    to ethnic violence. Instead, they are working to join the
    European Union and to deepen their ties with the United States,
    and I expect that the people of the region will find a ready
    partner in the incoming Biden Administration.
        As you know, Mr. Chairman, the President-elect has been
    personally engaged in the Balkans since his time in the Senate.
    And he was one of the most outspoken leaders in Congress,
    calling for the United States to help end the conflicts. And I
    was honored to work closely with him throughout my time in
    office, and I know that he understands the region and its
    importance for the United States.
        The national security team that President-elect Biden is
    putting in place is deeply knowledgeable and committed to
    helping all the countries of the region move forward as part of
    a Europe that is whole, free, and at peace; and that is
    important, because today, this vision is in peril.
        The nations of the Western Balkans are suffering deeply
    from the health and economic impacts of the coronavirus
    pandemic. Corruption remains a serious problem, and nationalist
    leaders continue to stoke and exploit ethnic tensions. China
    and Russia are also exerting new influence in the region with
    Serbia, in particular, the target of much anti-Western
    propaganda.
        As the pandemic eases, there will be an opportunity for the
    United States and Europe to help the region build back better,
    particularly as Western European countries seek to bring supply
    chains closer to home and, as new funds become available to
    invest in energy diversification and environmental protection.
    Supporting the region's democratic progress must also be a
    priority, pushing back on authoritarian interference and
    building on the work that organizations, such as the National
    Democratic Institute, which I am honored to chair, are doing on
    the ground.
        Still, I fear that this opportunity could be missed. To
    ensure we help the region meet this moment, the next
    Administration must develop and implement a new regional
    strategy. And I would suggest that such a strategy buildup
    three elements:
        First, we must establish and maintain close cooperation
    with the European Union. The six States of the Western Balkans
    want to be in the EU, which is their largest and natural
    trading partner. The United States can help the EU use its
    influence to good effect, and our influence in the region,
    including with some EU member States, can be useful in keeping
    political problems from imperiling the region's progress.
        Second, we must attack the rampant corruption that is
    crippling political institutions and undermining the rule of
    law across the region. In every country, leaders seem to regard
    political office as a source of patronage to stay in power.
    Addressing this so-called State capture and, rooting out these
    influences, must be a top priority.
        Finally, the United States and its allies in Europe should
    shift toward more of a regional approach. The current EU and
    NATO strategies deal with each country one by one. This is
    necessary to reward governments when they make the tough
    decisions needed to move forward. But a strategy that considers
    only each country in isolation risks leaving behind States that
    have the most work to do and the fewest political champions in
    Europe.
        The answer is for the United States and the EU to work
    together to champion initiatives that help Kosovo, Bosnia, and
    others build economic ties to Europe and the neighborhood,
    while also pushing for needed political reforms.
        Mr. Chairman, I know that you have a number of specific
    issues you would like to discuss, and I look forward to your
    questions but let me quickly stress two topics that are top of
    mind.
        Ms. Albright. On Kosovo, our shared goal should be for it
    to become a normal country in the United Nations, part of the
    regular international system, and with all the rights of
    international law to defend its territory. This should not be
    subject to a veto by Belgrade.
        On Bosnia, the Dayton Accords stopped a war and continue to
    keep the peace but the governing arrangements are now captured
    by leaders among the three groups that negotiated the peace.
    They want to hold on to power, even if it means holding their
    society back, while Bosnia's neighbors move toward EU
    membership.
        The United States and the European Union must focus their
    efforts in Bosnia on the abuse of government and State-owned
    enterprises, taking away the leverage of powers that keep the
    current system in place. This is, obviously, all easier said
    than done, but the key lesson of the past 25 years is that
    sustained engagement by the United States can help the region
    move forward.
        With Joe Biden as President, I am confident that the United
    States will, once again, be a force for good in the region. And
    I am prepared to do anything I can in partnership with this
    committee to help the new Administration succeed. And thank you
    again for your continued attention to this critical issue.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I look forward so much to continuing to
    work with you, no matter what angle, you know, where you are
    coming from, because you have really, really cared so deeply
    about that part of the world.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Albright follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Engel. Well, thank you. Thank you, Madam
    Secretary. And I look forward to continue working with you for
    many, many years to come. I think that you are certainly
    unique, as far as I am concerned, in what you have done for our
    country and with our country, and being so smart and knowing
    what should happen. You were a voice when there were very few
    voices, and I thank you for it, and I am always in awe of
    everything you say and do. So, thank you, Madam Secretary.
        Professor Serwer.

      STATEMENT OF DR. DANIEL SERWER, DIRECTOR, AMERICAN FOREIGN
       POLICY, DIRECTOR, CONFLICT MANAGEMENT, SCHOOL OF ADVANCED
            INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY

        Dr. Serwer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, not only for this
    opportunity to testify once again, but also for your decades of
    commitment to Europe whole and free.
        But the job isn't yet finished. Problems remain between
    Serbia and Kosovo, as well as inside Bosnia and Herzegovina,
    where Serbia is also a factor. The essential precondition for
    solving the remaining Balkan problems is American recommitment
    to the region, in tandem with European alliance. Recent
    competition between the U.S. and EU, which has demonstrated it
    cannot do the job on its own, hampered progress. As part of
    this global reassertion with democratic values, President Biden
    should consult the Europeans and announce a joint vision for
    the Balkans region.
        Mr. Chairman, independent Kosovo is still completing its
    Statehood. Its security forces are progressing toward NATO.
    Other sovereign institutions are also gaining capability, but
    lack universal recognition. The Prishtina/Belgrade dialog the
    EU leads can help, but needs more U.S. engagement. The
    Americans should focus on implementation and reciprocity. The
    dialog needs a monitoring mechanism, including for past
    agreements, as well as commitments like Kosovo's EU visa
    waiver. Reciprocity should include extension of the Special
    Chambers' mandate to crimes committed in Serbia including the
    postwar murder of three Americans.
        The main U.S. goal for the dialog is mutual recognition and
    exchange of Ambassadors. President Biden and Chancellor Merkel
    should make this goal explicit and press the non-recognizing EU
    members to declare they will recognize Kosovo no later than
    Serbia does. U.N. membership will require the Americans to
    convince Russia and China not to veto.
        Mr. Chairman, Bosnia sovereignty and territorial integrity
    are as fraught and Kosovo's. The Dayton Accords reached 25
    years ago entailed territorial division and ethnic power-
    sharing, ending a terrible war. That formula no longer makes
    sense for the international community, which pays many of
    Bosnia's bills, or for its citizens who suffer dysfunctional
    governance.
        Dayton today serves the interests of ethnic robber barons.
    One arms his Statelet for secession, while another eggs him on
    and the third complains. The U.S. should press the Europeans to
    sanction those who advocate Republika Srpska independence, and
    to strengthen and reposition their troops, visibly backed by
    the U.S., to the northeastern town of Brcko, to block
    secession. The U.S. should seek to block Russian arming of
    entity police, as well as Croatian and Serbian political
    interference.
        Europe and the United States want a post-Dayton Bosnia that
    can qualify for EU membership. That Bosnia will be based, not
    on ethnic power-sharing, but, rather, on the majority of
    citizens electing their representatives. The cantons and
    entities, as well as ethnic vetoes and restrictions, will need
    to fade. The Americans and Europeans should welcome the
    prospect of a new civic constitution.
        But no one outside Bosnia and Herzegovina can reform its
    constitution. A popular movement is needed. The United States,
    along with the Europeans, needs to shield any popular movement
    from repression, while starving the entities funding and
    redirecting it to the central government and municipalities.
        Mr. Chairman, everything I have suggested will be easier if
    Serbia helps. President Trump allowed President Vucic to
    tighten control of Serbian courts and news media, which often
    indulge in hate speech, and to promote pan-Serb ambitions
    destabilizing to Bosnia, Kosovo, and Montenegro. The Biden
    Administration will need to toughen up on Belgrade, together
    with Europe. If Vucic continues to prefer autocracy and
    alignment with Russia and China, the Americans and Europeans
    will need to await the day Serbia is committed to real
    democracy at home, and better relations with its neighbors.
    Serbia's citizens, more concerned about jobs than Kosovo or
    Bosnia, need to help.
        In the meanwhile, we may want to think about an interim
    arrangement between Serbia and Kosovo, provided it gives Kosovo
    a seat at the U.N. Getting a good deal requires readiness to
    reject a bad one.
        Mr. Chairman, President Biden will have bigger problems
    than the Balkans. But few regions promise better returns.
    Cooperating with Europeans, the U.S. can save the sovereignty
    and territorial integrity of two potential allies, Kosovo and
    Bosnia, and help Serbia escape its legacy of autocracy and war.
    President Biden should support those prepared to make Europe
    whole and free, and counter those who block progress.
        Mr. Chairman, I hope you will allow me to submit for the
    record an article that appears this month in the Foreign
    Service Journal that I wrote on the Dayton Accords at 25 which
    goes deeper into some of the arguments I have presented just
    now.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Daniel Serwer follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Engel. Without objection, so ordered.
        Thank you, Professor Serwer. Thank you for your testimony.
        Our third witness, Professor Bugajski.

      STATEMENT OF JANUSZ BUGAJSKI, SENIOR FELLOW, THE JAMESTOWN
                               FOUNDATION

        Mr. Bugajski. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Engel and
    Ranking Member McCaul, as well as members of the Foreign
    Affairs Committee.
        Thank you very much for the opportunity to offer--to be
    able to offer recommendations for the next U.S. Administration,
    specifically in its policies toward the Western Balkans. I will
    very briefly summarize my written testimony, and, as requested,
    my recommendations focus on two regional challenges: the
    Kosova-Serbia dialog, and the Bosnia-Herzegovina impasse, as
    well as two external threats, Russia and China.
        So let me begin. I think the goal of the Serbia-Kosova
    dialog should be to devise a roadmap for interState
    recognition. This is the only sustainable solution that would
    free both countries to pursue their aspirations toward EU
    integration and economic development. U.S. partnership with
    European Union in reaching a final settlement is essential.
        The White House meeting with leaders of Serbia and Kosova
    in September reengaged Washington in the dialog, but the U.S.
    cannot simply focus on economic linkages and neglect key
    political decisions. Economic relations will not be normalized
    if political relations remain abnormal.
        In Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Dayton Accords were not designed
    to construct an integrated State with an effective central
    government. Instead, ethno-politics has blocked the country's
    progress into international organizations. The result of
    Bosnian impasse, U.S. and EU representatives must devise a
    roadmap for constitutional, administrative, and electoral
    reform. Support for specific politics must be significantly
    increased, and the rule of law strengthened. Economic
    instruments can also encourage reform and a more empowered
    central government, while squeezing out funds to entities and
    cantons that block the functioning of the State, or threaten
    partition.
        Persistent threats against Bosnian integrity limit economic
    development, promote interethnic discord, encourage radicalism,
    and endanger the survival of the State.
        Two foreign actors directly contribute to instability in
    the region, Russia and China. Both adversaries view the region
    as Europe's weak pressure point, where competition with NATO
    and the U.S. can be increased, conflicts manipulated, new
    allies captured, and economic opportunities exploited. For
    Moscow, the Balkans are a strategic asset to expand its
    geopolitical reach, fracture Western cohesion, undermine
    international organizations, undercut the U.S. presence, and
    capture allies.
        In trying to imitate Titoist Yugoslavia by balancing Russia
    and China with the U.S. and the EU, Serbia is subverting its
    own links with Western institutions and weakening security on
    the Balkan Peninsula.
        The U.S. Administration can support a regional initiative
    focused on the vulnerabilities has the Kremlin exploits to its
    advantage, including disinformation, corruption, and the
    funding of nationalist extremism. Such an initiative can expose
    Russia's illicit money flows, media connections, disinformation
    campaigns, and the links of Russian oligarchs and intelligence
    services with local politicians, nationalist parties, religious
    institutions, and social organizations.
        Moscow views Serbia, in particular, and the Republika
    Srpska in Bosnia, as useful tools to subvert regional security
    and limit Western integration.
        Sanctions, asset freezes, and arrest warrants can be
    imposed on Russia oligarchs and entities engaged in corrupt
    activities, or inciting ethnic conflict or coup attempts. Media
    outlets and civic organizations must also be assisted to better
    coordinate efforts in countering disinformation spread by
    Russian and Chinese sources.
        Western Balkan inclusion in the Three Seas Initiative and
    its north-south transportation corridor will enhance economic
    performance and help provide alternatives to dependence on
    Russian energy and Chinese loans.
        Washington must pay greater attention to nearby States that
    can exert the negative influence in the Western Balkans,
    especially Bulgaria, Hungary, and Croatia. For instance,
    Bulgaria's blockage of EU accession talks for North Macedonia
    mobilizes the pro-Russia lobby in Bulgaria and weakens Balkans'
    security.
        The new U.S. Administration must avoid the self-defeating
    reset with the Kremlin in the hope that a major adversary can
    be transformed into a credible partner. A more assertive U.S.
    policy can help neutralize Moscow's Balkan ambitions by
    spotlighting Russia's own vulnerabilities, including its
    economic weaknesses and escalating domestic turmoil.
        International democracy initiatives as proposed by the
    President-elect should zero in on the Russia Federation by
    supporting human rights, individual freedoms, political
    pluralism, ethnic equality, and genuine federalism in this
    increasingly unmanageable State. In restoring the vitality of
    the Western alliance, Washington can demonstrate that it is not
    in conflict with the citizens of the Russian Federation.
        Very briefly on China: China's long-term ammunitions are to
    replace the U.S. as the leading global power. Its expanding
    influence is based primarily on investments and development
    assistance, which creates indebted independent States that
    undermine transatlantic unity. In exchange for investment,
    Beijing seeks diplomatic support for its policies in
    international fora. Western governments need to contain Chinese
    influence, but without damaging the economic development of
    vulnerable countries. They must work together to prevent the
    takeover of key economic sectors, invest in new technologies,
    and improve conditions for private and public investments.
        And, last, similarly, to probes of Russian activities,
    Chinese money flows, political connections, business links, and
    media inroads must be systematically investigated. More
    attention must be paid to China's political, social, and
    cultural inroads, and how these can negatively impact on
    democracy and security. Beijing is increasing its engagement in
    academia, media, culture, and civil society to promote China's
    foreign policy goals, and to weaken American influence in
    Europe and elsewhere.
        I think I have run over my time. I have not even looked.
    But, anyway, I will stop there because I have run out. Thank
    you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bugajski follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. Bugajski.
        Let me start by asking Secretary Albright this question: I
    have often referred to the NATO bombing, which, of course, we
    led, and you were such an integral part of it, we prevented
    ethnic cleansing on the continent of Europe with the bombing in
    1999. We prevented another catastrophe. I am really proud of
    what the United States did. But since that time, we have sort
    of been locked into a time warp. There has been very little
    progress beyond everybody holding, staying in place. And we see
    the court, which was formed to prosecute both Serbs and
    Albanians, anyone who created these war crimes, but so far, it
    only seems to be going after Albania and, therefore, the court
    is really looked upon as an ethnic court, and not one that is
    really serious about trying to move progress in the Balkans.
        Could you please comment on the court, what is happening,
    and the fact that we, again, prevented genocide on the
    continent of Europe? What do we need to do now to make sure we
    move forward, because it has been, as you know, very little
    movement forward since the 1999 bombings?
        Ms. Albright. Mr. Chairman, thank you for asking that,
    because I think it is a crucial aspect of how we deal with the
    issues.
        And let me say, I do not think that--I am not exaggerating
    when I say about how much time while I was, whether at the U.N.
    or then as Secretary, we spent on the Balkans. And one of the
    first votes I took at the United Nations was to create the War
    Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and it did a lot of
    work but, of course, it isn't operating at this stage.
        And so, I think that is a question. It needs to be dealt
    with that exactly the way that you are discussing the fact that
    now there is the special Kosova court, and, in fact, is dealing
    with what they are saying: Were crimes committed?
        And so, I do think that justice and the use of the rule of
    law is something that is very important in trying to bring the
    country and the people back together. The bottom line is we
    have always had problems trying to show the role of the Serbs
    in the ethnic cleansing. And when the War Crimes Tribunal was
    operating, Milosevic and Karadzic, he, in fact, is serving a
    life sentence. Milosevic died.
        But I do think that we need to look very carefully at what
    the law can do, because it is able to identify individual
    guilt, and not have collective guilt for things, because I
    think there needs to be a recognition that the countries that
    are in the Balkans that used to be able to communicate with
    each other need to again do that and not put everything on the
    lines of ethnic conflict, but try to solve some problems
    together.
        But you're absolutely right. I would love to just insert
    here something, because we were talking about what President-
    elect Biden can and should do. In 2009, he gave a speech in the
    parliament of Bosnia-Herzegovina. And he said the following:
        When will you get tired of this divisive, nationalistic
    rhetoric? The U.S. expects you to start working across party
    lines to make Bosnia function as a normal State.
        That is telling it like it is. I really believe in making
    sure that we deal with the past and move to the future of
    dealing together.
        Chairman Engel. Thank you.
        Let me ask Mr. Bugajski a question.
        Bringing the Western Balkans into the Western family of
    democratic and free-market-based nations has been a largely
    successful project since the 1990's. Two countries have joined
    the EU, five have joined NATO, and democracy has taken hold.
    But the job is obviously not done. Russia is working overtime
    to divide our Balkan partners from the United States and
    Europe, while China is quietly advancing into the region as
    well.
        So what do you see as the big steps that the incoming Biden
    Administration can take to cement the region into the North
    Atlantic and keep Russia and China at bay?
        Mr. Bugajski. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman.
        I mean, first of all, working very closely with the
    European Union is essential. As the Secretary pointed out, each
    of these countries, including Serbia, do want to enter the
    European Union. If America supports the European Union project,
    if it supports integration of the entire region as specified in
    the initial Thessaloniki agreement, then I think we are going
    to make some progress, and America has a role to play in
    helping these countries to achieve the kind of reforms they
    need to achieve in order to qualify.
        Plus, the kind of steps that myself and Dan has outlined on
    trying to reform the Bosnian Government, and the Bosnian State
    itself, to make sure it is capable of qualifying for European
    Union is essential. And, of course, NATO. NATO does provide an
    umbrella of security for each country that has entered. We can
    tell by the degree of Russian opposition how effective NATO
    actually is.
        However, with one caveat, I would say. Even countries that
    are within NATO have to be very closely monitored, one, in
    terms of their defense contributions, which the current
    Administration has rightly pointed out, in some cases, does not
    meet the requirements; but, second, also to fight back against
    Russian influence, Russian corruption, and Russian political
    sway, particularly in countries such as Bulgaria and Hungary,
    which could be open to more pernicious Russian influences to
    destabilize the region.
        So a few things that sort of, off the top of my head that I
    would recommend.
        Chairman Engel. Thank you very much.
        Let me ask Mr. Sewer. The Balkans is a diverse region. It
    is rich in history and culture, ethnicity, and religion. The
    variety of those elements can strengthen a region. When tapped
    with sensitivity and respect, they can serve as a wedge,
    driving apart societies when abused. So what is the way forward
    do you see for the diverse peoples of the Balkans? Are there
    lessons from other countries with diverse societies, and what
    can we in the U.S. who have experienced such division in recent
    years learn from the Balkans?
        Dr. Serwer. What we can learn from the Balkans is not to go
    there. Ethnic identity conflicts are extraordinarily difficult
    to resolve, and we should avoid them as best we can. All of us
    have multiple identities. I am a professor. Some people think I
    am a white guy. I am a Jew. I am many different things. And I
    want all those layers to be respected in the country that I
    happen to be a citizen of.
        And I think that is where the Balkans have to go. The
    Balkans have, for historical reasons, emphasized ethnic
    identity above all others, especially in the post-Yugoslav
    period. People in Balkans, like me, have multiple identities,
    and they need to recognize that, and demand that their
    governments and that their courts, that those multiple
    identities be respected, and that the whole person be
    respected.
        To tell me that I cannot be a candidate for President of
    Bosnia and Herzegovina, except if I am a Croat Serb or Bosniak
    is outrageous, and yet, that is what the Dayton Constitution
    did. It also enabled the European Court of Human Rights to
    strike down that provision of the Dayton constitution. But, of
    course, the constitution has not been amended to allow others
    to be candidates for the presidency.
        So what we need to expect of the Balkans is to stop this
    overemphasis on ethnic identity, start recognizing we all have
    multiple identities, and that individual rights have to be
    respected, and they are not well-respected in the Balkans
    today.
        Chairman Engel. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        And thanks to all the witnesses.
        I will now call on our ranking member, Mr. McCaul.
        Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Secretary and Mr. Bugajski, just to followup on the
    chairman's question about--I am concerned about the growing
    footprint in Serbia, Kosovo, and the wider Balkan region of
    both the Chinese Communist Party and the Russians, the Russians
    being disinformation campaign, the CCP with the Belt and Road
    Initiative, to basically have PRC investments that come with
    strings attached, debt traps, financial implications,
    environmental and societal.
        We had, last Congress, Congressman Ted Yoho, probably one
    of the best things this committee's ever done is we passed the
    Development Finance Corporation as a counter to malign Chinese
    activity across the globe, with respect to the Belt and Road
    Initiative.
        Can you talk a little bit about, No. 1, the threat that is
    posed by the PRC and Russia in the region, and, also, what do
    you see are some of the solutions to stop that, and
    particularly looking at private sector investments with the
    Development Finance Corporation?
        Chairman Engel. Mr. McCaul, is there someone you want to
    direct the question to?
        Mr. McCaul. I said at the outset to Madam Secretary and to
    Mr. Bugajski.
        Ms. Albright. Thank you very much, Congressman McCaul.
        I really do think that I am very concerned exactly about
    the same things you are.
        The Russians have wanted to have a very direct relationship
    with Serbia for a long time. A lot of the history, even during
    the Tito period, had to do with that relationship. Partially
    what is happening is the Russians are practicing in Serbia the
    things that they are doing in other parts of Central and
    Eastern Europe, which is operating to undermine democracy
    there, and then separate the countries from being a part of the
    West, and they are using the tactics of a KGB agent. That what
    is we are dealing with.
        And so, I do think they see themselves as having a natural
    partnership, quote, with the Slavs in the Balkans, and that
    kind of relationship that they think is natural and important
    for their own sake and for undermining what we are doing in
    democratic development.
        The Chinese have, in fact, been investing through the Belt
    and Road. And they have been doing it in a number of areas that
    are important in the region, which has to do with
    transportation, with mining, a number of things that the region
    needs. And I do think what is interesting, the Development
    Finance Corporation is a huge step forward, and I think
    something that is very important. There has been an office
    opened recently in Belgrade. I do think that we need to use
    that as a tool in terms of helping on the investment, and I
    also do believe the private sector needs to get in there.
        What is interesting--and I do not know whether this is true
    or not, I just read it--is that the Chinese have all of a
    sudden decided that maybe they cannot afford the Belt and Road,
    literally, that they are having their own economic issues, and
    that they are not going to be investing in much abroad. I think
    we need to follow that very carefully, because, obviously, our
    relationship with the Chinese is going to affect not just what
    happens in the Balkans, but many places. So I think we have to
    watch.
        I do think we really do want to see economic development in
    the Balkans. And the more of it that can be done regionally,
    the more important it is, because they there are not that many
    people that live in the region. The countries are small, and
    some kind of cooperation economically would help everybody.
        Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I agree with you
    100 percent.
        Mr. Bugajski.
        Mr. Bugajski. Yes. I would simply add that it is important
    to look at the impact of the pandemic in the region. I mean,
    even after the vaccine is distributed and taken, assuming there
    are no other strains of this virus in the near future, the
    long-term economic impact is quite devastating through most of
    Europe but particularly in the Balkans. They are going to need
    a lot of assistance from the European Union, a lot of
    assistance from us, as well as the conditions for private
    investment.
        But there are also, I would say, social and political
    implications of economic disruption. I mean, it sort of
    encourages nationalism. It encourages conflicts in the region.
    It encourages populists. And it also encourages foreign actors,
    bad actors who want to undermine security in the region. And
    this is where I believe Russia and China come in.
        Russia, by the way, is more of a short-term danger. I would
    say China is a longer term threat. It will have ups and downs.
    Of course, a lot depends on its own internal economic
    performance and its ability to actually construct this Belt and
    Road Initiative. But we need to push back. We cannot become
    complacent.
        I think investments, whether through development funds with
    the European Union, working closely with the United States, as
    well as making conditions to attract private investment, I
    think that is essential, legal conditions, bureaucratic
    conditions, you know, local conditions and so forth.
        This is why I think the economic--establishing closer
    economic relations in Kosovo and Serbia is important, but I
    think they can only be fully equal once the two States
    recognize each other. And the sort of nontariff barriers on
    Kosovo goods have to be lifted and both countries need to
    recognize each other's paperwork, each other's legitimacy. I
    think all that would help us to fight back against very
    nefarious Russian and Chinese influence.
        Mr. McCaul. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. McCaul.
        Mr. Sherman.
        Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chairman, it has been an honor to serve
    with you on this committee for decades. You are a hero in
    Kosovo, you are a hero in Albania, and you are a hero in room
    2172. Thank you for your years of dedication and leadership.
    You are leaving the committee in good hands, those of Greg
    Meeks and Mike McCaul, and I look forward to extraordinary
    contributions on this committee in the future under that
    leadership.
        One observation about Kosovo, and that is America often is
    accused of being anti-Muslim. Nothing could be further from the
    truth, and nothing could illustrate that to a greater degree
    than the fact that we bombed a Christian country in order to
    preserve the Kosovars and to prevent ethnic cleansing. And that
    story needs to be repeated again and again throughout the
    Muslim world by both the United States and Kosovo.
        I hope that we get time to focus on Bulgaria and Greece in
    this hearing on the Balkans, but, naturally, we are focusing
    our attention on the former Yugoslavia. As I turn to my
    questions, I realize this may be the last time I ask my
    questions immediately after the gentleman from the Bronx and
    maybe the last time I get to ask questions immediately before
    the gentleman from Queens.
        Following the 2016 coup attempt in Turkey, Erdogan blamed
    the followers of Imam Gulen. Bosnian officials were reportedly
    pressured to shutter schools that had ties to Gulen's movement.
    Then in 2016, six Turkish nationals were arrested in Kosovo and
    secretly extradited to Turkey. We know that there were false
    charges issued by the Turkish Government, and as a result,
    journalists, human rights defenders, and politicians associated
    with Gulen and others who would like to see a greater degree of
    democracy in Turkey have been subject to pressure or arrest.
        Secretary Albright, does Turkey continue to pressure
    countries in the Balkans, both with regard to harboring any
    Turkish national that Erdogan does not like and with regard to
    other matters?
        Ms. Albright. Congressman, I am very concerned about
    Turkey's behavior generally. In terms of the kind of activities
    that Erdogan is undertaking, it raises--I hope we spend more
    time at some point really talking about what their role is,
    what is happening in NATO as a result of Turkish behavior and
    buying Russian arms. And I do believe that there are isolated
    cases of pressure that the Erdogan government is putting on
    other governments.
        But I think that one has to be very careful not to kind of
    fall into a trap where some people are saying that, all of a
    sudden, the Muslim population in Kosovo is being manipulated
    from the outside, that it is not thinking about what is
    happening to the people of Kosovo, but that they are under
    pressure. They have been dealing I think very positively with
    some people that went to fight on with ISIL and bringing some
    of them back in order to have them understand what has been
    happening in the country.
        But I do think that, on a general answer, the role of
    Erdogan is something that is very troubling in so many
    different ways, of its relationship with Greece, what it is
    trying to do in the Balkans, and what it is doing in the Middle
    East, and something that is definitely worth a closer look by
    this committee of yours which has to deal with the various
    repercussions of it, not just in the Balkans but generally.
        Mr. Sherman. And Turkish actions recently in the Caucasus.
        The President of Serbia has deepened military ties with
    Moscow. Should the United States also pursue deeper military
    ties with Serbia to try to wean them away from Moscow or should
    we avoid that? And should Serbia be sanctioned for its
    purchases of Russian military equipment, which could constitute
    a violation of U.S. sanctions laws against Russia, particularly
    CAATSA? Madam Secretary?
        Ms. Albright. Well, I do think we need to look much more at
    what is happening in terms of the purchase of Russian military
    equipment generally, and I think it is something that is
    subject to sanctioning and trying to understand what they are
    buying.
        And I think we also need to look at--and this is a really
    hard question in terms of not just Serbia, but as I said
    earlier, what Turkey is doing as a NATO member, using our arms
    and the Russian at the same time for activities that do not
    respond to what is necessary in the region. I think this is
    something that bears very much investigation and action by
    Congress.
        Mr. Sherman. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. Sherman.
        Mr. Chabot.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        My wife sent me to the post office in my district this past
    Saturday to buy postage stamps for our Christmas cards. And it
    was mentioned earlier by the ranking member that not only do
    you have a street but postage stamps. And I know you are
    Jewish, but I would have been proud to purchase those stamps if
    they were legal here in the U.S., which I am assuming they are
    not coming out of here.
        But you deserve tremendous credit for your leadership on
    this committee for so many years, particularly as chairman. I
    am proud to have served on this committee with you for two and
    a half decades now, and I wish you nothing but the best for the
    future. And you are a great Member, a great friend, great
    chairman, and I wish you nothing but the best in the future.
        Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chabot.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
        And I will go first to Mr. Bugajski. How has Putin used his
    U.N. Security Council veto to complicate efforts to normalize
    relations between Kosovo and Serbia?
        Mr. Bugajski. Thank you very much for the question. Well,
    basically, Russian Federation continues to block Kosovo's
    membership in the United Nations through its veto powers in the
    U.N. General Assembly. It is on the one hand backing Serbia's
    position now not to recognize Kosovo, but it is also exploiting
    the fact that it has that power over entry of any country into
    international institutions to raise its own stature. And I
    think, actually, it does Serbia a disservice, because the more
    Serbia becomes dependent on Russia for such things as blockages
    in international institutions, the more it will become
    dependent in other areas, diplomatic, political, economic,
    military, as we have already discussed.
        Blockage of any governments that we recognize I think is
    destructive for stability in the region. Five European Union
    States, by the way, also do not recognize Kosovo's
    independence. And I think here the incoming Administration can
    also play a role in persuading them that the future is Kosovo's
    independence--I mean, it is independent now, but its full
    membership in international organizations--and to persuade
    governments, specifically the Greek Government, which I think
    has acted very well in terms of the agreement it had with
    Macedonia, now North Macedonia, something we did notexpect a
    few years ago. And I think the Greek Government behaved very
    astutely, very bravely to come to that agreement. There is no
    reason why Greece cannot recognize Kosovo. It already
    recognizes the paperwork and so forth.
        And, of course, countries that we really helped in the
    past, Slovakia, Romania, these countries should also be
    recognizing Kosovo. And I think if there is a flow of
    recognitions in the European Union, that will help, I think,
    increase pressure on Russia to waive that veto power in the
    future in the United Nations.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Bugajski.
        And with my remaining time, let me followup with another
    question. Among other measures, the U.S.-brokered agreement
    that Kosovo signed in September included mutual diplomatic
    recognition of Israel, while Serbia pledged to move its embassy
    in Israel to Jerusalem. Could you describe why those measures
    are so significant?
        Mr. Bugajski. Well, I think, first of all, they are
    significant for Kosovo, because one of the things that Serbia
    has been doing is not only blocking entry of the country into
    international institutions, but mounting an international
    campaign of derecognition. In other words, they have persuaded,
    mostly through bribery, they have persuaded several countries
    in Oceania and even in Central America to derecognize Kosovo.
        Second, I would say that it is important for Kosovo itself
    to be recognized by a country like Israel. The Holocaust, of
    course, defines in many respects the importance of why the
    Jewish people need their own independent State. The ethnic
    cleansing or attempted genocide of the Kosovo population just
    25 years ago in a way defines for the Kosovo people the
    importance of having their own independent State. So at the
    symbolic political level, that is also extremely important.
        It also frees up, I would say, this U.S., let's say,
    advance in terms of helping to persuade other countries to
    recognize Kosovo. And, on the other hand, of course, for Israel
    it is extremely important as well. And it is extremely
    important for Israel to have the embassy in Jerusalem, which is
    traditionally viewed as the capital of Israel.
        And Serbia, I have not heard the latest on whether they
    have actually accepted this. They did sign it. Hopefully, they
    will go through with it.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I yield back.
        Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chabot. Thank you for the
    kind words.
        I now will call on a very good friend of mine for many
    years, someone who will succeed me as the chairman of this
    wonderful committee. Our districts are not far from each other.
    It is probably about a 20-minute cab ride from one district to
    another, maybe a half hour at most.
        And let me just say that I am glad that Mr. Meeks will be
    chairing this committee, because I know with him the committee
    is in good hands. We have through the years traveled together,
    talked about issues together. His philosophy is very much like
    mine when it comes to these issues, and he is well steeped in
    the issues that this committee will carry. I am delighted to
    see him as my successor, and I know that he will do a wonderful
    job. And we have traveled together, as I said, and have been
    personal friends for many, many years. And in my hours of need,
    he has always been there for me, and vice versa.
        So I want to just congratulate him, look forward to working
    with him, and now call on the next chairman of this wonderful
    committee, Mr. Gregory Meeks.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for those
    words.
        And becoming the chair of this committee is bittersweet. It
    is bitter because you are my great friend and you have done a
    tremendous job as chair of this committee. We talk often. We
    strategize often. And I would like to say that will not change,
    so that I will continue to lean upon you and the experiences
    that you have had in your many great years as a Member of the
    U.S. Congress and as the chair of this committee and a member
    of this committee.
        We do have similar backgrounds. Many people do not realize
    that we both come from public housing. And as a result of that,
    we come with a specific type of view, world view on how we can
    make this place a better place. And you definitively, Mr.
    Chairman, have made the world a better place. And that is why
    you have streets named after you and stamps with your face on
    them is because you have made a significant contribution to
    this place that we call Earth, the United States and all over.
    And I thank you for that leadership, and I look forward to our
    continuing friendship as we move forward. And, as I say, you
    will be getting phone calls from me quite often. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman, for all that you have done.
        Chairman Engel. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Meeks. I
    am really, really touched and look forward, again, to continue
    working together. We served together in Albany in the State
    legislature, and we, of course, served in Washington for many,
    many years. And you have been a very welcome and important
    member of this committee in so many ways for so many times.
    And, as I said before, I feel a lot better knowing that this
    committee is going to be in good hands. So congratulations.
        And, of course, as in the past, whatever I can do to help
    you or help the committee, all you have to do is call on me. We
    have traveled together to many different places and our
    philosophies are very, very similar, if not the same. So I look
    forward to seeing you flourish, Mr. Chairman. And whatever I
    can do to help, as you know, all you have to do is call.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you.
        Chairman Engel. So I call on you now to--if you have any
    questions you would like to ask, please go ahead and do so.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Let me first say that, you know, as far as foreign policy
    is concerned, one of the things that I think is important for
    us to understand is that if we do America First, that means we
    can get mistrust in our allies, and in this case, our European
    allies. If we do America alone, then we are not at the table
    and you have no one to lead.
        Leadership means bringing people along with you. Leadership
    means getting buy-in from others. You are not a leader if you
    are just doing it for yourself. And so, as I look at this
    issue, I think it is important for us to realize that we need
    the EU to do more, and we have got to make sure that we are
    leading them in that direction.
        So my question will be to you, Madam Secretary. You know,
    the European Union was not as large of an actor 25 years ago
    when you helped usher in peace in the region. In fact, my very
    first hard vote, the tough vote that I had was the year after I
    was elected to Congress. I got elected in 1998, and this was a
    very controversial vote, because when you decide that you are
    going to bomb a region, it is important. But I know and learned
    then early on that to stop atrocities is important. And I voted
    for what you led and directed and helped with President
    Clinton, because it was very important humanitarian causes and
    I think it was the right thing to do.
        But now, regardless of what one feels about the EU, we need
    them, I believe, if we want to get some progress here
    economically and politically. So my question is--and I think
    that everyone is talking about it--how can we and the Biden
    Administration better cooperate and work with Brussels, but,
    most importantly, where and how should we push them? Where are
    the right buttons to push them to be a part and how should we
    do that?
        Ms. Albright. Well, I will soon be calling you Mr. Chairman
    officially. I am delighted that you are going to have the role,
    and I look forward to working closely with you.
        Let me just say, I think that we need to recognize that one
    of the leverage aspects in terms of behavior change among these
    countries is that they are eager to get into the European
    Union. Therefore, I think it is important for us to cooperate
    with the European Union.
        And some of the criticisms that I have had of the recent
    activities, including what just happened in the talks that were
    held in Washington, they had not been coordinated with the
    European Union. And I think that we need to work with them and
    try to figure out what the various leverage points are in terms
    of democratic behavior, the partnerships you are talking about,
    and the fact that we, in fact, our strength, is operating with
    others. That is what the force multiplier is.
        And I have to say, I always love to talk about what we did
    in Bosnia and Kosovo, because it is a combination of diplomacy
    and the use of force and the economic tools. It is really using
    every kind of leverage that we have, and I think in doing it in
    partnership with the Europeans is a very important point. And
    the more that we partner with the European Union, that will be
    a strength in other parts of the world.
        We were talking about China and Russia. I think if we are
    concerned about their behavior, by doing it, making our points
    in combination with the European Union is a sign of similar
    values, operating together, understanding how to use the tools
    that are available to policymakers. So I think it is a very
    important part of the next stage here.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you. And let me just ask real quick, I
    know I am about to run out of time, because in similar matters,
    EU member Bulgaria is blocking North Macedonia over ethnicity
    and language issues after they assuaged Greek concerns over
    name issues. Bulgaria questions Macedonia's identity and
    language.
        So how can the Biden-Harris Administration work with our
    allies in Brussels to ensure that the EU hopefuls of the
    Western Balkans are not being held in the waiting room by its
    neighbors?
        Ms. Albright. I think we have to make that very clear, that
    that is part of it. And, by the way, I find this, having spent
    so much time in terms of the name issue for what is now
    Northern Macedonia--when I was at the United Nations, we called
    it the FYROM, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Nobody
    ever knew what we were talking about.
        And the fact that the Greeks were able to come to an
    agreement and this has been worked on so hard, I think it is a
    tragedy in so many ways that the Bulgarians, for their domestic
    reasons, have taken this up. And they need to be--that needs to
    be raised, if they really are--how they fulfill their
    membership duties.
        So I think it is a very important issue that undermines
    what we are trying to do generally in the Balkans is to get
    cooperation in terms of economic and political issues.
        Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I believe my time
    has expired.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I look
    forward to working with you.
        Mr. Perry.
        Mr. Perry. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We are going
    to miss your service here. Not to say that we will not enjoy
    our friend Greg Meeks, which we have a lot of spirited
    conversations in the locker room and otherwise.
        But that having been said, Mr. Bugajski, I am wondering, it
    has been 25 years since the Dayton Accords, which were supposed
    to be a transitional arrangement to allow Bosnia to work out
    its differences without war, without the violence and the
    conflict, and come up with some better form of government that
    served them all well, but it has turned into the de facto
    government over time. And even after 2 years now, it is my
    understanding that they have yet to form--2 years since their
    most recent election, they have yet to form a government.
        Their parliament has not met I do not think one time, one
    single session. The people of Bosnia are required to fund 13
    different governments and parliaments and this rotating trio
    presidency and a total of 149 ministries. To the extent that 40
    percent of employed workers over the--or there is a brain drain
    where 40 percent of employed workers are over the age of 50,
    and 20 percent of the inhabitants of the country are on a
    pension.
        What do you surmise is the legitimate--you know, and that
    does not even mention what China is doing, what Russia is doing
    inside the country with a vacuum of governance, so to speak.
    What do you predict will be the long-term outcome of what seems
    to be a country that is stuck in time at the moment?
        Mr. Bugajski. Thank you very much for that question. I do
    not think any status quo lasts indefinitely, particularly when
    the country has been so battered by economic distress as a
    result of the pandemic. As you said, it is stuck in a sort of
    vortex of bureaucracyfiefdoms, corruption, favoritism, and
    nationalism, that sooner or later, that something is going to
    give, something is going to explode.
        And I think it is very important for us to engage in a
    major reform process, working together with the European Union,
    to construct a proper constitution. Remember, Dayton was meant
    to end the war and to give everybody a stake in the country. It
    was not intended to lay the groundwork for entry into
    international institutions through a fully functional
    authoritative State.
        So I think we need to work--and I mention this in the
    testimony--on constitutional reform, administrative reform. Dan
    has mentioned this, which I think is a good idea, it is a long-
    term process of actually curtailing the entities which combat
    unity, which oppose unity, as well as some of the internal
    arrangements, some of these layers of bureaucracy in government
    that simply Bosnia cannot afford and nobody can afford at this
    point.
        Without that, what I fear is that at some point the
    nationalists in the Republika Srpska are basically waiting for
    the moment that this is no longer viable and they then break
    away from Bosnia and declare an independent State, and Russia
    will back them. And it puts, of course, Serbia in a very
    difficult position. We need to avoid that scenario, because
    that will be bloody. This time I think we need to prevent a war
    by acting early rather than coming in after the war already
    begins.
        Dr. Serwer. If I may followup on that, I agree entirely
    with Janusz. I think we have to be aware, though, that the
    Europeans have some very important cards to play in Bosnia and
    Herzegovina. One is a lot of money, and they can use that money
    to influence things there.
        The second is troops. We do not have a significant--we may
    have a few soldiers, but we do not have a significant troop
    presence. Even the European troop presence is very small. The
    problem is it is spread out all over the country. It needs to
    be where the war might occur, where secession by Republika
    Srpska can be prevented. And that happens to be this
    northeastern town of Brcko, which was the site of some of the
    most fierce fighting during the 1990's war. And so all of them
    should be put there. They should have clear backing by NATO as
    well.
        We can influence events in Bosnia and Herzegovina also by
    being very clear that if there is a popular movement for
    constitutional reform, that it will be protected, that it will
    not be repressed, as several popular movements that arose in
    recent years have been repressed. We cannot be permitting that
    to happen. And Europe has strong influence, due to the money
    and the troops. We have strong influence because of our history
    with Bosnia and Herzegovina. Together, I think we can help to
    promote the idea of constitutional reform, which is
    fundamental.
        I really do not think that any change in the electoral
    system or any administrative changes will suffice to fix Bosnia
    at this point. The Dayton agreements are based in the
    constitution and it is the constitution that needs to be
    changed.
        Mr. Perry. I thank the witnesses. Having spent a year in
    uniform in Brcko, I agree with your assessment, at least
    broadly speaking.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
        Chairman Engel. Thank you.
        Mr. Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me join with
    my colleagues in wishing you the very best and thanking you for
    your long service to the Congress and certainly to our
    committee. You have set a standard of decency and civility that
    I wish governed all committees in Congress. And I know Mr.
    McCaul helped abide by that spirit and that ethos, and I
    appreciate both of you doing that. And thank you, and I wish
    you all the best as you branch out on new endeavors. And I know
    you can look back on your career here in Congress with great
    pride, and you should.
        Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. Connolly.
        Mr. Connolly. Mr. Bugajski, I was really almost--I was
    really struck by your observation that long term in the
    Balkans, particularly in Serbia, the Russians are going to
    continue to be influential, but the longer term influence to
    watch is that of China.
        And when I look at sort of history, right, that is an
    extraordinary thing to say. I mean, who would ever have thought
    the Chinese would be a dominant influence in the Balkans, say,
    20 years ago or certainly 100 years ago? I mean, it was Czarist
    Russia that helped determine the beginning of World War I, in
    coming to the aid of Serbia against the Austro-Hungarian and
    German response to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.
        So I am not questioning that, but I wanted to give you an
    opportunity to expand. What did you mean by that? Why do you
    think longer term in the Balkans it is Chinese influence we
    need to be focused on?
        Mr. Bugajski. Thank you very much for that question. Let me
    begin with why Russia is not a longer term danger. Russia is a
    country in serious decline, economic decline. Its economy is
    the size of a medium-size European State. China has the second
    largest economy in the world. Russia has internal problems with
    its nationalities, with its regions, with increasing public
    unrest, with increasing opposition to Putin. There may even be
    power struggles during the secession period over the next 4
    years. Russia faces major internal problems.
        China, on the other hand, unless, of course, there is
    opposition to the Chinese Communist Party from within, is in a
    different stage. It continues to be a very dynamic country in
    terms of its economic growth. It does not face the sort of
    internal contradictions and conflicts that Russia does, and it
    is increasingly--and China has always looked at the longer
    term. In other words, it is not--they do not even have to look
    at secession cycles, because of the dominance of the Communist
    Party.
        But they are looking eventually to replace Russia as the
    major rival of the United States. And the best way to do that
    is to increase their influence, not only militarily in East
    Asia, South Asia, and other parts of the world, but
    economically, politically, diplomatically, culturally, and
    through the media.
        And it is precisely what they are doing, not only in
    Europe, but in other continents. But because Europe is our
    concern here, and the Balkans in particular, this needs to be
    watched very, very carefully over the coming years.
        One other thing I would add, how Russia and China cooperate
    in terms of undermining U.S. influence and the European Union
    and NATO and so forth, that is something that needs to be very
    carefully watched, scrutinized. And I hope our intelligence
    services are also looking at the connections between Chinese
    and Russian intelligence services and how they work to
    undermine the West.
        Mr. Connolly. Two points about that. One is you can add--in
    terms of Russia's diminishment as a power, you should also add
    the demographic imperative. I mean, the shrinkage of Russia's
    population over the next 40 or 50 years is unbelievably
    dramatic, and that is going to create a whole set of issues on
    top of everything else you listed.
        And I really appreciate your perspective on China. I would
    just point out that I just did a white paper for NATO, NATO
    Parliamentary Assembly on China. And what is so striking is
    that, frankly, NATO documents do not even acknowledge China
    exists, let alone that there is a challenge or a threat until
    the last few years. I mean, if you go back 10, 20 years, no
    NATO document even acknowledges China as an entity, let alone a
    clearly emerging world power. So I think you are quite right to
    be focused on China and its growing influence in theaters we
    are not used to their playing in.
        And building on that, Madam Secretary, you talked about
    maybe China is reevaluating whether it can afford the BRI, the
    Belt and Road Initiative. Let me try out, from a foreign policy
    point of view, sort of a contrarian view that may have some
    validity, and that is that putting aside whether they can
    afford it or want to continue with it, that in many ways it is
    a double-edged sword for them; that when they, you know, sort
    of entrap nations into their fiscal web, there is a lot of
    resentment. There are a lot of debt management issues. Look at
    Sri Lanka and Hambantota. And, you know, you get shoddy
    workmanship. You get only Chinese labor often, and you get a
    debt overhang that really cripples a country.
        And over time, could that create a backlash? So instead of
    building goodwill, actually, China loses ground with a lot of
    these countries. I do not mean by that that we should not
    compete or we should not be concerned, but isn't there another
    aspect that is potentially negative for China that maybe we
    have an opportunity to examine and to work with? Your views.
        Ms. Albright. Well, thank you. I have to say I was very
    surprised in reading about what--can you hear me?
        Mr. Connolly. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Albright [continuing]. Reading that this morning,
    because I have been saying that the Chinese must be getting
    very fat, because the belt keeps getting larger and larger.
    They are everywhere. They have been in Venezuela and a number
    of places.
        I do think, however, that we may be overestimating their
    economic prowess in terms of what is happening to them at home.
    And so I believe it is going to be very important for all of
    you and the executive branch to keep very close track of what
    China is doing in its own region. The most recent regional
    trade agreement with southeast Asia that went through, we were
    not a part of it. They are not giving up on having an extended
    influence.
        The other point that you raised, from the things that I
    have seen, they have run into problems in countries where they
    have gone. They initially in some of the countries, in Africa,
    for instance, when they wanted to build a road, we had
    environmental problems and they said, where do you want it? And
    the countries were eager to accept it. And then they found that
    they were part of a debt trap or that the workers on it were
    Chinese that were imported, so it did notincrease their labor
    productivity. And they are beginning to see the problems.
        And so I think that what is going to have to happen, we are
    going to be very astute in looking at what the threat is from
    the Chinese, more nuanced, frankly. I mean, they will be
    adversaries, competitors, and cooperators in some things. And I
    think it is going to be major, and it is something that we need
    to have agreements with and cooperation with the Europeans,
    which had not been happening.
        So I do think--but they are trying to--it has been
    fascinating to follow some of the things they have been doing
    in Europe, because they have been connecting. They have been
    buying ports or investing in major industries that are basic to
    the existence of X countries.
        So I am not willing to say this has all changed, but what I
    find interesting is a questioning. And there is generally a
    questioning by the Chinese of how the United States is going to
    operate in the Biden Administration.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. Connolly.
        Mr. Yoho.
        Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to get
    one of those stamps with your face on them before you leave. It
    has been a pleasure working with you.
        I find this a very interesting hearing. And I think Mr.
    Connolly, the last speaker, talking about China, I think where
    we have seen China really step up is after the 19th Chinese
    Communist Party in 2017, when Xi Jinping very bluntly and
    boldly said, it is time for China to take the world's center
    stage. And I think we have seen that escalate, and I think we
    are seeing the materialization of that.
        Secretary Albright, you were talking about the ability to
    go in and do these infrastructure projects and partnering up
    with the EU. And we can look what happened in the past, I mean,
    we have got to remember that. Where can we make a significant
    change or difference in this region, partnering with the
    countries that want to, that recognize Kosovo, and those
    countries in the EU that also recognize those?
        Actually, that is for everybody out there, the three
    witnesses. We will start with you, Secretary Albright.
        Ms. Albright. Well, I do think that we need to recognize
    that we have common aims here. It is to make the Balkans a
    stable place where ethnic fighting is not the major aspect and
    then as it is coupled with corruption. That is really what has
    happened in Bosnia is that there has been a capturing of the
    State by those that do not have an incentive to have a
    democratic system, but in order to make the most money that
    they can off the divisions that are there. And the Europeans
    have the same goal. And so I think we need to figure out how we
    can operate through a variety of diplomatic means.
        And then I do believe in the role of the private sector in
    many ways in developing civil society, helping with education,
    working in order to improve the living standards of people
    there so that they have a stake in what is going on.
        The real issue--and I meant to bring this up in probably
    every answer--is we think that--it was not easy to get the U.S.
    involved in trying to do something in Bosnia and Kosovo. The
    Europeans were not interested. It took a while for the United
    States to get interested. Once we were, we did manage to end
    ethnic cleansing, but we did not really manage to stay involved
    enough in terms of looking at the evolution of these countries
    that have had a complex historical background.
        And I think that that is how we have to look at things, in
    partnership with the Europeans, to make them all normal
    countries that will want to function to help their own people
    and not just themselves as corrupt officials.
        Mr. Yoho. Okay. Dr. Serwer?
        Dr. Serwer. Yes. I wonder if I could focus a little bit on
    Serbia, because I think Serbia is vital in both Bosnia and
    Herzegovina and Kosovo. So if Serbia were more cooperative, all
    the issues in the Balkans would be easier to resolve.
        There is leverage that the Europeans have on Serbia,
    frankly, more than the Americans. I think the Americans are
    relatively marginal. I do think we should be very clear with
    Serbia about its destabilizing efforts in Bosnia with Kosovo
    and in Montenegro now as well. But it is the Europeans who have
    the purse strings with respect to Serbia, and they have shown
    some willingness to begin to use them. The Europeans have
    decided that there will be no further opening of chapters of
    the accession negotiations this year due to Serbia's turn in
    the Russian and Chinese direction. Though they do not actually
    say that, that is the tacit understanding.
        Mr. Yoho. Let me add something else here. The border
    disputes--and I know this went against the grain when President
    Trump said that he would be willing to look at those two
    countries, looking at their border disputes. How much does the
    border disputes come into the conflict that they have now? And
    if you would answer quickly on that, we will let Mr. Bugajski
    answer too.
        Dr. Serwer. There is no border dispute. The border boundary
    is well understood where it is. It was a question of whether
    they wanted to exchange territory----
        Mr. Yoho. Right.
        Mr. Serwer [continuing]. And human beings. And that
    proposition has been unpopular in Serbia, in Kosovo, throughout
    the region, and in the United States. It is a very bad idea
    that risks reigniting violence.
        Mr. Yoho. Okay. Mr. Bugajski, do you have any thoughts on
    either one of those questions, development and the borders?
        Mr. Bugajski. Yes. Thanks very much. Regarding borders, I
    fully agree with Dan. I think any attempt to change borders to
    exchange territory is going to have a very negative ripple
    effect throughout the region. You are going to encourage
    nationalists and irredentists to claim territory in neighboring
    States. You are going to have a lot of uncertainty about what
    the final arrangements will be. No investors are going to come
    in when borders seem to be unsettled. So you are going to
    create the sort of mess that only Russia will benefit from.
        Mr. Yoho. Okay.
        Mr. Bugajski. Well, maybe some nationalists also. So I do
    not think it is a good idea at all.
        A very quick point. I think we tend to forget that when we
    talk about European Union, European Union is also NATO. These
    are our European allies. We have to work together in NATO as
    well as working at the institutional and financial level in
    European Union.
        One of the things I think is extremely important, we cannot
    withdraw the limited number of troops we have in Germany. We
    need to strengthen our contingence. We need to remain in Kosovo
    until Kosovo is a member of NATO, which eventually it should
    be. And we should wean Serbia away from too much dependence on
    Russia. I mean, if we follow those guidelines, I think we are
    going to strengthen the region.
        Mr. Yoho. Thank you. I am out of time.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. Yoho.
        Mr. Deutch.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman, let
    me start by joining in my colleagues in expressing my deep
    appreciation to you for your decades of service to your
    constituents in the House, but especially to your leadership of
    the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Whether those in Kosovo,
    those of us who so strongly support the U.S.-Israel
    relationship and the pursuit of a two-State solution and those
    who care about human rights all around the globe, your
    leadership is something that has left its imprint on this
    committee and on countries all throughout the world. We are
    really grateful for it and better for it as well.
        Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. Deutch. Thank you.
        Mr. Deutch. You are welcome, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Secretary, a longstanding cornerstone of U.S. foreign
    policy both here and in Congress and in the executive branch
    where you worked is promoting democratic institutions and
    values. And since the early seventies, every Administration,
    Democrat and Republican, has leveraged U.S. resources to
    bolster the international community's newest democracies. And
    over the last decade, more than $2 billion in U.S. foreign
    assistance has been allocated each year for democracy promotion
    activities.
        So turning to the Balkans and the issue of China, I want
    just to get your opinion broadly. As we are coming out of the
    Trump Administration and preparing for the Biden
    Administration, I would like to give you the opportunity to
    talk about the importance of democracy promotion, particularly
    as countries in the region face the efforts of the Chinese
    Government to reach out to vulnerable economies with soft
    loans. Montenegro, Serbia, Macedonia, Bosnia, and Herzegovina
    have all been prime targets.
        If you could speak to those efforts, what it means for us
    to push back by promoting democracy and whether we have learned
    anything from the Trump Administration that should dictate the
    direction that the incoming Administration should go.
        Ms. Albright. Thank you very much, Congressman, for that
    question. And I do think that it is essential. America has been
    proud of our democracy and we have, in fact, talked about how
    to promote democracy. You cannot impose democracy. That is an
    oxymoron.
        And I am chairman of the board of the National Democratic
    Institute, an organization that was actually started by
    President Reagan, understanding that democracy had to explain
    itself well.
        We do have offices in Pristina. I was just there, not this
    last summer, the summer before, with President Clinton. And to
    followup on something that the chairman said, I have never been
    to a country that has been so grateful to the United States in
    my entire life as when we were in Pristina, with the flags and
    the people cheering.
        But I think that the importance of democracy is that it
    establishes a rule of law. It does, in fact, allow for
    corrections if there are mistakes. It does develop a civil
    society that wants to participate, and it does, in fact, create
    a way for problem-solving that the people are involved in. And
    so I think it is very important. There are those who wonder why
    is it good for the United States.
        By the way, you and I did just spend some time dealing with
    the Truman scholars, the Truman Foundation, and talking about
    President Truman and what he had done, especially in this part
    of the world, with the Truman Doctrine and caring about what
    was happening with Greece and Turkey and a fight for democracy
    against the spreading of communism.
        So this is not something new. It is in our DNA in many ways
    to do something. And I do think the following thing, just to
    put two things together: I think that democracy and economic
    development go together also, because, as I put it, people want
    to vote and eat. And democracy has to deliver.
        And I think understanding the complexity of the building of
    civil society, the rule of law, education, and the
    possibilities for people to participate is in America's--it is
    good for America and it is good for the people, and it is
    especially good if we can do it in partnership with others.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        I only have a few seconds left, so, Mr. Chairman, let me
    thank Secretary Albright and also our other witnesses, Dr.
    Serwer, Dr. Bugajski. This has been an exceptional panel and
    discussion, and I hope before we finish we will get to hear a
    little bit more about the ways that the U.S. Government can
    counter Russian propaganda and disinformation in the Balkans,
    since we have two great experts who will be able to speak to
    that as well.
        But for now I will yield back. Thank you so much.
        Chairman Engel. Thank you, Mr. Deutch.
        Mr. Kinzinger.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, I have
    said it before, but I want to say again, working with you has
    been an absolute pleasure. I appreciate your leadership on the
    committee, your attempts to reach bipartisan solutions when we
    can. And I think your legacy will certainly live on in this
    committee, I hope. So thank you for the great work.
        And I appreciate you holding this hearing, because I think
    it is an area that we have sometimes forgotten about that is
    extremely important. And I think Europe has forgotten about it
    sometimes until we have to, it confronts us. And I want to
    thank all the panelists for being here as well.
        My first question I will direct to Secretary Albright.
    Thank you for doing this. Thank you for your many years of
    service. We have been talking a lot about, you know, China
    increasing their footprint in the Western Balkans, but I want
    to ask you specifically why. I think it is important. What is
    their strategic goal here in the end state, if you would not
    mind?
        Ms. Albright. Thank you very much, Congressman. And I have
    to say, in bipartisanship, it has been a pleasure working with
    you. Thank you very much for everything that you have been
    doing.
        I do think that the Chinese are trying to show that they do
    have a world grasp, that they do have interests. They are
    trying, in fact, to expand their reach. But I also do think
    that they are looking for very specific aspects in terms of
    working on energy issues, because they have an energy problem
    themselves.
        They are trying to sort out how to strengthen their own
    capabilities abroad, one in partnerships, but also what they
    can do to extricate whether they are valuable minerals or
    special materials. They are not doing it just in terms of being
    altruistic. They are reaching into other countries to link them
    to the Chinese system and also to get things that they need for
    their own economy.
        I do think that they are experiencing problems. I think we
    need to understand that. And we need to develop policies that
    make it clear to them that they cannot do the kinds of things
    that they are doing and that we have also an awful lot of
    influence and that it is a different kind of polar system that
    we are involved in.
        We are not going back to the status quo ante, no matter
    what. We are living in a different era where there are
    different tools. They know they are very good at some of the--
    obviously, on new technology, on cyber, what they are doing in
    terms of propaganda with Huawei, a whole host of other tools
    that they are using that we need to be more conscious of.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Well, thank you. And I think, you know,
    Western Balkan countries joining CCC's Initiative as an
    alternative to investment from China and Russia would be
    important. I will come back to that if I have time, but I do
    want to ask Mr. Bugajski, how can the U.S.--I am going to go
    off what Mr. Deutch kind of teed up here a little bit. How can
    the U.S. help push back on Russian and Chinese malign influence
    in the Western Balkans, particularly in Serbia, through the
    influence of Sputnik and Russia Today, RT? How can we help to
    push back against that? And if you have any comments on the
    other stuff too, that would be great.
        Mr. Bugajski. Sure. Thanks very much for the question.
    Disinformation, there are tools to counter disinformation in
    the region. I think we need to look at the example of the
    Baltic States who very adroitly, let's say, pushed back on
    Russian disinformation, located the sources, tried to correct
    particularly the most damaging kind of disinformation.
        And in Serbia, it is a little bit more difficult, because
    of the degree of Russian penetration in the media, both in the
    local media but also what they broadcast into the country and
    what is believed by people. We cannot, obviously, fight all
    disinformation, but there needs to be a narrative of truth that
    the West, I think I want to say the West European Union,
    working together with the United States, can help promote. And
    I do not mean at governmental level necessarily, but working
    with local organizations, working with local media, news
    outlets, social networks and so forth.
        There are certain things that are simply not true,
    particularly the propaganda that is pursued by Russian and
    Chinese sources against NATO and the U.S. that can be
    corrected, that can be, let's say, the record straightened. So,
    I mean, there is a lot of work to be done there, and there are
    countries we can learn from.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you.
        Dr. Serwer. May I have a word?
        Mr. Kinzinger. Sure, sure.
        Dr. Serwer. You know, Russian propaganda would not be
    nearly as successful in Serbia if the Serbian Government did
    notwant it to be successful. Frankly, the media there is
    heavily under the thumb of President Vucic. And that is where
    we should direct some of our efforts, to President Vucic and
    making sure that he understands that opening up the media space
    is a vital component of qualifying for membership in the
    European Union.
        I should also add that we are going to need a major revival
    of Voice of America and the other international broadcasting
    agencies after this Administration. They are doing tremendous
    damage, I think, to Voice of America in particular and I would
    like to see it restored. And the idea of getting rid of the
    Balkan Services there has persisted for decades, and that idea
    should be dropped.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you.
        And I will just finish up by saying, you know, not only is
    it providing the structure for that, but also we have to have
    people be responsible for determining what is true and what is
    not. And we see this even in our own country on both sides of
    the aisle, quite honestly, where, you know, people accept the
    news that comports with what makes them feel good and rejects
    the stuff that does not. And you can put facts out there all
    day long, and a fact is always questioned by the person putting
    it out or does not want to agree. But, anyway, that is going to
    be a longer term discussion for many hearings in the future.
        With that, again, Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. Thank
    you to the panel. I yield back.
        Chairman Engel. Thank you very much, Mr. Kinzinger.
        Mr. Keating.
        Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    your service. I think this hearing demonstrates more than any
    words just your commitment and your legacy and the involvement,
    how you have made a difference, not just internationally but
    here at home. I look forward to continuing to work with you on
    these issues and others, which I am sure you will be very
    active in whatever capacity in pursuing. So thank you again,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Engel. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Keating.
        Mr. Keating. You know, we have talked repeatedly about the
    importance of working with the EU, the multiplier effect, how
    important, how they actually are better leveraged than we are
    in many capacities.
        However, as a prerequisite to being as effective as we can
    be, we have got a lot of work to do with the EU first. We are
    involved in tariff disagreements under the guise of security
    concerns. We are not pursuing our own free trade agreement
    there, which in the wake of that kind of agreement will have
    enormous influence on these countries in the Balkans as well as
    countries like Turkey who want to get involved.
        So how important is it that we cleanup some of the areas
    with the EU directly if we are going to be successful in
    working with them in the Balkans? I would ask Secretary
    Albright first.
        Ms. Albright. Well, I think it is a very important
    question, because we have spent more time actually criticizing
    the EU and seeing it as a bunch of faceless bureaucrats, and
    they have their own problems. I mean, it is interesting, in the
    last few days, again, in terms of the way they are operating
    about Brexit and the end of the German presidency, the shifting
    of the EU presidency.
        I do think that we still see them as our major allies in a
    number of different ways. I can tell you personally--because I
    was born in Europe, I seem to get a lot of calls from
    Europeans. And when there was a rebalancing to Asia, a lot of
    the leaders would call me up and they would say, you have
    abandoned us. And I said, no, you used to be the problem, now
    you are part of the solution, and we need to work together on
    other parts of the world. And I think that does need, in fact,
    to be enlarged in a number of ways.
        We and the EU have more in common even when we are not
    operating very well. I do think this has come up a couple of
    times, the relationship between the EU and NATO and whether the
    Europeans have their own defense identity. And the problem
    always is Turkey, because Turkey is in NATO but not in the EU.
        And so there are any number of issues, but I do think more
    time needs to be devoted to figuring out how the EU works and
    what we can do with them, because our major directions are very
    similar, but we cannot just kind of think that we think exactly
    the same on everything. That requires diplomacy. And all we
    have done so far in the last few years is just insult them. So
    I think instead, we might want to figure out what we have in
    common and working together.
        Mr. Keating. I think trade and economic development are
    helpful. But the coronavirus has really, awful as it has been,
    it has laid bare some of the weaknesses we have in common, not
    just with Balkans, with our European allies and ourselves. We
    have weaknesses in the production chain, and we are working in
    the U.S. to have our own independent production chain of bare
    minerals, and many of the other medicines and other things we
    need, but it provides an opportunity.
        Besides just having our own independent chain, having
    European Union allies have their chain, I think there should be
    a secondary ring of security on having production chain,
    valuable medicines, agreements, byproducts and it provides an
    opportunity for us to work together again.
        And this is something that came up, I believe, in your
    testimony, Madam Secretary, or one of the one of the witnesses
    today, that that is an issue here. People are recognizing that,
    and the dependence on China, in particular, and how this would
    be an opportunity to work together.
        Ms. Albright. I do believe that we need to see this as an
    opportunity, and I think that the pandemic has, in fact, proven
    the importance of having more cooperative activity. And, as I
    said, we are in a new era. There are new tools we need to
    figure out how to operate in the third decade of the 21st
    century. That what is we are doing and developing, trying to
    figure out which institutional structures work, which require
    some refurbishing and fixing. And I hope that that is something
    that the Biden Administration, with your help, is going to take
    up as an activity to really be ready for this part of the time.
        Mr. Keating. Well, thank you.
        And I would say to all our witnesses that we are--we will
    pursue, as I am sure a full committee, but also as a
    subcommittee, which hopefully I will chair again, dealing with
    the Turkish issue in greater detail.
        Thank you all for your testimony on this important issue.
        And I yield back.
        Dr. Serwer. Congressman, could I possibly add a word here?
        Chairman Engel. Certainly.
        Dr. Serwer. It seems to me the Biden Administration will
    view the EU as a force multiplier, and that is what it is for
    many, many issues. But in the Balkans there is a particular
    problem, and that is that there are five non-recognizing
    countries in the EU that do not recognize Kosovo's
    independence, and it has not been the kind of cohesion that is
    really required.
        The right American approach to that is to do its best to
    cooperate with the EU as a whole, but to make sure that Germany
    and the United States are on the same wavelength, along with
    the U.K., because that combination, U.K., Germany, and the
    United States, has 85 percent of the influence.
        Mr. Keating. Thank you.
        Chairman Engel. I thank you, Mr. Sewer.
        And, Mr. Keating, thank you.
        Mrs. Wagner.
        Mrs. Wagner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for organizing this
    very important hearing.
        And I thank our witnesses for their time, and certainly for
    their expertise.
        I represent the greater St. Louis region which is home to
    the largest Bosnian community outside of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
    Our Bosnian neighbors fled to St. Louis after war criminal,
    Ratko Mladic, initiated that horrific genocide against majority
    Muslim Bosniaks. I am proud that the United States has been a
    force for good in the Western Balkans, and especially in
    Bosnia, where it has promoted strong democratic institutions,
    peace, and prosperity, and the rule of law after years of
    ethnic strife and tragic wars.
        The U.S.-brokered Dayton Accords ended the Bosnia War 25
    years ago, but I am deeply concerned that malign powers--and we
    have discussed it a little bit here, like Russia--fearing
    closer cooperation between the United States, the European
    Union, and Balkan partners, are endangering the progress that
    we have made.
        Russia maintains strong political security and economic
    ties to Bosnian-Serb majority Republika Srpska, and support
    Serb President Dodik in his efforts to resist reform.
        Mr. Bugajski, how does Russian influence in Bosnia
    undermine the Dayton system? And how can the U.S. increase
    Bosnia's resilience to Russian influence?
        Mr. Bugajski. Thank you very much for that question.
        Just I would say this: Just as the separatists in Bosnia
    used the entity system to threaten with separation, Russia uses
    the entity system to undermine Bosnia integrity and its
    progress toward European Union and NATO. Remember, one of
    Russia's main policies is to prevent Bosnia and other countries
    from entering the European Union, from entering NATO. We saw
    this even in the case of Montenegro, where the GRU, the Russian
    military intelligence, promoted a coup d'etat against the duly
    elected government.
        What I fear is in Bosnia, they could also State some kind
    of provocation using, as you said, people like the Republika
    Srpska president on the Bosnia presidency, and other separatist
    voices, maybe even amongst Croats, some of who the nationalists
    is pushing for a third entity, which would also undermine
    Bosnian integrity.
        I would say we need to be very extremely careful of those
    links, those linkages Russia has with the Serbian side, but
    also the Croatian side, and also with some of the Muslim side
    in terms of energy linkages, economic linkages, corruption, the
    supply of weapons, for instance, the Republika Srpska energy. I
    mean, all these areas in which Russia uses, all these tentacles
    that Russia uses to squeeze the country and to keep it
    unstable. I think those need to be cut.
        Mrs. Wagner. Dr. Serwer, I understand Bosnia's progress
    toward NATO membership, and European integration has slowed in
    recent years. But what domestic and international factors are
    preventing Bosnia from making the reforms necessary to join the
    European Union? And how can the United States best support
    Bosnia's reform process?
        Dr. Serwer. It is the Dayton agreements themselves, which
    include the current Constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina, that
    create the problems that Bosnia is facing, the dysfunctional
    governments, in particular, and its inability to move forward
    with the kinds of reforms that EU membership and NATO
    membership demand.
        I do not really see a way out of this. I see ways of
    improving this situation at the margins, but no real way out of
    it, without what would basically be a new Constitution for
    Bosnia-Herzegovina.
        We came very, very close in 2006 to amending the Bosnian
    Constitution in some very important ways. I supervised the
    people who worked on that when I was at U.S. Institute of
    Peace. But the essential reform in that proposition in 2006 is
    still needed today, and that reform is to give the Sarajevo
    Government all of the authority it needs to negotiate and
    implement EU requirements----
        Mrs. Wagner. And--and----
        Mr. Serwer [continuing]. And empower the municipalities to
    deliver services to the citizens.
        Mrs. Wagner. Uh-huh.
        Dr. Serwer. The entities and cantons are the relics of the
    war, and they are just going to have to fade, and eventually, I
    think, disappear in order for Bosnia-Herzegovina to truly
    qualify for EU membership.
        Mrs. Wagner. Secretary Albright, I worry that Russia and
    China are working to drive a wedge between the United States
    and the European Union and the Western Balkans.
        And how should the U.S. and EU deepen engagement with
    Balkan countries in order to most effectively promote rule of
    law, anticorruption measures, and democratic governance?
        Ms. Albright. They definitely try to drive a wedge between
    us, or among us all, and I think partially--this may sound too
    simplistic--we have to pay attention. We have not paid the kind
    of attention that is necessary to this area, feeling kind of,
    Oh, well, we did everything that we could. We--obviously, this
    is a complex evolution and, as been said, Dayton ended the war,
    but it created a fairly crazy system that is very hard to
    follow and the corruption is something that is the problem.
        But we have to pay attention, and we have to understand
    that it is in U.S. national interests to understand what is
    going on, and to use whatever influence we have in terms of
    economic development, in terms of and some conditionality on
    it.
        It is interesting, because as I travel around the United
    States--and I have been to your district--and Bosnians, you
    know, people are very grateful for what we did, and then they
    want to know, now what? So I understand why you are asking the
    questions, because we have not paid the kind of attention that
    is necessary.
        Mrs. Wagner. Thank you.
        And I could not agree more and, yes, we--I get these
    questions all the time from the Bosnian community in St. Louis,
    which we value so very much.
        So I thank you all. I am over my time.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Chairman Engel. I thank you, Mrs. Wagner.
        Mr. Castro.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you, Chairman,
    for all your years of work on Kosovo and the Balkans.
        And thank you to our witnesses, also, for your testimony
    today.
        I have a question about corruption in the Balkans. While
    the Balkan States have made significant progress in certain
    areas since the Yugoslav wars nearly 20 years ago, corruption
    remains a critical challenge. Persistent corruption fuels
    organized crime, enriches narrow interests, and undermines
    democracy. While powerful criminal networks have an
    international reach, and use these countries as important
    smuggling routes, prosecution and final convictions still
    remain weak.
        How can the United States make sure that loans and other
    funds are not used to empower and entrench nationalist leaders,
    and how can we use our financial leverage to ensure
    anticorruption measures are upheld by government authorities?
        And I pose that question to whoever on the panel would like
    to address it.
        Dr. Serwer. Maybe I can say a word about this.
        Congressman, the opposite of corruption is not anti-
    corruption. The opposite of corruption is good governments, and
    good governments depends on having a good system, and the
    system in Bosnia and Herzegovina is opaque and politicians are
    unaccountable, and that is what needs to be changed.
        And I agree with the Secretary completely that America has
    not been paying the kind of attention that it needs to be
    paying in order to improve the situation, nor has the European
    Union, which has much more money at stake in the Balkans than
    we do.
        So we need to pay a whole lot more attention, but we also
    need to change the basic structures that make politicians
    unaccountable to constituencies, and, instead, accountable to
    party bosses who run their political parties in a very opaque
    way.
        And, you know, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the need to be a
    member of a political party in order to get a job, that is just
    the way things are. The same thing happens in Kosovo. So we
    need to break that stranglehold that political parties,
    especially ethnically defined ones, have on the job situation
    that requires economic development, requires reform of the
    government system. It requires in Bosnia and Herzegovina, I
    think, constitutional reform as well.
        So it is not that you are going to have some sort of
    reform--some sort of anticorruption agency. They all have
    anticorruption agencies. That is not what works. What works is
    having a system that is transparent and accountable.
        Mr. Castro. Well, thank you for that.
        And I have got one more question with just under 2 minutes
    left. The NATO mission in Kosovo, KFOR, a NATO peacekeeping
    force in Kosovo since 1999, was authorized through a U.N.
    resolution. This arrangement is a successful way to provide the
    kind of international peacekeeping or peace enforcing work that
    can be helpful. What are the criteria that should be used to
    determine whether the job of KFOR is done and the force can be
    withdrawn, and do you think this peacekeeping arrangement can
    be used elsewhere?
        Ms. Albright. I do think one of the hardest parts is trying
    to figure out when to end the peacekeeping operation, but I do
    think that the very presence of people there shows an interest,
    that, otherwise, if they--if it were ended at the moment, that
    it would be something that would continue to make the people in
    the region think, Well, the rest of the world does not care.
        They are there, they have been very important, and I do
    think that they provide a sense of the outside world seeing
    what the difficulties are and being concerned about any
    outbreak of violence.
        Dr. Serwer. If----
        Mr. Bugajski. If I could just jump in to add one thing.
    Remember the NATO force, including the American contingent, has
    been gradually drawn down since the NATO force came in, in
    1999. So, we are talking about maybe 700 or so U.S. troops in a
    slightly larger, much still multinational contingent. I think
    they have to remain, because they are a strong symbol of our
    commitment to Kosovo's security, to regional security, and to
    the country's independence.
        And I would say this, and followup to what the chairman,
    Chairman Engel, was saying at the beginning. We need to pay
    more attention to building up a security force and defense
    ministry, security force, a security army in Kosovo itself.
    Every country in the region does have a fully functioning army
    that can defend its borders, defend its force.
        Montenegro, for instance, the country, a third of the
    population has its own force. Not large. It has to be
    professional. It has to be small, mobile. In that way, Kosovo
    will be in NATO rather than NATO being in Kosovo eventually. I
    mean, it is going to take time. But that should be an
    objective.
        Dr. Serwer. Exactly. I agree with Janusz.
        I would add, though, that mutual recognition between Serbia
    and Kosovo, and establishment of diplomatic relations I think
    would be an adequate signal to draw down the NATO--the KFOR
    forces even more, and I agree with Janusz also that Kosovo in
    NATO is the ultimate solution to NATO in Kosovo.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you.
        I yield back, Chairman.
        Chairman Engel. I thank you very much.
        Mr. Green.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Hopefully, you guys can hear me okay, and I just want to
    thank Chairman Engel and Ranking Member McCaul for holding this
    hearing.
        And I want to thank our witnesses for testifying before us
    today. I especially want to thank the Secretary for her
    service. I was a young infantry officer, ma'am, when you were
    at the United Nations, beginning to tackle these issues, and I
    appreciate your deep experience.
        As a physician and former military officer, I am alarmed at
    the impact of the Belt and Road Initiative in the Balkans and
    we transition from a unipolar world to a bipolar one. The quest
    for alignment with other nations is critical. We need our
    allies, probably more now than ever, and the Belt and Road
    Initiative is China's understanding of that strategic
    imperative.
        As for the Belt and Road Initiative, nearly all of the
    Balkans nations are participating with significant road
    projects in countries like Montenegro. We have seen this
    initiative used to exploit nations in the past in China's
    acquisition of allies through debt diplomacy. It is especially
    concerning in places like the Balkans where the region's
    history seems to too easily spill into global conflict.
        I am especially concerned in the wake of COVID. COVID-19 is
    devastating these countries right now with the daily case rates
    skyrocketing, and from what I can see, they were at a
    relatively stable number and now they are--their curves look
    like vertical lines, much worse than their peers to the West.
    This impact should have been avoided, had China simply alerted
    the world sooner and not chosen to use its cozy relationship
    with the World Health Organization to hide human-to-human
    transmission. Twenty-five Tennessee National Guardsmen just
    returned from NATO peacekeeping in Kosovo, and reported
    additional difficulties because of the pandemic.
        Countries like this are struggling with hospital capacity,
    and, in fact, Serbia is seeing a massive increase in death of
    elderly leaders, church leaders. Northern Macedonia, or North
    Macedonia has an outdated infrastructure, really bad pollution
    that is severe at this time of the year, and the virus is
    hitting them especially hard when folks are struggling with
    respiratory problems.
        A few quick questions, and Secretary Albright, I have two
    for you. You mentioned earlier, I think, when chairman or
    Ranking Member McCaul was talking about the Belt and Road
    Initiative, that you thought China was abandoning that. I would
    love to get some clarity on that, or a little more detail. And
    then I would love to hear what your thoughts are on how the
    Balkan people are seeing, viewing China in light of the COVID-
    19 virus, and then also get some other folks' opinion on that
    from the panels.
        So thank you, ma'am.
        Ms. Albright. Thank you very much.
        And thank you for your service and having been over there.
        I do think, let me just say the only thing I know about
    what I said is that I just read it in terms of the fact that
    the Chinese are now concerned about the amount that they are
    spending abroad, and the fact that they are blamed for this so-
    called debt trap, and not getting the kind of recognition of
    doing good works, that is, it does look as the selfish thing
    which it really is.
        I do not know if this is something that is really
    happening, or whether it is part of some new propaganda scheme
    of theirs to say, Don't worry about us. We are not really doing
    anything. And so, I do think we need to look into what their
    motivations are. There is no question in the number of
    discussions--and I am sure you have been a part of them--that
    we talk about China, and what is the China threat and how are
    we going to deal with the China threat?
        It is, as interested as I personally am in the Balkans, I
    do think that we need to--we are all going to have to focus on
    the China spread in a number of different ways, because I do
    not think that their activities are benign. They are trying
    to--they are major competitors. They have created this
    pandemic, or have not told us enough about it to be able to
    deal with it. I do think there are some areas where we want to
    cooperate with them, which is on climate change, that it does
    not take a stable genius to figure out that you need more than
    one country to deal with climate change.
        But I do think it is the most difficult issue we have, and
    I personally am going to try to figure out whether they are
    trying to cut down, or whether it is just a propaganda trick.
        Mr. Green. Yes, anyone who has read Sun Tzu would
    understand what you are saying. There is a very high
    possibility, I would imagine, that says just propaganda or some
    ruse.
        Your thoughts, though, on how the Balkan people are
    perceiving China in light of the virus?
        Ms. Albright. I think that that is hard to tell, because I
    am not sure that they are getting the kind of information in
    terms of the fact that it was--the Chinese had not talked about
    it early enough for us to be able to deal with it. I do also
    think that the Balkans are in an even more threatened place,
    because of what we know in terms of the immigration that is
    kind of going through the Balkans in order to get other parts
    of Europe. And so, they are on the front line of dealing with a
    lot of people coming from X place and not knowing. And I am not
    sure that the capabilities that they have to deal with the
    pandemic, whether they are really getting that kind of help
    from the outside.
        So, I think they are in a very difficult way, and they are
    not being regarded as seriously by some of the countries that
    could be helping them including us, frankly.
        Mr. Green. Thank you.
        I think my time is up, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Engel. Yes. I thank you, Mr. Green.
        Ms. Titus.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
    this hearing and for your leadership in this area. You may be
    gone, but your legacy will certainly continue in this
    committee.
        As I said, we have heard several things mentioned that I
    hope we can get more information and I must say it is not often
    that we have a panel as distinguished and as knowledgeable and
    as respected as the one we have today. So thank you to all of
    you.
        What is the increasing role of Turkey? I hope we learn more
    about that, because we know Bosnia is a top recipient of
    Turkish aid. Erdogan has cozied up to the leading Bosnia party,
    the purchase of the Russian weapons, and also the stirring of
    more controversy and being more aggressive in Greece and
    Cyprus. So I think we do need to keep an eye on Turkey.
        Then what was mentioned by Ted Deutch about misinformation
    being used by the Russians, kind of infiltrating the media in
    this part of the world, we certainly saw that in the case of
    the Macedonia referendum. So it is happening, and I think we
    need to watch that.
        But the question I would ask you today--and if it has been
    covered, I am sorry I missed it, I do not think so though--is
    about the Mini Schengen agreement that had Serbia, Albania, and
    North Macedonia, whether it is free crossing of borders where
    you do not need a passport or work permits, allows them to kind
    of promote tourism, and also cooperation of not dealing with
    the virus. Do you think that will expand? Do you think that is
    a good thing? Do you think Kosovo will be included? And how can
    the U.S. promote that sort of thing and use it to our advantage
    to shore up democratic institutions?
        Ms. Albright. I personally think that it behooves us to try
    to get the countries and the Balkans to work together in some
    ways. That is not an easy thing to accomplish, given the things
    that we have been talking about. But I do think some kind of
    regional economic activities are a way of working together
    that, in fact, would help in the pursuit of other
    relationships.
        One of the issues, believe it or not, it seems kind of
    naive initially, but that if one could get various ethnic
    groups to actually work on a real problem to try to solve it,
    that they would then learn to work together and respect each
    other. So I do think that some activities that would show the
    regional aspect.
        And then the population, this is not a large area and I do
    think that, in fact, some kind of a Mini Schengen is not a bad
    idea if it is done with respect and does not--and this is a big
    underline--is help to make even more corruption. That is the
    thing that one has to be careful of is that if it is, that
    there are some lines that would make clear that that cannot
    happen. Otherwise, there would be no support for it.
        Ms. Titus. In the role of
        [inaudible], can civil societies be part of that?
        Ms. Albright. I think very much so, because I think that
    the issue of civil societies and the rule of law and kind of
    saying that that is the power of democracy are civil societies,
    and the question is how to empower them and have them see that
    they do have a right and a duty to really talk about the things
    they do not like.
        The hard part here is that there have been now decades of
    this anger among various ethnic groups, and what needs to be
    done is to try--by the way, the truth is that many of the
    people in this area actually used to be part of a country where
    they intermarried, and that they really--there was a--there are
    many faults to the former Yugoslavia, but some it really that
    there was this interaction among the various groups. And so, I
    think civil society, outside groups, can help on that.
        Dr. Serwer. If I may add----
        Ms. Titus. I would say----
        [inaudible] India.
        Ms. Albright. Yes.
        Ms. Titus. [inaudible] With very little resources have a
    great deal of impact some of the----
        [inaudible] Development of those civil societies----
        [inaudible]. They are our partners----
        [inaudible] Democracy.
        Ms. Albright. No question. Very glad to hear you say that,
    since I am chairman of board and I so believe in what NDI and
    IRI are doing and, frankly, when NDI and IRI do things
    together, it proves the theory of the case that you do not have
    to always be the same in order to agree on working together on
    things.
        Dr. Serwer. If I may add----
        Ms. Titus. Anybody else?
        Dr. Serwer. May I add a word?
        Chairman Engel. Certainly. Go ahead.
        Dr. Serwer. I would point in two directions: One is that
    Mini Schengen has been greeted with some skepticism, especially
    in Kosovo, mainly because there are already so many agreements
    that are unimplemented, and that, to me, is a big problem, and
    I think the Americans need to work with the Europeans to
    monitor implementation of all of these agreements, and not
    allow signatures to go unimplemented.
        The second thing I would point to is a regional effort,
    which I think is very important that has not really taken off,
    which is the Regional Reconciliation Commission. This is a
    civil society project that has been proposed to the
    governments, and the governments have not yet accepted. But
    RECOM, the Regional Reconciliation Commission, I think, would
    be a very important addition to regional activities that would
    reduce the hard feelings that persist after the wars of the
    1990's.
        Chairman Engel. Thank you.
        Thank you, Ms. Titus.
        Ms. Wild.
        Ms. Titus. Mr. Chairman, can I just briefly?
        Chairman Engel. Yes.
        Ms. Titus. Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Engel. Yes.
        Ms. Titus. Can I say just say briefly----
        Chairman Engel. Yes.
        Ms. Titus. I bring you greetings from Betty Ann Sarver. I
    bring you greetings from Betty Ann Sarver in Tucson. I met with
    her this weekend, and she sends her love and respect.
        Chairman Engel. Well, thank you. Thank you. She is a good
    friend. Thank you.
        Ms. Wild.
        Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you to these wonderful panelists for being here.
        I would like to direct my question to Secretary Albright.
    And it is my honor to be asking you this question, Secretary.
        In the aftermath of the cold war, and particularly in
    recent years, we have seen Russia attempt to consolidate its
    influence in the region. We have been at odds with Russia over
    many issues during this time. But as you demonstrated in your
    own government service, it is possible to compartmentalize and
    achieve progress in some areas, despite tensions. Given that
    the United States and Russia together own more than 90 percent
    of the world's nuclear weapons, the world depends on some
    degree of cooperation between our countries.
        In 1999, under your leadership and the leadership of then-
    Defense Secretary William Cohen, the United States negotiated
    an agreement to allow for Russia's participation in a
    peacekeeping force in Kosovo, not only diffusing the conflict
    between NATO and Russian forces, but actually creating an
    unprecedented level of cooperation between those two forces.
        So my first question--I guess my first question is: As
    President-elect Biden prepares to take office in a much
    different era for the region, do you see opportunities for
    regional deescalation between the United States and Russia?
        Ms. Albright. Well, I would hope we could. But I think the
    thing we need to work on has to do with the nuclear issues. We
    have had agreements, nuclear agreements, and the New START
    Treaty is about to expire. I think that is very dangerous. I
    think we need to look a little bit at where the other
    agreements that have to do with Europe. The INF needs to be
    dealt with, and that we need to look at those things where we
    have had established relationships in terms of behavior with
    them.
        The issue with the Russians and the Balkans is beyond-
    belief complicated, as we have talked about a bit, a part of it
    is that one of the reasons that we had a NATO operation in the
    Balkans, in Kosovo and Bosnia, was that the Russians were going
    to veto anything that we were going to do to the United
    Nations. And so, they have been anything but helpful in terms
    of the Balkans. That is one area.
        I do think, though, that we need to spend time on the
    nuclear issues with them, and the ones where we can come to
    some agreement. I am not sure I ever liked the term ``reset,''
    but I do think that a new Administration does have a chance to
    really examine the relationship, and not be kind of, you know,
    rose-colored glasses about it, but understand that there are
    areas that we need to try to get some agreement on, and the
    nuclear issue is one of them.
        Ms. Wild. And are there initial steps that you believe the
    incoming Administration should take to test those waters, and
    attempt to establish some degree of trust between the U.S. and
    Russia?
        Ms. Albright. Well, I do think--I do not know, but I do
    hope that there is something done about the New START Treaty
    pretty quickly, because it is about to expire, and once it
    expires, it makes it more complicated, and there certainly are
    people that are coming into the Administration that are very
    knowledgeable about how that all works.
        Ms. Wild. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        I yield back, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Engel. Thank you, Ms. Wild.
        Mr. Levin.
        Mr. Levin. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        It is great to see you there, and I will have much more to
    say about you and your incredible service in the days ahead.
        In this period, I want to focus on the rights of the
    Balkans, and I want to start with Bosnia and Herzegovina. Human
    Rights Watch reports that it has been a decade since Europe's
    top human rights court determined that pieces of Bosnia and
    Herzegovina's Constitution were discriminatory.
        For instance, and I think Dr. Serwer referred to this, it
    is my understanding that members of minority communities, such
    as the Jewish community, are not eligible to run for the
    country's three-member presidency. Bosnia has not changed the
    provisions that have been ruled discriminatory.
        So why has not the Constitution been amended, and is it
    within the realm of possibility that it might be?
        And any, you know, I defer that to any of you that is
    interested in answering.
        Dr. Serwer. It is always in the realm of possibility that
    it might be. It requires a decision by the parliament. It
    requires two-thirds majority in the parliament. It has been
    impossible to get. Why? Because the current system maintains
    the monopoly on power of the three major ethnic groups and the
    political parties that are dominant within those ethnic groups.
        The only thing that is going to change that is a popular
    movement for constitutional reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
    The day you see people in the streets, demanding constitutional
    reform, and people at the polls voting for it, that is when you
    will get it. And that has not happened yet; and, frankly,
    whenever there is a popular protest in the streets, the
    dominant ethnic political parties find ways of regressing it,
    and that is where we have to be active in ensuring that that
    does not happen in the future.
        Mr. Levin. So we can provide a lot more leadership here in
    a better direction then, and hope that the people see their way
    to change.
        Let me ask about Kosovo. Again, Human Rights Watch
    reporting here. Last year, inter-ethic tensions were an issue
    in the north of Kosovo, and I see that Roma and Ashkali and
    Balkan Egyptians have faced issues getting personal documents,
    which make it harder for them to get healthcare, education, so
    on. In Serbia, Roma have also faced discrimination, as have
    ethnic Albanians, according to the State Department's human
    rights report.
        So let me start with you, Secretary Albright. Are the
    examples that I have mentioned here instances where the
    discriminatory practices are enshrined in law, like the case of
    the Constitution in Bosnia and Herzegovina, or is it really a
    matter of the law being sound, but it is not being followed?
        Ms. Albright. I think--I do not know the answer in terms of
    whether they are enshrined in law, but I do think that there
    are certain customs and prejudices in a number of places that
    make it easier for those who do not believe in integration, or
    an ethnic way of operating together that allows them to carry
    on what are really outrageous kinds of policies.
        And I know that the issues with the Roma in a number of
    places, wherever, in Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans
    has been something that has been on the minds of the Human
    Rights Committee for a very long time, as well as various
    groupings that are discriminated against. There is no question.
        And I think the really hard part--and I have had very
    meaningful, I think, and some private, some public discussions
    when I have been in the region, saying, you know, you used to--
    you need to remember what people did to you, and you cannot do
    this to the others now. But it has been pretty crazy, you know,
    in terms of trying to persuade them not to have revenge.
        Mr. Levin. Well, though--let me just ask any of you. What
    can the incoming Biden Administration do to foster greater
    respect for human rights for all in the Balkans? In particular,
    how can Congress play a helpful role here?
        I mean, you have been a big champion of the role of
    Congress, Madam Secretary.
        But any of you, you know, what are our marching orders from
    you here to make progress on human rights in the Balkans?
        Dr. Serwer. I would say pay attention. They will listen to
    you, while you are codels, when you go out there. If you raise
    Roma issues, they will be conscious of Roma issues. They pay a
    lot of attention to what the Americans think. I think the
    Secretary is entirely correct that in Kosovo, the minority
    issues are questions of discrimination and prejudice rather
    than law, because the Constitution we wrote for Kosovo is much
    better than the Constitution we wrote for Bosnia and
    Herzegovina. But discrimination exists, and if you raise it
    when you are visiting there, if you insist that the U.S.
    Government raise it, that is going make a big difference in the
    region.
        Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time has
    expired. So I appreciate it.
        And I yield back.
        Chairman Engel. Thank you very much, Mr. Levin.
        And now last but certainly not least, Ms. Spanberger.
        Ms. Spanberger. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you for your leadership in this committee. Thank you for
    all that you have done for this region of the world, and thank
    you for your continued commitment to the role of U.S. foreign
    policy in the world, and certainly our engagement with it
    through this committee. So I appreciate this hearing today, and
    I certainly appreciate your leadership.
        To our witnesses, thank you so much for being with us. I
    have appreciated the conversation, and I am glad to have the
    opportunity to followup with a couple of final questions.
        Others have mentioned today the implications--and I am
    concerned with the implications of recent Russian arms
    transfers. Rep. Kinzinger and I led an NDAA amendment, calling
    for sanctions on Turkey, given its purchase of the Russian made
    S-400 air and missile defense systems, and authorized by
    CAATSA. And this language is included in the NDAA conference
    report that the House is voting on later today.
        And there is reason for similar concern as it relates to
    Serbia. And although it is not a NATO member like Turkey,
    President Vucic's term as President of Serbia has been defined
    by deepening ties with Moscow, including Serb participation in
    Russian military exercises and purchases of Russian military
    equipment. So--and yet, at the same time, the United States has
    sought greater military cooperation with Serbia.
        I am curious--and I will start with you, Secretary
    Albright, and thank you for being here. Beyond considering
    CAATSA sanctions, what are some approaches or recommendations
    that you would have for the Administration for them to consider
    as potential approaches to the U.S.-Serbia relationship,
    recognizing some of the challenges we see that might be posed
    by the Serbian-Russian relationship?
        Ms. Albright. I think that we have to have some real talks
    in terms of Serbia of dealing with the opposition that has not
    really been able to participate in anything that is going on
    there, that not everybody agrees with the way Vucic is doing
    things. And so, I think we need to develop some kind of more
    functional relationship with Serbia.
        I think that the hard part is that the question is whether
    we can make clearer to them that they cannot be a part, and
    will not be a part of the EU, or in terms of the way that they
    want to be seen, if they continue to do the kinds of things
    that they are doing.
        But we do not have--I do not think that we really have very
    stable kinds of talks that we can have with them in an honest
    way, frankly, and that they have gotten away with kinds of the
    things by being, quote, admired for the relationships that they
    have and the kind of governments they have.
        And that is definitely also true in terms of Turkey. If one
    really thinks that Erdogan is somebody that should be, quote,
    ``in some kind of a club,'' I think that it makes it very hard
    to stop them in terms of the kinds of things that they are
    doing. They are playing us out, and I think that we need to be
    clearer about what we believe in.
        Ms. Spanberger. And with the incoming Administration, I am
    curious in ways that we could be clearer, in ways that we
    could, you know, recognizing some of the statements made by the
    current Administration, certainly the current President, that
    may have given a pass or may have turned a blind eye to some of
    what we have seen, given the Turkey example, or Serbia.
        I am wondering what are some of the things that we could do
    so that we are hitting that, to some degree, hitting a bit of a
    reset, but then to put real strong parameters in place so that
    we can be able to further define clearly, once we have
    established the parameters of what we deem to be acceptable,
    what our expectations of the U.S.-Serbia relationship and what
    demands or, kind of request, requirements we could put in
    place?
        Ms. Albright. I think part of the thing we have this
    tendency to say, and I do it, ``the Serbs,'' when the bottom
    line is, that they are not all the same, that we need to
    recognize that there are people within Serbia that would like
    to have a different kind of a relationship, and trying to
    operate to some of the civil societies or a variety of ways to
    make that kind of contact.
        I regret the fact that I am probably the most unpopular
    person in Belgrade when I actually, believe it or not, my
    father was the Czechoslovakian ambassador in Yugoslavia and I
    speak Serbian.
        And so, the bottom line is that we lump them together in a
    way where everything is negative, and I think we need to try to
    sort out with whom we can deal under what auspices, and then,
    have some conditionality in terms of the way that we deal, not
    kind of give in to some of their threats that they keep making.
        If they want to be a part of Europe, they have to behave in
    a different way, and we do have a variety of tools. Some are
    diplomatic and some are economic, both positive and negative in
    terms of the trade and aid. I do think it is interesting that
    the new development operation that we have in the U.S. now has
    just started to open offices in Belgrade, and I think there are
    questions about how it can be used in terms of whether one puts
    some conditions on the disbursement of whatever we do in terms
    of helping economically.
        Ms. Spanberger. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Bugajski. Could I just jump in with the NATO-Serbia
    question, Russia question as well, very briefly? NATO does have
    a lot of cooperative activities with the Serbian military. They
    do engage in all sorts of programs. I think that can be
    developed. We do need to focus on that confidence building.
    This is not NATO 1999. This is NATO 2020. We are not going to
    bomb Serbia. We want Serbia eventually to be part of the
    alliance.
        Also, very sternly, I would say the S-400's and any other
    systems that potentially threaten neighbors simply will not be
    allowed. That will automatically trigger sanctions.
        Third, I would say Serbian participation in Russian
    exercises, Slavic Shield or Zapad, whatever it is, have to be
    ended. Participating with a country is that actually practicing
    attacks on NATO does not look good if you want good relations
    with NATO.
        And last, I think Bosnia. Bosnia has, in effect, received
    an annual national program. If Bosnia can move forward toward a
    membership action plan, which they have already been offered,
    and then eventually toward NATO membership, as the Secretary
    said, this will send a very powerful signal to Serbs. As part
    of the Serbian nation, it would then be within NATO. Why not
    the rest?
        Ms. Spanberger. Thank you.
        Thank you very much for your comments, sir, as well.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you for allowing us
    to go over.
        Chairman Engel. Okay. Thank you very much.
        This is the conclusion of our hearing.
        But before we go, I would certainly want to thank our
    panelists who were just excellent. I know I have been on this
    committee for over 30 years, and this is one of the best panels
    we have had. I think that everyone who listened and
    participated learned something, and I think that this was very
    important.
        One of the things that it shows me, again, is how important
    American involvement is around the world, that if we do not
    involve ourselves, then we can only blame ourselves if things
    do not go right. I think it is very important.
        We have not mentioned today Albania. I just want to mention
    it at the end. You know, Albania, when I first got there
    shortly after the old Communist government failed, Enver Hoxha
    was the leader at the time, and I remember going there and
    people were just so happy to see an American Member of
    Congress. It was just unbelievable.
        And if you think about the cold war, and you think about
    the most devastating, or the most heavy-handed regime, you
    could argue that it was the regime in Albania where it was just
    impossible to have any kind of freedom. They were fed, you
    know, the Albanians people were fed a diet of anti-Americanism
    for 49 or 50 years. And the wonderful thing is that they did
    notbelieve any of it. Like most Albanians, they wanted to be
    close to the United States and work with us.
        I always think that is a miracle that for 49 years they
    were only fed a bunch of lies about us, and did notbelieve it.
    And when I said that people of Kosovo love Americans, I think
    the people of Albania do, too, and I think it is a real success
    story. And, again, it was the United States getting involved.
        So we need get involved. If we are not there, someone else
    will move in. It could be China, it could be Russia, but we
    need to be there.
        So I want to thank all my colleagues. This is probably the
    last words I am going to say officially in the committee.
        Oh, tomorrow we have something. Okay.
        Well, it has been an honor and a pleasure to be a member of
    this committee for so many years, and it has been an honor and
    a pleasure to chair this committee and as our panelists, who
    were excellent, can see that we have a lot of participation and
    a lot of people who are very interested in the Balkans around
    the world, of course.
        And I want to say, finally, what I said many times with Mr.
    McCaul and before. I said it with Chairman Royce. I consider
    this committee the most bipartisan committee in Congress. And I
    think it is very important, because we think that partisanship
    should stop at the river's edge, the water's edge, that we need
    to always be united because the things that affect us are much
    more common for both of us. Our differences are not as common
    as the things with which we agree, and we agree that the United
    States needs to get involved.
        So I want to thank our witnesses. I want to thank my good
    friend, Madeleine Albright, whom I just marvel every time I
    hear her talk. She is just so smart and knows so much about the
    region and other things as well.
        And our other witnesses, thank you so much to you. Also, I
    learned a great deal from you as well.
        So I want to thank everybody, and the hearing is now
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:11 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]